skinamatic Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites)'s officials declined to comment in advance of their planned announcement Tuesday that they would file a class-action lawsuit challenging the list of travelers that the government has barred from flying because they're considered a threat. The civil rights group is representing seven plaintiffs. Airlines are instructed to stop anyone on the "no fly" list that is compiled by the Transportation Security Administration. The ACLU contends, though, that some people are wrongfully put on the list. "Many innocent travelers who pose no safety risk whatsoever are stopped and searched repeatedly," the ACLU said in a statement issued Monday. The no-fly list is one of two lists kept by the TSA. The other is the "selectee." Those on the no-fly list are not allowed to board a commercial aircraft. Those on the selectee list must go through more extensive screening before boarding. Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies request that the TSA put names on the list. Little else is known about the lists, including how many people are on them and how they qualify to get on or off. The TSA acknowledged the name-matching technology used by some airlines confuses people on the no-fly list with passengers who have similar names. In such a case, a passenger would be referred to a law enforcement official, who would be able to clear up mistakes by checking the person's identification and perhaps putting in a call to the FBI (news - web sites), Mark Hatfield said. Problems with the no-fly list have provided fodder for critics of the TSA plan to conduct computerized background checks of all airline passengers and to rank them according to their risk of being a terrorist. They say that if a no-fly list with relatively few names causes confusion and produces misidentifications, the government cannot be trusted with a far broader program. Some people on the no-fly list have found it impossible to get off, said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "There doesn't seem to be any reliable way to resolve the problem that these people continuously confront," Sobel said. Hatfield acknowledge such problems exist but said the agency has worked to help people wrongly identified. Separately, the TSA said Monday that it is seeking proposals from companies to run a pilot "registered traveler" program in which low-risk frequent fliers could avoid extra security inspections at airports by submitting to background checks. Companies are being asked to show how they'd manage the program, as well as their capabilities in biometric identification and computer technology. Imagine that the ACLU is gonna sue somebody. What a surprise. THey dont care about national security. Just money, and how to stir up a bunch of $hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 well, If the plaintiffs are seven people who have tried repeatedly to get off the no-fly list despite being able to demonstrate thier innocence, then there really is no recourse but to sue. The facts of the case need to come up before I'm willing to bash the ACLU here. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinamatic Posted April 6, 2004 Author Share Posted April 6, 2004 Show me an article or facts that they have been able to prove "their innocense". The people on this list are put on it primarily by law enforcement. Mostly by the FBI or CIA. Maybe the evidence against these so called innocent people is sensitive and cant be made public. Next thing you know the ACLU will sue the government and say we violated the rights of Saddam Hussein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 I did see a TV segmement about a middle aged caucasion guy who had flown his whole life for business who was now on that list. He tried repeatedly to be removed from the list, but whenever he showed up for his flight he was denied. Also... a 15 teenager was found to be on the list... a caucasion white girl from middle America.... because her first name was similar to that of a known terrorist. I need more info before commenting.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Originally posted by skinamatic Show me an article or facts that they have been able to prove "their innocense". The people on this list are put on it primarily by law enforcement. Mostly by the FBI or CIA. Maybe the evidence against these so called innocent people is sensitive and cant be made public. Next thing you know the ACLU will sue the government and say we violated the rights of Saddam Hussein. I understand the point about sensitive evidence, but at some point I would hope you have to ask yourself... is it right to put a kind of blind trust in the FBI and CIA (or "law enforcement" agencies or whatever) ? I mean, history has shown that this kind of power gets abused. A famous case of this type of abuse would be in the case of MLK, where there seems to have been an abuse of power... http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIb.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinamatic Posted April 6, 2004 Author Share Posted April 6, 2004 911 changed everything. Flying is like a drivers license. It is not a right it is a priviledge. If you have done something to be placed on that list then you have lost your priviledge to fly. The ACLU is fighting to remove EVERYONE from this list. Now you know as well as I do that most of these people belong on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 skinamatic, are you sure that they want to ut an end to the lists? The article said that there were seven plaintiffs. MY guess is that these people did nothing to put themselves on the list other than having names similar to known terrorists. If that is enough to keep them flying and they have no recourse, than they should sue. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Maybe there should be a "no driving list", everyone who ever got a dui or dwi can't drive. I mean there are public transportations those people can use. Try passing that law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 sounds great. Also if your name ryhmes with the guy who got pulled over you should have your license revoked too. And if you question why, you should have "unpatriotic" written across your front door in pigs blood. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Someone needs to explain where the "Right to Fly on Commercial Airlines" is outlined in the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 I dont' see "Right to drive" in the Constitution either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Someone needs to explain where the "Right to Fly on Commercial Airlines" is outlined in the Constitution. So you would be ok with being unable to board a airplane because your name was similar to a suspected terrorist? Yes or No. Would you still be ok with it after you spoke with authorities and even though you did nothing were still unable to fly? Yes or No. Seriously I don't agree with stopping the use of this list but you have to allow people to either get off the list or provide proof they deserve to be on there. Stopping people form flying can cost them money and possibly employment depending on their job. If you are going to harm a person you should at least have to prove you are right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Someone needs to explain where the "Right to Fly on Commercial Airlines" is outlined in the Constitution. