Federal Government Removes 7 Americans From No-Fly List

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Government Removes 7 Americans From No-Fly List

Posted by Soulskill on Monday October 13, 2014 @11:26AM from the other-319-million-out-of-luck dept.

An anonymous reader writes: In response to a district judge ruling that declared the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program unconstitutional, the federal government has annouced its removal of seven Americans from its no-fly list (PDF). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing a total of 13 people suing to get off that list, and the government has until January of this year to deal with remaining six in that group. "Federal agencies have nominated more than 1.5 million names to terrorist watch lists over the past five years alone. Yet being a terrorist isn't a condition of getting on a roster that, until now, has been virtually impossible to be removed from..." One of the seven removed from the list is Marine Corps veteran and dog trainer Ibraheim Mashal of Illinois. The others had similarly Middle-Eastern-sounding names.

79 of 124 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

"Until now"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-13 11:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

1.5 million names on, 7 names off...
Which of those two statistics says that it's no longer "virtually impossible" to get off the list?
1. Re:"Until now"? by TWX · 2014-10-13 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  The seven removed names actually went through the courts to get their names removed. If this is the only case pending so far then they're at just under a 54% success rate with this case.
  
  I have heard a lot of complaints about the list, but I've not followed the story enough to know how widespread the practice of trying to get off the list is. Are there other lawsuits pending? Is there something of a 'proper channels' method to appealing, and how many cases have been submitted to that? Obviously with the ACLU suit then it's unlikely that a 'proper channels' method is functioning.
  
  Unless we have figures then we can't really gauge the effectiveness.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:"Until now"? by able1234au · 2014-10-13 11:50 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Searching for the list probably gets you on the list.
3. Re:"Until now"? by AK+Marc · 2014-10-13 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Have they flown since? Have they been officially told they were on the list to begin with?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
4. Re:"Until now"? by Mitreya · 2014-10-13 13:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Are there other lawsuits pending? Is there something of a 'proper channels' method to appealing, and how many cases have been submitted to that?
  I am quite sure there isn't such channel
  I think the ones suing have some accidental way of proving that they are, in fact, on the no-fly list. I don't believe there is a channel to confirm if you are on the no-fly list. Very Kafkaesque indeed.
5. Re:"Until now"? by davester666 · 2014-10-13 17:22 · Score: 2
  
  First, they won't officially tell you if you are on the list or not. You have to figure out for yourself that you are on the list based on trying to fly, then being told when you arrive at the airport that the airline declines to honor your ticket [you generally will get a refund for the ticket].
  Second, the 'official' method for being removed from the list is for you to send a letter to homeland security requesting that you be removed from the list. You might receive a letter acknowledging receipt, but you will neither receive confirmation of being on the list nor be informed as to whether they have decided to remove you from the list or not. I have never come across any article/report w.r.t. of anybody actually being removed from the list using this method, but if it has worked, I'm sure the people came to the conclusion that they should not come to be noticed for it, least their name might happen to reappear on the list.
  Third, actually suing the gov't in this manner makes them dig in w.r.t to you, just for standing up and announcing that you shouldn't be on the list. Even after the gov't is forced to reveal that you were mistakenly added to the list because somebody checked the wrong box, they still reject the idea that you have the right to force them to remove you from the list using the court system.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
6. Re:"Until now"? by davester666 · 2014-10-13 17:50 · Score: 2
  
  For more information on the official method for removing yourself from the list, if you think you may be on it, google "Traveler Redress Inquiry Program", though I believe the use of word "inquiry" may give you a false impression that you will receive meaningful feedback.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
7. Re:"Until now"? by mwvdlee · 2014-10-13 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  What is to stop the TSA from putting these people back on the list after a short wait?
  Also, isn't putting 1.5 million names on a list basically admitting "We don't know".
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
8. Re:"Until now"? by mwvdlee · 2014-10-13 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  RTFA.
  They have no way of knowing if they are officially on the list, since they have specifically asked and received an answer that doesn't say either way.
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
9. Re:"Until now"? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-10-13 19:43 · Score: 2
  
