Senator Blacklisted by No-Fly List

sig writes "Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) was turned down for a flight from Washington, D. C. to Boston because his name turned up on the TSA No-Fly list. He eventually got on a flight, but was again denied on his way back to D.C. It took 3 weeks of calls to Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security for the ordeal to get straightened out. But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do if the Secretary of Homeland Security won't take their calls?" There's also a New York Times story.

Comments

Our gov't at work

[AviLazar]

Maybe they need to re-evaluate themselves and their standards...(DUH!!!!).

Re:Our gov't at work

[YrWrstNtmr]

Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems.

Very, very few (if any) are the complex systems put into place with zero bugs. That doesn't automatically mean they shouldn't be tried in the first place. Maybe, maybe not. But that is an entirely different question.

Re:Our gov't at work

[YouHaveSnail]

Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems.

Of course, but you typically do that before you put the system into production. If you can't run the implemented system in a test bed environment, then at the very least you put the system in place and instruct users not to rely on it, and you give them a quick way to report problems. Also, note that there's a big difference between mistakes made in the system and mistakes made by the system. The former may take a while to isolate and correct, but there should be a mechanism to fix the latter quickly.

Very, very few (if any) are the complex systems put into place with zero bugs.

That's no excuse. If you have to put a system in place without thorough testing, you think long and hard about the kinds of problems it can cause, and you make damn sure you've got a fast and effective means of dealing with those problems.

Re:Our gov't at work

[gorbachev]

There is no bug here. It's broken by design.

Re:Our gov't at work

[InfiniteWisdom]

"As they should"???

This system is ostensibly a way of preventing terrorist attacks, not keeping "immoral" people off airplanes.

Re:Our gov't at work

[positroniumman]

yes... now imagine that you are not a white american citizen...

A system where the errors cannot be reported has absolutely no chance of evolving to its own betterment!

Re:Our gov't at work

[YrWrstNtmr]

Oh, I agree. How his name got there, and why it took so long for a prominent figure to get off is pretty damn bad. You and I would stand little chance.

Ok...here's a proposal. Every time we read about this stuff (checking ID's, No-Fly list, whatever) it's immediately bashed as unworkable, and an affront to our rights. And that may well be so.
How about, instead of mindlessly bashing what they are trying, coming up with something better. Something that won't take decades to bring to fruition ("Don't be so mean to them and cause them to blow stuff up"). This is supposedly a smart group. Let's try to fix the process, instead of jumping up and down, screaming.

Re:Our gov't at work

[Anonymous Coward]

I concur! There are psychotic, murdering, death-obsessed Islamists with Chechen names and Filipino names and Indonesian names and... well hell, they're from all over.

None of which changes the fact that it's psychotic, murdering, death-obsessed Islamists that we should be watching out for and not the Oklahoma Militia and not the IRA and not the Catholic League for Decency, no matter how much the PC parent up there wants to imply that you're somehow racist by pointing out the fact that the vast majority of the threats to this country right now can be traced back to exactly one ideological source - and that's Islamism.

And before you get your philosophical panties in a bunch, *yes* I know the difference between being a Muslim and being an Islamist.

Guess how I know?

-saeed

Re:Our gov't at work

[jedidiah]

The nature of the problem was rampant stupidity.

Anyone that's worked with security, databases or identity management should be well aware of the fact that certain key values occur in populations to the point of being meaningless. This is not simply a problem of testing but of ignoring key principles within a discipline as well as the past mistakes of others.

This situation is much more comparable Microsoft's policies regarding security.

Re:Our gov't at work

[dasmegabyte]

Oh geez, like a guy who got arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct at a football game and former speed freak -- like our current president?

Shit, man. I think if a former hard partier like Bush can become president of the country, the law should awknowledge that people can change. Otherwise the whole system is just hypocritical.

Re:Our gov't at work

[Mysticalfruit]

Firstly, you talk like there was even a design meeting.

It was more like "We need a no fly list, think someone can whip it up?" and some poor smuck was stuck working on it in a backroom somewhere.

Issues like this were never really thought about.

Though here's a nightmare thought. What happens if you go on a two week trip somewhere far from home and upon trying to board the plane to go home, your stopped because you've been accidentally added to the list. Now, lets just say you've got the same access as the Senator, that means only 3 weeks away from home and job...

Re:Our gov't at work

[The Conductor]

The answer is defense in depth. Screen for passengers for weapons, but realize that some will get through any realistic screening, so add layers that lengthen the odds. Investigate suspicious groups before they get to the airport. Put pressure on (or invade if you must) states that support these groups. Put on a bulletproof cockpit door to stop them if they do get on the plane; I would go further and give the cockpit an outside door, so it is inaccessible from the passenger cabin. Give the pilots (or, for that matter, properly qualified passengers) guns so they can fight back. Put remote control lockouts on the aircraft. Fit supertall buildings with anti-aircraft weapons (specially designed for short range so they don't get hijacked).

Granted, some of these things are being done, but the mindset is still one of looking for the perfect threat detection system, rather than one of minimizing risk for some given cost. We must accept that, whatever we do short of abandoning civilian aviation entirely, there will be a finite risk of hijackings. Any security measure must be judged by risk reduction vs cost, and compared to other, possibly less costly, measures to reduce risk.

Re:Our gov't at work

[Ryosen]

>>How would YOU do it, if not by using the name as the first level check?

I'd probably take my head out of my ass and familiarize myself with the world around me. It's not as if Ted Kennedy is an obscure personality. It's not as though he hasn't been one of the most prominant figures in American politics for the past 42 years. And this happened in Washington D.C. and then again in his home state? How do you excuse that level of ignorance?

The fact that it took 3 weeks for one of the most powerful politicians in this country to get cleared off of the list, while sweetly ironic, doesn't hold much hope for the rest of us regular schlubs who might also run up against the same problem. I don't know about you but I certainly can't use the excuse that I'm a U.S. Senator to get through airport security. And while it might bring a small measure of comfort to know that the TSA is not making exceptions, it still smacks of the asinine overkill that followed 9/11 when they were scanning children, searching old women and making nursing mothers drink their own breastmilk.

Of course, using a pattern of "first initial, last name" is not exactly an accurate means of finding a match for terrorists, now, is it?

Re:Our gov't at work

[burns210]

Heh. You jest, but one of the 'security'features of traveling within the states(state to state) is having to show valid ids, sometime 2. What I don't understand is, why? If these security features were in answer to 9-11 attacks, and all the attackers had valid ID, why make the rule.

It is(apparently) not overly hard to get valid ID, a dozen Saudis did it, so what were they trying to accomplish?

Re:Our gov't at work

[Dashing Leech]

The point is that the system didn't work like you "presume". Yes, it worked eventually. But "working" or "not working" is not a binary choice here. The speed at which it works is critical. It took 3 weeks for a senator with connections to get his name cleared. How long would it take a normal citizen.

A better way to implement this would have been to have a test period where the travellers are notified that they're flagged but not stop them from flying. Each flag is then investigate to see if it is a false positive, and how long it took to clear false positives. Only after this trial period, and fixing the bugs, should they actually stop people from flying.

Re:Our gov't at work

[b-baggins]

That's a pretty awesome trick the Republicans pulled, getting Democrat precinct officials to deliberately remove potential Democrat voters from the rolls. Those Republican operatives definitely need a raise and a promotion.

And just in case you don't get it: Voter registration rolls are handled by the local precinct officials.

Re:Our gov't at work

[TheCarp]

Well if you assume that this is actually expected to increase some amount of security then yes I would assume they did testing.

However I would assume that they know how easy it is to fake ones identity and that this is just meant to be used to annoy undesirables of the curent administration and appear as if they are increasing security when in reality it can't easily be increased any higher than it already is.

Afterall, there really has been no need whatsoever to increase airport security. Its just like John Gilmore's note that the entire process of asking for ID at airports came about after an airplane crashed from a mechanical failure that was, for a short time, thought to be terrorism.

So how does the program of asking for ID prevent mechanical failures? Oh thats right it doesn't. It was yet another attempt to make people FEEL safer in their flights, whether or not the danger was real.

So was Teddy allowed to fly? Yes he was. The prgram works just fine FOR ANYONE WHO CAN MAKE PERSONAL PHONE CALLS TO TOM RIDGE FOR 3 WEEKS!

Makes me feel better. Afterall, I know every slashdotter, much like Teddy, keeps Tom Ridge's personal phone number in his cell phone, and talks to him all the time. Right?

