Man Put On "No-Fly List" While In Air To NYC

An unnamed man flying from Nigeria to New York City found out he was added to a no-fly list somewhere above the Atlantic Ocean, when the plane stopped to refuel in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Officials won't say what he did or why he was added to the list after he had already boarded a flight. He was not immediately charged with a crime and Customs and Border Protection will only say that he is a "potential person of interest." From the article: "The man, a citizen of Gambia, was not on the no-fly list when he boarded the aircraft in Dakar, Senegal, said a US official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly."

Comments

Quick Question

[Monkeedude1212]

Do they still put Parachutes on airliners?

Re:Quick Question

[tginouye]

If not, they could always toss him out on the raft thingie. I think mythbusters tested it out and it may be plausible to survive...if someone picked him up once he hit the ocean.

Re:Quick Question

[kheldan]

toss him out on the raft thingie

Sounds like something Jet Blue would do.

Re:Quick Question

[skuzzlebutt]

Spirit would charge him for the raft.

Re:Quick Question

[TooMuchToDo]

Ryanair would charge you an "early disembarkation" fee.

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they still put Parachutes on airliners?

They only put parachutes on small aircraft. ... Oh, you mean for the passengers! This is a center-right nation; who cares about passengers once they've paid up?

Re:Quick Question

[leuk_he]

Silly idea. When you are under a parachute you are still flying. It would make far more sense to change his name in mid flight to prevent a legal criminal act.

Re:Quick Question

[PopeRatzo]

This is a center-right nation

The same way King Kong is "center"-apelike.

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

A handful of people have actually survived the fall from cruise altitude and landed in a tree or such, which has softened the fall so that they have survived (with serious injuries, though). I suppose that's the most exclusive "mile high club" there can be...

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

He won't need a parachute since that would constitute flying.

Re:Quick Question

[91degrees]

I think if they threw him out in flight then he'd be morally entitled to 50% of his fare back.

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. This was my first thought, too. Worst flight into JFK I've ever had was on JetBlue. At least this poor guy doesn't have to fly 'em again.

Re:Quick Question

[Mr. Freeman]

No, they found that a raft would NOT work.

It's the emergency slide that deploys if you open the door that would work. The only problem is that there's no way to actually deploy the slide, board it, and THEN cut it loose while the plane is underway because the wind would rip it right off at those speeds.

Re:Quick Question

[cynyr]

i won't call a parachute flying, there isn't likely to be any lift being produced.

Re:Quick Question

[MaskedSlacker]

And not even give you the raft.

Re:Quick Question

[MaskedSlacker]

No, they put Buster in the raft, and dropped him from the helicopter (at 2k feet, IIRC). The raft see-sawed back and forth, but stayed upright (keeping him in it) and slowed his fall.

Re:Quick Question

[MaskedSlacker]

Of course there is, what the hell else do you call that force that slows your fall?

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

i won't call a parachute flying, there isn't likely to be any lift being produced.

Of course there is, what the hell else do you call that force that slows your fall?

He's probably a Christian Scientist, in which case, his parachute is a copy of the hymn "On Eagles Wings".

Re:Quick Question

[BobMcD]

Drag?

Re:Quick Question

[MaskedSlacker]

Ah, you win.

Re:Quick Question

[Sulphur]

Coming in on a wing and a prayer. Oh, all right, forget the wing.

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because a center-right country would elect the most liberal man in the Senate as president...

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you can just jump out if there is a bale of hay and the spot you will land on.

Re:Quick Question

[Dan541]

Wouldn't that be his problem; not theirs?

Re:Quick Question

[ooshna]

Of course there is, what the hell else do you call that force that slows your fall?

Umm air resistance

Re:Quick Question

[RockDoctor]

And not even give you the raft.

Even before things descended to the level of poking fun at RyanAir, I don't think that anyone one was proposing giving away a liferaft. Those things are expensive!

"Disembarking early, sir? Would you like to consider our life-raft rental service. It's very competitively priced. We can also provide insurance against you not surviving your disembarkation, and against not being found for 3 weeks."
Besides, I wouldn't be surprised to find that no (reputable) airline owns any liferafts. They're probably all rented because they need regular servicing. That's certainly the case for vessels - liferaft rental, service agreement and all paperwork from a one-stop-shop - you've got to be a really big player to find it worthwhile to run (and certify) your own liferaft servicing service.

Re:Quick Question

[RockDoctor]

Do they still put Parachutes on airliners?

Did they ever? No, seriously, did anyone ever put parachutes on planes for anyone other than the designated crew of aviators (includes radio op., gunner, bomb aimer, etc.)?
I can't think of a reason to do it, except to instil a false sense of security. And that's pretty dodgy thinking - I'd be much more reassured by the flight crew throwing their parachutes out of the window as they start to taxi than I would be reassured by being told to pay special attention to the trolley-dolly's demonstration about how to put on your parachute.

That thing which appears in a couple of movies about the USAF having an "evacuation capsule" for their President when he/she is flying ... is that movie bull, real, or we-can-tell-you-but-then-we'd-have-to-kill-you,from-orbit-with-nukes-CLASSIFIED ? It always struck me as pretty dodgy.

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

It's real.

Re:Quick Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Having sex during that freefall would be a bit more exclusive. Ah crap... did I just invoke rule 34???

Re:Quick Question

[elrous0]

IIRC, John Carpenter in the commentary track on "Escape From New York" said that he was later approached by some Air Force One guys who told him that there was no such escape pod on the real plane.

Re:Quick Question

[RockDoctor]

some Air Force One guys who told him that there was no such escape pod on the real plane.

Didn't stop having one on some more recent kill-the-POTUS movie .(Sorry, film names and plots are a bit vague - probably only saw bits of it. And I don't know if it was in the original book(s), whose author is escaping my memory.)

No great surprise if such a thing didn't exist though. It would have some pretty severe problems with the laws of physics if it was to work.

No fly list is a dumb idea

[surmak]

Perhaps this case is an exception, but I have always fest that the no-fly list is one of the dumbest ideas out there. In a criminal case (which terrorism and conspiracy are) you do not want to let the suspect know you are on to them until the cops come to arrest them. With the watch lists, all a sleeper has to do is take a commercial flight, and they will immediately know if they are on a watch list.

Not to mention the civil liberties abuses that result when someone is denied the right to travel (by air) with due process, no notification, and no effective means of appeal.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Kamokazi]

Perhaps this case is an exception, but I have always fest that the no-fly list is one of the dumbest ideas out there. In a criminal case (which terrorism and conspiracy are) you do not want to let the suspect know you are on to them until the cops come to arrest them.

Considering the main point of the no-fly list is to prevent suicide bombings, combined with the fact that it's hard to arrest a corpse, I think the preventative method is a better choice.

(I am in no way endorsing the no-fly list, just using some sarcastic humor to point out the part the parent missed)

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Enderandrew]

Would you rather they enforce a no-fly list for "people of interest" (often because they attended terrorist training camps, or that we have to remove yet another piece of clothing in the airport for security theater?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[dkleinsc]

That would be if your actual goal was to capture terrorists, convince them to talk, capture more terrorists, etc. If on the other hand your goal is to harass people who are a color or religion you don't like, then they're very very effective. And the best part is that through these petty annoyances you convince more of them that the US is in fact the great evil that should be wiped off the face of the earth, making sure that no matter how many bad guys you capture you're never going to be out of a job.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[conspirator57]

you have no right to travel by air. even to petition your government. the federal court claimed you have available alternatives that are "just as good". apparently we're expected to get on a horse and take 3-5 months traveling from the west coast to the east coast. it was good enough in the 1800s, the last time the judges did it, dammit. and you Hawaiians and Alaskans? Better work on that side stroke. (It takes ID for Alaskans to go through Canada.)

http://www.papersplease.org/wp/
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/

kthxbai.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather get rid of security theater and take my chances. I'll still be more likely to die on the road on the way to the airport than be killed by a terrorist.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[2obvious4u]

Considering the main point of the no-fly list is to prevent suicide bombings, combined with the fact that it's hard to arrest a corpse, I think the preventative method is a better choice.

Except for the fact that the percentage of suicide bombers vs the number of passenger miles flown is so ridiculously small it shouldn't warrant such a heavy handed response. Even if we removed all the security from airports there probably wouldn't be that many more incidents if any. Also within minutes of the 9/11 attacks when people realized that hi-jackers weren't taking planes for joy rides to Cuba anymore; the passengers of planes started to keep an eye out for suspicious behavior and started reacting to threats. Starting with Flight 93 planes have already secured themselves; had the Flight 93 passengers realized sooner what the cooks with box cutters were doing they may have even been able to safely land their plane.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[socz]

I watched a "Special" on 9/11 and they said one of the persons who were supposed to take part on the action was unable to board because of the list. No one knew what was going to happen at the time, but it was at least one instance in that it helped somewhat.

Another thing that could have helped was the "No Hookers List." If they had that report, they could have seen the Muslims who were racking up charges at strip joints. Would have been easy to catch!

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[socz]

In Arizona they're trying to pass a no walk/swim list law so they can question anyone who "looks like they could be in the country illegally." Poor native americans, they'll never know what hit them!

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[ewoods]

"Not to mention the civil liberties abuses that result when someone is denied the right to travel (by air) with due process, no notification, and no effective means of appeal."

That remark alone shows your ignorance. There is no "right to travel (by air)". It is a privilege for those who meet certain conditions. Having the money comes first. After that, keeping out of trouble, public safety concerns, all that comes next. If they cannot meet those conditions and, perhaps, more, then they cannot get on a plane.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[mwvdlee]

I'd rather have neither.
People seem to forget that THAT is also an option.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[mweather]

How about we just make it illegal to attend a terrorist training camp and arrest those who do? Last I checked, convicts have their own airline.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the part where the tail section of the plane was "removed" mid-flight causing an instant nosedive.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[ewoods]

Let me amend my previous remark - if the guy can strap on a pair of wings and flap his arms fast enough, then he might have some semblance of a right to travel through the air. Or maybe if he is shot out of a big cannon in the direction from whence he came... Although any form of air travel is trumped by public safety concerns.

Still, no "right to travel by air". I just love how people take random things (e.g. healthcare, social security, etc.) and start calling them rights. They're only rights if a greater majority is willing to give up something for someone else to have them. Or a gov't mandates it, usually against the will of that majority. That's taking away civil liberties.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[ooshna]

Shh we don't take about that or how the third smaller tower collapsed with no damage.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[scharkalvin]

Not to mention the errors made in adding names to the list. A coworkers 6 year old son was on the list, they discovered this while checking in to board a flight while on vacation. The airport officials had the good common sense to realize a 6 year old kid isn't a terrorist and let them all board the flight. Now they have to go through channels to get the kid removed from the NFL.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Enderandrew]

Not really. Everytime we have an underwear-bomber, we need a useless knee-jerk reaction to make people feel safe.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Enderandrew]

Are you suggesting me make it illegal to associate with others, or to pursue information?

I think that is a far worse offense to civil liberties than a no-fly list.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... what do you call NRA meetings? ;p

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Abstrackt]

In Arizona they're trying to pass a no walk/swim list law so they can question anyone who "looks like they could be in the country illegally." Poor native americans, they'll never know what hit them!

At first I laughed when I read your comment, but I'm less and less sure it's a joke.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[vux984]

I'm not the OP, but I'd like to respond.

That remark alone shows your ignorance. There is no "right to travel (by air)

Not to split hairs here. But there is no right to FLY a plane. Just as there is no right to DRIVE a car.

I find it rather interesting its reached the point where you are justifying that someone should be denied the 'priviledge' of riding in one too. Do you support depriving someone the "priviledge" of being a *passenger* on a car or bus or boat (including ferries) too?

It is a privilege for those who meet certain conditions.

And those conditions are what exactly? As it stands right now, you can't be on a plane if you have brownish skin and a name vaguely similiar to a guy who the FBI thinks might have known someone who attended an event suspected of being a terrorist recruiting event... whether this other person completely unrelated to you actually even joined, assuming it was actually a terrorist recruiting event.

If they cannot meet those conditions and, perhaps, more, then they cannot get on a plane.