  Catch 9/11?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
10. Re:"Until now"? by ILongForDarkness · 2014-10-14 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  That is the problem I think. The onus shouldn't be on the person on the list to find out they are on the list and then pay for a defence. Do you get notified you can't fly when you try to purchase your tickets? Somehow I doubt it. So by the time you realize you have a problem you are already out the price of your tickets and your plans are shot. A lot of people don't "need" to fly they choose to go somewhere for vacation, volunteer for an overseas business trip etc. That is the problem: the barrier to getting your rights restored might be more than they are worth to you. A quick solution might be to force the government to provide notice to everyone on the list and public defenders for anyone requesting removal. "National security" claims are such BS. If they really know enough about you to deny your rights without the benefit of trial then they should be willing to arrest you/start court proceedings. "I have a hunch about that guy" isn't sufficient to start taking away civil liberties.
11. Re:"Until now"? by irq-1 · 2014-10-14 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  "There, there," Yossarian said, because he did not know what else to say. "There, there."
12. Re:"Until now"? by ElSergio · 2014-10-14 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  13 have actually gone to court to be removed, 7 have succeeded, while the other 6 will soon be decided. I think that is the statistic that says it is no longer "virtually impossible" to get off the list. If 1.5 million people aren't trying to get off the list, then they don't matter to the statistic. Kind of like unemployment.
What happens with no ID? by TWX · 2014-10-13 11:30 · Score: 2

Stupid question, but it pertains at least a bit...

If one flies with no ID, which is legal though a PITA, and one's ticket doesn't match any no-fly list, then how exactly is the TSA or anyone else supposed to stop one from flying? Admittedly one will probably get the worst treatment at the TSA checkpoint, and may get asked a lot of questions in advance of being allowed through security, but if one can fly without ID, then how can a no-fly list actually stop anyone?

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
1. Re:What happens with no ID? by raydobbs · 2014-10-13 11:37 · Score: 2
  
  Sure, you can *technically* fly without an ID... but plan on getting to the airport about a day ahead of time if you want to stand a chance of making your flight - which WILL happen once the TSA gets a hold of you. Only other way is to charter your own flights - but then the FAA and DHS have your name from the passenger manifest - fat lot of good it will do them though as by the time they do all the investigative work, your flight will have already departed, arrived, and you will be long gone.
2. Re:What happens with no ID? by rahvin112 · 2014-10-13 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  You can't fly without ID because they won't let you through security without it. There is no requirement that it be a drivers license, passports are accepted as well. BTW I'm not defending the policy.
3. Re:What happens with no ID? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-13 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you are an illegal alien and you have your paperwork to show up in court, you may use that to board the airplanes past the TSA with no additional trouble.
  If you are a legal citizen, I'm not sure how its possible.
  story Note: you will notice Breitbart.com ran this story, the TSA claimed it was false, and months later admitted they lied and its true. The story has letter from TSA stating it lied to the public about this.
4. Re:What happens with no ID? by rmdingler · 2014-10-13 11:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I don't see why you need a driver's license if you're not currently driving a car... Children probably get through the checkpoint just fine.
  They do. I flew with mine, completely uneventfully, multiple times, prior to admitting an 18th birthday had been reached. Note to self: dishonesty is the second best policy. Despite a school-issued photo-ID, they held my son out of line nearly long enough to cost us all the scheduled flight.
  "The rest of you can go on ahead," they said, as if we mighty fly on despite the loss of a teenager. I have been talked to like a five-year-old more times than I care to remember during quality time with the TSA.... an exception to the rule, I am certain.
  Does this all mean we'll see a rise in baby-faced terrorism?
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
5. Re:What happens with no ID? by Obfuscant · 2014-10-13 11:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You can't fly without ID because they won't let you through security without it.
  
