updated:US watch list at all time high again! 900,000

[Wilber]

What I don't get, though, is that there's nothing stopping somebody who is not on the no-fly list from getting on any plane, right ? Including between US locations.

It seems to me that they just want some suspected terrorists off the list, possibly because they're not an immediate threat to civilians, but fill a role higher in their organizations.

I can't see any other reason for it. Anyone else ?

One would hope that is it the reason but it is hard to believe that they know of over 750,000 who supposedly are a threat. One would think that statistic might cause them to re evaluate a few things. I don't buy the idea that it is a small price to pay for security. Innocents shouldn't be paying the price of their sloppy, scatter gun approach to this. I mean, aren't they supposed to be on our side?

[bush_cheney2004]

One would hope that is it the reason but it is hard to believe that they know of over 750,000 who supposedly are a threat. One would think that statistic might cause them to re evaluate a few things. I don't buy the idea that it is a small price to pay for security. Innocents shouldn't be paying the price of their sloppy, scatter gun approach to this. I mean, aren't they supposed to be on our side?

There are no "innocents"....just profiling, probability, and statistics. The no-fly list also serves a domestic political purpose in the wake of 911 attacks. Canada does not seek nor should it expect special treatment, except for Muher Arar.

[Wilber]

There are no "innocents"....just profiling, probability, and statistics. The no-fly list also serves a domestic political purpose in the wake of 911 attacks. Canada does not seek nor should it expect special treatment, except for Muher Arar.

So much for innocent until proved guilty. As long as we understand that it has to more to do with politics than security. As much as anything it is an excuse to do what wouldn't have been stood for before 9/11. Who is expecting special treatment? Americans are the ones most inconvenienced by it.

If you are using a list of over 3/4 million names, not actual people, the chances of screwing it up are far greater than getting it right.

[bush_cheney2004]

So much for innocent until proved guilty. As long as we understand that it has to more to do with politics than security. As much as anything it is an excuse to do what wouldn't have been stood for before 9/11.

People bitched that not enough was being done before 911....can't have it both ways.

Who is expecting special treatment? Americans are the ones most inconvenienced by it.

Fine by me.....nobody has the irrevocable right to fly through US airspace. Should we get rid of the metal detectors, sniffing dogs, and air marshals too...all in place long before 911.

If you are using a list of over 3/4 million names, not actual people, the chances of screwing it up are far greater than getting it right.

Do you really think that any approach would only identify real people while excluding all "innocents"? Nobody is forcing anybody to fly anywhere. Except for Muher Arar!

Edited November 15, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Do you really think that any approach would only identify real people while excluding all "innocents"? Nobody is forcing anybody to fly anywhere.

No system is going exclude all innocents. A list that consists of 3/4 million names only is going to catch mostly innocents. Nobody is being forced to fly but everyone flys for a reason. Is the system supposed to serve society or is it now the other way around?

Much of airline security is just blazing away in the dark with no night vision goggles.

[bush_cheney2004]

No system is going exclude all innocents. A list that consists of 3/4 million names only is going to catch mostly innocents. Nobody is being forced to fly but everyone flys for a reason. Is the system supposed to serve society or is it now the other way around?

It doesn't serve society....aviation is just another transportation infrastructure with risks and rules (regulation). You can get all the service you want, but it's gonna cost you plenty.

Much of airline security is just blazing away in the dark with no night vision goggles.

That's why they have radar.

[Wilber]

It doesn't serve society....aviation is just another transportation infrastructure with risks and rules (regulation). You can get all the service you want, but it's gonna cost you plenty

Unless a name that is the same as yours is one of those 755,000.

[bush_cheney2004]

Unless a name that is the same as yours is one of those 755,000.

Nope...just lease a Gulfstream and rent a pilot to fly around the USA. You can be bumped from a flight just by airline overbooking. No terrorism required!

[Wilber]

Nope...just lease a Gulfstream and rent a pilot to fly around the USA. You can be bumped from a flight just by airline overbooking. No terrorism required!

Unless you are an American in which case you will have to drive to Canada to rent your Gulfstream.

[bush_cheney2004]

Unless you are an American in which case you will have to drive to Canada to rent your Gulfstream.

No, he/she can lease one stateside. Or fly general aviation. 'Tain't no dern "no-fly-list" at my local grassy airstrip.

[Wilber]

No, he/she can lease one stateside. Or fly general aviation. 'Tain't no dern "no-fly-list" at my local grassy airstrip.

You still teaching terrorists to fly?

[bush_cheney2004]

You still teaching terrorists to fly?

Every day.

[Guest American Woman]

What I don't get, though, is that there's nothing stopping somebody who is not on the no-fly list from getting on any plane, right ? Including between US locations.

I already thought of that before making my initial response. I'd say the obvious answer is that these people are not in the United States. And since we already get the names of passengers flying into the U.S., they would be prevented from flying in. Now we want names to prevent people from flying over the U.S., so we would know if these people were on those flights if we had access to that information.