An e woods recently ran a red light. That's dangerous and could kill someone. As a result I think anyone named 'e woods' 'e. woods' 'ed woods' 'ed wood' should be prohibited from driving a car. Further, I think anyone by this name should also be prohibited from RIDING in a car... they might overpower the driver and kill someone.

I guess you don't meet the conditions to get in a car anymore. Never mind a plane.

Don't complain to me though, you don't have a right to be a car. Its just a privilege. One you don't meet the conditions for.

Sucks to be you.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution: ban all underwear. This way you don't even have to worry about dirty underwear should there be an incident. :P

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[vxice]

here is a partial list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_fly_list#False_positives_and_other_controversial_cases note that senator Kennedy once was stopped because the name T Kennedy was on the list as an alias and it took him 3 weeks to have his name removed. by the way it was estimated that 7,000 Americans match that 'name'

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what would happen if the airlines put up a sign, "No Blacks Allowed!". There may be no "right to fly", but when the government starts telling people that they can't use a commercial service and provides no explanation and no proof that anyone has done anything wrong, I'm going to call bullshit. Especially considering the number of false-positives the no-fly list turns up (forbidding children from flying because they have the same name as some suspect. Or Senators. Senators are at least someone understandable, they're a pretty untrustworthy lot)

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[rickb928]

"Except for the fact that the percentage of suicide bombers vs the number of passenger miles flown is so ridiculously small it shouldn't warrant such a heavy handed response. Even if we removed all the security from airports there probably wouldn't be that many more incidents if any"

I disagree with your assessment. Hijackings to Cuba were in the vogue until security made them pretty much pointless. Suicide bombers don't actually want to anywhere but heaven, so any destination for the plane is both irrelevant and moot, though you could make the point that U.S. bound planes would be more popular than others.

Actually, try leaving your front door open at home, and announcing that fact down at the local coffee shop. repeatedly. See how that lack of security works for ya. Haven't seen anyone scratching at your door lately, have you? Must not be any real problem.

And suicide bombers are at least as motivated as your local meth head getting a cuppa at Starbucks.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched a "Special" on 9/11 and they said one of the persons who were supposed to take part on the action was unable to board because of the list.

That must have been quite a "special," seeing as the list didn't even exist at the time.

Another thing that could have helped was the "No Hookers List." If they had that report, they could have seen the Muslims who were racking up charges at strip joints.

Alas, this apparently an urban legend: http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a false dichotomy.

How about we stop giving people reasons to terrorize us?

Lets start my not creating illegal wars, and disregarding the politics and culture of other countries that are different from ours.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[nospam007]

"Not really. Everytime we have an underwear-bomber,..."

We need to capture one with a bomb where the sun doesn't shine, that would get rid of the underwear problem.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[countertrolling]

...a 6 year old kid isn't a terrorist...

Never trust anyone over three

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[freeweed]

Now they have to go through channels to get the kid removed from the NFL.

Tell him to try dog fighting.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[zill]

you have no right to travel by air.

Does any article of the Constitution specifically deny me the right to air travel?

If not, then the Ninth Amendment grants me that right.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[ewoods]

In response, you're goddamned right they can be denied a privilege. Do you think a repeat-offender drunk driver who has killed should have the privilege to drive again? Not a chance.

Now, if you want to argue that they were denied the privilege to fly without due process, well, there's no due process for preemptively denying that privilege. The guy's name showed on a watch list - there's usually a reason for it and for those who shouldn't be there, they have legal recourse to get removed.

Your arguments are red herrings laden with a smattering of pure bullshit. This guy has a right to walk anywhere he wants, travel freely, until someone with more power gets in his way. Sucks to be him.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, and then we can force all americans to convert to Muslim religions and eliminate democracy. There will ALWAYS be reasons to terrorize us.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[c6gunner]

Your mom collapses with no damage.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[The Spoonman]

it was good enough in the 1800s, the last time the judges did it, dammit.

Now, now...no making fun of the barely living fossils that make up our Supreme Court just because they're a bunch of clueless ninnies who are so far out of touch with modern reality. Our founding fathers thought it would be a good idea they be appointed for life, and just because history has shown that to be a terrible idea does not mean we're going to change it any time soon!

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[c6gunner]

Except for the fact that the percentage of suicide bombers vs the number of passenger miles flown is so ridiculously small it shouldn't warrant such a heavy handed response.

I agree completely. Proactive responses are pointless, everyone knows that! That's why I've been working hard over the last year to convince my city that we don't need a fire department, smoke alarms, or all those silly building-codes designed to prevent fires. We have so few people die in fires that there's clearly no way to justify such over-the-top policies.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[zill]

by the way it was estimated that 7,000 Americans match that 'name'

I sure hope these 7,000 potential terrorists have been arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay already.

Especially that senator. He's the most suspicious one out of all of them, being a senator and all.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Mister Whirly]

Ah, Arizona - the bastion for rational thinking when it comes to discrimination. They have even recently decided to oficially recognize Martin Luther King day. Hooray for Arizona!

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[theripper]

There is a big difference between driving a car and riding in one. Repeat offender drunk drivers can still be passengers in cars. Now do you understand what he was saying?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they have to go through channels to get the kid removed from the NFL.

There's lots of ways to do this...bringing a loaded gun to a strip club seems to be a popular route, though taking a drunk girl into a bathroom for unspecified debauchery seems to work too.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[ewoods]

Is there any doubt in your mind that a passenger on an airplane can do more damage than a passenger in a car? Come on! News for nerds? Y'all should be insightful and intelligent, but his post gets ridiculous rant modded insightful and I am modded as a troll? Seriously?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Mr. Freeman]

You're making the false assumption that the no fly list is there to prevent terrorism.

Think about this for 10 seconds. If you had evidence that someone was going to blow up an airplane then you should arrest the fucker. Just as if you had evidence that someone was going to rob a bank you'd arrest him.
If you have NO evidence that someone was going to commit a crime then you shouldn't do shit and just let him on his way.

The no fly list says "we have no evidence regarding you, so you're not a threat in the eyes of the LAW, but we're going to restrict your freedom anyway." It's shit like this, the removal of our freedom for no reason, that seriously warrants armed rebellion against the government.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm all the services you just listed are REACTIVE. not PROACTIVE.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Krahar]

Your arguments are red herrings laden with a smattering of pure bullshit.

It's funny, I've found that on Slashdot, people very often pretty accurately describe what they are doing, but they do so by attributing that exact behavior to the person they are having a discussion with, no matter how inaccurate that clearly is. This turns out to be more true the more profanity the description contains. It would be ironic if it were not so obvious that it kind of must be apparent to the people doing it, such as you. Why you people persist in this is a mystery to me, given how stupid it makes you look to everyone with half a brain. Perhaps in a moment you will tell me that I'm a moron with no idea what I'm saying, further proving my point.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Eric Smith]

Sorry, but there most certainly *IS* a right to travel by air. It is one of the unenumerated rights, protected by the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The government can only deny us this right if they have a power to do so, granted to the government by the people, by means of the Constitution. I am not presently able to find the section of the Constitution that gives the government the power to deny the people the right to travel by any particular means.

Note that the right to air travel does not compel any other party to help me to exercise this right. I can't demand that United give me a ticket; the right simply guarantees that I can negotiate a contract with United to pay them to transport me, or to purchase (or build) and fly my own plane. If the government wants to deny me that right, they have to have a specific power to do so. The government does not have the power to arbitrarily deny rights just because it suits their purposes to do so. That is a key difference between the US government and most governments of the past (and even many of the present).

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[sconeu]

He's especially suspicious because he's dead.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[jmcvetta]

Yea, and then we can force all americans to convert to Muslim religions and eliminate democracy. There will ALWAYS be reasons to terrorize us.

Ya know, I disagree pretty strongly with many policies of the US government. Yet that never inspires me to blow stuff up. That's probably because the violence the government engages in overseas never directly touches my life. Persuasion and political activism are much more appealing than terrorism to most people, when there is no violence to incite them to reciprocal violence.

However, I suspect I would feel an awful, awful lot more malicious & violent if an American bombing raid had blown up my family. Maybe if we stopped squandering our national wealth and moral authority -- if we still have any of either left -- on wars of aggression, then folks in other countries wouldn't feel so motivated to attack us.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[ooshna]

Your mom collapses and cracks concrete foundations but so what?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[MaskedSlacker]

And suicide bombers are at least as motivated as your local meth head getting a cuppa at Starbucks.

Since when could meth heads afford Starbucks?

On a more serious note, your post does nothing to address the fact that the no-fly list is a waste of time and money as a preventive measure, because it catches orders of magnitude more innocent flyers (including one US Senator) than actual terrorist suspects.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[MaskedSlacker]

It's already illegal to conspire to commit criminal acts (generally speaking).

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Lakitu]

There were three twin towers???? how come the third one isn't on any of the TV footage?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Lehk228]

so how exactly does having the suicide bombers set off their bomb in a crowded security terminal help anything?

just admit it, the post-9/11 security changes have been pointless security theater meant to placate the pants-shitters rather than prevent actual attacks.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Kvasio]

unless his city runs the registry of matchbox and lighter buyers...

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Lakitu]

There is a right to drive a car. Have fun driving one without getting approval beforehand (aka "licensed"), especially if you plan on running red lights. If you get internet in jail you can come back and post a snarky reply.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Kvasio]

It's not only about survival rate as an aircraft passenger; it's also about survival rate for people inside the skyscrapers.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting angry isn't going to make your point any more valid.

Imagine a passenger on a greyhound bus setting off a backpack nuke in manhattan. More damage than 9/11, absolutely no security theater.

Back to the point of vux984's argument, being a passenger in a plane is no different than being a passenger in a car as far as rights and privileges are concerned. A person has a right to unrestricted travel and a government that restricts this right for no good reason is doing evil.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[ArsonSmith]

Morons even made it illegal to be in the country illegally.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[theripper]

Damned phone wasn't logged in.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Air Force 1 ?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[ewoods]

I'm not angry, just surprised.

Where is this "right to unrestricted travel" defined? It's not. You're attempting to make passengers of all vehicles equal and that's just not the case. A passenger on a scooter cannot do the damage to others that a passenger in a plane or bus can do.

I can restrict your ability and means of travel. If you want to cross my property, I can say no. Or I can say do it on foot, but not in a motor vehicle. The government can do the same in the public interest. Would you allow any average joe to drive a rocket-propelled car around? Seriously- people have put JDAMs on vehicles - should they be able to drive them down your street? How about when your kids are playing in the front yard? Consider that and then argue this non-existent right to travel and the means by which it's accomplished.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[ewoods]

It is a privilege, not a right. Try driving drink and killing a few people and see how long you continue to have that "right". A right is something that cannot or should not be taken away. A privilege can be taken away and must in some circumstances.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[rickb928]

Delaying the innocent is annoying, but not a sign of failure.

Not preventing an known suspect who then does cause harm, that would be a failure.

This is the dilemma we face. If we succeed in keeping bad guys off the planes, we will not know how many gave up at security checkpoints and went home. We'll know if it fails, though.

And Senators could learn a lot by having to deal with what *we* deal with

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[rickb928]

You may be right, but so far it seems not very many see blowing up the terminal as a desireable goal.

We know how they feel about airplanes, though. And it's not just about bombers. Carrying weapons onboard was what made the 9/11 attacks possible.

Now, if they could just stop the people that want to avoid checking baggage and bring oversized stuff onboard to fill the bins. Every flight I've been on for 4 years has had so many morons with oversized carryons that there's no room for mine, which is the right size. Now, I can't even complain, or they just bump me off.

Pus.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[selven]

And we now have security. The locked and reinforced doors to the cabin. That's what would have completely prevented 9/11, and with that the only thing we realistically need is explosive/bioweapon sniffing.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DCMonkey]

IANAL, but I suspect the power derives from the Commerce Clause of the Constitiution, the Interstate Commerce Act and the airlines' legal status as "common carriers".

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you lock the cabin door and prevent the planes from being hijacked. Problem solved.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[StikyPad]

That only works for 3 years.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[h4rr4r]

I choose neither.

Lightning has killed more folks in the past 50 years than terrorism in the USA.

You are hundreds of times more likely to die in your car on the way to the airport than in an airline related terrorist attack.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[vux984]

A right is something that cannot or should not be taken away. A privilege can be taken away and must in some circumstances.