  Yes, they will.
6. Re:What happens with no ID? by mythosaz · 2014-10-13 11:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You sir, are grossly mistaken.
  Do you have any idea how many people get their wallet stolen while on vacation, or leave it in a cab on the way to the airport?
  People fly without ID every. single. day. The TSA has a nice page on it, but even it uses weasel words like "may not be allowed."
  http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-in...
  They Q&A you with the same sort of questions you'd need to answer to verify an online credit check (did you live on Mulberry St?), they'll give you an anal probe (excuse me: "Enhanced Screening") and then you'll pass through security unless you can't answer questions about yourself.
  So, if you can afford a background check on someone and memorize a few details, you can pretend to fly as them. WHEE!
7. Re:What happens with no ID? by mythosaz · 2014-10-13 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  You've never needed a driver's license; you just need state or federal approved identification, of which a driver's licence happens to be.
  Also, like many people who lose their wallets vacationing (and as many posts below explain), you don't necessarily need ID.
8. Re:What happens with no ID? by lgw · 2014-10-13 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  You see this confusion with Voter ID laws too. Every state these days has an official non-driver's photo ID, sometimes called a "drinker's license". They're usually less than $10 - the real cost is showing up to be photographed and present whatever records are required.
  You can also use a passport card as an ID when flying - I've done that before. I always carry my passport card separate from my wallet when I travel, just in case.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
9. Re:What happens with no ID? by Antique+Geekmeister · 2014-10-13 15:17 · Score: 2
  
  > the real cost is showing up to be photographed and present whatever records are required.
  This is often not a small cost for someone on limited income, trying to take care of children or hold down a job with medical issues, long commutes, or poor transporation. Voter ID laws and poll taxes have a terrible history, and have been part of blocking poorer Amercians, especially black Americans, from being able to vote since the end of the US Civil War.
10. Re:What happens with no ID? by Simply+Curious · 2014-10-13 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  So, it is worth disenfranchising a sizeable population to stop 31 people from voter fraud? You seem to have your priorities misplaced.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
11. Re:What happens with no ID? by putaro · 2014-10-13 18:27 · Score: 2
  
  Voter fraud is a worse problem.
  It is? Give examples. In-person voter fraud is almost non-existent. Ballot box stuffing, payola and other forms of voter fraud are not affected by requiring ID.
12. Re:What happens with no ID? by drinkypoo · 2014-10-13 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  Voter fraud is a worse problem.
  While that's true, studies have shown that there is virtually no voter fraud due to identification issues, but we know that there is significant voting fraud in other places in the chain, such as in Diebold's voting machines or when Florida set scanners in predominantly-black precincts to silently accept and fail errors, instead of rejecting them. There's actually a switch on the device which permits this thing which should never be permitted. So I'm glad to hear that you don't support strong voter ID laws but you do support going after corporations like Diebold, since you are more concerned about voter fraud (a "worse problem") than identification problems.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
13. Re:What happens with no ID? by Stolpskott · 2014-10-14 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  It has been several years since I flew domestically within the US, but I personally have never been allowed to board any aircraft larger than a Cessna that I was piloting myself without the holy trinity of passport or acceptable photo ID, ticket, and boarding pass (only issued after presenting ticket plus passport/photoID).
  A few weeks ago, I was at the gate in Frankfurt when a very Aryan-looking German gentleman was refused leave to board a flight to London Heathrow because he could only find his boarding pass, having lost/misplaced his passport at some point after passing through security.
  (Co-incidentally, there was a spare German passport lying on the ground next to the chair he had been sitting in, and luckily it had his picture and name in it, so he was able to board the flight after stressing for 15 minutes... but the "No ID, no flight" thing is a pretty hard and fast rule in Europe, it seems)
14. Re:What happens with no ID? by AvitarX · 2014-10-14 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Often in PA it is getting a judge to accept your birth certificate without a raised seal. This was an issue for the black population born in Jim Crow south.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
15. Re:What happens with no ID? by mrchaotica · 2014-10-14 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  "The rest of you can go on ahead," they said, as if we mighty fly on despite the loss of a teenager.
  I bet it would have given the airline an excuse not to refund the rest of your tickets, if you had missed the flight.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
16. Re:What happens with no ID? by lgw · 2014-10-14 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Having to stand in line to get photographed sometime in the 5 years before you want to vote disenfranchises who again? Or do you have a mental model of some minorities as helpless, unable to accomplish simple tasks?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
17. Re:What happens with no ID? by lgw · 2014-10-14 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, current electronic voting is an outright scam. We should fix both problems. The answer for the machines is so obvious the current design flaws can only be intentional: computer-assisted voting is the one true way. Have all the touch screens and so on you want, but the machine prints a clear, human-readable ballot that the voter can validate before dropping in the box. Counting and recounts are normal.
  Anyone who doesn't want to fix either of these problems is trying to fix the vote. There are of course other methods for fraud as well, but that's no excuse not to fix these 2.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
18. Re:What happens with no ID? by lgw · 2014-10-14 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  But problems like that can be specifically addressed by the courts. It also really helps is the non-drivers IDs have a very long renewal time (12+ years), so that having gotten past any shenanigans once is good for many elections.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
19. Re:What happens with no ID? by Obfuscant · 2014-10-14 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  It has been several years since I flew domestically within the US, but I personally have never been allowed to board any aircraft larger than a Cessna that I was piloting myself without the holy trinity of passport or acceptable photo ID, ticket, and boarding pass (only issued after presenting ticket plus passport/photoID).
  Have you tried? Why would you expect an airline to let you on board without having a ticket? You don't have to show it, but you need to have one. Why don't you just get another boarding pass? I've gotten new boarding passes with nothing more than my frequent flier account number -- there are even kiosks at airports now that will print them out for you without any interaction with an airline person at all. You don't have to present either your ticket or your ID. You can also check in for your flight and never have to show the airline an id of any kind.
  The issue is not your airline ticket or pass, where nobody would expect the airline to let you on without them, but ID getting through security. TSA clearly says there is a procedure to do that, and the links I provided were from people who had done it.
  