It seems to me that they just want some suspected terrorists off the list, possibly because they're not an immediate threat to civilians, but fill a role higher in their organizations.

Bin Laden is on the list. Who would fill a higher role than him? The article, as I quoted, says some of the some of most dangerous terrorists never even end up on the No Fly List, so if they're "the most dangerous," how could they not be an immediate threat?

It goes on to say:

"But if the point of the system is to keep dangerous people from getting on airplanes, why would you leave some of the potentially most dangerous people off the list?" Kroft asks.

"Yeah, it's a concern. And I think if you talk with the Department of Homeland Security they would agree with that," Berrick says.

So the Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues for the General Accounting Office says it is a concern.

I can't see any other reason for it. Anyone else ?

The way I see it, it's just as Wilber said-- since there's no threat of these people flying into the United States without our knowing it, if they can be prevented from flying over it, they won't pose a threat to the U.S. on an airline.

[jazzer]

Bin Laden is on the list.

.Now if we could just get him on the FBI list for 911 Edited November 15, 2007 by jazzer

[Michael Hardner]

Bin Laden is on the list. Who would fill a higher role than him? The article, as I quoted, says some of the some of most dangerous terrorists never even end up on the No Fly List, so if they're "the most dangerous," how could they not be an immediate threat?

AW, that's what I'm saying. If someone of BL's rank were dumb enough to board a plane, then it would be easier to apprehend them.

[kuzadd]

AW, that's what I'm saying. If someone of BL's rank were dumb enough to board a plane, then it would be easier to apprehend them.

Binladen, or his family will just charter a private plane.

The US will allow them to fly freely, just like after 9/11.

Let's be realistic here.

[Michael Hardner]

It was just an example. Do you have an idea as to why some would be left off the list ?

[Guest American Woman]

It was just an example. Do you have an idea as to why some would be left off the list ?

According to the source I quoted-- because the intelligence agencies that supply the names don’t want them circulated to airport employees in foreign countries for fear that they could end up in the hands of the terrorists.

[GostHacked]

According to the source I quoted-- because the intelligence agencies that supply the names don’t want them circulated to airport employees in foreign countries for fear that they could end up in the hands of the terrorists.

This does not make sense to me.

[Wilber]

This does not make sense to me.

Does if you are a spook I guess but one has to wonder how it makes flying on an airline safer.

[Moxie]

Does if you are a spook I guess but one has to wonder how it makes flying on an airline safer.

It seems to me anyone can be a "Terrorist", or placed on a List that calls someone a "Potential" terrorist. The US has gone to far with their paranoia, at the rate they are slapping people on this list no one will be flying in or out of the US.

Wait maybe that's the purpose, no one in-- no one out and the US will be safe. Nope then they have to deal with domestic terrorist, well make it look like they are attempting to deal with them. I'm sure the "Diversity" (buzz word for sucking up to Islamist) training that the FBI, Homeland Security and the INS received will keep society safe. NOT.

[kuzadd]

It was just an example. Do you have an idea as to why some would be left off the list ?

wrt private planes, MH.

where will the accountability be for that?

Many, very wealthy individuals have there own private planes, who would they transport? for money?

how would those individuals be accounted for?

example BinLaden.

answer:

they will not be accounted for, because the "no-fly" lists are for commercial fliers, that means average joe and jane, that means me and you.

so what is the real value of the no fly list???

[Michael Hardner]

wrt private planes, MH.

where will the accountability be for that?

Many, very wealthy individuals have there own private planes, who would they transport? for money?

how would those individuals be accounted for?

example BinLaden.

answer:

they will not be accounted for, because the "no-fly" lists are for commercial fliers, that means average joe and jane, that means me and you.

so what is the real value of the no fly list???

Kuz,

A good point, however I still think the list is a good idea. Most of the foot soldiers of these groups would likely travel through commercial flights.

[kuzadd]

Most of the foot soldiers of these groups would likely travel through commercial flights.

MH: You assume this based on 9/11.

IMO this is purely nonsensical.

The 'foot soldiers' of these groups, can easily be transported via private planes, How is it you think drugs get here?

Many of them fly in, (smuggled) not on commercial airlines, either.

Granted some drugs come via land travel.

But my point is, there is no logical reason to think that the 'foot soldiers' would come in on a commercial flight. Especially in light of security measures, long line ups, strip searches, it would be most inconvenient now wouldn't it??? You know, muck up those plans?

They can more effectively/covertly be flown in privately on a private chartered plane, via a well backed financial network, wether they be, drug cartels or arms dealers. Avoiding the inconvenience and delays of the commercial flight.

Really think about and, then accept the no-fly list is for average jane and joe and is of no real value, except as a "false security" measure.

Edited November 19, 2007 by kuzadd

[bush_cheney2004]

...Really think about and, then accept the no-fly list is for average jane and joe and is of no real value, except as a "false security" measure.

Maybe...but at least it still keeps Muher Arar out of US air space. Why does he want in so badly?