You are not differentiating right and privilege very well. What you've said about privileges is true of rights. What is a right? Is 'to go on living' a right or a privilege? Because like a privilege it can be taken away, and in some US states at least, it "must in some circumstances" be taken away.

Anything that I might call a 'right' is little more than a privilege, it would seem, by your reckoning.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[h4rr4r]

No.

Cost of delays vs cost of alternative is the only metric to measure this by. Simple fact is lost economic activity and the delays themselves cost far more than any terrorist attack.

You argument is like a rock that keeps away bears, we have no idea how many bears did not attack due to the rock.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[sortius_nod]

It's not "delaying innocent" people, it's refusing to allow people to fly and giving them no reason or recourse for it.

Just another example of US paranoia, nothing more.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[vux984]

There is a big difference between driving a car and riding in one. Repeat offender drunk drivers can still be passengers in cars. Now do you understand what he was saying?

A drunk passenger is still a risk or threat...at any moment he might distract the driver, or overpower the driver.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[h4rr4r]

Still more folks are dieing on the roads. When measured as dollars spent per life saved Airport security is one worst ways to spend your money.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[TheTurtlesMoves]

There is no stated reason for getting on the no fly list. You are not allowed to ask why you are on it and you are not allowed to challenge it. There are babies on the list. Dead people are on the list. How the hell did they attend a terrorist training camp?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[vux984]

I can restrict your ability and means of travel... The government can do the same in the public interest.

They certainly can. They can and regularly do restrict peoples travel options down to "back and forth in a locked cell" if they want to, in the public interest. Is not being in prison merely a privilege then? Of course not.

So where is the line between my right to be free, and my priviledge to avail myself of modern transportation options? Or is that it right there? As soon as I so much as step onto an elevator... I'm out of 'rights' and into 'priviledge' territory?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[bogidu]

I think the only people that have the right to due process are American citizens? Or have we granted all of our rights and protections as citizens to everyone in the world? Nevermind, scratch that question.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[conspirator57]

good luck with that in practice.

look I agree with you, but Bush and many other proponents of the omnipotent unitary executive have been ignoring that part of the constitution for quite a long time now. too bad some Republicans are just now remembering that freedom is important...

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DCMonkey]

Here's an interesting article that in-part covers how No Fly Lists butt heads with Constitutional rights to free travel.

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-8/Florence.pdf

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[stephanruby]

I agree completely. Proactive responses are pointless, everyone knows that! That's why I've been working hard over the last year to convince my city that we don't need a fire department, smoke alarms, or all those silly building-codes designed to prevent fires. We have so few people die in fires that there's clearly no way to justify such over-the-top policies.

Are you advocating that firemen now frisk and x-ray every person for lighters and flammable materials in certain high-risk fire areas? because that's how freaking proactive Homeland Security has become. Let's compare oranges to oranges please, not firemen to the TSA.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know, I disagree pretty strongly with many policies of the US government. Yet that never inspires me to blow stuff up.

ur not doin it right

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[ooshna]

I never said three twin towers. But you forget that more than 2 buildings were destroyed that day. These videos are alittle tinfoil hat but just look at the info and not the spin How did WTC 7 collapse? also there is Incriminating evidence and finally atleast watch this one and make your decision on if the building fell because of the fires and not something more controlled 4409 unseen footage

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Lakitu]

Oh I see, I was confused because you said there was a tower (only the twin towers were generally referred to as towers, and only because of the cutesy nickname) that collapsed with "no damage" (there was a blazing inferno inside and the building was completely destroyed).

After clearing that up I completely understand which building you were referring to. Thanks.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Lemmy Caution]

And far bigger than either of those are conditions related to diet: heart disease and diabetes in particular. If we were serious about saving American lives, Ronald McDonald would be the first on the no-fly list.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[ooshna]

Oh its all good. You really should check out the videos though.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather the hot chick in front of me has to remove another piece of clothing, please.

Really -- next time you fly, look at the line in front of you. Yeah, most of the folks are fat and/or male, but invariably there's at least one gal in range for a decent view who'd look much better if they had more mandatory disrobage.

Now go on and complain about your security theater, and why it should or shouldn't be converted to porn theater...

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DragonWriter]

Considering the main point of the no-fly list is to prevent suicide bombings,

No, the main point of the no fly list is:
(1) to present the appearance of "doing something" about terrorism without any accountability for actually doing anything (i.e., security theater), and
(2) to get people used to tolerating arbitrary and unaccountable deprivations of liberty without due process.

Its probably more successful at the latter than the former, as most people don't seem to be fooled into thinking it actually provides substantial security, but no one seems to care enough to actually demand that it either be ended or made accountable.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm sure you'll ignore this as it doesn't fit into your dogma, but I live in a pretty rough neighborhood. I never thought so until the police told me that there is more crime in my area than in what I thought was the bad part of town. There is a soup kitchen at the end of my street and a pretty much non-stop stream of homeless people wondering between there and the library (apparently the library is a convenient place where young girls can be found).

For a period of time, I had a roommate. He had an extremely stupid girlfriend who lived here with him. There were a number of times I would come home after work and find the front door wide open with the A/C blaring. Nobody was home. Apparently she'd known enough to realize that you should lock the door when you leave, but wasn't so clever as to actually close the door as well.

I also order a lot of stuff via mail order and always have the packages left on my front doorstep. In the open. With homeless people always wondering by. Half the time the boxes aren't even plain brown boxes, but regular product boxes with a mailing label stuck on them so you can clearly see what they are.

I've lived here for almost 10 years. In all that time, my house has been burglarized once - by my landlords' crackhead sister's crackhead boyfriend, who stole the key from my landlord and then just walked in. They took some tools and some coin rolls. I changed all the locks.

I'm not saying you should be completely reckless in your security, but if you want to live in your comfortable police state please move to somewhere like Albania and leave the rest of us in the U.S. alone.

TYVM.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Scrameustache]

The government does not have the power to arbitrarily deny rights just because it suits their purposes to do so. That is a key difference between the US government and most governments of the past (and even many of the present).

Super insightful post, but you misspelled "theoretically" there at the end. Sorry to nitpick on what I assume to be some hilarious spellcheck glitch.

Or, without the sarcasm:

You forgot the constitutional joker: Interstate Commerce. That sucker lets you do ANYTHING.
Example: Interstate commercial air travel is a kind of interstate commerce, so they get to make any rule they want, yay! Or... Say you don't want sick people growing pot in their house and smoking it there? Interstate commerce will give you an excuse to take those suffering folk and really fuck up their lives, just because! Though I guess that trick only works if you have soulless monsters in the supreme court. Like that guy that laughs when he says that torture is not punishment, he's a really horrible person, and he's got tons of power.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that on paper your government doesn't have that power, but in practice they actually do arbitrarily deny rights just because it suits their purposes, and they do it on a daily basis. Lets just be happy we can still bitch about it on the internet.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Scrameustache]

seriously warrants armed rebellion against the government.

That would make for an interesting newsday. Lots of filmed explosions that would both shock and awe the audience, the ratings will be phenomenal. And then business as usual so the news can milk those targeted strikes for all they're worth.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Wandering Idiot]

I never said three twin towers. But you forget that more than 2 buildings were destroyed that day. These videos are alittle tinfoil hat but just look at the info and not the spin How did WTC 7 collapse? [youtube.com] also there is Incriminating evidence [youtube.com] and finally atleast watch this one and make your decision on if the building fell because of the fires and not something more controlled 4409 unseen footage [youtube.com]

So, if I'm understanding your premise, the mysterious conspiracy which destroyed the Twin Towers through some method other than the goddamned 767's full of jet fuel that struck them also decided to destroy the WTC 7 building across the street despite it not being hit directly by anything for... what purpose exactly? Did they just have some extra explosives left over and didn't know what else to do with them?

I also like how you refer the conclusions of pretty much every structural engineer who examined the events as "spin". Because of course the building couldn't have fallen due to damage and uncontrolled fires from two of the largest skyscrapers in the world collapsing right next to it - that's what they *want* you to think!

I'm not saying some elements of the government and intelligence services didn't take advantage of the events for their own goals afterwards, or couldn't have theoretically been involved in letting them happen in the first place (however unlikely), but if you can't accept that just maybe being hit by giant metal tubes full of liquid specifically designed for combustion in full view of hundreds of witnesses might be a reason for the structural collapse of some buildings, there's not much point in attempting to hold a rational conversation with you.

Also, random videos on youtube are not generally a particularly reliable source of information.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Darinbob]

And what's the whole point of it? You're not a criminal (yet) but have no other restrictions on your life except for being forbidden to use one particular public means of transportation. Big deal. If someone really is a terrorist, being on a no-fly list does nothing to stop them. Nothing. They'll take a train, or a boat, or a car. If they want to blow up bridge or a building they won't need an airplane to do it.

Being on a no-fly list is not the same as being forbidden from entering the country. Many of these people are already in the country; many are US citizens. This is just some weird system that doesn't fit into our normal legal framework. This is just one of those feel-good things. People want to know that someone's doing something about dangerous people on airplanes, because airplanes were targets in the past. It's also easy to do this for planes since there's a tight funnel to get on them. You could not easily implement a no-drive list for the roads in front of federal buildings.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Darinbob]

Maintaining a state of paranoia is crucial to getting elected.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

George Bush killed more Americans by sending them to Iraq than the other terrorists did by collapsing the buildings.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The commerce clause. As long as you're flying across state lines... or even in the national airspace, since I suppose you could consider it a navigable something or other... guess what?

It's pretty open and shut. A very straightforward application.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Philip_the_physicist]

The right to travel by air is an intrinsic right, which can only *legitimately* be removed for the greater good of others, and only with clear evidence that both the greater good of others is in fact real and that the removal of that right is the least intrusive means of protecting that greater good. However, this does not require anyone else to carry them, and does not mean that we cannot, for example, forbid untrained people flying aeroplanes, because that s very likely to be unsafe.

Likewise, you have an inherent right to healthcare: in normal circumstances no-one may prevent others treating you if you desire it (if someone is sentenced to death, you obviously lose that right when the sentence is executed). What is under debate (and I'm not going to get into who is right, that's not important) is whether (a) ensuring that every person can get treatment without finacially crippling themselves and (b) what is the least intrusive way to do this.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[lul_wat]

More information requested

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[theripper]

As a citizen of the USA I have the right to travel across the country freely. In a car, on foot, on a bus, etc. The government places no restrictions upon that travel when I am a passenger. As a passenger, or on foot, I and kill thousands of people at one time. Still the government places no restrictions on me.

The only time restrictions are placed on me is when I board a plane.

I would argue that the passenger of a plane offers no more threat than a guy walking down a street in manhattan, both can kill thousands at once. If that is so then why placemore restrictions on the passenger of the plane?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Macrat]

Not to split hairs here. But there is no right to FLY a plane. Just as there is no right to DRIVE a car.

Unless you are in California.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Geminii]

It's more like announcing that your front door is no longer guarded by Bozo And His Balloon Antics.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[michaelhood]

In Arizona they're trying to pass a no walk/swim list law so they can question anyone who "looks like they could be in the country illegally." Poor native americans, they'll never know what hit them!

I think that law is a joke, but it's hard to blame them for trying when the federal government won't properly secure the border; which is one of the few things it was chartered to do in our constitution (common defense).

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Yvanhoe]

Terrorism is not the core ideology that triggered anti-terrorism. It is anti-terrorisme that is a central dogma that arrange to generate as much terrorists as possible to justify its own existence.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Sique]

So when do they pass a Bill to make crimes illegal?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Sique]

Normally the general rule of thumb to make a difference between a right and a priviledge should be:

A right is something you have until someone takes it away.
A priviledge is something you don't have until someone gives it to you.

(And yes, you can take a right away. Think about the right to freedom of assemblage, which is routinely denied to all prisoners.)

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The government can only deny us this right if they have a power to do so, granted to the government by the people, by means of the Constitution. I am not presently able to find the section of the Constitution that gives the government the power to deny the people the right to travel by any particular means.

Close, but no cigar.

I haven't actually read up on how the NFL works in practice, but I would suspect that the way it actually does is as follows.