-Steve

Re:Our gov't at work

[JayJayEm]

Because in fact the 9-11 hijackers were already on various watch lists, which, had they been operated properly, combined with proper ID, might have prevented them from boarding the aircraft. It's ALWAYS going to be a good thing to know who someone really is from a security point of view.

Re:Our gov't at work

[harrkev]

Perhaps, but I still wonder why it should be necessary...

It is not WHO you are, but what you take on the plane with you. Even if Osama himself is on the plane, what is he going to do if he cannot even get his hands on a knitting needle?

You have to make a choice: Reduce your chance of dying by 0.000000000001% vs a 100% chance of loosing some liberties.

Re:Our gov't at work

[FriendComputer]

The point isn't that showing an ID is that bad. The point is that the system should be secure enough that anyone could be on the airplane, and it wouldn't make any difference. The problem we have right now is that the people are being harrassed by the government, and things aren't much safer than before.

Re:Our gov't at work

[Lord Dimwit Flathead]

...asinine overkill that followed 9/11 when they were scanning children, searching old women and making nursing mothers drink their own breastmilk

The breastmilk-drinking bit was certainly asinine and a violation of the woman's rights. However, the refusal to exempt old women and children from searches was actually a good security decision. When certain classes of people are systematically excluded from searches, a smart attacker will exploit that exclusion to carry out his attack. Even if he can't recruit an old woman or a child to his cause directly, he probably can get one to carry something through the checkpoint for him, whether knowingly or not. An effective search campaign must include random target selection, preferably in combination with targeted selection based on risk factors.

That having been said, I agree with your main point, that Senator Kennedy's troubles with the no-fly list do not bode well for the average citizen who happens to find himself so listed.

Re:Our gov't at work

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you build a short ranged anti-aircraft weapon system capable of taking out a transoceanic aircraft moving at high subsonic speeds?

I'd say you can't. The Navy's CIWS fires 20mm-ish bullets out to a range of a mile or more for example.. very useful against... say.. armored bank cars.

Now, I saw on the History channel, that New York city is supplied with water by only 2 large tunnels from the Catskills. (May have seen the 3rd being build in 'Die Hard 3') Tunnel 1 is about 125 year old and has never once been shut down for inspection or repair... Story goes the city water engineers tried sometime back and the valves wouldn't close and there was a awful noise, or something and they stopped trying to close the pipe) My point.. destroy 1 of the 2 pipes feeding NYC and presto.. 4 million people who are crammed into a small space are with out water... riots, mass panic, etc. Exploding airplanes is just all flash.

But no one would ever put AAA on a building, so my reply is only academic, and kind of pointless. :-)

Re:Our gov't at work

[DavidTC]

And if the system did work, if they do get barred from actual flying, at any point in time, no matter that name they use...hey, look, the terrorists just learned who they shouldn't bring along they next time they feel like hijacking a plane.

See, I'm having real problems figuring out how a No Fly list would keep terrorists from hijacking planes even if it magically worked perfectly at barring whoever we wanted from flying. I mean, even if we magically had the DNA of everyone in existence, including terrorists, and checked it against everyone flying...it only takes X people who aren't on the list to hijack the plane. And they'll know exactly who they are, because we let them fly and stopped everyone else!

The only way a no-fly list works is if we magically know who every single terrorist is...and if we know that we should just arrest them!

It's like searches. If they keep searching a guy before letting him on the plane...well, you know who not to give the weapons to. In fact, let's get fifty of those guys on one flight, and have the fifty-first, the one not on the list, carrying all the razor blades inside his laptop's CD-ROM compartment. They'll spend all their time searching the other 50 guys, and the laptop guy can just hide the razor blades in the bathroom and let the other fifty guys pick them up one at a time.

Re:Our gov't at work

[iocat]

One of the big reasons they need to know who you are before you get on a plane -- the airline, not the TSA -- is so that if it crashes, they have an accurate list of who died. This prevents notifying the wrong people, etc. It's kind of morbid, but it makes a lot of sense.

One of the reasons the TSA checks IDs everyday is so that if there's ever a time when they need to be checking IDs to make it tougher for someone to travel under a false name, they don't have to suddenly invent the procedure.

Re:Our gov't at work

[Rei]

The thing about stopping sharp objects from being taken on the plane always sounds pretty dumb to me. In something that has lots of internal metal parts (say, a laptop), hiding a flat nondescript piece of razor sharp metal shouldn't even be a challenge. Other things - say, glass or ceramic - aren't sharp initially, but when you break them, they become sharp. What is to stop a terrorist from, say, bringing a picture frame in his carry on and shattering it on board? Sharp objects are just too easy to come by.

Re:Our gov't at work

[hopethishelps]

How would YOU do it, if not by using the name as the first level check?

I wouldn't do it at all. The whole concept of depriving people of the right to travel just because they are vaguely "suspected" of something stinks.

If the government wants to penalize somebody in such a major way, it should have to:

1. Tell that person what he/she is accused of
2. Give the person an opportunity to confront his/her accusers in court and rebut the evidence
3. Have a judge or jury consider the evidence in public

Most of us thought we had that right. Too many people seem willing to give it up, in return for an illusory feeling of "security". The chance of your being injured by a terrorist in the next year is considerably less than the chance of your being injured by a non-terrorist driving an automobile. There are risks in life, get used to it. Giving up essential liberties, which took centuries of struggle and sacrifice to get, just to possibly reduce some already-tiny risk, is irresponsible, short-sighted, and extremely stupid.

Re:Our gov't at work

[ElForesto]

If you can't run the implemented system in a test bed environment, then at the very least you put the system in place and instruct users not to rely on it, and you give them a quick way to report problems.

Tell that to the dot-com I used to work for.

Re:Our gov't at work

[burns210]

You are right, my mistake. So my point would then become, why the hell did they begin to require ID checks in response to a mechanical failure in a plane?

Re:Our gov't at work

[teromajusa]

Yes, there ought to be a "-1 Gratuitous Political Deception" moderation category.

After reading your post, I found myself wishing the same thing.

If you are that paranoid, you ought to drive. And the fewer people flying, the better. I remember the days when planes often had empty seats and travel was a lot more comfortable, even in the tiny seats.

You think planes are more crowded because more people are flying, and that if less people flew, there would suddenly be vacant seats on planes? I guess if I told you it had more to do with airlines trying to maximize profits, you'd say I was just another paranoid conspiracy nut.

Could it have been...

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this have been some backroom shenanigans to harass and intimidate an outspoken member of the opposition party? Lord, no, such a thing would never be done by politicians these days...

Re:Funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard buracratic process....
Make things very easy for criminals.

and
Damn near impossible for law abiding citizens.

See software copy protection, crippled cd's etc

least not forget MPAA, RIAA DMCA suck

Wonder what happens to Michael Moore

[Anonymous Coward]

Nixon used the IRS to pester his foes. Now we've (er, they've) got the TSA to play with. It's lovely to see the advances that government has made.

Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore

[gosand]

Get the facts straight. Nixon TRIED to use the IRS to pester his foes. Clinton is the one who succeeded in using the IRS.

And Bush Jr. used the U.S. Military.

Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore

[rudedog]

the Iran Contra scandal which dragged on for six years and resulted in only 3 convictions upheld

Maybe that was because George Bush Sr. pardoned Casper Weinberger and 5 others, effectively preventing Weinberger from ever having to testify (and possibly incriminating Bush himself).

And people complain about Clinton's pardons while completely ignoring Bush's horrendous abuse of power.

Ironic

[StevenHenderson]

Funny how a democratic senator is blacklisted after speaking at the DNC. Coincidence?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, coincidence. You have to be some kind of tinfoil-hat Republican conspiracy freak to see a relation here, because putting someone at a no-fly list after speaking at the DNC is a rather ineffective way of furthering ideals. Even conspiracies have an obligation of making sense.

Re:Ironic

[MarkPNeyer]

I love slashdot. Where else would you find wild anti-republican conspiracy theories considered insightful? Ohh... wait...

The whole situation in this country is just getting rediculous. Is it possible for people to believe that George W. Bush is a terrible politician, but a decent guy who just has a difference of opinion with you? I'm so sick of republicans acting as if they represent all of what's right and good in this country and claiming that the democrats represent immorality and stupidity. I'm also tired of the democrats acting as if all the republicans are either slaves to the corporate interests, and either evil crooks or else slobbering boobs who've been convinced to go along with the crooks. Jesus Christ ! Is it that unlikely that we just have differences of opinion? Is is that hard to beleive that Bush isn't trying to gather more power for himself for evil purposes - that he's just trying to keep us safe?

