Are You On Uncle Sam's No Fly List?
 

http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/loc...036144559.html

1984ish, scary......McCarthish

From the cited story

>The list isn't new. It has been in existence since about 1990....<

Why didn't this bother the ACLU when Clinton was President?

Hi Folks,

Hope I don't regret breaking my usual silence to respond here.

Wayne, I'm a liberal and oppose profiling, but not for the reason you suppose. I'm afraid that, as soon as we're comfy & happy that all the suspicious looking dark men are profiled, the bad guys will start using innocent-looking babes to do their harm. Some blonde-headed, corn-fed kid from the heartland. Like Timothy.

Instead of profiling, we need good, old-fashioned intelligence work. It's difficult, it's quiet, it's long-term, and it's expensive. But it's the best bet.

s

Wayne - am all in favour of some form of profiling, but think your final comment was a bit harsh!

Wayne,

I would like to believe that I live in a country where 1 innocent is more important then 20 guilty, because I can't imagine if I'm the innocent and nobody hears my cries. Your opinion may be different. I just hope that you will never be the innocent one that the government takes away.

Hi Wayne, did you actually read the article?

Still, I think the trouble is that terrorists may not be easily identifiable or profiled. There're American tourists as well. What about Timothy McVeigh? Granted, he didn't crash a plane. But. . .

Anyone could potentially be a terrorist. You may be thinking now that some measure doesn't affect you, but you just never know.

Sorry -- meant to write "American terrorists" (not "tourists")

Ira,

The full sentence that you quote from is:

"The list isn't new. It has been in existence since about 1990 but was expanded after the September 11th attacks.". IT is the expansion that concerns many of us.

The difference between the Clinton administration and the current administration is John Ashcraft.

This might be a smart idea that will save lives. It may already have done so. What is scary is that some people always jump to negative conclusions without all the facts and without providing alternatives. Detaining two folks at the airport doesn't automatically make this security tactic the wrong thing to do.

The world has changed after 911, but some people just don't get that fact. Stopping a tiny percentage of the traveling public from flying or giving some folks a closer look (plenty need it) is a small price to pay for extra security.

oops..typo ..that's John Ashrcroft

I've an amusing story of being given a boarding pass with the wrong name and walking through security twice without being flagged. My passport was checked, twice. My boarding card was checked, twice.

It wasn't until I got on my flight and realized that my seat was taken that we realized the problem (and the flight attendant only realized this after about five minutes).

It gives me a cynical view regarding security.

By the way, this happened for an international flight.

Do people remember the stories about the canceled BA flights several months back? Didn't the purported "terrorists" turn out to be a baby and an old Chinese woman?

What we need are people who know how to do their jobs. Until we have that, I remain skeptical of increased security measures.

The difference between "now" and "then" is that people are apparently being added for expressing their political views in a fully legal manner. Opposition to Bush's war is beginning to count as a "terrorist activity". And there is, as there was in the McCarthy era, no recourse.

As I posted on the US forum -- "This is the new blacklist -- It isn't that we can't work in Hollywood, now we can't fly there."

I wonder why a legitimate concern somehow degenerates into demoralizing liberals? It seems that some self-righteous neocon can't resist the opportunity to be negative. This is the same person who would raise holy hell if he were to be 'profiled'.

Personally, this scares the heck out of me. What if republicans were targeted....what would your position be then?

<b>They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
Benjamin Franklin


As a rule, dictatorships guarantee safe streets and terror of the doorbell. In democracy the streets may be unsafe after dark, but the most likely visitor in the early hours will be the milkman.
Adam Michnik


It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson</b>

I read the CNN article...what bothers me (among other things) is that people who were on the no fly list and proven to be innocent are STILL having problems. What's the recourse if you're falsely accused? What happens in the case of identity theft? I hate the argument of &quot;well go ahead, I have nothing to hide.&quot; Maybe you don't, but a computer error might suggest you DO.

Also, Wayne, your comment was one of the most offensive I've ever read on this board, even including the pre-registration flame wars. That type of comment has NO place on this board.

