Federal Government Removes 7 Americans From No-Fly List 124
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.
"Until now"? (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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re:"Until now"? (Score:5, Funny)
Searching for the list probably gets you on the list.
off the no fly list... (Score:2)
and right at the top of the "you can still fly but don't mind that plainclothed federal marshall sitting next to you"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
"There, there," Yossarian said, because he did not know what else to say. "There, there."
Re: (Score:1)
Re:"Until now"? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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 yo
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 getti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Your critical thinking needs work.
confusing many very different lists (Score:3)
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 regist
Re: (Score:2)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:1)
What happens with no ID? (Score:3)
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?
Re:What happens with no ID? (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
I bet it would have given the airline an excuse not to refund the rest of your tickets, if you had missed the flight.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
It's "non-existent" because democrats try very hard to keep people for even looking for it.
You won't find your fat-fold encased penis if no woman ever looks for it either. That doesn't mean your fat-fold encased penis isn't there.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 c
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:What happens with no ID? (Score:4, Informative)
You can't fly without ID because they won't let you through security without it.
Yes, [nytimes.com] they [tsa.gov] will. [cheapair.com]
Re:What happens with no ID? (Score:4, 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... [tsa.gov]
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!
Re: (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 [breitbart.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 p
Re: (Score:2)
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 nev
Oh Noes!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because our freedom limits their control.
Re: (Score:2)
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 wholehear
*sigh* (Score:1)
We're not even pretending that Slashdot is about tech anymore, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Long ago, and in your imagination.
January... (Score:3)
... the government has until January of this year to deal with remaining six in that group.
I guess they're a little late then :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yours hit at 7:45 and mine at 7:49.
You win.
Re: (Score:2)
They will introduce a second January smack in the middle of December just to prove you wrong.
Say whut? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As if that matters. I hope you really aren't counting on that AC posting as being truly anonymous.
Really? (Score:2)
from the other-319-million-out-of-luck dept.
It's no wonder that several airlines are struggling, then.
Re: (Score:2)
That whole list (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That whole list (Score:5)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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? ;(
Re: (Score:2)
Damn sure all the Founding Fathers would be on the no fly list.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:1)
It may appear counterintuitive but the crank newsletters where you get your ideas aren't the final arbiters of meaning either.
Re: (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".
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 at
Re: (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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
The USA PATRIOT Act has achieved its true objectives superlatively. The Orwellian name alone should have told what the actual purpose was.
And it was hardly knee-jerk. They had set up an elaborate Reichstag fire^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H anthrax 'incident' to frighten people but then bin Laden did his thing first.
Seven people taken off "no fly list". (Score:2)
They seem to have disappeared Sir.
How? (Score:2)
grep -e Abad -e Abdallah -e Abdul
Re: (Score:1)
I have never understood this (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.
Re: (Score:2)
fear.
control.
keeping you from challenging authority.
pretty much, just that.
(oh, and security theater, too.)
the list you want to get on is the... (Score:2)
"pretty fly for a white guy" list
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
The TSA simply needs to be destroyed. They're traitors to the constitution and the very concept of individual liberty.
Re: (Score:1)
I know the two things are entirely unrelated
If you know that, then what's the point of your comment?
They removed ANYONE? (Score:2)
*Drops dead in shock*
Re: (Score:2)
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 d
Maybe we're going about this backwards (Score:2)
Won't Last Long (Score:2)
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...