The "No Fly" List, an efficient and error free way of keeping us safe.

A New ACLU Lawsuit Challenges "No Fly" and "Selectee" List Procedures:
Do These Government Watch Lists Violate Due Process?
By ANITA RAMASASTRY
----
Tuesday, Apr. 13, 2004
​
The federal Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"), in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security, now maintains a set of passenger lists -- the "no fly" list and the "selectee" lists.

The consequences of being placed on either are severe -- and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") with co-counsel Summit Law Group -- is now challenging the constitutionality of the way each is administered.

[font=Arial Unicode MS,Tahoma] [/font]Those on the lists suffer a variety of consequences -- including being perpetually prohibited from using curbside check in, or an electronic ticket kiosk; undergoing police interrogation; undergoing public police questioning in full view of fellow passengers; and being delayed for hours and placed on a different flight. Many are asked to surrender their identification to the TSA or the airlines. Many are made to feel they are not free to leave the airport.

Despite all these penalties, those on the lists have no right to know why they were listed, and no avenue to try to clear their names. In a suit recently filed in federal district court in Seattle, the ACLU is arguing that this violates the Fifth Amendment's right to "due process of law." And that is absolutely correct.

[font=Arial Unicode MS,Tahoma] [/font]The issue should be of importance to every American. The "no fly" and selectee lists alone may affect literally thousands of innocent people.

Moreover, according to a recently issued General Accounting Office report, the "no fly" list is just one of 12 terrorist and criminal watch lists maintained by the federal government.

Finally, still on the drawing board is the Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System (CAPPS II), which would search secret intelligence and law enforcement databases and rate every airline passenger according to their possible terrorist threat , as I discussed in a prior column. Like the other lists, CAPPS II, as currently envisioned, apparently fails to comply with due process.
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20040413.html
 
How I wish the ACLU would just dissapear.

I didn't realize that "due process" extended to my right to fly on an airplane without having to be checked beforehand.
 
I guess I just don't agree with the vast majority of the lawsuits I see them invoved in.

Personally I think we need "no fly lists" like this. If there is a know terrorist who has the same name as me, security had better check me pretty damn close when I get on a plane.

Is is a pain in the butt? You bet.

Is it worth neccessary? I think so.

Others may not, I suppose that is there choice.

The ACLU just rubs me wrong.
 
The ACLU more real work to protect peoples freedom then just about any other group I can think of. Check their website. On the right hand side there is a list of issues and their constitutional stance on those issues. The bottom line is that the ACLU represent people who are having their constitutional rights infringed upon. They believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone.
 
ginshun said:
I guess I just don't agree with the vast majority of the lawsuits I see them invoved in.

Personally I think we need "no fly lists" like this. If there is a know terrorist who has the same name as me, security had better check me pretty damn close when I get on a plane.

Is is a pain in the butt? You bet.

Is it worth neccessary? I think so.

Others may not, I suppose that is there choice.

The ACLU just rubs me wrong.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's so much the fact that you might get an extra pat down or be delayed. The criteria for being put on that list are not known, which is a problem.

To use your example, what if you did have the same name as a suspected terrorist? How can you prove your innocence without knowing what you're being judged on? Oh... right... you can't let me know without compromising the security in itself.

Wonder how long before trans-atlantic/pacific ships become the fashion again...
 
upnorthkyosa said:
The ACLU more real work to protect peoples freedom then just about any other group I can think of. Check their website. On the right hand side there is a list of issues and their constitutional stance on those issues. The bottom line is that the ACLU represent people who are having their constitutional rights infringed upon. They believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone.
Click to expand...
Lets see, they believe in

Freeing terrorists

Freeing murderers

Taking tasers away from police officers

Ending the war on terror

Opening the borders

Suing anyone with money to give to the poo....er, themselves, actually.

Legalizing drugs (But not guns)

Prosecuting cops and protecting criminals

Did I mention protecting NAMBLA members?

Yeah, everyday I feel safer knowing the ACLU is there for me....lol.

Which reminds me, do you know why lawyers HATE asset forfeiture by the police? It isn't because they thinks it's violating their clients rights, it's because it takes potential money out of the coffers of attorneys. If their clients, who's assets come from criminal interprises, and those assets get seized, how is the client going to pay for his attorney's BMW?

All clients are innocent until proven broke. A little pro-bono work does not clear the conscience of a lifetime of slime, though i'm sure it's tax deductable.



Now that i'm off my tirade about the ACLU, lets address the issue. Detaining 2 year old children and their pregnant mom for a soundex hit is asinine. Especially when, while they're detaining THEM, they're letting Mohammad Akbar who's standing behind them on the plane. Of course the ACLU will rail against that as well.