  A few weeks ago, I was at the gate in Frankfurt when a very Aryan-looking German gentleman was refused leave to board a flight to London Heathrow because he could only find his boarding pass, having lost/misplaced his passport at some point after passing through security. (Co-incidentally, there was a spare German passport lying on the ground next to the chair he had been sitting in, and luckily it had his picture and name in it, so he was able to board the flight after stressing for 15 minutes... but the "No ID, no flight" thing is a pretty hard and fast rule in Europe, it seems)
  International travel requires documents because the destination country requires documents. You don't get on the plane without them because the airline doesn't want to have to deal with taking you back where you started, and I'm guessing you'd be glad because you don't want to wind up living in the arrival area because you can't get through customs at your destination.
20. Re:What happens with no ID? by putaro · 2014-10-14 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  There are no Republican DA's, Secretaries of State, etc. looking for in-person voter fraud? Give it up, doesn't happen.
  It used to be that conservatives were opposed to identity cards and they were right. They do not solve problems they simply allow for control of the populace.
21. Re:What happens with no ID? by RockDoctor · 2014-10-16 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  "The rest of you can go on ahead," they said, as if we mighty fly on despite the loss of a teenager.
  Why would that be a problem? You're talking about someone who is close to the 18 end of teenagerhood, but even so, so what? I was hitch-hiking form one end of the country to the other when I was 14 (which was about 11 years before I first flew in a fixed-wing aircraft). Make sure the kid has a charged mobile phone, get on the plane, sort him out with a hotel room by phone, and then get on with sorting out how to move him on to catch up with the rest of the family.
  Beside, whose fault is it that the person hadn't got appropriate ID? Yours, or the young adult? They're often whinging about not being treated like adults, so ... here's your power, take the consequences if you get it wrong.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Oh Noes!!! by BenSchuarmer · 2014-10-13 11:31 · Score: 1

Why do they hate our freedom?
1. Re:Oh Noes!!! by amiga3D · 2014-10-13 12:33 · Score: 2
  
  Because our freedom limits their control.
2. Re:Oh Noes!!! by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-14 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  They don't hate our freedom. They want to protect our freedom. You just need to think of our freedom as a mint-in-box action figure. You wouldn't take it out and actually use it. No, you would lock it up securely in a vault to keep it in mint condition. So the only way to protect our freedom is to securely lock it away nobody can see it, touch it, and break it. Only by making sure nobody has access to our freedom can we protect our freedom!
  (Sadly, I'm being sarcastic but there are people who wholeheartedly believe this to be true.)
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-13 11:40 · Score: 1

We're not even pretending that Slashdot is about tech anymore, right?
1. Re:*sigh* by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-10-13 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  Long ago, and in your imagination.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
January... by SIR_Taco · 2014-10-13 11:45 · Score: 2

... the government has until January of this year to deal with remaining six in that group.
I guess they're a little late then :)

--
I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
1. Re:January... by CaptainDork · 2014-10-13 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yours hit at 7:45 and mine at 7:49.
  You win.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
2. Re:January... by war4peace · 2014-10-13 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  They will introduce a second January smack in the middle of December just to prove you wrong.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Say whut? by CaptainDork · 2014-10-13 11:49 · Score: 1

... and the government has until January of this year ...

