SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
The country's "no-fly" list is made up of 8,000 names: all people the government fears could be suspected terrorists and, therefore, want to keep off commercial airplanes. Mohamed Sheikh Abdirahman Kariye is a 49 year-old Portland resident who is on that list and, as a result, has been unable to travel to visit his family in Dubai.
Now, on behalf of him, and nine other U.S. citizens and legal residents, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is suing top officials at the Justice Department and the FBI. They say the list is "unconstitutional and un-American". The lawsuit was filed right here in Portland, but is not surprisingly gaining national attention.
What do you think? Is the list "unconstitutional"? What should be done to make sure potential terrorists do not get on airplanes? Have you ever found your name on a list like this? What happened?
Tagged as: immigration · law · travel
Photo credit: Pmocek / Creative Commons
-
While I understand the need to keep terrorists off planes, the US and other countries need to get better at determining who is actually a terrorist and who is not.
-
It’s no wonder your blog does so well. Your site is well thought out, graphically impressive and full of great advice. Kudos.
tetrasodium edta
Calcium Disodium EDTA
-
What, if any, is the procedure for a person who finds that they are on the list to ask for a review to either get off the list or see the information that put them on in the first place. I have heard of people who have been "mistakenly" put on the list because of name similarity to others. I also seem to recall news stories about celebrities on the list...how did they get off the list or otherwise get cleared to fly?
Good topic!
-
Your lead-in fails to mention why Mr. Kariye is on the list. I'd like to hear the govt's explanation in order to counterbalance what we'll hear from Mr. Kariye and the ACLU. Give us the data... lacking that there's not really much to comment on.
-
Um, the whole point of the lawsuit is that Mr. Kariye has no idea why he's on the list. You can't find out why, you can't ask to be removed. It's punishment without any trial, evidence, or appeal.
-
Thanks... too bad the lead-in didn't mention that.
-
If there were a thermonuclear device detonation in NYC or the LA Long Beach Harbor Complex or if 8 airplanes spontaneously blew up over a one week period--who would you suspect?
In other times it may have been Puerto Rican Separatists, Irish IRA terrorists, ETA Bombers, or even Schizophrenic Unabombers. However in this decade since 9/11, we have a near certainty the province or alliegiences of the terrorists. And it is a world wide movement, affecting more than half of the world population. Today it is the Radical Islamic Terrorist.
Is Racial or Social or Religious PROFILING allowable, even if it is effective? After 9/11, we were waiting for the expected followup coordinated calamitous attacks. And if 4 more planes were hijacked successfully in the following week, and two more the week after, I would wager even MUSLIMS would clamor for comprehensive preflight invasive and targeted screening. No one wants their commute to be a death sentence. ANd if your name is Muhummed because you are a descendent of the prophet, yes, you are suspect to additional screening until further notice.
Homeland Security and Police have utilized a form of racial profiling in the post 9/11 era, but it is unofficial. But it also is effective; witness ZERO successful attacks in the period since. But it does complicate and incovenience Muslims. Should we make it less effective, at the risk of lives? Would you sacrifice your family member on this alter of freedom?
What is more important SAFETY or being Unmolested while Traveling?
-
If you are blown up to thousands of pieces, perhaps in the debris, your civil rights are also injured.
...But you got to find it.
-
What are the details? How did Mr. Kariye end up on the list? How long has he been prevented from traveling to Dubai? What is the appeal process? Have Oregon's congressmen done anything to help him? I really don't think a lawsuit is necessary. The no fly list affects .0026% of the U.S. population.
What about the successes of the no fly list? Does it work overall? Are people safer because of it.
-
Those are all wonderfully valid questions... which the government refuses to answer.
That's why the No-Fly list makes a mockery of the Constitution.
-
Yes, the list seems unconstitutional. Should our laws work on assumptions? Either you can be charged with some crime or you can’t. If the TSA wants to thoroughly search you, because you are on a list, then perhaps that would be fine---but, to say that the person himself or herself is a risk, regardless of anything other then being that person, goes a step too far. To me that seems like a claim of guilt. You can’t punish an individual without the process of a court. You can give them extra scrutiny, but you cannot deny them the right to fly without due process. We don’t punish people in this country based on speculation.
-
P.S. Some elaboration... The list declares a person a risk, not simply evidence surrounding that person, but the person themselves, regardless of any evidence at the time of them trying to fly. The lists seems to be based on mind-reading rather then actions. It is like labeling someone a communist, even though they have taken no action based on that label. These lists remind me of the sex offender registry, but with the sex offender registry, you at least have to be found guilty of a crime, prior to being placed on the ‘list.’ The no fly list is arbitrary, it punishes you, under the assumption that you might act criminally on an airplane. Why not in a car, or a roller coaster? And, if you are a terrorist you could be just as likely to go into the Regal Cinemas with a bomb as you would an airplane.
-
The Constituition falls short with one major criminal group impacting modern society. The Bill of Rights protects Criminal Rights and the Right from preemptive search. The Founding Fathers believed in the pursuit of happiness, and even rehabilitating offenders.
However how does the Constitution deal with the SUICIDE BOMBER. This is the key weapon of Religious ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. The 9/11 bombers had no prior criminal records or red flags. And after 9/11 they were blown to pieces, not needing any judicial process.
In modern times, we have to seek and preempt terrorist incidents, BEFORE they commit a crime. And in age of atomic weapons, chemical and germ warfare, waiting until the day after is ludicrously late.
-
But it is very, very difficult and expensive - and onerous for our whole country. And doing this DOES limit the personal rights of all of us Americans - especially the legal rights of honest, law-abiding Muslims and other people that may look 'suspect'.
The REAL issue is the poverty in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, because that poverty creates the environment for terrorism to grow. How desperate they must be for murder and suicide to become sellable options!