The problem is that pregnant women and 2 year old children aren't notriously hijackers. In fact, I don't remember a singe incident where a pregnant woman and a 2 year old child have hijacked a plane and flown it in to a building.

Many of you won't believe this, however, but one of the real PROBLEMS here IS the ACLU. They caused this situation. Instead of going after those who are the most likely to perpetrate these type of attacks, we had to build a convoluted system that appears "Fair".

We're checking little old ladies and 2 year old children with the same effort and intensity that we are those who are the prime perpetrators of terrorist attacks....Arab males between 18 and 35.

Why? So we can have the appearance of fair, while utilizing a bloated, ineffective system that does nothing but inconvenience everyone.

The profile has not changed from day one. There are no hispanic 70 year old women hijacking planes, it hasn't happened, and it's not really a high likelyhood. Yet, we are trapped by political correctness, mostly because of the ACLU. By the way, profile is not a bad word. Profiles save lives. Profiles work. It's when a profile has no basis in reality that it's wrong. BUT I feel pretty secure in the high statistical probability of THIS profile.

Now, lets say you want to make the argument, not a good one, but the argument that "Hey, Timothy McVeigh was a white guy", ok, one white guy in ALL these years. Fair enough, though, if you want to expand the profile to include ALL males between 18 and 35, fine....i'll get in line, that seems fair. There are some white and black islamic terrorists, so that's a reasonable request. I'll gladly submit to fitting that profile, because it is reasonable.

It certainly saves grandma and my 2 year old daughter from getting the full body cavity search while the shoe bomber gets flagged through because he's customer 3.

As for the ACLU, how dare they want it both ways. So typical of that organization and that mindset.
 
Hello, Do all terrorist use their real names when flying? Then these No fly list will work. (Pun intended)

Our government is famous for making laws that do not work effectively. Like TRO's - issue by the Judge.....does it stop someone from causing more harm? It is just a piece of paper with words on it.....Stop it?


Maybe we should give'em to all known terrorist too? Since they(Judges) believe it works...............TRO for all known terrorist...tro's

It is a good thing we live in a educated country? ..........Aloha
 
Hello, Do all terrorist use their real names when flying? Then these No fly list will work. (Pun intended)
Click to expand...
I would think that the lists have known aliases as well as real names on them.

As far as not knowing the criteria for how a name gets on the list, well I think it pretty much goes without saying that you can't release that information. If they tell everybody exactly how a name gets put on the list, then it would be as simple as avoiding those criteria and you could be sure to never get put on it.

Obviously the lists won't be able to include every name and alias of every terrorist on earth, but even if they stop only a small percentage of terroists they are worth it IMO.

Profiling is another issue, but one that I think needs to be used as well. Whether it is politically correct or not. Like was mentioned, if the profile needs to include all males 18 - 35 so be it. Search me while you let my grandma and grandpa through without a hassle, I can live with that. As opposed to picking people at random regardless of what they look like.

I will conceed that you can't only search people that fit the profile. The terrorists are not stupid. If we consentrate 100% of our efforts on one supgroup of people, they are going to start recruiting from outside that group. That is just common sense. It also seems like common sense to me though, that if 95% of terrorists fit into a certain profile, then you have to watch that group closer. Regardless of what the ACLU tells us.
 
ginshun said:
I will conceed that you can't only search people that fit the profile. The terrorists are not stupid. If we consentrate 100% of our efforts on one supgroup of people, they are going to start recruiting from outside that group. That is just common sense. It also seems like common sense to me though, that if 95% of terrorists fit into a certain profile, then you have to watch that group closer. Regardless of what the ACLU tells us.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely correct. We need a random element of searching for all people, so they don't bypass the profile. But that random searching elemend does not need to be as intrusive. For those that meet the profile for 95%+ of terrorists, the requirement needs to be very thorough.

Even if you don't want to use race, then use age and sex. We know that it is men, 18 to 35, who commit most violent acts of all sorts. This is not even in dispute. It's true for terrorists, it's true for soldiers (I mean, who does the fighting), it's just statistically overwhelming. To ignore those simple facts in the name of political correctness is pure idiocy.
 