You can bitch all you want about Bush having said that he'd be a uniter and not a divider. Personally I think that's a stupid thing to say, but it's definately not as if Bush is intentionally trying piss off half the country. He's been being attacked since before he got into the office, with liberals saying he looked like a monkey, that he was stupid and talked funny and a religious zealot and incompetent. Are you at all surprised that this country is very divided, when half the people think their president is defeding them from evil, and the other half thinks the president looks/talks like a monkey?

I understand completely if you disagree with the president's policies, and you'd like to voice your opinion. I think there are plenty of valid disagreements you could make with the bush administration. The problem is that all I seem to hear is : "Ohhh that Bush - He's just evil! We invaded an innocent country all for oil and haliburton, after he stole the election in florida. And have you heard how talks all goofy?"

I can take criticism of the president - it's important and needs to be done. But not when the main critisim is that he's :

1) evil

2) incompetent

3) looks/talks like a monkey

If I beleived half of the critcisms being made of Bush, I'd be calling for armed revolution. The problem is that most of them just don't hold water at all. So he lied to us about iraq having WMD? What about the governments of Russia, Germany, Britain, even France coming to similiar conclusions about WMD? Why is it that Bush is called a Liar when John Kerry and Hillary Clinton came to the same conclusion that Bush did, re WMD. Why the hell would you go into a country based on a total lie? That doesn't do anything at all to help him. You'd have to beleive (which i'm under the impression that a lot of liberals do these days) that bush has the intelligence of a four-year old and about as much morality as Adolf Hitler.

Can we please raise the level of political discourse in this country? I would love to argue about the military efficacy of invading Iraq. I'd love to debate the merits of McCain Fiengold. I'd love to talk about social security and whether it can or should be exteneded and fixed. It looks like all i've got to look at this election year is a man who is an evil, stupid, incompetent ape, or a man who was apparently in vietnam thirty years ago where, depending different sides of the story, was either a hero or a shmuck. Do you honestly think that if Kerry gets elected, this country will be 'unified' again? You're going to hear all sorts of outrages charges against him, too. Just you wait...

Re:Ironic

[StevenHenderson]

Thank you for your insightful and eloquent reply. It is good to see such open-minded thought on /. Please understand that when I post something like this, it is not always at surface value, but rather to incite the types of debates that make slashdot such a unique forum for thought. Yes, I think Bush is a moron. No, I dont think he is an evil or awful person, just a bit simple to run our country. No, I do not particularly like Kerry, but as in 2000, 2004 will be an election where America will choose a lesser of 2 evils. You state many opinions on how we make such a big deal over "differences of opinion." Unfortunately, this is "the way it is" with a 2-party political system. It has been this way since the dawn of this country, and will likely continue as such until the end of it. Again, thanks for your thoughts on this matter - they are enlightening and appreciated.

Re:Ironic

[MntlChaos]

Unfortunately, I have little time to write an eloquent post as you did, so here goes.

You say that incompetence is not one of the things you can take people criticizing the President about. Incompetence is being unable to competently perform one's job. When that job is as important as President of the United States, incompetence is utterly unacceptable

Re:Ironic

[MarkPNeyer]

It's one thing to say that the president has made some mistakes and not performed his job as well as he should. In my mind, that's not incompetence. If you are incompetent, you lack the fundamental qualities necessary to lead and do the job. I do agree that saying he's incompetent isn't nearly the same level of vitriol as saying he's evil, but it's still not the best form of discourse. Calling the president incompetent is a nice ad-hominem way of saying you don't like the job he's doing.

Re:Ironic

[Theaetetus]

If I beleived half of the critcisms being made of Bush, I'd be calling for armed revolution. The problem is that most of them just don't hold water at all. So he lied to us about iraq having WMD? What about the governments of Russia, Germany, Britain, even France coming to similiar conclusions about WMD? Why is it that Bush is called a Liar when John Kerry and Hillary Clinton came to the same conclusion that Bush did, re WMD.

Misleading point here... Russia, Germany, France, et al were calling for continued inspections searching for the WMD. Only Britain was at the similar conclusion... And Britain, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, et al. only came to that conclusion after Bush released his satellite pictures of trucks and other misleading or false information at the UN. Did Kerry lie? No. Did Clinton lie? No. Did Blair lie? I doubt it. Bush and his staff were the only ones privy to the inside information that he claimed "proved" that Iraq had WMDs. To claim the others, who were merely saying "yes, given the evidence you show us Mr. President, and given that we trust you and don't think you're a liar, we come to the same conclusion."

The conclusion later proved to be false, evidence later proved to be false (and falsified - see the 9/11 report) - therefore, the people who believed the falsified evidence are exonerated... and the ones who knew it was false are implicated.

-T

Re:Ironic

[intnsred]

So he lied to us about iraq having WMD?

What the hell, right? So what if ~1000 American kids are dead and 10,000+ are mangled. So what if tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead and many more are mangled. So what if we jail Iraqi resistance fighters by the thousands and torture people routinely? What's the big deal? They're only people, right?! :-(

What about the governments of Russia, Germany, Britain, even France coming to similiar conclusions about WMD?

I'd say Britain doesn't count; Blair is Bush's poodle and he was willing to do or say anything to curry favor with his masters.

As for Russia, Germany and "even France", they came to no such conclusion. They resisted the war, they refused to give the US the UN fig-leaf for its oil grab.

And to top it all off, for the months that UN inspectors were in Iraq before the war, searching everywhere the US told them to, they found no WMD!

There was only 1 government (and its poodle) who was bleating endlessly about Iraqi WMD. The US gov't.

Why is it that Bush is called a Liar when John Kerry and Hillary Clinton came to the same conclusion that Bush did, re WMD.

Because they were "briefed" on "secret" intelligence by the liars who wanted to go to war. They were told stories about how Iraq had pilotless drones and would mount them on ships and would attack the US mainland (all fiction), and many other fairy tales.

They were spineless, not daring to go against the gov't/media-generated war hype, and so they believed the lies that were fed to them. (But don't worry too much about them, they'll be "rewarded" with campaign donations from the corporate drones who were gleefully campaigning for war.)

Why the hell would you go into a country based on a total lie?

Well, the three most popular reasons are:

(1) To secure OIL, especially the huge reserves which were closed off to US oil companies and nationalized and used for Iraq's own benefit

(2) To eliminate one of Israel's enemies and generally weaken the Arab world

(3) To secure new US military bases (since the Saudis were kicking us out) in the Middle East

Can we please raise the level of political discourse in this country? I would love to argue about the military efficacy of invading Iraq. I'd love to debate the merits of McCain Fiengold.

In other words, you'd rather not talk about messy details.

Why talk about the sheer immorality and undemocratic methods used by a war-mongering administration to invade a country and kill thousands, and to rewrite its society turning it into a "free market" playtoy for American corporations, when instead we can talk about the "military efficacy" of our illegal invasion?

Why talk about corruption of politicians and corporations writing laws and the entire wholesale purchase of our two[sic]-party electoral system, when we can instead talk about the details of a law, McCain-Fiengold, which does not work, and which was written by two people steeped in the corruption of the system that they were trying to give a quick paint job to so as to prevent more systemic reform?

Re:Ironic

[DarKnyht]

You seem to forget that Germany, France and Russia are all being investigated because they were taking bribes through the "Oil for Food" program to do everything in their power to prevent the UN from following through their resolution.

All that US and Bush did was stand by his word when it came to said Resolution. I do not exactly agree with the war nor am I a total Bush fan, but I do respect people who try their best to follow through on their word. And yes, I know Bush has not followed through on everything he said. But in his defense, he was not expecting to have 9/11 cripple our market either.

As for those senators that did not truely want to go to war but were afraid to stand for what they believe, I find them to be the scum at the bottom of the septic tank. If they are going to be afraid to stand for what they believe just because the media might attack them and they might lose a few poll points then they have no business to be in the position they are in. The people voted them into office because of the ideals they said they stood for. If they cannot stand for those ideals when the pressure is on they have no right to be there in the first place.

However, from what I have seen, most of them just play to the crowd. If the crowd is for the war, they are for it. As soon as the crowd is against it, they magically change their opinion and they never were for the war and if you would suggest otherwise you are attacking them. They honestly stand for nothing except what is popular and I do not want someone that only does what they think will earn them more popularity points. That goes for both parties, as they are both guilty of this.

Re:Ironic

[Quatloo]

You offer a perfect example of why it is completely pointless to attempt any reasonable argument with the left of center. You state no facts, back up nothing, and toss out oil conspiracy theories. Yes we are just loading those american tankers for free and sending them home.