You are NOT forbidden to fly; in fact, you aren't told that you can or can't do anything. Rather, the AIRLINES are forbidden to let you board a plane. They don't have to comply with this if they want to, but it'll be part of the requirements they'll have to meet for getting a license. Does the government have a right to regulate commercial airlines? I don't know, myself, but I think it's a far less contentious assertion that they do (although you might still disagree and say that the constitution doesn't talk about airplanes).

It's a kind of blackmail, of course, but it's a legal kind of blackmail, just like blackmailing states into not lowering their legal drinking age if they don't want to lose federal highway funding.

The government does not have the power to arbitrarily deny rights just because it suits their purposes to do so. That is a key difference between the US government and most governments of the past (and even many of the present).

Again, close but no cigar. The government doesn't have the RIGHT to arbitrarily deny rights; unfortunately, as has been shown repeatedly, it most certainly DOES have the power to do so.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[mpe]

Simply put, if you have a suspect the correct response is investigations, trial and eventually jail.

Something which wasn't really done after 9/11...

See trough the security veil: the air marshals program totalled a 200billion costs to american taxpayers, while arresting _four_ people and mostly for non terrorism related crimes. That's to give you a measure how effective are large scale lenitive measures.

In the same time more air marshals having been arrested.

And they failed to catch the underpant bomber which luckily was an incompetent.

Whilst a big fuss is made about "Islamic terrorists" there appear to be plenty of incompetents. e.g. Richard Reid, Kafeel Ahmed, Bilal Abdullah, Nicky Reilly and now Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. These people certainly arn't Ted Kaczynski or even Timothy McVeigh. Nor does Al Quada appear to be anything like as big a problem as The Real IRA. Especially considering that these people are actually capable of attacking military bases.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[mpe]

How about we just make it illegal to attend a terrorist training camp and arrest those who do?

Is that ALL terrorist training camps or will and exception be made for "friendly" ones and those run by the US Government. Such as The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation...

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic, anonymous tips could never be followed up, since they can't be considered as evidence.

What the no fly list actually says is "We don't have evidence to put you away, but we do suspect that if we were to let you on a flight, you would commit a terrible crime." What do you expect them to do instead of denying them access to flights? Put a surveillance/response team on each flight where a passenger is on this list, so that they can gather evidence and prevent any harm being done if needed?

Note that I don't support the existence of a no fly list. I can't think of a better alternative, but that shouldn't be my problem.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[rickb928]

Consider yourself fortunate to live in a place where you don't experience much loss due to crime. I live in Mesa, Arizona. Between illegal immigrants, meth heads, wannabe gangbangers, and people just down on their luck, if I leave a shovel stuck in a pile of crushed rock in the front yard to go inside and get a bottle of water, it gets stolen. Twice.

And this part of Mesa is considered, by my two friends on the police force, to be relatively safe and crime-free.

Anecdotal evidence aside, if your neighborhood is actually so safe, why worry if the ditzy GF leaves the door open?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Chris Mattern]

Morons even made it illegal to be in the country illegally.

Because, of course, it should be legal to be in the country illegally. Wait, what?

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the people that attend a terrorist training camp get charged with a crime and given due process? What's so hard about that. If they have evidence, press charges. No evidence, no restriction of freedom.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DavidTC]

The whole Truthers movement is full of such stupidity I don't even know where to start, honestly.

Look, someone wants to premise a monstrous government conspiracy to fly airplanes into the WTC, Pentagon, and (not) the White House, okay. The Bush administration is not exactly known for...truthfulness in reasons to go to war, and it's something I can conceive of Cheney setting up, although it would be hard to keep quiet.

What I can't conceive of is a conspiracy to bring down WTC 7 (Why?), or them shipping explosives into the WTC to bring it down because, somehow, legally, someone isn't allowed to tear it down and wants to. Yeah, that's a sane plan...the US government, in the middle of their murder of thousands of people to fake a reason for a war, decided to participate in a microscopic billion dollar insurance scam. (Yes, a billion dollars to the US government is microscopic.)

Or, and here's a good one, the US government being so insanely fucking stupid as to fake the crash with missiles. And then reuse the planes elsewhere.

Oh, and they used, as the fall guys, real terrorists that they know are still alive somewhere, who can show up and disprove the entire story later. (As opposed to just, I dunno, making up terrorists. They control the damn 'terrorist databases'..no one would even notice if they just invented some people and stuck them in there.)

All this are actual truther beliefs.

What's more, they aren't some incidental truther beliefs, they are the actual 'evidence' that they use for the conspiracy. You can't actually remove the inherently stupid nonsense, because the 'fact' the building couldn't fall by itself 'is' the evidence.

If you're in the government and you do 911...well, first of all, the WTC is a few stupid target. If you have four planes, attack the pentagon, the white house, um...the statue of liberty, and somewhere else that Americans actually care about. Then you set up the signs of a fake terrorist operation, complete with fake terrorists. Then you actually fly the planes into the actual buildings, because the point isn't to 'destroy' anything, you nimrods. It's to 'be attacked'.

There's a sort of major brain-damage going on in many conspiracy theorists who never stop to ask themselves 'Does this 'fact' I've discovered even make sense if someone actually wanted to do what I'm claiming they wanted to do?'

I dunno, this is the same reason I have trouble with JFk assassination theories. Not because I don't think there wasn't a conspiracy to assassinate him..I actually do think that. Either the mob or James Jesus Angleton. (I flip back and forth, and sometimes I go with 'both'.)

I just think the damn conspiracy paid off Oswald who shot him from the Texas Book Depository, and for decade moronic conspiracy theorists have fucked around with asserting that the assassination 'couldn't have happened' in a way it clearly did.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Boogaroo]

Ronald McDonald would never make it onto the plane. He's a wanted man.

Logorama
http://www.movieweb.com/movie/FI7ZKaacWmIjae/VIxLwDBxj8PZBD

(Hilariously creative short film with a world where everything is a logo.)

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DavidTC]

Where is this "right to unrestricted travel" defined?

The goddamn Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 13
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DavidTC]

Um, no. Just because the US government can take something away doesn't mean it is not a right.

They can, as along as it's one of the rights they can't do anything to. (Like the protections outlined in the 1st amendment, which they can't take away.)

For example, 'liberty' is a right. It is not an enumerated right, but it is, none-the-less, a right. But they can take away.

They just have to use due process to take it away.

Likewise, 'freedom of moment' is a fairly important, old, and historically recognized right. Here's a history of it in the US.

It's been back and forth, but it's worth pointing out that US citizens even have the right to travel internationally, and it was found unconstitutional to ban us from traveling to Cuba. (We can't spend money there, but we can legally go there.)

Yes, we've started requiring licenses to operate vehicles, which, in a way, seriously limits this right to travel...but we've never required licenses to simply travel as a passenger before, making it impossible to travel. If they can require government approval to travel as a passenger in private airplanes, they can require government approval to travel as a passenger in private automobiles or private boats, rendering it practically impossible to reach most places, and actually physically impossible to reach some places.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DavidTC]

Correct.

In the US, it is a privilege to operate a motor vehicle. Cars or airplanes, and usually even motorized boats. We can bar, or remove this privilege, from people, without them committing a crime. hell, we can remove it from generally protected reasons, like disability. If you are blinded, for example, we will take away that privilege, whereas not only do you still have the right to vote, we're required to make accommodations to help enable you to vote.

However, is also a right. Called the freedom of movement.

You have the right to live anywhere you want in the US. Or, even, anywhere in the world. (Assuming the other country will take you.) You have the right to travel anywhere, you have the right to live anywhere, if you're a US citizen, you have the right to return to the US.

These rights can, of course, be taken away via due process of the law. For example, when you're imprisoned, you don't even have the right to pick which prison you're imprisoned in.

But there has to be a due process. The government decided to put a name on the list and demanding, under the law, that private companies not transport you is not constitutional.

Hell, them decided to use a government list of their own free will is not constitutional. Yes, private businesses can refuse you service for whatever reason (As long as it isn't a disallowed one, like race.), but a government issuing 'recommendations' that 95% of an industry not do business with you is, quite clearly, a conspiracy to deny you of your rights, even if it is voluntary on the part of the companies.

And the whole thing is, on top of it, a bill of attainder.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DavidTC]

While I hate the no-fly list, I have to laugh at people complaining about dead people on the list.

Dead people who attempt to board a plane probably should be stopped. Either they're lying about who they are, or they're undead. Either way, they're a security risk.

Keep the undead off our airplanes!

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[orngjce223]

No, that would be the no-fry list.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[kalirion]

In a criminal case (which terrorism and conspiracy are) you do not want to let the suspect know you are on to them until the cops come to arrest them. With the watch lists, all a sleeper has to do is take a commercial flight, and they will immediately know if they are on a watch list.

Actually the most dangerous of the terrorists are not on the fly list, for that very reason. At least according to a Boston Legal episode in which Captain Kirk was on the no-fly list.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Because she left the AC on too dumbass.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

All this are actual truther beliefs.

It's really easy to cherry pick the dumb ideas and ignore the plausible scenarios. It isn't like "truthers" are all of exactly the same mind about these issues, just as slashdot isn't a hive-mind either. The one unifying theme though is that the official story has got more than a few holes in it. You can't blame people for trying to fill in the details and sometimes coming up a little crazy in the process. Look at how crazy some of the stuff we do know to be true was - Watergate and Iran-Contra being two cases where most people would have said, "that's too full of stupidity to be true."

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting we make it illegal to associate with others, or to pursue information?

The no fly list is simply a de facto way to accomplish that exact goal without having to pass laws which state it clearly.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[rickb928]

Oh, that's just petty. :)

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DavidTC]

Ah, yes, every time I mention stupid Truther ideas I get someone saying 'it's easy to cherry pick dumb ideas'.

The point is, without these 'dumb ideas', there's no evidence at all. 90% of Truther mythology rests on the fact that the behavior of the WTC couldn't be 'normal', that explosives had to have brought the towers or WTC7 down.

They point to 'evidence' this happened, they point to all sorts of conspiratorial nonsense as reasons why this was done, but not a single one of them can explain why the hell 'murdering people to lie us into war' would, particularly, need the towers to collapse, and hence why it would be a reasonable idea to rigs things so they would. The best concept, like I said, is some sort of idiotic insurance scam or a way to cover up the theft of a billion dollars.

Once you remove all the bogus 'evidence' Truthers are using that demonstrate how airplanes couldn't have realize been flown into buildings, once you remove all the inherently stupid theories, Truthers have no evidence at all.

And neither Iran-Contra or Watergate were stupid. One of them was 'drug dealing to make money' (Which, duh, happens all the time, just usually not by the government.) and the other was 'wiring tapping your political opponent'. Both those things actually make sense.

For either of those to be an analogy to Truthers, Watergate would have to involve the theory that a dozen people were drugged and had RFID chips implanted in them to turn on and off wiretapping devices when they were near, and the mysterious 5 minute disappearances of all those people (While they were presumably implanted) was all the evidence we had of Watergate.

And then I run around saying 'Um, in the real world, when you illegally wiretap people, you run the wiretap all the time, as that's much easier. Do you have any evidence besides your idiotic RFID theory, which, incidentally, is totally bogus?'

Likewise, 'Um, in the real world, when you frame someone for a crime, it's much easier to actually commit the crime. If you frame them for flying airplanes into buildings, guess who you do that? You take those airplanes, and fly them into buildings. And you don't do incredibly stupid shit like rig the building in advance unless you have a really good reason it needs to come down. Um, duh.'

If you want to assert there's evidence of that happening, if there's evidence the government either flew the planes or recruited actual terrorists to do so, be my guest, but I've actually read quite a lot of Truther sites, and not only is that not one of the theory, all their theories, all the evidence that what they say is true, is based on the 'fact' that the buildings were not taken down purely by airplanes.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

They point to 'evidence' this happened, they point to all sorts of conspiratorial nonsense as reasons why this was done, but not a single one of them can explain why the hell 'murdering people to lie us into war' would, particularly, need the towers to collapse, and hence why it would be a reasonable idea to rigs things so they would. The best concept, like I said, is some sort of idiotic insurance scam or a way to cover up the theft of a billion dollars.

Why would we need to let pearl harbor happen in order to get the US into the war?