--
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Really? by arielCo · 2014-10-13 12:05 · Score: 1

from the other-319-million-out-of-luck dept.

It's no wonder that several airlines are struggling, then.

--
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
That whole list by DaMattster · 2014-10-13 12:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just needs to go the fuck away! The Patriot Act is mostly a failure and we're no safer and have significantly less liberties. Another tragic knee-jerk reaction by government results in an abysmal travesty of justice.
1. Re:That whole list by amiga3D · 2014-10-13 12:37 · Score: 4
  
  I hate the fucking name. The sorry cock suckers used Patriotism to justify anti-patriotic legislation. If George Washington was alive today he'd gut the fucking bastards.
2. Re:That whole list by Bite+The+Pillow · 2014-10-13 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  I agree.
  Now, how do we prevent known terrorists from boarding planes when we know so little about them?
  Isn't your argument, in fact, basically "Let a bunch of Americans die and call it an accident"?
  If it isn't, then clarify? If it is, then why hide behind nice-sounding words?
3. Re:That whole list by Antique+Geekmeister · 2014-10-13 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  The existing TSA has not presented a single successful prosecution, nor any "terrorists" successfully blocked by the terrorism watch list. The effective change in security has been the change in behavior of on board passengers and crew who no longer wait for the plane to land in control of the hijackers, and simple steps like better cockpit doors. There's little if any evidence that the enhanced check-ins are anything but security theater.
  I've flown through dozens of airports since 9/11. Much like those attackers, I could easily pick the one with the worst security to stage a demonstration of just how simple it is to get weapns past their security.
4. Re:That whole list by TheGratefulNet · 2014-10-13 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  ALL of our founding fathers would be arrested as terrorists.
  they fought their own country, the English.
  now, we agree with their views, but if the TLA's had their way (and congress, and the president and, well, all the courts, too) they'd be marked as 'bad guys' and would have little to no freedom.
  odd, how that turns 360, huh? ;(
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
5. Re:That whole list by amiga3D · 2014-10-13 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  Damn sure all the Founding Fathers would be on the no fly list.
6. Re:That whole list by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-10-13 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it was supposed to be used as a weapon against our enemies in time of war. Now that the threat is no longer around, the legislation needs to sunset and everything needs to go back to how it was.
  Unfortunately, the federal government has a very bad record of giving up power once it's got it. It uses that power to gain more power, and so on. And we end up with a modern tyranny and scolding voices saying, "we're forcing you to do this for your own good".
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
7. Re:That whole list by cold+fjord · 2014-10-13 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  ALL of our founding fathers would be arrested as terrorists.
  they fought their own country, the English.
  The Founding Fathers were rebels, not terrorists. It is not a confusing distinction.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
8. Re:That whole list by The+Ickle+Jones · 2014-10-13 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it was supposed to be used as a weapon against our enemies in time of war. Now that the threat is no longer around, the legislation needs to sunset and everything needs to go back to how it was.
  