Re:Answer.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Umm....get a DAMN good start driving?

Well, If I'm only going to NYC, it's just as fast to drive, what with all the idiotic security meaasures at the airports.

Ordinary citizens don't need air travel

[Anonymous Coward]

Only glorious Party members need to go places. Citizens should be Happy to be working for the greater glory of the Corporation that so graciously employs them.

Re:So what will it be folks?

[p3d0]

Either we drop these security measures which makes us open to hijackings or we learn to live with some inconvenience until the system can be refined.

Yes sir, you just bought the false dichotomy that the US government is currently peddling. Contratulations on being a Good Citizen. I hope you have as much success with the War on Terrorism as you did with the War on Drugs.

Re:So what will it be folks?

[gtaluvit]

How does this make us open to hijackings? The terrorists from 9/11 had valid credentials. They went through a metal detector. The added security does nothing but placate the sheeple. Try flying sometime and you'll see how security is spotty at best. You don't have this kind of trouble in foreign airports that are BIGGER targets for this sort of thing. Think about that.

Re:Publicity Stunt

[slartibart]

I'd bet the majority of Americans would not recognize Ted Kennedy. And even if the counter employees recognized him, I doubt they would deviate from their normal procedure.

Re:Silly Homeland Security...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah yeah. Funny and all.

But this is Edward Kennedy. Not that I blame you for mixing them up. Just how many Kennedys are there in the government? If you want an easy majority for a bill, maybe you should just court the Kennedy vote instead of any party.

At least he got an apology.

[MisanthropicProgram]

If it were an ordinary citizen, we would just get the run around.

Re:At least he got an apology.

[whiteranger99x]

And that's the point I was hoping to convey :)

Generally, if they are a super important politician, celebrity, atkin's spokesperson, then they get apologies. Otherwise it's "fuck the rest of them!"

Nixon used the IRS...

[Anonymous Coward]

And Clinton used the FBI.

This ain't a Republican issue, and I doubt seriously that it was politically motived.

It's more likely some intelligence somewhere picked up a terrorist with a sense of humor using "Ted Kennedy" as an alias...

Re:So what will it be folks?

[pedestrian crossing]

or we learn to live with some inconvenience

You're kidding right?

This guy is a U.S. Senator. Not just that, but probably one of the most well-known senators (love him or hate him). This goes way beyond a little quirk in the system.

I highly doubt that the next attack is going to be the same as the last one, we need to focus on the unidentified threats, but instead we focus on implementing systems that get us used to losing our rights. Fuck it, the 9/11 terrorists actually accomplished their goal by fundamentally changing the way we think and act!

And when I speak of a system, I mean the end-to-end system, not the computer system.

Foreigners...

[Anonymous Coward]

While US citizens have problems, visitors have it even worse.

Didn't that Palestinian guy die of old age in US prison because Palestine no longer exists and his old passport wasn't held valid, or something?

Re:Foreigners...

[TGK]

Damn it, why is it I only have mod points when we're discussing Star Wars and Babylon 5?

These points are well taken and should be observed by all /. readers. There is a xenophobic tendency in this country that is spiraling dangerously out of control. We are drawing lines between American Citizens and Foreigners (I capitalize this as it is rapidly becoming synonymous with "Gaijen" or "Barbarian"). Lest we forget, the overwhelming majority of American Citizens are decedents of immigrants.

As is penned in the Declaration of Independence "All Men are Created Equal." Moreover, as you point out, the Constitution grants only a very few and very specific rights to US citizens. I think voting is just about it. Freedom of speech, assembly, equal protection, all of these are guaranteed to any human being within the borders of the United States.

Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of the President to suspend some of these rights in time of war. Unfortunately for Herr Bush, we are not at war. "What's this" you say? Not at war? What about the War on Terror? The Court has (thus far) only upheld these suspensions when the country is in a state of declared war. Bush has attempted to circumvent the Court's wrath by denying his victims the right to see a lawyer or even appear in court. Fills you with warm fuzzies doesn't it?

Enemy combatant or not, if you're being held by the United States you have the right to an attorney and your day in court. When Congress declares war and we are legally in such a state, then and only then might the rules change. Until then "we're living in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working
classes.... .... help help I'm being repressed!"

Brainless bureaucracy

[mariox19]

Obviously the security people at airports are trained and no doubt encouraged by a litany of inflexible rules and consequences for those that don't follow them to the letter to simply "go by the book." What we wind up with is the mindless application of bureaucratic procedures by security drones. You couldn't convince me that we are all safer because of this.

It's not that politicians should receive special treatment; but it is ridiculous that one of the most recognizable men in American politics gets flagged by the computer and no one can do anything about it because no one dare stick his neck out for fear of being "flagged" for termination from his job.

On second thought though, with all the bullshit the average person has to put up with in every aspect of life that involves dealing with government agencies and their rules -- at least some of which I'm sure Senator Kennedy is responsible for -- I say hooray for inconveniencing the senator! Let's have more of this!

Re:Answer.

[Anonymous Coward]

But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do if the Secretary of Homeland Security won't take their calls?

For starters, wake up the fact that the Constitution no longer exists in America for ordinary citizens.

American politicians are thus accomplishing what the terrorists could only dream of doing; they are destroying our once-great country from within.

Our liberties can be temporarily suspended during times of war; but the problem is that this "War on Terror" will be permanent. We will never, ever, regain the liberties we are now losing.

Re:Publicity Stunt

[IPFreely]

And it's unlikely that a clerk at an airline counter is going to check some list of banned passengers when a Senator that (s)he recognizes stops at the counter in front of her. She'll issue the ticket without a second thought, unless she were a complete imbecile.

No, that not true. Counter personel will always check ths list and follow the rules, and act based on those rules no matter who is in front of them. If a ticket agent ignored the list and the rules and let someone on the airplane, they would be roasted.

Security personel are always drilled that you follow procedure no matter who is standing in fornt of you. If you don't follow procedure, if you act based on their own initiative, then you take all responsibility for your actions. If you follow the rules, no matter what those rules tell you to do, then the responsibility for what happens falls on those who wrote the rules and made the list. The agent is not responsible.

Re:Publicity Stunt

[PhxBlue]

And it's unlikely that a clerk at an airline counter is going to check some list of banned passengers when a Senator that (s)he recognizes stops at the counter in front of her. She'll issue the ticket without a second thought, unless she were a complete imbecile.

Not if it meant she'd lose her job. I don't know about the airlines, but the security training I've undergone has always stipulated that you always check IDs and you don't let someone through whose name is on a "do-not-pass" list just because you happen to recognize them. That would defeat the whole point of "do-not-pass" list, since then all a terrorist cell would have to do is get someone hired onto the airline staff.

Don't get me wrong, I think the do-not-fly list is a stupid idea and a gross invasion of privacy. But blame the people who came up with it, not the people who'd be out of work if they didn't carry it out.

Re:So what will it be folks?

[Just Another Perl Ha]

But.... doing that would hinder the airline's god-given-right to maximize their profit. Isn't that unconstitutional? Much better to treat everyone as a criminal... that's what the record companies do and it works wonders for them.
</sarcasm>

Vote.

[kryzx]

"But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do if the Secretary of Homeland Security won't take their calls?"

Vote.

Re:Vote.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, whatever.

Democrat, republican - they're both the left and right arms of the same beast. They both represent corporate America. This country is driven by business and corporate interests will always prevail above those of ordinary citizens. Voting or not.

Go ahead and go back to sleep in your little happy-fun dreamworld.

Re:Vote.

[EvilNight]

Then you VOTE THEM THE FUCK OUT. This entire problem occurs because the voters in this country fall into two categories: Those who are foolish enough to think there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats, and 2) those who honestly think that there is no way to vote in a third party (or fourth, or fifth, or twelfth, but let's not go as far as France.)

The biggest lie the media has ever gotten the american public to swallow is simply this:

Any vote for a third party is a vote for $NAME_of_REP_OR_DEM_PEOPLE_HATE.

Pure BULLSHIT. This lie serves one simple purpose: keep the two party corporate system in power. And people are stupid enough to believe this. Apparently nobody has ever taken the time to read up on how the voting system in this country actually works. They are content to mumble crap about the Electorial College and how futile it is to vote third party when in fact it is anything BUT futile. Just get them 5%, people. You get a third party a 5% share of the vote one time, and they can take care of themselves from that point on.