Wayne says &quot;You liberals who can't see the picture in front of your turned-up noses deserve to have been on one of those 9/11 flights.&quot;

See, that is the problem with the radical conservatives...if you don't agree with them you should be dead. I fail to see how they are any different than the radical terrorists.

I've read and reread that article 3 times now. Admittedly, I can be a bit dense, but I can not find the parts stating that &quot;the liberals&quot; have a problem with the existence of this list or a single mention of Middle Eastern men. I have no doubt that there are plenty that feel this way, but it's not on that page.

I honestly consider myself more a libertarian than liberal. Certainly I'm not the latest concoction of the term &quot;conservative&quot;. I've voted for various sides, based on who I perceived to be the best person for the office at that time. However, if I were to take the information as provided, yes, I'd have a problem with my fellow law abiding citizens being handled this way. The woman can't even go see her father.

By the logic we are to gather from this, acknowledging that there is usually another side to a story, no one should be flying. Anti-war activists (could be helping the other side), liberals (the Unibomber and those crackpots just can't see the picture), and conservatives for that matter (McVeigh being a typical example). Pretty much anyone who's ever voiced an opinion. Well, maybe even swing voters. How can you trust someone who refuses to take sides? Totally unpredictable.

&lt;You liberals who can't see the picture in front of your turned-up noses deserve to have been on one of those 9/11 flights.&gt;

I would undoubtedly disagree with Wayne's politics and probably much of what he believes in, but I would never wish him dead.

I'm appalled at this remark!

AAFrequentFlyer, balancing freedom and security is always a tough task. And it is always easy and inviting to bad mouth things when you are not charged with any responsibility for it.

Your view of what freedoms we have given up does not match reality. Getting all crazy and blowing things out of proportion turns people off to your concerns. You make it seems as if stormtroopers were dragging thousands of innocent people off to jail. You know that is not true.

Fact facts: There is a good reason for the vast majority of people wanting more and not less security measures. If things were REALLY as bad as you seem to think, there would be more people on your upset about the current situation.

Thinking that they are all dumb, blind or sheep doesn't make it so.

Before this thread gets pulled I want to thank AAFrequentFlyer &amp; Clifton for their comments.

CafeBatavia,

Tell that to the 2 middle aged ladies. The problem I have with your believes is that as a good citizens and a believers in free society, we can't afford to wait till thousand, millions discover the abuses. My belief and apparently many from the past and present (see quotes above) is that we need to stop abuses early, beacuse later may just be too late.

Dick writes,

&gt;IT is the expansion that concerns many of us.&lt;

Do you mean that a secret list of &quot;bad guys&quot; is OK as long as people you agree with aren't on it?

How do we know that those &quot;peace activists&quot; aren't current or former members of the Weather Underground?

We aren't told if they are still on the list?

If they are on a secret list, how did they get the tickets to begin with?

111 writes
&gt;Didn't the purported &quot;terrorists&quot; turn out to be a baby and an old Chinese woman?&lt;

Surely you wouldn't be happier if there had been terrorists and we didn't know it.

Is traveling by air without being delayed an &quot;essential liberty&quot;?

Come on Fodors, how about editing feature <b>after</b> we post :-)

Anyway, here is a second try:

Tell that to the 2 middle aged ladies. The problem I have with your beliefs is that as good citizens and believers in free society, we can't afford to wait till thousands, millions discover the abuses. My belief and apparently the belief of many from the past and present (see quotes above) is that we need to stop abuses early, because later may just be too late.

Well, ira, you're missing my point. My point is that these people are really not doing their job well. That's my charitable interpretation.

The fear, of course, is that someone will use the expanded rules as an excuse to monitor people. That's my cynincal interpretation.

The fact is -- can anyone prove that we're now safer because of all these increased measures? If people can't do something as basic as match a name in a a passport with a name on a boarding card, I've some serious doubts as to whether we can truly safe.