And neither Iran-Contra or Watergate were stupid. One of them was 'drug dealing to make money' (Which, duh, happens all the time, just usually not by the government.) and the other was 'wiring tapping your political opponent'. Both those things actually make sense.

Sure they do, in 20/20 hindsight when you know all the details. See my point again about not knowing all the details.

You, and your bizzaro bolding are really no different from the truthers. You only see what you want to see and you frame your arguments to deliberately ignore the inconvenient parts.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I've actually read quite a lot of Truther sites, and not only is that not one of the theory, all their theories, all the evidence that what they say is true, is based on the 'fact' that the buildings were not taken down purely by airplanes.

Lolz. You are just as batty as the worst of the truthers. Your claim is that at the root of all, or rather all, truther theories is that the buildings were taken down by more than just airplanes.

Except, the very first item on the list of truther consipiracies at wikipedia is simply that some people high up in the US government knew in advance and chose to do nothing. They very first conspiracy theory on the list has nothing to do with your claims.

Its sad when someone with such a low-uid goes all crackpot. Get some help dude.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it when the conspiracy involves landing the real planes elsewhere, then flying dummy (possibly remote controlled) planes into the buildings. Cause, like, the government wouldn't want to hurt any passengers or anything when they are killing thousands of people in a skyscraper.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, I do not believe the Truthers.

But when you have incidents like Golf of Tonkin or the Operation Northwood documents, it does make you wonder.

While I would not simply pass off the incident as fake, I'd rather question how it all came together.
Let's be honest, why fake it when doing that would take MORE work?

In one of the Northwood case samples they actually talked about shooting rockets at their own ships then blame the Cubans for it so they could invade.
Same with military plane painted with red-cross emblems.
Then it takes about blowing up US 'beloved structures'.

Add them up ...

Remember, the US had ties to Osama, The Taliban, Saddam and other 'colourful' entities.

How hard would it be to set up a cell yourself and get them to do this work?
I recall a case in the US where a FBI agent did exactly this, just so he could bust the cell to further his carrier.

Think it is not possible? The US/German govs did do this in Germany! The set up cells of right-wing fanatics and stockpiled weapons so that if the Reds invaded, they would start terrorist cells.
Just like the Reds did with the RAF in Germany.

Anyone remember the Iran-Contra affair? Selling weapons to the enemy of your friend (Saddam was our friend!!) so that you could sponsor the Contras in S.A.

As for Oswald. I do think he shot Kennedy, but what I find strange is why someone would want to shoot 3 times in short order (rapid fire).
I would think a sniper would only shoot once. At max twice.
But not 'how many shots can I get off?' style shooting.

Let's be honest, JFK/US had sooo many enemies, even home made ones, they must have been standing in line.

And then the original assassin gets whacked?
Just like Saddam, you do not want them talking about what they know.

The reason why conspiracies work so well is because the truth just sounds so crazy.
What is easier?
a) a terrist cell did something and we are 'only' going to stop them
b) my government did it just so that it can go to war with a country

Sheep!

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[hab136]

What I can't conceive of is a conspiracy to bring down WTC 7 (Why?),

Several investigative government agencies were housed in WTC7 (Securities & Exchange Commission, US Secret Service, IRS). A good way to lose a big investigation and all the evidence associated with it is to blow up the building! Or, like the official story, it just was just collateral damage from the towers.

or them shipping explosives into the WTC to bring it down because, somehow, legally, someone isn't allowed to tear it down and wants to.

Pay $xxx to remove all the asbestos and do needed repairs, or blow it up and cash in the $4 to $7 billion insurance check. Insurance fraud should be readily understandable.

Is $4 billion enough of an incentive to kill a few thousand people? Maybe, maybe not - maybe the towers were going to be knocked over anyways and someone let their friend get in on the deal. Looking for just one motive and actor for everything that happened that day is naive.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[JimFive]

Delaying the innocent is annoying, but not a sign of failure.

Not preventing an known suspect who then does cause harm, that would be a failure.

Yeah, I know I'm late to this, but a false positive is just as much a sign of failure as a false negative. And, when every "hit" turns out to be a false positive the entire system suffers, because the screeners KNOW that they've never pulled a guilty person out of line.
--
JimFive

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[rickb928]

"because the screeners KNOW that they've never pulled a guilty person out of line."

This story and of course this one also, and this one would indicate that at least some people that could legitimately be considered a threat were in fact detained.

Not a stellar record, perhaps, but not failure. And not a record of no actual denials of credible suspects. Imperfect? Yup. Better than nothing? Yup.

False positives are inevitable if we are just using names. I suspect that there will be a change in the system, though in most cases it is the nature of counter-terrorism that all you get is a name. Images might compromise sources, and fingerprints are usually not going to be available.

There is quite a bit of advice on how to get off of a no-fly list. One way NOT to get removed, it would seem, is to be elected to the U.S. Senate... Or get hired as an Air Marshal. feh.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DavidTC]

Hey, moron, 'knew in advance', aka, LIHOP, is a 9/11 conspiracy, but it's not '9/11 Truthers'.

The wikipedia link you want, the people I was talking about with the term 'TRUTHERS', is over here. See that link? 9/11 Truth movement?

I quote '"9/11 Truth movement" is the collective name of loosely affiliated organizations and individuals that question whether the United States government, agencies of the United States or individuals within such agencies were either responsible for or purposefully complicit in the September 11 attacks.'.

Aka, truthers are 'made it happen on purpose', not 'let it happen on purpose'.(1)

They call themselves '9/11 Truthers', the organization that started all this is called '9/11 Truth', and I referred to them slightly dismissively as just 'Truthers'.

You want to discuss 'let it happen on purpose', you feel free. That's not what I, nor anyone else, (Including the people who call themselves that) are talking about when we talk about '9/11 Truthers' or the '9/11 Truth Movement'.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DavidTC]

Why would we need to let pearl harbor happen in order to get the US into the war?

Why would we need to swipe our card before punching in our PIN at an ATM?

Oh, sorry, thought we were asking random unrelated 'Why would we need to ?' questions.

I love the fact you've decided that a Wikipedia article that talks about whether or not we knew about the attack in advance is proof we knew about the attack in advance.

The idea we knew about the Pearl Harbor attack specifics and didn't do anything about it is idiotic. Why on earth would we not prep for an attack? It would still be a Japanese attack on the US even if we knew it was coming, and hence a justification for war.

I think you're just proved my point about idiotic conspiracy theories.

I can't even imagine what the actual theory here even is. So you assert the US knew that Japan was going to attack? And what? They decided not to protect Hawaii better so that...what, exactly?

'Hey, these guys we want to go to war with are going to have a surprise attack on us. Let's...um...leave the ships there so one of them can sink and stupidly come within a hair's-breathe of blocking the harbor off, crippling the war effort.'
'Why couldn't we just secretly prep a force to deal with them as soon as they appear in the sky? I mean, they still would have attacked us, and hence we'd still be at war with them. We can surprise their surprise attack! You know, the sort of cleverness we'll end up doing all the time later in the war, with fake tanks and troop movements and stuff.'
'Shut up, that's why! I want to sink a large fraction of our fleet! It's gotten too big!'

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I love the fact you've decided that a Wikipedia article that talks about whether or not we knew about the attack in advance is proof we knew about the attack in advance.

Wooooooooooosh!

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[vxice]

actually that is the problem. the list is just a list of names and nothing else, not even birthdays. if your name is similar to anyones on the list, feel real sorry for Joe smith, you get stopped every time without fail. only exception is if you are on a round trip you may not get stopped on the return flight but even if they do flag you for your return flight you will get stopped at the next flight. your name doesn't even have to match exactly, if it sounds the same you get stopped.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The wikipedia link you want, the people I was talking about with the term 'TRUTHERS', is over here. See that link? 9/11 Truth movement?

You mean the one that links to the page posted?

complicit - learn it, love it use it.

Hell, Hick's entire book "The Big Wedding" is about the premise that the islamic terrorists were "found assets" that the government allowed to succeed.

From the Amazon review:

With the cumulative power of his original research into the neo-cons, the Bush family, the CIA, and Muslim Brotherhood, Hicks concludes: it's impossible that the White House did not have detailed foreknowledge of 9/11.

Although, I'm not sure why I bother to document the obvious - just like a truther you are sure to come up with some wild story as to why one of the biggest names in the truther movement isn't really a true truther. Crazy is as crazy does.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The wikipedia link you want, the people I was talking about with the term 'TRUTHERS', is over here. See that link? 9/11 Truth movement?

Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or at the very least knew they were coming and let them occur anyway.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Mr. Freeman]

"What do you expect them to do instead of denying them access to flights"

Do the exact same thing that they would do if they received a "tip" that you were going to commit any other crime. If it's a credible tip then it's enough for an arrest and search warrant. If it's not a credible tip then it's not worth shit regardless of the circumstance.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DavidTC]

Weasel words on wikipedia and the fact that Sanders Hick is trying to rehabilitate the name '9/11 Truth Movement' doesn't change what the vast majority of the people who identify as part of that movement think.

Here, let me quote Hicks talking about the theory it wasn't an actual airplane that hit the WTC:
'A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it's hurt our credibility over all. You have to wonder if that was by design.'

'The real racist tragedy is when you have 9/11 people who know nothing about history or foreign policy or politics who advance theories that completely ignore smoking guns, like the CIA/ISI connection. Their theories tend to veer into the esoteric. Really imaginative territory, like the "In Plane Sight" video. I'm not sure who they blame, they seem to think that the attack originated deep inside the war machine itself.'

Hey, look, even he admits that a lot of people int he movement are entirely off-kilter.

And it's worth mentioning he thinks it's possible there are explosives, which, as I mentioned, is batshit crazy, and yet a fundamental Truther belief, and even he, a 'rebel' Truther, thinks it. (He's quick to mention that doesn't mean the US government planted them, and the real attackers could have, but that's somehow manages to, once again, reset the 'crazy' bar even higher.)

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[DavidTC]

The Wikipedia article on the 9/11 Truth Movement, like all political articles, is full of idiotic weaseling about what people 'really' believe in that movement.

I was pointing out that the person linked to the wrong article. I was talking about 'Truthers', aka, members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and yet they linked to the 9/11 conspiracies in general article. I was not claiming that the right article was entirely correct, I was saying, 'Wrong article, idiot.'.

And all adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or at the very least knew they were coming and let them occur anyway, or they aren't part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Here is 911truth.org, the site that, arguably, is the first site calling itself '9/11 Truth Movement', talking about controlled demolitions:
'Although there is not complete consensus on this issue within the 9/11 truth movement...'

You know, when you say 'There's not complete consensus on this issue.', what you're actually saying is 'Most everyone agrees, but some dissent, so we'll disclaim this...'

And if you believe in controlled demolitions, you believe the government made it happen. (Or you believe something even stupider, as I pointed out with the mention of Sander Hicks above.) Of course, you could believe they did it and there were not controlled demolitions, so even with the qualifier about controlled demolitions, every single Truther could still think the government made it happen.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Anonymous Coward]

And all adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or at the very least knew they were coming and let them occur anyway, or they aren't part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Well, now that you've conceded the original point, I'm done.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Eric Smith]

Of course the government does things all the time that they don't actually have the power to do. That's no surprise. Thanks to the Constitution (as amended), we have legal recourse, and can at least attempt to rein in the worst excesses.

The Supreme Court isn't always willing to let them get away with everything on the basis of the interstate commerce clause. U.S. v Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995) is an example of the court recognizing that a broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause would effectively remove all limitations on government power.

Re:No fly list is a dumb idea

[Eric Smith]

If the government tells an airline that they are not to let me fly, and threatens the airline with revocation or non-renewal of licenses needed to operate, then yes, they are forbidding me to fly. The fact that an intermediate party (the airline) is involved doesn't alter that.

Aside from violating my (unenumerated) right to travel by air, it violates the Privileges and Immunities clause. That they add names to the NFL arbitrarily with no legal process and that there is no provided means of getting my name removed from the NFL violates the Due Process clause.

The government has absolutely NO rights whatsoever. The rights belong to the people. The people have granted the government limited powers to impose restrictions on the people's rights. The government routinely exceeds the limitations of those powers, and one of the functions of the courts is to provide a means for the people to attempt to rein in such abuses.

Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspect

[d1r3lnd]

And you thought being pulled over for DWB was a pain... it's got nothing on FWN.

And people wonder...

[houstonbofh]

And people wonder why airline travel is down in the US. Or, to the US for that matter.

Re:And people wonder...

[gyrogeerloose]

And people wonder why airline travel is down in the US. Or, to the US for that matter.

I'll give you an example of why airline travel is down in the US:

I flew from San Diego to San Francisco last weekend and got pulled aside because of some ham radio equipment (two small VHF hand-held transceivers) in my carry-on bag. I explained what they were while the TSA guy ripped everything out of my bag and ran it all through the X-ray machine again. Then I explained it all again to his supervisor. Took about a half hour but, "fortunately," my flight was delayed two hours so I was okay.

Any other old greybeards out there remember when flying was fun? An adventure, rather than a big PITA only slightly better than traveling on a Greyhound bus?

Re:And people wonder...

[blair1q]

It's because business is going to China and toursim is going to the UAE.

Re:And people wonder...

[FrozenGeek]

Yeah, when I was a kid, flying was an adventure and a lot of fun. Now it's a PITA. It's been several years since I seriously considered a vacation that involved flying. I'd rather drive. If I have to fly to do it, odds are I'm not going to do it. If my attitude spreads, the airlines are in trouble.

Re:And people wonder...

[Heem]

Absolutely right! I haven't flown since pre-September 2001, and have no plans of doing so anytime soon, or in the future. I'd rather drive then deal with the security theater and the possibility that I'd be harassed, even though I have nothing to hide or have done nothing wrong. I've heard way too many stories of innocent people being detained for just having a similar name to someone "of interest".. I'll drive.

Re:And people wonder...

[AndersOSU]

I'd be surprised if security theater accounts form more than 0.5% of the decrease in domestic air travel. People just don't care. Air travel is down domestically because prices are up and theres a recession. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now tourism may have suffered because the US is perceived (accurately?) to have become less friendly for foreigners - but the airport rigmarole is only tangentially related to even that.

Re:And people wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

You two are so spoiled. It's not that big of a deal. In the words of the irreverent Arnold Schwarzenegger, "Stop whining!"

Re:And people wonder...

[the linux geek]

Why the fuck is this modded troll?

Re:And people wonder...

[tsalmark]

As a non US citizen that has traveled far less to the US since 2000 I can assure you border crossings, be that air or land, account for most of the reason I'm not there as much.

Re:And people wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck is this modded troll?

Because moderators are allowed to freely moderate. If you don't like it, go back to digg

Re:And people wonder...

[maxwells_deamon]

I was at the airport waiting to give a vistor a ride. There had been a story on the news the night before about some new device that scans your hands for explosive residue. It had some sort of pad that was wiped over the skin.I wanted to know if the device uses a fluid because of allergies.

It was very slow at the moment and because there was a bored TSA employee sitting at a station to make sure nobody went the wrong way at security, I walked up to her and asked about the device.

She first said it did not exist, then told me she knew all about it and why did I want to know. I talked to her calmly for about 10 minutes and discovered she had no clue but was willing to lie to me.

I went back to wait. After a bit I walked to the display boards to see flight status again. when I turned around I was surounded by police.

It was not fun being questioned for 30 minutes just for asking simple nice questions.

Re:And people wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up... he speaks for many of us.

Re:And people wonder...

[maxwells_deamon]

Generally it is not that much of a pain.

The security anoyances of flying to San Francisco from here are less than the anoyances of trying to find a halfway clean restroom on the way. :-)

Re:And people wonder...

[selven]

It's not just people refusing to have their private parts scanned as a matter of principle. It's also people who decide it's simply too much of a headache, with the airport security and the customs forms only being subconsciously incorporated into their thoughts. When I'm flying, I'm always, in the back of my mind, afraid. Not of terrorists, who kill less air travellers than bad weather, but of the security. I'm afraid of being detained for hours because I lost some critical document or made a mistake in filling out some bureaucratic form. If it weren't for that, I'd be flying at least 50% more often.

Re:And people wonder...

[ashkar]

Really? I live 6 hours away from Vegas. I travel there several times a year to visit friends and take short vacations. I used to fly, but it has become such a pain in the ass that I drive most of the time now. Sure, when I go back east, I still fly because of the distance, but the short flights around the west and southwest are out. I'd rather drive than put up with the bullshit.

Re:And people wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non us citizen I took the $500 more expensive option to fly via Vancouver enroute to Nova Scotia rather than put myself through the hell that is LAX and US customs.

Re:And people wonder...

[AndersOSU]

Do you go alone? How much does that 6 hour flight cost? $200? $300? Does that include your bags?

See, I make 8-10 hour drives 6-8 times a year, but I do it because it's cheaper, especially when I'm traveling with someone as I usually am. 8 hours in a car and it's only marginally less convenient than flying - and not because of security. A trip that takes about six hours to drive takes what 4 to fly including driving to and from the airport, waiting to check in, getting there early, waiting to pick up your bags, etc. etc. And thats if your flight leaves on time. Then you get there and you don't have a car. That might be fine in Vegas, but in most places that means you have to rent one - another $60-100/day oh and you have to wait for that too.

If you drive thats what, $100-150 in gas?

Flying starts to make sense if you can't make the trip in a day. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense economically - and that's why flying is down.

Even if you really value your time, 6 hours is about the break even point - trips shorter than that you're just wasting time in an airport.

Don't get me wrong I think it's security theater too, but if it were really impacting the number of people who fly we'd be hearing it from the cash-strapped airline industry.

Re:And people wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Three years ago while leaving from the US after some research studies, I was carrying in my hand luggage a sonar pinger. The equipment was delicate and expensive so I decided to not check it in.

Of course, our friendly TSA agent just went berserk upon seeing a tubular shaped object with a PCB inside it. No batteries, or power source of any kind, but still berserk. Try explaining a sonar pinger to a (relatively) uneducated person. It wasn't the nicest experiences, but luckily this was in Hawaii and they understood when I explained that the science was related to Dolphin communications.

My father now has to travel to the US often for business and each visit the immigration agents just get ruder and more obnoxious.

I'm sorry, but these things are reason enough for me to avoid traveling to the US as long as my life doesn't depend on it.

Mind you though, I travel a lot every year. In fact, this year I am entering and exiting nearly 15 countries and yet no border experience is as negative as the US.

Actually, the UK border agents & security are smart, brisk and intelligent in all my dealings with them. It is an absolute pleasure to enter Germany, the smiles that greet you at the border are unlike anything I have seen elsewhere.

Compare these things to the criminal treatment foreigners are handed out by the US and you too would never want to travel there again.

Re:And people wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who still fly don't care.
The people who care no longer fly.

I'm in the latter category. Every time I "lapse", I'm reminded why I never want to fly again. (For instance: No food (I'm on a special diet), no water containers, and then spend 30 hours in an airport without sleep or heat because the airline found an excuse to cancel my flight. (I checked the weather radar -- It was an excuse.) Thank god I didn't have my pet cat or the kids with me...)

Re:And people wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

hey fellow ham,

I too hit the TSA hotlist. I guess I had the complete terrorist 'kit' in my carry on:

my dual bander handie talkie
a gps receiver, and area sectional maps (I was going to use the gps to plot my path over the grand canyon)
aww heck explosives, I forgot to pack the party popers for the 4 year old kids birthday I was headed too

and my alligator cowboy boots, well I just had them resoled, and the fresh construction was an obvious red flag that I was dangerous.

TSA agent took all these goodies and put them neatly on a board with grid lines, and took lotsa pictures (8 by 10 glossies showin pictures of all that garbage).

Then, the threat, the true terrorist act, he said I could be fined $50,000 for this, but were going to let you go (what a nice guy).
But that I should expect a strong letter from the government (it never came).

I also was questioned and taken to a back room on another trip, flying to Mexico with no luggage and just wearing my surf shorts, t shirt and huaraches. Jeez, cant a guy head to the beach without harassment...

Re:And people wonder...

[DragonWriter]

I'd be surprised if security theater accounts form more than 0.5% of the decrease in domestic air travel. People just don't care.

Since it has substantially increased door-to-door travel times when their is commercial air travel anywhere in the process, and since travel time is the big selling point of air travel over other forms of travel, I suspect its a much bigger factor than that, particular for shorter flights.

Re:And people wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we need to just outlaw all the "airlines" and nationalize/militarize all "flights" in the USA. Since flying is now only for the idle rich, let them get their paid goobermint types to facilitate their air-joy-rides, it's outrageously expensive and dangerous for the common man--now. If you wish to argue about how armed troops carrying their lil' battle rifles and maintaining "control" of said airports, while armed "air marshals" prowl the jets ISN'T "dangerous"--feel free. No, we need to dump the whole system, bankrupt the "airlines", and make it "official use only"---since that's the point of the whole TSA anyway....

I haven't flown in twenty years, and plan to never do it again--it's for the elite and the rich--not for us who worked for a living. You have no REASON to fly, you are only proles; only officialdom and their ardent supporters should be on jet liners--let's face facts, and stop kidding ourselves. Outrageous? Unrealistic? Wait five more years under the current system---then check back!

Re:And people wonder...

[im_thatoneguy]

I remember when flying was fun. It was 2 weeks ago. I took a 10 minute taxi to a train station. Rode the light rail to the airport which took about 30 minutes. Walked up to a check in station. Swiped my credit card. Printed my ticket. Walked through security almost without stopping. Was at my terminal in less than an hour. Hopped on the free wi-fi and waited for boarding to begin.

Got on the plane. Flipped to TNT and watched an old Ahnold movie.

On the way back I had a friend drive me to the airport which was only about 10 minutes from the convention center we were at. Printed my ticket and was at my gate in less than 10 minutes. I agreed to deliver a viking helmet to a friend in my carry on. Still no trouble at security. Hopped on the free wi-fi and waited for boarding to begin.

This is how I usually travel. If you hate traveling you're probably checking luggage. That's a mistake.

Time before last I brought 3 portable HDDs. A laptop, camera, metal chrome sphere and various light meters. No special security.

Re:And people wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

And people wonder why airline travel is down in the US. Or, to the US for that matter.

I'll give you an example of why airline travel is down in the US:

I flew from San Diego to San Francisco last weekend and got pulled aside because of some ham radio equipment (two small VHF hand-held transceivers) in my carry-on bag. I explained what they were while the TSA guy ripped everything out of my bag and ran it all through the X-ray machine again. Then I explained it all again to his supervisor. Took about a half hour but, "fortunately," my flight was delayed two hours so I was okay.

Any other old greybeards out there remember when flying was fun? An adventure, rather than a big PITA only slightly better than traveling on a Greyhound bus?

Heck, I flew out of San-Diego and had a box with a glass Dolphin (that I bought at Sea World)... And the guy at the airport pulls the box out of my bag and drops it on the table - apparently they wanted to test the packing tissue. When I told the guy that the contents of the box were fragile, he gave me stare like I'm obstructing justice. I shut up and let him poke and prod to his hearts content...

Re:And people wonder...

[allseason radial]

I avoid flying if possible. Last time I flew inside the U.S., it was to visit my brother who had a stroke. The security was a nightmare. On the way home, I was singled out and pulled aside. They unpacked my luggage and I was forced to partially disrobe. I was deathly afraid they would do a cavity search. The only reason I can think of for this to happen is that I had no sleep the previous night and was pretty bedraggled.

When I go to visit my brother again, it will probably be for his funeral. I will take a train or a bus. And I will never forget my treatment at the hands of those pathetically underpaid SEA/TAC goons. The airlines can go bankrupt for all I care.

In fact, this white Christian German-surnamed old fart will be rooting for their slow and painful demise.

Re:And people wonder...

[DamonHD]

Yep me too.

I object to having all sorts of irreplaceable personal details and biometrics taken by the TSA which repeatedly ignores Congress and loses its own staff personal details and which treats me as a criminal.

So I haven't wanted to travel to the US in many years whereas before I was a frequent visitor.

Rgds

Damon

Re:And people wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently had the opportunity for an all expenses trip to the USA for training.

I declined.

Re:And people wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

But it makes for a good story, eh?

My bet...