If you don't like the current candidates, vote for one of the candidates from the other 50 political parties in this country. Any 3rd party that gets in is going to have one agenda: CAMPAIGN REFORM. It's the only way for them to guarantee themselves a second term. Once those problems are fixed, this one party as two parties system is out the fucking door, and that's the best thing anyone could hope for in this country. It will put choice back into politics, and the rest will attend to itself.

If you won't vote, you are part of the problem. You live in this country, you CANNOT disclaim responsibility for political problems by refusing to exercise the only means you have by which to solve them. If everyone sitting around not voting got off their asses and voted 3rd party, they would OVERRULE all of the people voting R/D just by sheer numbers.

If you continue voting for the same two parties that keep running this country into the ground every single year, you are part of the problem. Republicans and Democrats care about one thing and one thing only: corporate payday. They are in the BUSINESS of selling laws to corporations with deep pockets. The only way to escape from this problem is to put more parties into the system to make it more resistant to corruption.

There is no mysterious savior that is going to appear and fix all of america's political problems. If the voters never wise up and take action, the erosion of freedoms at the expense of corporate interests is going to continue unabated, and someday the common people are going to be forced to take up arms and bring the government down the old fashioned way. If it goes far enough and the americans don't do anything about it, rest assured that someday the USA's foreign policy will tick off someone with the power to come in here and do it for us. You're fooling yourself if you think humanity has evolved to the point where another world war is not possible.

You are not an impartial observer. The mere fact that you draw breath on this planet obligates you. Try doing something that is becoming complete unamerican in modern times: take some responsibility and do something about the problems.

Re:given the record

[goldspider]

I don't buy that for a second!

Afterall, it's not like Teddy was flying the plane!

*ducks*

Yeah

[aussie_a]

because his Karma on slashdot is a heavy issue on his mind.

Re:Publicity Stunt

[theLOUDroom]

Sounds like Ted was staging a publicity stunt to me.

WHAT THE FUCK!!?

Seriously, where the hell do people get ideas like this. Obviouslyhe set himself up as a publicity stunt......oh wait.....HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THIS LIST. Yep, you're just another one of those fools who for some reason don't want to believe that the current administraion could EVER mess up even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Maybe you've had your head in the ground since 9/11 but this country has routinely been harassing and banning people from air travel based on the flimsiest correlation (it's not even real "evidence") with some list of characteristics that MIGHT make them a terrorist.

It's stupid, and un-american and it's only matter of time untill they harassed someone important.

Re:The slippery slope

[wwest4]

FYI - it is itself fallacious to disregard all slippery slope arguments as fallacious without disproving them individually. There is such a thing as a valid slippery slope argument.

Re:The slippery slope

[freak4u]

Found the quote I was looking for
"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet." --Lyle Myhr

Re:The slippery slope

[BoFo]

How about:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

- Ben Franklin

- or -

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

- Martin Niemöller

Re:This happened to my friend

[Anonymous Coward]

so you mean, let all the white people through, and reflexively stop all Muslim Arabs?

Are you sure you don't work for the DHS?

Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, sounds like something that they implemented back in the 1930s in Germany. I don't recall how exactly that separation tactic worked. I'm sure no one was hurt by it, only delayed in their travels.

Shouldn't Ted Kennedy...

[qtone42]

be on a No-Drive List?

He seems much more dangerous there than flying (unless, of course, it is a small plane where he exceeds the weight limit.)

And I won't even go into the possibility of a No-Vote List for Senators...

--Qtone
Still not French

You think it's just one guy?

[revscat]

It's just you. Seriously, one guy has problems because he ends up on the watch list on a prank or a fuck up and everyone starts whining that America is a police state and how their civil liberties have been taken away.

You really think it's just one guy, or even just a few? You are willfully ignorant then. This kind of shit has been going on since 9/11, and it has only gotten worse.

Screw justice, though, right? We have terrrists to catch!

Re:You think it's just one guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so ignorant it's not funny.

you are not fucking kidding, my WIFE gets stopped EVERY TIME she boards an airplane, especially when she has our son with her.

How old is your son and how often does she fly? Also, if your wife gets stopped every time she boards an airplane then the statement "especially when she has our son" makes no sense. Either she gets stopped every time, even with your son, or she gets stopped sometimes "especially with your son". It sounds like you are lying, or have your story mixed up.

From now on, we enter the lines seperately when our son is with us. The only remotely logical explanation is that she took trips with her parents to Hungary and around Europe before she was 10 years old and thus is on some sort of watch list.

No, this isn't how homeland security works with the airports. Read this article, or read up about it from other sources. If your wife was on a "terrorist watch list" she wouldn't be allowed to fly. At all. Airports conduct random searchs of passangers, it may just be that your wife happened to get searched when she flew. They do however search people fitting certain criteria sometimes (although they claim they don't so the ACLU isn't up their ass). I was searched the last time I was on a plane and asked why. (I am a dark skinned male, with a crew cut and in my 20's) The guy at the airport told me "Because you are a young guy, wearing a military belt and boots (I was)" which was good enough for me. You would probably think this was racist, but I thought it was common sense. (Although a hijacker would be nuts to dress in military gear).

Fuck 9/11 and fuck homeland security. If someone is determined and smart, they can blow up any goddamn thing they want, no amount of flag waving bullshit security is going to save us

Why is national defense "flag waving bullshit"? And no, if someone is determained and smart they CANT blow up any goddamn thing they want. That is the same crap that people give as an excuse for poor computer security...."well if someone is smart enough they can break into anything..." that doesn't justify not trying to stop them .

ts reality and people don't want to face it.

No, it's not reality. You need massive resources on top of smarts, luck and determination to pull off such an attack. Do you really think one "determined and smart" person with limited funding could pull off an attack on the RNC? Not likely. You are living in a dream world. While perfect security is not possible, that doesn't mean security measures don't help.

The only way we catch these people (the ones REALLY determined to hit us) is a LOT of hard work by LAW ENFORCEMENT (NOT MILITARY!) with an extra hefty scoop of LucK. Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not an issue of war.

Dumb, dumb, dumb and even more DUMB. Terrorism is a military issue, since it invloves defending the entire US against a foreign army. I'm glad most politicians don't think like you do, I wouldn't want to rely on luck and law enforcement to get rid of battle hardened enemy fighters.

Re:The slippery slope

[freak4u]

Agreed. People wonder how the holocaust happened, how communist Russia happened; wonder how people didn't see it starting. put on your glasses

It's not about inconvienience: it's about justice

[revscat]

My point is that I was marginally inconvenienced, but it was not the end of the world. It cost me maybe 10 minutes of my life. How much of this is that Ted Kennedy doesn't like being treated like the masses?

Perhaps some. But perhaps some of it is that he has been made aware of how people are being treated, and doesn't like it. I don't either. Are you old enough to remember the Cold War at its height? It was the same kind of crap: band-aid measures typically undertaken out of a knee-jerk reaction to some scare, real or imagined, and it winds up doing little if any good. "Duck and cover", anyone?

Same thing here. America has gone batshit crazy over terrorism, and needs to settle down. Bringing attention to crap like this is good for us all.

Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li

[digerata]

About the racial comment, its not entirely true. I'm caucasian, wear normal clothes, and I've had to go through it 2 out of 5 flights since January.

Though it is the most frustrating thing to have happen to you. You entire privacy is completely violated and the process solves absolutely no problems.

The second time it happened to me in the Reno, Nevada airport (which is a freakin horrible airport) they lost my laptop and a $250 watch. How the hell do you do that?

Re:So what will it be folks?

[Watcher]

They went through a metal detector.

Here's the really obscene part, which comes from the 9/11 commission reports: in every flight, at least one (and in one case all four) of the highjackers on the flights set off the metal detectors. They were screened by security afterwards, and allowed to pass. We even have it on video. The sad truth from what happened on 9/11 is that we did't really need more security-we needed to make the security we already had functional. Of course, this is the country that passes new gun laws instead of enforcing the ones it already has, so why break with tradition?

Re:So what will it be folks?

[Analogy Man]

the 9/11 terrorists actually accomplished their goal by fundamentally changing the way we think and act!

In addition to this don't neglect the financial impact (the terrorists leaders don't).

A cryptic cell phone call and a correlating notebook with maps and jibberish left in a rental car could shut down major institutions.

If they can get one guy to blow himself up in an airpport with explosives up his bum, it will be cavity searches for Aunt Betty from Phoenix next.

Our best security is to keep our heads up and go about our business. Marshal law is not the answer.

Something I don't understand...

[An. (Coward)]

...is why a no-fly list even exists. I don't mean the list where you get pulled aside for extra scrutiny, but the one where they simply will not let you on the plane.

