Slashdot Mirror
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.
Is it me? Or does it seem that potential threats have and easier time getting into airports and on board planes than ordinary citizens do?
It goes to show that once you head down this road, it is abused, or at best, applied incompetently and inflexibly. Show me your papers, citizen!
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Kennedy used this as an opportunity to show how this system is sort of a lousy idea, and an even worse implementation.
So to this, all I can say is that Ted should be modded up at least +3 Insightful
Vonal Declosion
A Liberal Democrat Senator gets put on the No-Fly list by mistake _AND_ It takes 3 weeks to get removed?
Everytime I fly I am on the Screen list. It's annoying and intrusive and pisses me off, but I've never had a gate agent actually tell me about it, and it's never made me almost miss a flight.
With the screen list, they put several big S's on your boarding pass, and then you get shunted into the "extra-thorough" screening line going in. You'll recognize it next time you fly: it's extra long, extra slow, and it's where all the people with dark skin or funny clothes go.
What was described in the article is nothing like the screening I've seen. I've never had an airline worker tell me I can't fly, in fact they never mention it. I wouldn't have realized the significance of the S if it didn't happen every time I fly.
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?
BTW, my name is as WASP as it gets.
Our Airline security system would be highly endangered if passengers were trusted because they were recognized as a senator. There are people who look almost identical to ted kennedy, I'm sure, who could also get fake licenses. They are following procedure, because if they do make an exception they will probably be fired.
This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
Doh! And here I thought I would get to read a juicy story about some aging senator who likes to get rip-roaring drunk on flights and pinch the stewerdesses' rears. Ends up being yet another story about how American "terrorist" paranoia knows no bounds.
On a somewhat related note, it took my girlfriend and I about 2 hours to cross into the States in late June. we were "pulled" aside - told to turn off our cell phones, remove all valuables from her car (but no camera's or recorders please!) and go into a building while they searched her car. After sitting there about an hour, a person who I assumed was the supervisor came over to us and said "Why are YOU here?" (being the only caucasian couple in "waiting"). We showed him the slip of paper they had given us - he wrinkled his nose, peered at us, went "hmmmmm" and handed the slip to a INS agent and went on his way. We were then very rudely "interviewed" by said agent. Even though my girlfriend drives a very nice 2000 model Grand Am - they wanted to know how much money we had on us - when I told them none, as we intended to use americna funds we would get from bank machines, they demanded to know how much money we had on our credit cards and in our bank accounts! Were they stupid enough to think we would leave the relative freedom of Canada to sneak into the States? Give me a break. I am happy to say that after that, our trip down to St. Louis and back was wonderful.
Oddly enough coming home, we got waved through Canadian Customs in about 30 seconds.
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
They didn't let him on the plane because he was a suspected terrorist, but there's no indication that they tried to detain or arrest him either. WTF?
Random? How about you go to the root of the problem? Start with "Tom Ridge", and see how long things stay the way they are. Mind you, "Edward Kennedy" was probably a good first choice for getting some noisy hell raised about the situation.
Incidentally, I thought I heard back in high school American government class that it was massively illegal to interfere with a member of Congress on their way to or from the House/Senate floor? Anyone?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Oh yeah, I'm sure it was a bug. "Kennedy" sounds kind of Middle Eastern, don't you think? Wonder how many other Democrats will run into this kind of "mistake."
The current White House occupants are shameless. Immediately after 9-11, Prime Minister Cheney ordered Continuity of Government to go into effect. The program calls for the evacuation of government leaders from Washington and the activation of the underground hideaways that shelter bureaucrats trained to keep Uncle Sam in business. The problem was no Democrats were evacuated or kept in the loop. Must have been an oversight.
And how many people wrongly on the list can call Tom Ridge? If it took Senator Kennedy several weeks, how long would it take me or you? Thank you to the government for keeping us "safe" by taking away our Civil Liberties. Bastards.
What makes you think your name needs to sound "kind of Middle Eastern" to make it onto the "no-fly" list? Your predjudices, perhaps?