This concerns me very much because the last time I came through US customs in January, the customs agent kept looking at me very suspiciously. He finally asked for my SS#. I gave it to him, and he then told me there's an international drug smuggler with my same name and she is exactly one day older than me!! I suppose this is better than being a terrorist, but I am now concerned about having trouble the next time I board a plane to travel overseas.

I am not a liberal as Wayne described, but I am very shocked that anyone can wish death on someone with an opposing view. That's the worst thing I have ever read on these boards, and I am completely disgusted by that statement.

You know, you do have to figure there has to be a reason the two women are on the list. Different names, unrelated(?), but travel together and are somehow both on this list.

Barring dual bizarre data entry errors, there really are only two possibilities. One, they really are part of a dangerous organization (would you go to public if you matched that description?) Or two, that they are jointly entered onto this list for another activity. The questions are, really, if it's the first option, why were they able to walk away from the airport? For heavens sake, might they go and do some major damage in SF??

If it's the second possibility and they aren't actually dangerous, then are you willing to accept that safety issues aren't the only reason that this list exists?

IRa...

&lt;Do you mean that a secret list of &quot;bad guys&quot; is OK as long as people you agree with aren't on it?&gt;

Of course not....but there should be some discussion on what gets you on the list...and how to get off. The way it is now..someone can be on the list in error.

Let's face it...our intelligence said there were WMD in Iraq. THat certainly required a higher level of proof than to keep someone off a plane. Mistakes will happen.

&lt;How do we know that those &quot;peace activists&quot; aren't current or former members of the Weather Underground?&gt;

We don't...but since you brought it up.. What if they were a member of the Weather Underground ( or some other group) in the 60's while they were in college? Most &quot;radicals&quot; that I knew from the 60's outgrew their rebellious nature.

J. Edgar Hoover had plenty of peopll on his lists..including Martin Luther King.

I wonder if any af the above truly READ the article.

The scary part is they are being denied a REASON for being on the list.

&lt;&lt;In Gordon and Adams? case, the ACLU believes the couple may have been targeted for their work on War Times, a free bilingual newspaper that has been critical of the war and the Bush administration's policies on terrorism.

It?s very scary that two people who pose no danger, who are publishing something, which last time I looked we were allowed to do, are being detained at the airport and having the police called and they won't tell us why,&quot; Adams said. &gt;&gt;

The last time I looked we supposedly had the freedom to protest!

First the no fly list, then this:

http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/

Watch lists and secret government snooping are certainly nothing new; many of us well remember the US Attorney General's list of hundreds of organizations, some of them dating from the Spanish Civil War (okay to volunteer for Franco, not for the other side) that you had to sign before you could apply for jobs or security clearances or unemployment or lots of other things.

My take on the current situation, however, is that we now have an unprecedented situation, namely the convergence of intent to snoop and monitor, coupled with virtually unlimited capacity to do so. Yes, Jedgar and Nixon had their &quot;enemies&quot; lists; what they didn't have was Carnivore software (or its children, more and more bug-free) and terabytes of storage, processing power, and thousands of well-educated, well-paid, and mission-driven analysts trying to outsmart terrorists or others whose points of view may be deemed dangerous to society. How many other secret lists are out there? Well, how great is the capacity to gather information without our knowledge and consent? And not just by the government: do you erase your cookies every night? Every 20 minutes? How about the hidden browser logs concealed deep within your C drive?

Unfortunately, along with this power comes near-infinite capacity to screw things up. Terabytes of data have room for gigabytes of goofs, including people getting matched to wrong names, badly updated files, you name it. Infinite monkeys on infinite mainframes. Government-hired monkeys, or, worse, low-bidder monkeys.

Paranoia? Ya think? Get over it. The whole world is watching.

The ACLU must have been following this thread:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...no_fly_lawsuit

This is the CNN story:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/06/no...uit/index.html

Interesting that one of the people mistakenly put on the no fly list was an Air Force master sergeant. The matter was supposed to have been cleared up, but she still has problems.