I'm not aware of anything in particular happening to these people, other than not being allowed to board. And I just don't understand the point of that. If the government considers you too dangerous to be allowed on a plane, then they ought to arrest you, charge you with some terror-related crime, and let a court determine your innocence or guilt.

Freedom to travel is a long-acknowledged right. If the government can't muster enough evidence on you to justify their actions against you, then they shouldn't be able to interfere with that right.

Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate

[BlewScreen]

I don't think the fact that he was put on the list was politically motivated - but I am wondering why it took three weeks to make the news...

Did he decide that he wouldn't tell anyone until the issue was resolved? Did the people in the airport not realize it was Ted? I'd have told everyone I know, and an airport usually has enought people in it that SOMEONE would have let a newspaper or TV station know... It happened FIVE times...

Further, wouldn't this have made a more favorable impact for the D's if the news came out during the DNC? Maybe they wanted to wait until people forgot about the DNC and started thinking about the RNC...

Or maybe it never really happened...

</tinfoil>

-bs

Re:Ms. Coulter?

[stratjakt]

Hell, Nixon put the entire "War on Drugs" we have today into motion, largely to punish the anti-war hippies who were driving him out of office.

Re:Funny...

[btbo]

Absolutely! The weird thing with blacklists is that people travelling on a fake identity will never be on the list....

Re:Funny...

[furball]

You forgot about gun control.

Re:Funny...

[benito27uk]

Does it not concern you that you can get on the list as a result of a 'prank or a fuck up'?

Don't you think that addition to the list should be as a result of slightly more appropriate level of checks than that?

And by the way, terrorists don't 'dress up like one' or carry fake passports, that's why they're difficult to identify, and why any sort of watch list will result in thousands of false positives.

Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny that if you truely say you are a Muslim and knows the difference between yourself and an Islamist, I would have to question the "troll factor" of your post. Quite frankly, most of those who are labelled "islamists" today are freedom fighters. Sure, there are terrorists who attack our country but those are the same people lumped into those who truely want their freedom like the Palestinians and Chechans. Remember, Geroge Washington and his "goons" were called terrorists more than 200 years ago.

The real problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Beyond the civil liberty implications and obvious bureaucratic bungling that seems to have reached new lows lately, you've touched on the real issue.

While we're spending billions of dollars on a 21st century Maginot line, it has distracted us from what really needs to be done to ensure safety.

When Ted Kennedy is stopped because he's on a secret list, that's a warning flag. Unfortunately, the guys in charge refuse to look at what's going on and fix the mistakes, so they repeat the same mistakes, hoping for a different result.

Its almost as if these guys have a pet project that ignores the real world. Its like saying "We need national identity cards!". It ignores the fact that the terrorists on 9/11 had the equivalent of identity cards.

The system can be gamed, there's no way around this, so these knuckleheads spend billions of bucks hoping it will make the population feel better *without concern for whether it improves actual security*.

Its this kind of thing that turned me into someone who can no longer support Bush. Its not just that he's stupid, he hires stupid people, and they continuously do stupid things that piss away money, isolate us from the rest of the world, start wars in the middle east and have dont nothing. Zero. NADA to improve actual security.

With that kind of track record, I'm going to assume that the only people left supporting Bush are either religious nuts or idiots.

And I'm republican, and I voted for this idiot last time.

Welcome to the new America

[nurb432]

Please have your papers ready.

This will be another 'reason' to move towards tagging people, or doing DNA tracking on *all* citizens: "We have to be sure its you, as we all know documents can be faked"

Re:Another thing I noticed

[njfuzzy]

It's simple. These regulations are designed to be just enough of an inconvenience to convince citizens that the government is working hard to protect them from evil brown terrorists. "Solutions" that are visible get you far more fear votes than solutions that are effective.

Good plan

[FurryFeet]

Wow. So all terrorists need to do is start using legislator's names as aliases. In no time, Congress will collapse (or laws will be changed).
I'm only half joking, you know.

Re:What was the true inconvenience?

[stratjakt]

They don't have to tell you anything. The TSA is exempt from the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) which says that all government laws, rules and regulations are to be available to the public.

But, like I said, they snuck in a "notwithstanding article blah blah" clause into the TSA, so they just toss out any FOIA requests about the system or its rules.

Is there just one list? Several lists? Who knows.

The TSA's scope is potentially much bigger than just airports, too. Just wait until there are TSA patrol cars out on the highways, and you can be pulled over, searched and arrested on "secret" laws or rules.

Maybe it's illegal to drive a hybrid civic with a "defeat Bush in '04" sticker. Who knows. They could make a regulation making it illegal to be any blacker than Will Smith.

Sure, it violates your constitutional right to due process. That is, being able to read and understand the laws you're charged with violating, which some lawyers might argue is somewhat important to presenting a defense.

But hey, we're fighting terror.

So, let me get this straight

[Rogerborg]

1. Andy Anthrax uses the name Bobby Bomber as an alias and this name somehow makes it onto the No Fly List.
2. Andy turns up at the airport and claims to be Bobby.
3. The girl at the checkin desk says "I'm sorry, Mr Bomber, your name is on the secret no-fly list. You can wait and see a supervisor, or you can go home and choose another alias next time.".

The hell? All that happens is that Andy Anthrax finds out that he's on the list? So the next time he books a ticket, it will be as Barry Boxcutter.

Has anyone in the Department of Homeland 'Security' considered that this scheme is only going to stop innocent people who don't happen to have multiple identities? If we had any confidence in this list, then Senator Kennedy should have found armed agents waiting to take him down the moment he entered the airport. That this didn't happen just highlights that the whole no-fly list is a bad joke that's got way out of hand.

We need real security, not window dressing. And no, answering "National Security" in response to any criticism of the policy is not a substitute.

the real reason

[JimFromJersey]

Look this has nothing to do with the TSA, the airline probably told the security people to stop Ted 'I got away with murder' Kennedy from hauling his bloated ass onto the airplane because transporting his disgusting fat-body requires two or three times the fuel of a normal human being. Ask yourself would you want to sit next 300 pounds of alcohol-soaked, chewed bugglegum? Having to apologize to the stewardess everytime Teddy grabbed their ass? Oh and before you lefties start your whining, this has nothing to do with his politics. The man could be anywhere on the political spectrum, he would still be digusting fat-body.

I know a guy

[JediLuke]

who has to carry a letter around when he flies because of this. While i understand that we are in danger from terrorists, it's unfortunate that our own citizens cannot travel about their country without "papers".

"Papers mein herren"
"here you go, heil Bush"*

*sorry for the bad german!

Re:My Story

[Anonymous Coward]

All you have to do is stop buying one way tickets, or stop buying your tickets at the last minute. Everytime I or any one I know have done either, I/they have been searched, which doesn't make any sense since terrorists typically will buy their tickets in advance and won't fly on on a one way ticket. So, who are they really trying to check?

Also make sure when they say "You might want to take off you shoes", you actually do it. Don't be smart and say, "No that's all right, they went through last time", that'll get you flagged big time.

Re: Florida voter registration records

[gorbachev]

Let's just say that even though I think the circumstances are highly suspect, I still doubt republicans would go that far.

If they really did that on purpose, I'm sure it's several felony counts, one per every voter removed that wasn't supposed to.

Too bad we will never find out, since nobody, but the "unpatriotic" are interested in reporting or hearing about it.

Big Difference

[Peaceful_Patriot]

The difference between George Washington and the crazy Islamists today is that G. Washington didn't have his friends in other countries blowing up buildings and killing innocent people far from the fighting. I don't rememember Thomas Jefferson saying it was ok to take the war to the civilians back in Britan or France or kidnap Britsh merchants and cut thier heads off as a 'message to others.'

You cannot make this comparison logically. The war we are fighing now is against people who are obsessed with destroying our way of life. It is not a war for 'independence' or 'freedom.'

By the way, the last thing the Palistinians want is peace. Their entire political and social system is built on hate for the Israelis the and goal of destruction of the State of Israel.
There is something truely perverse about sending your children out to blow themselves up.
Good try, but nothing about this is like George Wahshington and his 'goons'.

Re:Big Difference

[Steve Franklin]

I do seem to recall something about issuing papers to privateers for the specific purpose of harrassing the British fleet. And I'm sure if George had had the opportunity he would have carried the war to Britain itself. Somehow, the Battle of Trenton doesn't impress me as a standard military operation. I mean, attacking the enemy on Christmas Day when they were drunk as a skunk? Is this your idea of the proper rules of engagement?