  No. That is not acceptable, time of war or not. The government has no authority to violate the constitution or ignore people's liberties *ever*. The Unpatriotic Act was unacceptable from the very beginning.
9. Re:That whole list by The+Ickle+Jones · 2014-10-14 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't your argument, in fact, basically "Let a bunch of Americans die and call it an accident"?
  I don't know about him, but my argument is that fundamental liberties are more important than safety. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' not 'the land of the unfree and the home of the coward.' As such, as shouldn't be sacrificing fundamental liberties or due process (in this case) for safety. If that means we're more at risk (which would be surprising, since terrorists are largely an imagined threat, especially in the US), then so be it. Living and having freedom means taking risks, and I'll gladly do so.
10. Re:That whole list by cold+fjord · 2014-10-14 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with your idea is that words have meaning, and terrorist doesn't mean the same thing as rebel. The word terrorist has its own meaning, and it isn't part of some "craze." Your certainty is nonsense.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
11. Re:That whole list by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-14 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, you'll never keep 100% of terrorists off of airplanes. Not without also keeping 100% of valid passengers off also. (The airlines wouldn't survive this level of "security.")
  Secondly, the incidence of terrorists boarding US airplanes is extremely low. Most of the ones that make the news (shoe bomber, underwear bomber) boarded planes in other countries. Simple measures we already have in place stop would-be terrorists. Measures like pre-911 security, checking tickets before boarding, locking cabin doors, and not just quietly going along with terrorists. (Pre-911 a hijacking meant a stressful trip to Cuba but otherwise no danger if you kept quiet, post-911 a hijacking leads to a passenger revolt.) Does this make flying 100% terrorist-proof? No, but nothing is. The risk that the plane you are about to board will be a terrorist target is minimal, though. You have a greater risk of equipment malfunction.
  Finally, the TSA has caught exactly zero terrorists. Yes, they stop people from bringing weapons on-board, but none of those people have been arrested of conspiring to blow up airplanes. By all means there should be some security before you board, but we could go back to pre-911 levels of pre-boarding security and still be just as safe as we are now.
  So this isn't about letting Americans die. It's about not having some useless "security" that doesn't really do anything to protect against terrorists and only makes the lives of legitimate flyers difficult. Or that only lines the pockets of some company that manufacturers the security devices and has a "close relationship" with some influential Congressfolk.
  And just one more point: Suppose we somehow lock down the airports so that we're blocking 100% of the terrorists. Terrorists could target sports stadiums, malls, trains, busy highways. etc. Are we going to need to have TSA-style checks every time we walk in the mall? Will we need to present papers showing that we aren't terrorists at random times every day to "protect" us from phantom terrorists hiding around every corner? Is doing otherwise (to use your words) letting "a bunch of Americans die and call it an accident"?
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
12. Re:That whole list by cellocgw · 2014-10-14 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Damn sure all the Founding Fathers would be on the no fly list.
  Response #1: Well, of course, since airplanes didn't work back then.
  Response #2, Well, duh, it was easier to put on leggings than use button-fly pants back then (zippers weren't due to be invented for a while)
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
13. Re:That whole list by cold+fjord · 2014-10-14 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  It may appear counterintuitive but the crank newsletters where you get your ideas aren't the final arbiters of meaning either.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Seven people taken off "no fly list". by MRe_nl · 2014-10-13 12:30 · Score: 1

They seem to have disappeared Sir.

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Re:Just in time! by amiga3D · 2014-10-13 12:35 · Score: 1

As if that matters. I hope you really aren't counting on that AC posting as being truly anonymous.
How? by twistedcubic · 2014-10-13 12:54 · Score: 1

How can a databse of 1.5 million people be created by such a small organization in such a short time based on credible evidence? I've figured it out!

grep -e Abad -e Abdallah -e Abdul ... -e Mohammed ... NSA_list_of_Muslim_names.txt
1. Re:How? by GinRummy33 · 2014-10-13 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  Using a list like that, I wonder if it grabbed that weirdo named Barack Hussein Obama?
I have never understood this by PapayaSF · 2014-10-13 13:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

What exactly is the point of this odd half-assed sort of category, a "no-fly list"? If the federal government suspects a citizen or resident might be a terrorist, OK, then get a friggin' warrant and bug their phone and search their house and get some real evidence. Since terrorists can do a lot more than hijack airplanes, what's the message here? "We want to prevent you from hijacking an airliner, but a bus is OK?" Either treat them like a suspected terrorist, or just stop hassling them.