[beefnog]

I'd be willing to wager that the traits making him a person of interest are:

- coming from a county known to have a large islamic population
- being non-white
- having " al" or "bin" somewhere in his name

But rest assured, we're being protected from something, somewhere, for some reason!

Re:My bet...

[Spad]

That's a cynical and inaccurate view on the situation.

He also had a beard.

Re:My bet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or possibly just _Potentially_ had a beard....

Or perhaps a close family member.....

Re:My bet...

[Locke2005]

The turban was a dead giveaway.

Re:My bet...

[Arthur Grumbine]

That's a cynical and inaccurate view on the situation.

He also had a beard.

That's not strictly accurate. While there was no evidence of a beard, there was reliable intel indicating that he had been considering growing one.

Re:My bet...

[Anomalyst]

Is there such a thing as a live turban?

Re:My bet...

[cpghost]

While there was no evidence of a beard, there was reliable intel indicating that he had been considering growing one.

Actually, the beard was already secretly growing under his shaved skin.

discrepancy

[mugurel]

There's a huge discrepancy between the Protection saying this is a `potential person of interest', and the suspect pleading guilty of framing bomb attacks on NY subways. It gives me an uncanny feeling about both the concept of `potential person of interest' and pleading guilty.

So, what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has he been identified? Has his family been informed? What happened next?

Just more evidence

[XxtraLarGe]

The terrorists have already won.

Re:Just more evidence

[blair1q]

Yeah, but we're fucking up their friends.

Re:Just more evidence

[DeadboltX]

Unless, of course, this man really is a threat and the delay of his arrival to his intended destination saved thousands of lives

Re:Just more evidence

[martin-boundary]

Alternatively, if this man's surname happens to be Pig, then pigs are flying...

Re:Just more evidence

[Arthur Grumbine]

Unless, of course, this man really is a threat and the delay of his arrival to his intended destination saved thousands of lives

That sound you heard was 10,000 palms hitting 10,000 faces after reading your post.

Re:Just more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course they won.

But now we have to keep a million 'security' people employed.

Gotta have SOMETHING for them to do...

Re:Just more evidence

[selven]

Won against whom? I would imagine the (more unsavory elements of the) government like having an excuse to impose more control and extend their power.

Re:Just more evidence

[Philip_the_physicist]

You mean, if the list is made even broader, it will increase the chance of having all terrorists on it, so we will have no airborne terrorism? Perhaps we should make the list larger until we have, say, 100% certainty of including all terrorists, and to hell with the disruption to all innocent travellers included on the list.

Re:Just more evidence

[Sulphur]

Alternatively, if this man's surname happens to be Pig, then pigs are flying...

Pigs can't fly; their wings are too small.

Too little, too late ?

[ProdigyPuNk]

If the guy DID have bad intentions, this would have been much too late to help any of the passengers. It'd be nice to know exactly what happened on the plane after they found out he was added to the No-Fly List. What does staff do in a situation like that ? I doubt the flight attendants are trained to frisk a suspect and hold him down until the plane can land. If he did have a bomb or other weapon on him, how exactly would this have played out ? I'm sure other passengers would have helped out, but by that time he could have already killed people. I'm not against a no-fly list in theory, but if all it serves to do is harass innocents without any tangible results, what's the point ?

Re:Too little, too late ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not against a no-fly list in theory, but if all it serves to do is harass innocents without any tangible results, what's the point ?

<homer>In theory, communism works. In theory.</homer>

Re:Too little, too late ?

[Jaysyn]

So the powers that be can say they are doing *something* to combat terrorism. Even though it's pretty much ineffectual.

Re:Too little, too late ?

[houstonbofh]

So the powers that be can say they are doing *something* to combat terrorism. Even though it's pretty much ineffectual.

We should all masturbate to fight terrorism. Just as effective as the TSA, but more fun.

Re:Too little, too late ?

[Anomalyst]

We should all masturbate to fight terrorism. Just as effective as the TSA, but more fun.

I'm outta mod points, sorry.
A little revision and we have a great T-shirt
"TSA: Tax Sponsored Asshats performaing vaudvillian TWAT masturbation"
(The War Against Terror, natch)

wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

So he is not, at this moment, a person of interest? Why is he being detained?

The Gambia

[penguinchris]

This country is, funnily enough, actually called "The Gambia", not Gambia, and it's got a really funny shape that follows the course of the Gambia River. A pretty interesting place, actually.

Re:The Gambia

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

This country is, funnily enough, actually called "The Gambia", not Gambia

and which is commonly known as Gambia by its residents (from the same source you cited)

Re:The Gambia

[Anonymous Coward]

So sort of like the Google. Or the Texas.

Re:The Gambia

[vux984]

From your own link "Republic of The Gambia"

"The Gambia, officially the Republic of The Gambia and which is commonly known as Gambia by its residents"

Re:The Gambia

[wgc]

Anyone else see an x-rated activity between The Gambia and Senegal?

A Lifetime of material for late night jokes

[xednieht]

The Department of Homeland Stupidity at it's finest. And have we moved from "person of interest" to "potential person of interest"? I have an idea lets develop a color scheme for how interesting a person is or how much potential a person has for being interesting.

Somebody quick check his underwear.

Re:A Lifetime of material for late night jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

lets develop a color scheme for how interesting a person is

Oh my god! He's a blackwatch plaid!

Re:A Lifetime of material for late night jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

The Department of Homeland Stupidity at it's finest.

An apostrophe at its least necessary.

Re:A Lifetime of material for late night jokes

[Locke2005]

No, we've already had the "the shoe bomber" and "the crotch bomber"... the next one to attempt to blow the shit out of a plane will be "the ass bomber". Beware of anyone with a fuse sticking out of his ass... Fortunately, most suicide bombers couldn't find their ass with both hands, so this is not really much of a threat.

Re:Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspe

[Erikderzweite]

DWB... FWN... WTF?

Get outta my plane!

[Kazymyr]

I can imagine the flight attendant: "Sir, you have to get out of the plane. Now".

Re:Get outta my plane!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Plane gets out of you!!!

Re:Get outta my plane!

[Shompol]

Actually it was a SWAT team with M16 and full camouflage bulletproof armor that boarded the plane and politely offered him a refund and an inflatable boat to paddle home.

Re:Get outta my plane!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds painful.

Re:Get outta my plane!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was a SWAT team with M16 and full camouflage bulletproof armor that boarded the plane

Camo for raiding a plane? Maybe their uniforms were designed to blend in with airplane seats....

Grab his shoes and underpants!

[PolygamousRanchKid]

"Hi, I'm your stewardess. Would you like chicken or beef for your meal?"

"Oh, and please give me your shoes and underpants."

"It's just normal procedure, sir."

The poor captain: "Good Morning Air Traffic Control, I have some chop here, request permission to climb."

Air Traffic Control: "Fuck the chop . . . you have a no fly passenger on board . . . good day!

Re:Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspe

[houstonbofh]

DWB... FWN... WTF?

Driving while black. Flying while Nigerian. World Trade Federation.

Re:Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspe

[Anonymous Coward]

DWB... FWN... WTF?

Driving While Black... Flying While Nigerian... What The Fuck

What do I win?

Re:Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspe

[Anonymous Coward]

DWB - Driving While Black (sadly this still happens)
FWN - Flying While Nigerian (two data points make a trend)
WTF - precedes tasty BBQ hacks.

Re:Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspe

[Anonymous Coward]

driving while black...flying while nigerian

Re:Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspe

[Anonymous Coward]

DWB - Driving While Black (still the most common reason people are pulled over in certain parts of the US)

FWN - I assume Flying While Nigerian...

No-fly list

[maxwell demon]

Of course he was on the no-fly list. He wasn't a fly, after all.

Re:Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspe

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably "Driving While Black", and "Flying While Nigerian"

Re:Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspe

[denis-The-menace]

DWB = http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=DWB

Therefore

FWN = Flying While Nigerian

This nice man needs somebodys help.

[Anonymous Coward]

This man is Nigerian Royalty and was delivering my $2.7 million!

Re:This nice man needs somebodys help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please send another $20,000 so I can bribe the officials detaining me, and proceed on my way delivering your money. I would like to reiterate my extreme thanks for all the help you have given me and look forward to delivering your return on your investments.

Re:Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspe

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying While Nigger

No-Land List

[kiehlster]

Well, lucky for him, he wasn't put on a No-Land List while he was flying. Of course, it's usually the astronauts that get on that list.

Understatement:

[Anonymous Freak]

Passenger Nbaye Beye said the man, who appeared to be in his late 20s, appeared nervous when approached by a U.S. agent but got off the plane quietly.

Really, someone who was announced by the captain of the flight, to everyone onboard, that he was a "serious security risk", got nervous when approached by what could be assumed to be an armed federal agent???

Yeah. Because I NEVER get nervous after being called a serious security risk and being approached by a federal officer...

<facepalm>

This guy's lucky none of the passengers decided to go vigilante on him.

Sadly, the whole flight had to be cancelled...

[Trip6]

One bad apple spoiled the whole flight: http://www.theonion.com/articles/133-dead-as-delta-cancels-flight-in-midair,1837/

Re:Sadly, the whole flight had to be cancelled...

[OhHellWithIt]

That is a great article! The tail-mounted engines on the "Boeing 737" are a fine touch.

The Country is in the Very Best of Hands

[BigFire]

Pay no attention to the folks trying to kill us. Them Tea Party terrorist are the real enemy

Re:The Country is in the Very Best of Hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he was taken off a flight, he must be the real enemy, and trying to kill people? Care to wait for the trial?

Re:Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspe

[Anonymous Coward]

DWB... FWN... WTF?

DWB=Dorge W. Bush...yet another of the Bush family
FWN=Free Willy Now... a radical terrorist group that bombs whales to protest whales in captivity

Unnamed man

[dreamer.redeemer]

Maybe it just took them a while to figure out how to add the name of an unnamed man to the list. Technically he has always been on the list since the empty set is a subset of all sets, it was probably just that the for the first check they made the mistake of querying "Unnamed Man," a different person altogether who has not yet been discovered to be a threat.

Re:Unnamed man

[Anonymous Coward]

But empty set is a subset of any set only in logic that has material implication. Perhaps some other logic used by Homeland...

What should they have done?

[still cynical]

Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not the "no-fly" lists serve a legitimate purpose (they don't), what should they have done? If information indicating a particular person may be dangerous comes in while someone is already in transit, should they have just said "Damn, if we had been a little quicker we wouldn't let you in, but you beat the buzzer. We suspect you're a terrorist, but since you had already left you can come in this time. But next time, forget it!"

Re:What should they have done?

[Locke2005]

There shouldn't be a "no fly" list at all. There should, however, be a list of people for whom more rigorous screening is mandatory, e.g. the "you can go ahead and fly right after you submit to this full body cavity search" list.

At least the got to him before

[Jawn98685]

He tried to detonate his tighty-whiteys, this time. That's progress, I guess.

Fascism.

[unity100]

stop tagging this story with politically correct or watered down words people. this is outright fascism. denying right to travel on undeclared, non court warranted 'suspicion'.

if someone is guilty, you charge them. if someone is persona non grata, you extradite them. you do not do such charade like 'no fly lists'.

its a remnant of bush era stupor, and it smells cheney all around. it should go.

Yeah, I remember...

[IANAAC]

Any other old greybeards out there remember when flying was fun? An adventure, rather than a big PITA only slightly better than traveling on a Greyhound bus?

Yeah, I remember. It used to be ungodly expensive to fly, and we actually dressed nice just to get on a plane. It actually felt civilized.

Now we have cut-rate prices and slobs in flip-flops and mustard-stained t-shirts belching all around us. Sorry if that sounds elitist. It isn't. Lower prices ALWAYS bring the hoards, civilized or not.

The PITA, slightly better-than-Greyhound travel isn't really all due to the nonsense security we have now, though. Let's be clear on that.

Re:Yeah, I remember...

[Achromatic1978]

Sorry if that sounds elitist. It isn't.

Apropos of the validity or accuracy of your point, let's be clear:

You were, in fact, actually being entirely elitist.

Re:Yeah, I remember...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

All while using the wrong homonym too, hoards means something very different from hordes.

Re:Yeah, I remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Lower prices ALWAYS bring the hoards, civilized or not.