"You cannot make this comparison logically. The war we are fighing now is against people who are obsessed with destroying our way of life. It is not a war for 'independence' or 'freedom.'"

You, Sir, have been watching too much Faux News. These guys couldn't care less about our way of life, except to the extent that it requires us to steal their oil to keep it operating.

Re:Big Difference

[jcr]

By the way, the last thing the Palistinians want is peace.

I think you really should draw a distinction between Palestinians in general, and their nominal leaders. Sure, if the war ended tomorrow, Arafat would suddenly have to account for a couple of billion in embezzled funds, and sharia law is pretty clear on what happens to thieves, but I'd expect most ordinary Palestinians would much rather see an end to the whole fracas.

-jcr

Re:Big Difference

[jcr]

Have you even READ what Bin Laden wants? He wants Saudi Arabia to be freed of US military control.

There's a bit more to it than that. He also wants to impose a global theocracy, starting with all the muslim countries. As far as I'm concerned, that's destroying *my* way of life.

-jcr

Re:Big Difference

[krewemaynard]

These guys couldn't care less about our way of life, except to the extent that it requires us to steal their oil to keep it operating.

steal the oil? are you f***in kidding me? have you BEEN to a gas station lately? have you seen the price for one barrel of oil nowadays (nearly $50)? there's no way that these middle-eastern countries want us to leave....we're funding them! the terrorists, however, just want us dead. period. you think they wouldn't blow up moveon.org convention just as quick as they would a pro-war group? they don't care. deal.

as I've said before

[yuud]

freedoms are lost in incremements. this is one. Props to John Gilmore for fighting a worthy fight. What I'm scared of is flying through your soon-to-be police state of america, and getting stopped/detained on the way through because I'm on some vague, secret list. American customs officials scare me. I've been through US airports many times, and I always have had negative experiences. Apparently, walking up to customs with your girlfriend and handing over 2 passports is too much for them. We handed over our passports, open, showing our photos, and they guy looks at us like we're idiots and says, gruffly, "which is YOUR passport?". I cut short some smart-ass reply due to my own personal fear of having my ass invaded by a latex covered glove....

Gulibility

[Catbeller]

People: does anyone really, REALLY believe that a senator of the United States couldn't get Homeland Security to listen to him?

Kennedy is Enemy Number One with conservatives, and believe me, Homeland (Fatherland? GOD!) Security's political employees are damn near 100 poicent Bush supporters. Remember, HS has no civil service protection -- it's a patronage army.

Come on, you really think Kennedy's pleas were ignored in the normal course of business? "Conspiracy theory" my tired skinny ass, the honchos who now control our access to air travel are screwing with Bush's political enemies. Kennedy isn't the first one to find himself on the list. And the list is secret, you can't appeal, and no one cares anyway. It's the work of a second for a political shark to tap in a partial string into the database to mess up your life.

Re:Another thing I noticed

[donutello]

You need sufficient cause to detain or arrest someone. In the case of many terrorist suspects the information about their terrorist activities is either obtained illegally or through secret means where the sources can't be revealed or it is merely suspected.

A person denied entry would be arrested if there was an existing warrant out for them. However, in the absence of a warrant they have no authority to arrest or detain any such person.

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

How many times have you tried to cross the border into Canada? I'm willing to bet the answer is none. Do you really think that Canadian Customs has nothing to fear from people entering from the US? Just because you are not greeted with an MP5 being shoved in your face at the border, doesn't mean you aren't being checked. Just because the Customs agent treats you like a human being instead of a terrorist, doesn't mean you aren't being screened. It is quite funny when reading these posts about how "lax" our border security is. Many americans mention it, but can't give any reasoning for the position. I suspect it relates to the statements made by one of your politicians following 9/11 that "some" of the terrorists had entered from Canada. Of course the actual events were not discussed much later. One of the terrorists entered (actually re-entered) from Canada, after living in the US for months, going to Maine, crossing our border, staying for a couple of days, then recrossing back to the US. So we missed him once, you missed him at least twice, but it was our fault for not getting him?

How about answering three questions for me. How many people from Mexico make the nightly crossing of the Rio Grande? How many of them check in for screening with INS? Which border is the bigger problem?

Its a shame that in post 9/11 America, you can't even see who your friends are anymore.

The funniest thing about this whole thread, is the other day, I got ripped for suggesting that the US has become/is becoming a police state. Now it turns out that the most recognizable senator in the US is turned away at the airport because of this abusive "no-fly" list. Enjoy your freedom, that is the freedom to sit the fuck down, shut your fucking mouth, and answer my questions before we send you to Cuba for a long vacation in an orange suit.

Remeber way back, when you actually had freedom to do what you want, and say what you felt. I hope you get it back some day.

The whole no-fly and TSA concept is broken

[Julian Morrison]

The 9/11 attacks were made possible because the natural right of carrying weapons for self-defense and defense of others was denied the (regular, law-abiding) passengers. So a puny box-cutter was enough to threaten a planeful.

There ought to be gun-checks at airports -- to make sure you've loaded the right sort of ammo.

("frangible" ammo breaks up on impact and won't punch holes in walls, nor ricochet.)

Re:It's just as stupid ...

[Tassach]

It's just as stupid to believe that Bush deliberately targeted him for being a liberal democrat

Yeah, and it was just as stupid to believe that Nixon ordered his goons to break into the Democratic National Comittee's headquarters and steal documents. Oh wait, that REALLY HAPPENED.

You think that your St. George is any less likely than Nixon to abuse the power of the Presidency? I'll give you three guesses who Bush Sr's political mentor and patron was. Here's a hint: he came from Yorba Linda and had a dog named Checkers.

This should be unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever your political views, this is clearly something that should NOT HAPPEN in America. The fact that it does should greatly concern anyone who believes in American ideals. This country was founded on some fundamental beliefs. For example, that you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That citizens have the right to life, LIBERTY and pursuit of happiness. How does a "no-fly" list support these American axioms?
Be afraid, comrades, be very afraid. I for one, greatly fear our new overlords.

a good thing

[wardk]

it's a very good thing this is happening to those in power, especially someone as powerful as Senator Kennedy.

Only when idiot laws begin to affect those in power will something usually be done to correct it.

Maybe the Honorable Senator and John Gilmore can get together and work to getting TSA to be an organization that doesn't resemble authority from a Charlie Chaplin movie.

The Real Reasons For Iraq

[WombatControl]

I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but it's worth it.

I'm sick of all the outright lies about the war in Iraq coming from the anti-war left. It's disgusting. Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy. Iraq was not Disneyland before the war. It was a totalitarian hellhole in which people were getting killed by the thousands. Talk to an Iraqi sometime. They will tell you stories about how on their sister's wedding night a drunk Uday Hussein showed up and decided to rape her death and slit the throat of the groom. These weren't isolated incidents, they happened every day.

What the hell, right? So what if ~1000 American kids are dead and 10,000+ are mangled. So what if tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead and many more are mangled. So what if we jail Iraqi resistance fighters by the thousands and torture people routinely? What's the big deal? They're only people, right?! :-(

Only 6,000 have been "wounded" and only a fraction of those are serious wounds. Saying that 10,000+ were "mangled" is an outright lie. Let's take the highest number of wartime civilian casualties in Iraq: right around 12,000. Let's take the lowest figure for the number of Iraqis killed each year by Saddam Hussein: 24,000. That's at least 12,000 lives saved in Iraq, and that figure is likely too low by at least half. If you're going to talk about the morality of war, don't gloss over the costs of inaction.

I'd say Britain doesn't count; Blair is Bush's poodle and he was willing to do or say anything to curry favor with his masters.

Nice ad hominem attack, but have you ever considered that maybe MI6 has better intelligence than we do and believed that Hussein was a threat. Have you ever tried reading the Butler Report that said that there was no evidence of politicization of British Intelligence? I'd guess no, because that would challenge your worldview. This kind of leftist cant is both prima facie ridiculous, but it crowds out legitimate criticism of the war by those who don't get their rocks off by reading Chomsky. If you're going to increase intelligent public discourse, calling someone a "poodle" for having an informed opinion that you don't like is not the way to go about it.

Two questions

[sjames]

The first question, if it took Ed Kennedy, a well known Senator, three weeks of calling around to get off the list, what chance would a regular Joe have of EVER getting off the list.

The next question, will Tom Ridge be personally calling and apologizing to everyone who is improperly placed on the list, or just those who have the pull to make things inconvieniant for DHS in future legislation?