sgtmac_46 said:
For those that meet the profile for 95%+ of terrorists, the requirement needs to be very thorough (...) To ignore those simple facts in the name of political correctness is pure idiocy.
Click to expand...
Europeans have unfortunately been subjected to terrorist attacks for much longer than Americans have. We know (and the recent news from England regarding the execution of a Brazilian innocent man on the metro confirm this) that racial or any other type of profiling simply doesn't work. To give you but a simple example: what exactly is the "profile" of a terrorist in a country like Spain? I, for instance, have both a Catalonian and a Basque last name because my grandpa was Catalan and my gramma was Basque. Since "racially" speaking we are the same people, how do you tell a "terrorist" Basque apart from one who isn't??? Does someone named "Urrutikoetxea" have a greater chance of being a terrorist than someone named "Gonzalez"? Over a period of more than 30 years, ETA has left a trail of more than 1,000 dead and several thousands injured; yet, after every single terrorist attack in Spain claimed by ETA, we have poured onto the streets asking for peace, carrying signs in both Spanish and Basque (PAZ / BAKEA and "ETA NO/ETA EZ") and most importantly, saying things like "Vascos si, ETA no" (yes to Basques, no to ETA). Today, ETA has been considerably weakened and we are on the brink of beginning a peace process that may bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

I guess my point is: the US has arrived somewhat late to the fight against terrorism. Racial or ethnic profiling have never been useful in other contexts (it hasn't been useful in Spain, or Northern Ireland, much less in places like Italy or Germany were the Red Brigades or the Baader Meinhoff were not ethnic but more political organizations); why would they work here?? The truth is, terrorism is like a mutant virus: when you think you have the vaccine ready, the movement has already muted into something else, and in the meantime it will have achieved its goal of altering the normal functioning of the society it is attacking.

That said: I am flying on the 23rd
nixweiss.gif
so who knows

Peace,
A.T.
 
ave_turuta said:
Europeans have unfortunately been subjected to terrorist attacks for much longer than Americans have. We know (and the recent news from England regarding the execution of a Brazilian innocent man on the metro confirm this) that racial or any other type of profiling simply doesn't work. To give you but a simple example: what exactly is the "profile" of a terrorist in a country like Spain? I, for instance, have both a Catalonian and a Basque last name because my grandpa was Catalan and my gramma was Basque. Since "racially" speaking we are the same people, how do you tell a "terrorist" Basque apart from one who isn't??? That said: I am flying on the 23rd
nixweiss.gif
so who knows

Peace,
A.T.
Click to expand...
While you make good points, I will have to disagree with you on one. The 19 hijackers of 9/11 were all young Middle Eastern men. While this does NOT mean that Middle Eastern young men are terrorists, it does make it, historically, more likely that Al Quaeda sponsored terrorists do have a Middle Eastern background.

I agree with you on the Spanish situation with the Basques. Most Basques have been as horrified, if not more so, by the ETA's indiscriminate murdering of civilians than has the rest of Spain. My parents lived in Spain during the height of the terrorism in the 1970's and they have told me of the police having to be on nearly every major corner armed with submachine guns. I sympathise with what your country has gone through.
 
The general problem I have with "profiling" of this sort is that its a slippery slope that leads to all sorts of worries...

Ok, so we know that young Arabic men are more likely to commit acts of terrorism than perhaps other groups of people. This is supposed to "justify" singling them out for questioning and interrogation at security checks.

We also know that Christians (particularly conservative/traditional Christians) are more likely to commit acts of social prejudice than non-Christians (at least in the United States). Ergo, should we single out all evangelicals whenever a "hate crime" has occured and we have no key suspects? Even though we have zero proof these evangelicals had anything to do with the crime, we do know they're "more likely" to hold sympathetic views and commit such acts...

Let's assume for the second that, for whatever reason, Asians working in accounting offices have a statistically higher probability of committing financial fraud than non-Asians (this is completely hypothetical, mind you). When we notice funny spots in a company's financial records, should we then single out the Asian men and woman working for said company because they're "more likely" to have done it??

And then, we're left with the further moral wrinkle of exactly how far to take this process of "profiling". So we single all these groups out for questioning and interrogation, some of which (as in a few prisoners at Gitmo) are denied some of their constitutional rights (such as access to an attorney). But, how far do we take this? What if, at some point in the future, someone proposes the argument that because young black men are more likely to commit urban crimes, we don't just restrict their rights to carry firearms, or revoke all their driving licenses, or install security cameras every 100 square feet on locales their frequent??

We don't have proof any of these young men will actually do anything even remotely criminal, but because they're "more likely" to do so than any other groups, it could be argued to be "justified".

This is all a slippery slope I am not comfortable with. Laterz.
 
Y'know, after reading the post I just made, I am suddenly reminded of the movie Minority Report...
 
"Profiling" of one sort or another has been going on since forever....

You prevent all that by using profiles as "indicators", you use them as cues for further investigation, not as reasons for enforcement.
 
Origins of Profiling

Which differs from "racial profiling" in the sense of just thinking "X race are all criminals so I will **** with them". However to ignore statistical, environmental, and experiential data makes no sense. The trick is how to use the data without clouding it with bias/bigotry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Unpatriotic?

Previous Thread

Astrologer wins libel lawsuit

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top