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

[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

[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

[BobMcD]

Drag?

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.

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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[ArsonSmith]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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.

Just more evidence

[XxtraLarGe]

The terrorists have already won.

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: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.

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.

No-fly list

[maxwell demon]

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

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!"

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.

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