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Now, do you intend to tell me that refusing to allow someone to board a plane constitutes, in your opinion, a reasonable search or siezure? Or do you intend to claim that having a name that's similar to someone who is suspected of bad intentions constitutes "particularly describing" someone? And skinamatic, since when did american citizens have to prove their innocence if they didn't want the government to single them out for special harrassment? Sh1t, when is the Committee for State Security (and yes, I'm using that name intentionally) going to decide that the Constitution doesn't mention the "Right to cross a County Line without showing your 'papers'"? Frankly, if you want to get technical, when did wanting to get on an airplane suddenly constitute "probable cause" that you were committing a crime? And what is our "compasionate" administration's plans for dealing with this? We're going to issue important campaign contributors special "gold cards", so they'll be immune from security. (Good thing the terrorists will never figure out how to steal or fake one of them!) After all, we wouldn't want important people to get treated like common citizens, or something! Don't these little people know who we are? (We'll have to make shure no gays get one of those cards, though. Wouldn't want to promote their lifestyle by giving them "normal" status, or something.) (OK, so I get a little bitter when I see our country abandoning what I think of are the principals that used to make us better than other places, and see people who I'd expect to respect the same kind of things that I do, cheering the process.) (And, FWIW, I have no problem with the Gov maintaining a list of people who should get extra attention, although I'd point out that making a decision as to whether a particular passenger gets searched based on the name on the ticket is a really poor criterion to make security decisions on. If all the list did was require people to show some more ID, and maybe a more thorough search, then I'd say it's a reasonable precaution. {I'd say, though, that perhaps it would make more sense, if a name on the "hot list" shows up, that maybe the aircraft and the other passengers on that flight should also get some extra looks.} My problem is if people are being just flat-out prohibited from flying because of similar names or mistaken IDs. (And, I'd say, there needs to be some process for reviewing names to see if they really need to be on that list. Maybe the process can be classified, but there needs to be one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Someone needs to explain where the "Right to Fly on Commercial Airlines" is outlined in the Constitution. Where is the power to restrict such a right delimited in the Constitution? The Constititution limits the government, not the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinamatic Posted April 6, 2004 Author Share Posted April 6, 2004 Originally posted by Destino So you would be ok with being unable to board a airplane because your name was similar to a suspected terrorist? Yes or No. Would you still be ok with it after you spoke with authorities and even though you did nothing were still unable to fly? Yes or No. Seriously I don't agree with stopping the use of this list but you have to allow people to either get off the list or provide proof they deserve to be on there. Stopping people form flying can cost them money and possibly employment depending on their job. If you are going to harm a person you should at least have to prove you are right to do so. Fist of Destino I wouldnt have to worry about. # 1 I have no criminal record nor would do anything that would bar me from this list. Second I have no propb with the innocent peopke getting off of the list. Read the article closely. The ACLU is representing 7 people. However they are challenging THE list. And to answer your question no, it would be easy for me to prove my innocense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Skinamatic, your attitude is truly vile. You have no problem with the government restricting personal freedoms because your freedoms won't be restricted. Because "you've never done anything wrong." Well, people who have never done anything wrong have been detained at airports. Two Brits were detained for TWO YEARS by the US government. They DID NOTHING WRONG. Once you flip the standard so that the person who has had his freedom restricted must prove his innocence, you've entered a Kafka-esque world where the individual cannot win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Originally posted by skinamatic Fist of Destino I wouldnt have to worry about. # 1 I have no criminal record nor would do anything that would bar me from this list. Second I have no propb with the innocent peopke getting off of the list. Read the article closely. The ACLU is representing 7 people. However they are challenging THE list. And to answer your question no, it would be easy for me to prove my innocense. I suggest you read the article closely. The plaintifs are claiming (and if it isn't true, the Government will have ample time to make them look silly) that they haven't done anything to be blacklisted, either. And to rebut your statement, no, it is impossible for you to prove your innocence. (That's why this country used to operate on a principle of innocent untill proven guilty.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 I was just recalling an old joke (I think it was Yakov Smirnov, or some such Russian comedian): Q: What's the difference between the American Constitution and the Russian Constitution? A: The Russian Constitution guarantees freedom of speach and freedom of assembly. The American Constitution guarantees freedom after the speach, . . . But aparantly, it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Wait, are they talking about the Government not letting people fly in planes or pilot planes? Either way, can we do that in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 One of the Lawyers for the ACLU is on the no fly list himself! I have no problem with having a watch list. However, there needs to be a reasonable process to get oneself removed from that list. Shoot, if you're willing to make a stink about it, putting your name in the paper, you're probably not a threat anyway! These are type of fascist actions that got pushed through after 9-11 that now need to be rethought, including the "Patriot" act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 It doesn't surprise me that government has a phucked up list. Phucking up is what bueraucrats do best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 So you're in favor of privatizing the military, Sarge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black So you're in favor of privatizing the military, Sarge? No. The military is one of the few things the Constitution mandates the government provide, and it is one of the very few things it does reasonably well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black So you're in favor of privatizing the military, Sarge? The second biggest army in Iraq is made up of private mercenaries. (Blackwell and Halliburton included.) Seems they already have privatized a lot of it. Just call it "The Coalition of the Billing." There is good money in war. Just ask the Carlyle Group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Originally posted by skinamatic Fist of Destino I wouldnt have to worry about. # 1 I have no criminal record nor would do anything that would bar me from this list. Second I have no propb with the innocent peopke getting off of the list. Read the article closely. The ACLU is representing 7 people. However they are challenging THE list. And to answer your question no, it would be easy for me to prove my innocense. I guess you missed the point then. The point here is that they won't remove you even if you do try to show that you haven't done anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.