And who the fuck are you? You can't even spell 'hordes' correctly, asswipe.

Re:Yeah, I remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You were, in fact, actually being entirely elitist."

How so? Disapproving of the impolite or informal is elitist?

And is supposing the masses can't have a polite component, as you indirectly suggest, make you elitist then?

Most of the flip floppers are the "elite" type who don't care because they are in with the unwashed masses.

Pot. Meet dark grey kettle. Kettle, meet blacked pot. You both going to get burned anyways.

Re:Yeah, I remember...

[Gryle]

Yeah, I remember. It used to be ungodly expensive to fly, and we actually dressed nice just to get on a plane. It actually felt civilized.

Yeah, because preferring to wear jeans and a t-shirt vs a suit on a four hour non-business flight is a really good indicator of my value as a human being. Get over yourself.

Another vague classification

[VeteranNoob]

First we had a "suspect." Then there was a "person of interest." Now we have a "potential person of interest." Where does it end?

Suspect Somebody suspected of a crime Person of Interest Somebody suspected of a crime without direct evidence Potential Person of Interest Somebody not yet suspected of a crime but will be harassed anyway

Let me propose...

Person Capable of Wrongdoing Somebody who doesn't agree with you and will have their lives ruined Person Who Hasn't Committed a Crime Yet, But Probably Will One Day Everybody else waiting for the Gestapo to show at the door

Re:Another vague classification

[91degrees]

I have a semantic nitpick to add. Wouldn't a potential person of interest differ from a person of potential interest in that the former is not yet a person and the latter is not yet of interest.

Re:Another vague classification

[TheDugong]

Potentially, yes.

I'll tell you a secret

[roman_mir]

The truth is that terrorists are in US government. Government that knowingly hold innocent people as prisoners and tortures them in prison for eight (8) years can easily be considered terrorist government in itself, especially given how many of the tortured prisoners were just civilians, sold to the US government by Afghans for 5K a head, probably some were competitors in some trade, others may have had lovely wives, who knows. At the time of Bush and Cheney, if you were in Afghanistan and didn't like someone or wanted something that belonged to someone else, you could kill two birds with the same stone: get rid of the problem (the person) and make 5K while doing it.

Terrorists won, but they are closer than you think.

Re:I'll tell you a secret

[Cacadril]

Government that knowingly hold innocent people as prisoners and tortures them in prison for eight (8) years

404 error

Re:I'll tell you a secret

[roman_mir]

No, it's up.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times.

The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration.

Colonel Wilkerson, who was General Powell's chief of staff when he ran the State Department, was most critical of Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld. He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was "politically impossible to release them".

General Powell, who left the Bush Administration in 2005, angry about the misinformation that he unwittingly gave the world when he made the case for the invasion of Iraq at the UN, is understood to have backed Colonel Wilkerson's declaration.

Colonel Wilkerson, a long-time critic of the Bush Administration's approach to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq, claimed that the majority of detainees -- children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said -- never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken.

He also claimed that one reason Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld did not want the innocent detainees released was because "the detention efforts would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were". This was "not acceptable to the Administration and would have been severely detrimental to the leadership at DoD [Mr Rumsfeld at the Defence Department]".

Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: "He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent ... If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it."

He alleged that for Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld "innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks".

He added: "I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell. I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making."

Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld, Colonel Wilkerson said, deemed the incarceration of innocent men acceptable if some genuine militants were captured, leading to a better intelligence picture of Iraq at a time when the Bush Administration was desperate to find a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, "thus justifying the Administration's plans for war with that country".

He signed the declaration in support of Adel Hassan Hamad, a Sudanese man who was held at Guantánamo Bay from March 2003 until December 2007. Mr Hamad claims that he was tortured by US agents while in custody and yesterday filed a damages action against a list of American officials.

Defenders of Guantánamo said that detainees began to be released as early as September 2002, nine months after the first prisoners were sent to the jail at the US naval base in Cuba. By the time Mr Bush left office more than 530 detainees had been freed.

A spokesman for Mr Bush said of Colonel Wilkerson's allegations: "We are not going to have any comment on that." A former associate to Mr Rumsfeld said that Mr Wilkerson's assertions were completely untrue.

The associate said the former D

Re:I'll tell you a secret

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, you should really just say dirty politicians are in the US Gov. They didn't fix the problem for their own political careers not a desire to inflict fear and harm into other peoples.

Thought crime!

[Locke2005]

Double-plus ungood!

Please report immediately to you local retraining facility.
And remember, Big Brother loves you!

Idle?

[leromarinvit]

To the idiot who tagged this 'idle': I'm sure you would show the same level of disinterest if this happened to you...

Re:Idle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Idle is an autotag applied to everything with a picture. Otherwise you don't get the "View Picture" link on the main page.

Rights aren't given, they're kept...

[mjperson]

> I just love how people take random things (e.g. healthcare, social security, etc.) and start calling them rights. They're only rights if a greater
> majority is willing to give up something for someone else to have them. Or a gov't mandates it, usually against the will of that majority.

The whole point of rights is that they are something that an individual can do, even if the majority doesn't want him to. The other part of rights is that the government doesn't give them. The only thing the government can do is take them away. No where in the US constitution does it give anyone the right to do anything. But it says in numerous places that the government shall not restrict some right, or the congress shall pass no law restricting some right, or some other right shall not be infringed... etc.

So yeah, all rights are just "random things" people started calling rights. The only real test of a right is whether or not you manage to keep it.

PS The constitution also says, " The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So the founders were pretty darned clear that people had rights that were simply not listed, not thought of, or in the case of air travel, didn't yet exist.

Then there are a lot of suspicious people

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be surprised to find out that there are almost daily flights from Lagos to JFK, which amounts to thousands of suspicious people flying to the US every week.

mod parrent up (insightful)

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parrent up (insightful)

Problem explained

[Anonymous Coward]

There now ... let me explain this so you all understand ...

1) Humans are generally bad at behaving in a "fair" manner towards "outsiders" not belonging to thier group.

2) The Gambians are usally not concived to belong to the group "Westerners".

3) Laws are passed and primarily enforced by a subgroup of the "Westerners" called "Rich possible religious conservative white people with power" not being particular favourable towards the Gambians.

4) The average Slashdot reader remembers 1) and that he/she is not a part of the group "Rich possible religious conservative white people with power" and gets worried that 3) might repeat one to many times.

5) The reader not being part of the group "Rich possible religious conservative white people >with power>" does what she/he can and post an upset message on Slashdot.

6) No one realy cares for the Gambians (Except maybe the Gambians).

its not that bad people

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say, WOW YOU GUYS ARE OFF BASE.

I live in the midwest. and i'm actually on my last leg of my trip heading home.
i've probably traveled 15 times in the past 4 years.
the delay's that i've had, the headachs i've had, are either the airlines being stupid, or of my own design.
my thoughts:
1. YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO FLY. Peroid and end of story, you want to travel, take a greyhound bus, you'll get better pictures that way too.
2. DON'T PACK WIERD STUFF IN YOUR CARRY ON. remember, these people are not supposed to be technicians. its there job to look for weird stuff. SHIP IT UPS
3. for gods sakes people learn how to board and unboard a plane.
4. i am very happy that there is a no fly list. i will agree that there is room for improvement in terms of how it is administred, but i don't want a nutjob on a plane next to me.
5. If for some odd reason, i wanted to take over a plane, even without a weapon, the only thing stopping me, is the cockpit door, or possably if an air-marshal is on the plane with me. the no fly list is designed to find those people who are nutz, and keep them from doing something stupid..

the terroritsts have not won, they've mearly made us take off our shoes and belts.

P.S.

I'm not actually an anonymous Coward, i'm just too lazy to create an account

Jay

I want on!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a white, natural-born American citizen who has lived here almost my entire life, how can I get my name on the no-fly list?

I've been looking for an excuse to stop flying, since I hate it so much. My current hedge is that nude-o-tron scans will become mandatory in the USA--my sister refuses to submit to a nude-o-tron, as do I.

No Amtrak station here, so I'd be using a lot of Greyhound. If I want to go to Europe, I'm riding a Greyhound from Florida to Toronto... :-)

Re:Flying from Nigeria to the US *is* pretty suspe

[ztransform]

Maybe the person making the decision had been assaulted by a group of Nigerians while on holiday in Japan. Maybe that person wants to make the USA safer by restricting people who have demonstrated themselves to be likely violent and hateful. Who are we to judge?

Being Secure from Security ...

[tirk]

I have to wonder, if England of the 1770s had the type of security we do now, would the Revolution have succeeded or would we still be under English rule? It's just something to ponder I think, where is the best balance of being secure, yet not having to fear the ones providing the security. I don't personally think we are there yet, but where is that line?

glad im not him..

[Anonymous Coward]

thats gonna be a long boat ride back home...

Flying's no fun anymore

[stephenpeters]

Yeah, when I was a kid, flying was an adventure and a lot of fun. Now it's a PITA. It's been several years since I seriously considered a vacation that involved flying. I'd rather drive. If I have to fly to do it, odds are I'm not going to do it.

I feel the same way and I live in Europe. Driving from London to the French Alps, crossing the English channel on a ferry takes about the same time as flying there does. This is despite the actual flying bit lasting only an hour or so. The airline industry and governments have taken a fast and efficient form of travel and comprehensively fucked it over the years with security theatre and air industry processes. The cost is roughly equivalent to driving there even with European road fuel tax!

Driving has the advantage that you can choose to go stop where you like and travel via places you simply would not go when travelling by air. From my perspective driving offers lots more benefits for European journeys than air travel.

How long will it before the airlines worldwide are lobbying for security restrictions to be removed as it affects business?

Could be worse.

[Arancaytar]

Could have been a LOT worse.

They might have kicked him out earlier.

over the threshold beard

[pietros]

The fact is that while the guy was flying the beard went through the critical threshold that moved him in the no fly list.

don't worry, his rich relative will...

[Nyder]

... help him out, just need you to help him wire money to your bank account.

Stop whining, no big deal!

[superflit]

In February I was travelling with my wife to USA, in a well "red neck" wild west state..
We got on the border control after arriving and after usual the officer says to my wife:
"ok you are good to go"
and to me:
"you have to be checked , must be no big deal"
So I was ok, just a minor problem...
He puts me on a room with more 3 people.
I looked and Said to myself:
"Ok, no bars, seems good untill now"
The police on this room called:
"Mr. ortega?"
Another guys pops up.
"Mr. Ortega are you wanted in USA?"
Well the next conversation was not pleasant so I started thinking:
"Maybe I am not in the right room...."
The same officer calls my name :
I go to him and he says:
"Sorry Mr... We have another perso with the same name as you and DEFINITELY is not you, sorry about the delay. Are everything ok with you? ... ... So have a nice trip and I will put a note here so you wont be brothered more.
25 minutes.

Now on the SAME trip, I was put in CUSTODY in Mexico, yes f.... taco loco country.
glad I was in custody only for 6 hours....
And plus side, no water in the trash airport, imagine the bathroom.

Moral of history:

I prefer a BIG BROTHER who knows what to do than a crazy third world sh*t that only knows how to make tacos...

I know on these days is nice to bash USA, say that or this be "political".
But lets face, everybody hates Number 1.

No USA is not perfect, yes this has some problems but NOT even 1/6 than other countries bashing them.

Sorry to speak the truth

A real story?

[hesaigo999ca]

It makes sense, if officials think the guy has some intel or is special....he needs to be stopped as soon as he lands, so tip the hat and voila he has made it on the no fly list, but is it really that big a deal we need to hear it on /.?

I know what you mean

[Midnight Thunder]

If my destination is the USA, then I will put up with the crap, since I don't have much of a choice. On the other hand, if I fly from Canada to anywhere else I do my best to avoid flying through the states, since I always feel harassed by USA airport security. Sure, they have a job to do, but there are surely better ways of going about it? In certain cases they make nightclub bouncers seem darn right friendly.

The other thing that gets me is when I return to Canada via the USA, is the lack of international transit. Double immigration sucks, especially when I am not even planning on leaving the airport state-side. When you have spent 7 hours on a flight, do you think anyone looks innocent?

yes, but now they run the country

[Anonymous Coward]

Morons even made it illegal to be in the country illegally.

yes, but now they run the country