Is that you? Nixon used every power at his disposal, from the FBI to the IRS to the CIA, in order to intimidate and even imprison his enemies. Look at what he did to Tim Leary: got him sentence to over 10 years in a federal prison for having, IIRC, less than two grams of marijuana in his car.
There were plenty of *allegations* made about Clinton and the IRS, but like 99.9% of the allegations made about him they turned out to be Dudge fodder and usually outright lies.
I fly quite a bit for work and know that for a time I made some sort of list somewhere. Apparently after a while, if you pass enough of their tests you are removed from the list.
The e-ticket machines would not issue me tickets, telling me that I had to get my tickets at the counter. I was no longer asked if I wanted to upgrade to first class for special price... The boarding agents stuck little colored dots with initials on them on my boarding passes - apparently as cues to people down-stream. It got frustrating that everywhere I went I and my luggage were singled out for special attention. Up to the point where my luggage would not be accepted curbside, My luggage and I would be taken into a little room and searched. In one case, even sealed packages were opened. As I boarded the airplane, I was always one of the passengers called for a random search.
Durring one of these searches, I mentioned to the agent that I must have made someone's list somewhere. He shook his head up and down as he said "I can't say that sir!" I had my answer and just resigned myself to being watched.
Then one day, as suddenly as it started, it stopped. My guess is that I satisfied the intellegence built into the database that I was not a threat and it removed me from the list.
I do not know what I did to make their list nor do I really know what I did to get off of their list. I can tell you it is an unpleasant experience being there.
As far as I know, I have never done anything anywhere that would cause someone to think of me as a potential terrorist.
"Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems."
Yes, and BEFORE implementing a system like an inherently error-prone No-Fly list, even some basic design review of error recovery should have been firmly in place, beyond "there's this guy you can call and something might be done, maybe, if you're a senior gov't figure." I'd loved to have been in on the design meeting where that was finalized.
It took a senior senator 3 WEEKS to get off the list. Think you'd have ANY chance? That's broken by design. And given past abuses (Euro journalists denied entry to US due to their "mistaken" inclusion on The List) I have zero confidence in this not being used as a political tool. Tom DeLay's "missing plane w/ congressmen" false report to the FAA, for example.
And that's only the painfully obvious list. What about the ones you're never allowed to see?
Nearly every aspect of this homeland "security" as implemented appears to have come from some underperforming kindergarten class. "And colors! We'll have pretty colors for the national terrorism alert level!"
Meanwhile actual terrorists, whose plans apparently are NOT drawn up by underperforming kindergartners, will be busy trying to get one of their own put onto the equally poorly thought-out "security express" list that allows previously cleared individuals minimal security review at airports.
But that's just me talking, some guy who's never benefitted from a terrorist attack, unlike those now supposedly in charge of preventing them.
THere are 2 issues wth your reasoning (don't know if it was meant to be cynical and just repeating how some people in government seem to think..)
1. The constitution and bill of rights may define some rights for US citizens, but are based on the idea that many such rights are not given by that bill or the constitution but confirmed. Those rights exist due to being human, not because the constitution or bull of rights grants them. Due process is one of those.
2. The USA is a party to the international declaration of human rights. Due process is a part of that as well, and sicne this is an international treaty, it should be considered 'law ' accourding to the USA constitution.
So, it does not matter at all if he was a foreigner or not.
The fact that your government seems to argue along the lines that you presented however is the exact reason why I am not visiting the USA, and haven't visited it ever since that government started with this kind of talk.
So everyone with a name of T. Kennedy is going to have trouble flying. That seems like a pretty fundamental flaw to me. You had better hope one of the suspects doesn't choose YrWrstNtmr as a alias!
included a funny little exchange between a woman whose daughter was being prevented from boarding planes and Asa Hutchinson, TSA honcho (and, interestingly, one of the House GOP engineers of the Clinton impeachment). The gist of the story being that after repeated attempts to get her daugher off "the list," she was still on the list. Hutchinson suggested she talk to the TSA ombudsman, which she had evidently already done.
f Id=38597 56
There were a few other interesting, chilling tidbits regarding homeland security. Fun stuff:
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?w
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Remember that Florida tried to purge Democratic-friendly voters a second time. At first, they refused to turn over a list of the names of the people purged, to prevent the tactic from being discovered until it was to late to counter. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me... won't get fooled again. They got caught working to steal the election.