Re:The slippery slope

[Erik Hollensbe]

Just taking a guess, but it would be my perception that modifying that quote would only have one of two purposes: to get the attention of a group that wasn't there, or to avoid the attention of a group that is disliked by many.

In other words, modifications of this quote, as far as I can see - are politically motivated. Frankly, if one can not see between the lines, that this could apply to any group that strikes controversy amongst people, the point is lost anyway.

-Erik

Re:Mod parent to interesting.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

At some point they are going to start doing this to anybody they think is a Democrat or a liberal or just a non-creationist.

You mean like Democrats have done since at least the post-Civil-War Reconstruction? (Most recent example I recall: feloniously "losing" California voter-registration-drive forms for anyone not signing on with any other party. But I could go on for pages, with 1 1/2 centuries to mine.)

THE most classic technique of propaganda is to accuse ones opponent of one's own most glaring faults. Especially the sins that one's side commits systematically and one's opponent's side tries to avoid.

It shorts their opponents out when they try to point out when the propagandists' side does something wrong, making it look like a playground "no, HE did it" spat. And it gives the propagandists a golden opportunity to score points and propagate the story further whenever one of the other side DOES screw up, or even does something that can be spun to look that way.

But, despite my understanding of the dumbing-down of the population by the public schools and establishment media, it never ceases to amaze me how many allegedly intelligent people contiue to fall for and propagate these memes.

The allmighty GALL!

But keep it up, anyhow. Especially on the "internal security" insanity. That is a VERY powerful tool for anyone who WOULD deliberately and systematically misuse it in such a fashion. I really want to see that dismantled before the next time a Democrat is in the White House.

You KNOW they'll use it that way. Because they're already talking about the possibilities.

Those who do not understand history are doomed to rhyme.

"But the misunderstanding persisted for weeks "`

[bobalu]

So, you're saying he was flying one-way for weeks?

You have no right to correct your data...

[geekotourist]

From This March 2003 Slashdot article: the government has no responsibility or requirement (and thus no incentive) to have correct data or to be corrected. Ted Kennedy gets a rare exception because he's not only famous but powerful. You and I have no chance. Just ask the 5,500 David Nelsons.

And whatever they claim otherwise, they're still getting data from credit reports and the like. So say you're one of the hundreds of thousands of identity theft victims. With ID theft you have rights, and the credit reporting agencies responsibilities, to attempt to fix bad data. Takes 200 hours of your time and never, ever really finishes, but all you lose is your potential new job and potential new car loan.

But in the meantime the bad data gets into the gov't files: now you never can fix it. And your taint creeps out to touch all your associates (like how the casino software catches ex-roommates of ex-roommates of card counters). Now not only do you not get hired after the NCIC screen in the background check, but your buddies and grandparents all get extra airport searches (they should add a nurse they way they do some of those searches... add in a breast or testicular cancer lump screen while you're there). And of course as 1 in 2500 of us is a terrorist any close check of you will find those suspicious degrees of separation in your Orkut links. Hi Mr.Tuttle, your new name is Toast.

From my favorite precient and well-written essay on privacy losses:

"But there also will be tangible, specific harm.

The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life...

"If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect. By the time we clear our names and establish our innocence, we may have suffered irreparable financial or social harm.

"Worse yet, we may never know what negative assumptions or judgments have been made about us in state files... Decisions detrimental to us may be made on the basis of wrong facts, incomplete or out-of-context information or incorrect assumptions, without our ever having the chance to find out about it, let alone to set the record straight.

" That possibility alone will, over time, make us increasingly think twice about what we do, where we go, with whom we associate, because we will learn to be concerned about how it might look to the ubiquitous watchers of the state..."

"The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society..."

If these errors were merely harmful to the innocent, that would simply be horribly injust and an affront to the ideals of the US. But these errors are also stupidly harmful to safety. From Schneier (via my D.Nelson post)... "almost everyone who fits the profile will turn out to be a false alarm. This not only wastes investigative resources that might be better spent elsewhere, but it causes grave harm to those innocents who fit the profile..."

Watch lists REDUCE security vs random checks

[Ungrounded Lightning]

It's ALWAYS going to be a good thing to know who someone really is from a security point of view.

Not true. In addition to impeeding ordinary travelers (thus doing damage FOR the terrorists), it's an innefective waste of resources that could otherwise be used to do something useful.

Such as random searches.

A watch list means anybody on the watch list is harrassed, and KNOWS it, while anybody NOT on the list passes through. This means that the terrorists can do a dry run and find out which of them are not on the list and pass through unhampered. Then the ones that succeed get togther and do the REAL hijacking - with no problems.

And the terrorists already knew this. They did dry runs immediately before the 9/11 event.

Had the resources been used instead for random checks, being passed through without search once would give no improvement whatsoever on the probability of being searched on the next trip. Mixes of the two are progressively less effective as the fraction of random searches goes down and watchlist searches goes up. (There was a recent paper on this published, and referenced here on slashdot.)

Meanwhile, having a watch list means having a government black list, selecting out a subset of the population for systematic penalization and harrassment. That's already unconstitutional, in the absense of individiualized evidence of wrongdoing and legal action to determine guilt, under the equal protection clause. But doubly so when it can be shown that a watchlist is not effective for its stated purpose, so no pressing government interest is served.

And of course there's the issue of harassment of additional people improperly put on the list - with T. Kennedy as the poster child.

Probably you never heard the saying..

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything is fair in war.

and Love.

Ask the British or rather the victims of British war and peace time crimes the world over. Ask Abu Gharibites about what they think about the upkeepers of democracy and freedom. I am sure you will hear a different version. So you saying what you say now is really without complete knowledge of the facts. I am not claiming to know otherwise, but the mere fact that some of these people had slaves should tell you something about their respect for human lives. And sure - No Britisher was stabbed in the back during the Independence War.
Gimme a break from this holier than thou attitude.

As far as killing innocents by blowing things up goes, no one ever in the history of man kind, including the Nazis has killed more innocent people than the USA. Now with all this in perspective, what you say is truly hypocritic. More than all the islamists of the world, its your kind that I fear. You will be the creaters of the Animal farm, if its already not in place.

Re:Wrong again!

[paxmark1]

Amen!

I have such a difficult time getting into the US at times it isn't even funny. I crossed once with my car, one bag, and a 20 year old fishing tackle box missing the plastice innards and containing 12 years of auto maintenace receipts.

I was treated like a scum bag the whole entire time. I did not mind the intense look over of my car, that is acceptable, but opening my mail to the IRS and looking at my tax form, and holding a photographic negative on the flat side putting fingerprints onto the negative of a woman I loved really pissed me off.

Finally they barked at me that I could get out of the locked room, still treating me like I was a meth dealer or something.

So I said to "Say hello to A and B." 90 seconds later those two six footers wheeled around to me and barked at me why I said that, what did i mean by that. I retiterated that I had told them what my visa to work in Canada was for, intentional community living with the mentally challenged. I said that I had memorized the home phone number of A and B as I daily called that number for someone I took care of in my house. A and B being border guards on the Canadian and US sides respectively. Supervisor on the US side actually. They said I could go real quick then.

I can name 5 other times I have been rudely treated by US border guards. They are equally rude to Canadians and Germans I have seen.

I always have a very easy time getting into Canada, even with a carloard of my stuff. Very professional.

US border agents are ignorant and rude. To expect anything more out of privatized TSA hacks is nonsensical.

I am not looking forward to my next border crossing for a bi-national leadership conference to be held in Washington state.

The federation of intentional communities that I am in (over 120 communities in 30 countries) has decided that no more International Federation meetings will be held in the US due to visa difficulties.

Very dark days indeed in the US. This US citizen is very happy to be working and paying taxes to Canada.

Re:The slippery slope

[DunbarTheInept]

Given how many people were Catholic in the areas under Nazi occupation, I have a hard time believing that the Nazis were just randomly rounding up all the catholics they could find. That would pretty have been the majority of the population of Poland, for example. Not to mention Italy. I really doubt that it was a matter of going after Catholics explicitly (Hitler himself was raised as a Catholic). It was probably more of a matter of going after people for other reasons, and it just so happens that a large portion of the population of countries under Nazi occupation was Catholic. Even if the criterion was something as random as "everyone wearing blue on tuesday", you'd still end up with a larger number of Catholics than anything else.

The other problem with those figures is that the groups overlap. Sum up the percentage of all the jews, gypsies, catholics, socialists, and homosexuals that were killed and you'll get a figure much higher than 100%. Someone could be a Homosexual, a Socialist, and a Catholic all at once.