--
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
1. Re:I have never understood this by TheGratefulNet · 2014-10-13 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  fear.
  control.
  keeping you from challenging authority.
  pretty much, just that.
  (oh, and security theater, too.)
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
2. Re:I have never understood this by dgatwood · 2014-10-13 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  TSA also does some sort of screening for some Amtrak routes.
  I seem to recall that the last time they tried that, the Amtrak Police escorted them off the premises. Nothing quite as much fun to watch as an interjurisdictional pissing match.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
3. Re:I have never understood this by The+Ickle+Jones · 2014-10-14 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  The TSA simply needs to be destroyed. They're traitors to the constitution and the very concept of individual liberty.
Re:Reminds me of Family Guy cut away gag by davydagger · 2014-10-13 14:06 · Score: 1

not really.
confusing many very different lists by raymorris · 2014-10-13 14:11 · Score: 2

The summary mixes and matches some very different lists. The "no fly list" consists of about 13 people resident in the US and a few hundred who live in other countries and these people aren't allowed to fly into or out of the US - they are to be detained at the border. This suit was about the no-fly list.
Next up, we have the terrorism watch list. This is a mich larger list, too large in my opinion. This is a list of people authorities might look at if something happens, similar to the sex offender registry except it's not public. For example, if someone were to plant a bomb at UCLA, they would check to see of any UCLA students or staff were on the terrorism watch list. If so, authorities would ask those people where they were at the time of the bombing and check those alibis. So it kind of serves as a starting point - these are people who have advocated violence or whatever, so when something happens in their neighborhood it might be worth checking them out.
TFA says "lists", so they may also have in mind other lists such as:
People who have exercised their second amendment rights (instant background check system)
People licensed to buy and use explosives, such as for road construction or professional fireworks
People who have taken courses in cybersecurity, which are federally subsidized
I'm on the last three lists.
1. Re:confusing many very different lists by Trepidity · 2014-10-13 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure if it's the same as the "terrorist watch list", but there's some kind of intermediate "can fly, but only after extra hassle" list also. I was on one for a while, apparently because of some British person with the same name as mine (I'm American, but have a very common English name). I couldn't use web check-in and had to always go to the airport to check-in with a person, who would first assume I was just dumb and didn't know how to use the machine, then after they verified I could indeed not check in on the machine, they'd poke around at the desk a bit, then call someone, check my ID, then give me a boarding pass, I guess after verifying I was not the other guy. Could've been worse, but was pretty annoying, especially because nobody would actually explain what was going on.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
off the no fly list... by schlachter · 2014-10-13 15:55 · Score: 1

and right at the top of the "you can still fly but don't mind that plainclothed federal marshall sitting next to you"

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
the list you want to get on is the... by schlachter · 2014-10-13 15:57 · Score: 1

"pretty fly for a white guy" list

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Re:Pretty sure.... by cold+fjord · 2014-10-13 19:19 · Score: 1

Dumping the Brit's tea could've been construed as an act of terrorism at the time they were in.

I think that the implied ability of an ocean port with some floating tea in it to inspire "terror" is .... a bit underwhelming.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
They removed ANYONE? by Chas · 2014-10-13 19:27 · Score: 1

*Drops dead in shock*

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
1. Re:They removed ANYONE? by Jason+Levine · 2014-10-14 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  They removed seven people - after lengthy court battles. How many people did they add during that time, though? And what is the guarantee that these people won't "mysteriously" get re-added to the list six months from now? This list is compiled in secret using methods that are secret. It's contents are secret and there is no official method for getting off the list or even confirming that you are on the list.
  It's almost like some people in power decided that the only way to prevent the terrorists from destroying our freedom was for them to destroy it first.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Maybe we're going about this backwards by Solandri · 2014-10-13 20:42 · Score: 1

Rather than try to get people removed from the list, it'll probably be easier to fix this by getting ~15 million people added to the no-fly list. If 5% of the U.S. population were on the list, it'd be a significant enough impediment to free travel that they'd have to fix it or quit using it.
Re: by BlackDesign · 2014-10-13 23:34 · Score: 1

Uh-Oh ;-)
Re:Americans want to ban flights to Ebola hot zone by The+Ickle+Jones · 2014-10-14 00:26 · Score: 1

I know the two things are entirely unrelated
If you know that, then what's the point of your comment?
Won't Last Long by herbierobinson · 2014-10-18 09:30 · Score: 1

The actual announcement has this phrase in it: "... the following individuals are not currently on the No Fly List as of the date of this letter". They explicitly go on to state that "we make no other representations with respect to past or future travel". In other words, as soon as the court case is over, they go right back on the list...

--
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us