It really looks like the TSA simply doesn't care whether innocent civilians are denied the ability to use the nation's airlines. The hassles in air travel now make the choice between driving six hours and buying an airplane ticket or two easy; I drive. I'm looking at a 14 hour drive in October for me and my wife. I am reluctant to try flying. What if my name is on the no-fly list?
I would ignore names and ID's. This approach is stupid. Trivial to fake. I am very angry that my government is wasting my money and time on this utter BS. If you really want air transport security, you:
Massively increase spending on physical search of people and baggage. 3X-5X would probably be a minimum. This means everybody, including maintenance, food service and airport staff gets screened, every time, fast.
100% air marshall coverage on commercial passenger flights with max gross over X,000 lbs. (you decide how big you want X to be...).
100% security screen on bizjet flights over X,000 lbs max gross (yes, Carly, Steve, and Larry, that means you).
This is very expensive. If you do it right, security screener and air marshall become well-paid, prestigious, sought-after jobs.
You don't do it (like the current situation), then you're just pretending you want security and (willfully or not) hoping that the bad guys and the public at large are too fscking stupid to notice.
BTW, this isn't even starting on truck/train/ship/air freight security. If you're gonna be scared about something, be scared about that.
FWIW, I don't think you should be scared about terrorist threats at all; they want you to be scared. (Figuring out who "they" are left as an exercise for the reader. Hint: there's more than one. :-)
It's ALWAYS going to be a good thing to know who someone really is from a security point of view.
The problem is, Sen Kennedy's experience shows that the current system doesn't show who someone really is. Nor will that be enough.
The fact of the matter is our airport security is paranoid but without the possiblity of a solid perimeter which can be used to prevent an attack on our own response. The only thing we have to be thankful for today is that those who wish our country harm haven't figured this out or have decided that such attacks don't fit their ends well. All one really needs to do today is to create *the appearance* of a security threat to cause real damage to American business and commerce. One does *not* have to show ID to effectively do this because one can effectively do this sort of thing in lobbies, baggage claims, public restrooms, and the like. In this regard US airport security is extremely brittle.
I have traveled to many countries which have had a longer history of having to deal with security issues than the US. For example Ecuador has a multi-layer security system which effectively protects them against their threats. But their threats are simply narco-traffickers who are not aimed at causing damage to Ecuador's businesses.
But take a look at Indonesia. Not too long ago, a bomb exploded in a KFC at the airport outside their security perimeter. (Indonesia uses a system similar to that of Ecuador but does allow public areas inside the airport buildings but outside the security perimeter.) I think only two people were injured in what seemed to me to be an ad-hoc attack related to a trial of an alleged terrorist. But if such had been a coordinated attack and in the US, do you think US airspace would still be open (even if nobody was injured)?
IMO, the real solution is the development of a multi-layered security infrastructure. Yes, this includes reinforced doors in aircraft and the development of uniform security plans across airlines with regard to common threats. I think it also will eventually require an open and public discussion of the security of general infrastructure in this country as well as what is most critical to the operations of basic services and commerce. We must have confidence that we can fix flaws found before terrorists can do the necessary recon, etc. to actually carry out an attack. Analyzing the pattern of Al Qaeda attacks, I suspect that these take them *years* of planning. We should look seriously at how we can improve the speed at which we respond to weaknesses in our security infrastructure. I.e. we don't have years to impliment that new security procedure.
Finally, such security needs to be robust enough that we don't really have to worry about who is on the airplanes.
There will always be "soft targets" but we MUST work to minimize the global impact of attacks on them.