In my humble opinion, all Western and well-off countries are better off to put resources into schools, food, farming and the like in order to shift the whole dynamic and stop the growth and 'progress' of the destructive and anti-Western, fundamentalist Islam factions. And we also need to honor the fact that most Muslims are not blood-thirsty anti-Western nut-jobs, but are regular, caring, family folks like you and me. (Except they wear different clothes.)
-
Jacob, I can only hope a mystery bureaucrat decides you're a threat to national security and ruins your next vacation. Maybe then you'll start thinking about the erosion of your Constitutional rights.
We're a nation built on rights and procedures. The No-Fly List makes a mockery of due process, punishing citizens without notification or the right to redress.
As an American, I'm ashamed my government conducts itself in this way.
-
The Constitution doesn't deal with the suicide bomber because the suicide bomber is a red herring. 60 years ago people like you were screaming at the tops of their lungs that the Constitution was getting in the way of protecting us from the Red Menace. Heroes like McCarthy were going to save us from Communism.
It's funny how you dismiss all of the white terrorists in your previous post despite a growing number of Americans traveling to Afghanistan in an attempt to train with Al Qaeda, Americans caught supporting Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda launching an English magazine to actively recruit English-speaking white people.
What are you going to suggest we do when a white guy walks into one of your lauded security lines, blows himself up, and kills 200 innocent people waiting to be probed and profiled? What then? Do we just stop air travel because it is too unsafe? Do we just throw the Constitution out and let the government keep annual background checks on everyone and only let government-approved people on planes?
Where do you draw the line between (perceived) safety and freedom?
They killed 3,000 people on 9/11. That same year, 30,000-40,000 people died in car accidents in the US. There were 16,000 murders (excluding 9/11) and 91,000 rapes.
Your family was more safe on a plane on 9/11 then they were driving to the airport or walking down the street at night.
And, yes, I would rather my family die because a terrorist detonated a nuke in Portland than live my life worrying about the possibility and throwing away all my freedoms to give myself even (a laughably unrealistic) 100% chance of it not happening.
-
Slakr:"suicide bomber is a red herring"
This red herring happens dozens of times each day. It is more common than Cold War Espionage. On last Christmas, 250 people would have been blown up on their holiday flight to Detroit by the Underwear Bomber.
Suicide bombing is a daily occurence in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Bangledesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Palestine, Israel and with less frequency in London, Madrid, Moscow and even NYC.
Suicide Bombing is more common than lottery winners. And has done more to shape world culture than Hollywood. I just hope you don't meet one inadvertently.
-
@jacob
It is a red herring. Even if suicide bombing was a daily threat in the US, it would be a red herring. You do not achieve anything by throwing out the rights of the people.
And you didn't answer my question about blowing up people in a security line and you did not answer scottmill's suggestion above of someone blowing up a Regal Cinemas.
I can sit here all day and think of very easy ways to kill hundreds, thousands even, of people that are easy to implement. And THAT is the point. THAT is why suicide bombers are a red herring. You can't solve anything with security (theatre) and privacy invasion. There is always a way around it and only the innocent suffer under it.
-
Slackr: "I would rather my family die because a terrorist detonated a nuke in Portland"
I am sure Ossama can arrange for you to become a NUCLEAR FAMILY (especially if you are an infidel.)
Re: Lines and Regal Cinema Suicide bombing.
Terrorists want the most bang for the buck. They want to cause havoc and mayhem with the minimal effort. A hand grenade would kill 2 and injury 5 in line or at the cinema. A hand grenade or pound of C4 if properly placed- ie in the cockpit, near an engine, near fuel tanks-- can bring down a whole jumbo aircraft of 350 people and cause dozens of caualties on the ground. One of the 9/11 planes killed 1000 people when it impacted a tower. The terrorists used just the threat of violence to commandeer the aircraft.
Aircraft are the low hanging fruit of mayhem. Bin Ladin Knows this...you should be so educated.
-
@jacob
Because I'm feeling punchy today I keep going around with you.
Yes, terrorists go for the big bang. People like you always point that out. Blowing up 200 people in a security line at the airport would be pretty easy (there's no security at the front door, is there?) and it would do some serious psychological damage to people like you that think security lines are necessary.
That's totally besides the point, though. The point, again, is that no matter how hard you crack down; no matter how many rights you revoke; no matter how much privacy you invade; no matter how much profiling you do... There is always an easy way around it and only the innocent suffer.
You are looking at the problem with a typical lack of creativity.
-
Slakr: Okay let say you are Creative. And Powerful. You are the President of the United States. You are also a Professor of Law Specializing in Human Rights.
So WHAT is the solution? (Know that you adversaries have kidnapped, tortured, held for ransom, amputated, disemboweled, beheaded, and killed prior negotiators.)
What is the Next step?
What can we do Different?
How do you comfort the widow and children of a man killed in a fiery plane crash when the body was scattered into shreds the size of a bacon bits and evenly charred?
-
@jacob
Haha, wow. OK.
First, worrying about how to comfort victims is an appeal to emotion. Which is exactly the thing that creates so many unenforceable-at-best laws in this country.
Second, the burden is not on me. The burden is on you. You are the one that wants to take our rights and privacy away. History does not look kindly on those who to take away rights and privacy in the name of security.
But, if you want some suggestions...
Maybe we shouldn't have let the CIA act with impunity to use bin Laden in that little Afghanistan proxy conflict with the Red Menace. Hey, the threat of global annihilation was "real," so we needed to do whatever it took to keep America secure right?
Maybe we should have skipped the whole Iraq adventure and used that money to build up Afghanistan this time instead of just leaving it to languish like we did in the 80's.
Maybe we should stop using drones. Anyone we kill with them can be easily replaced...especially when hand them propaganda by killing civilians with the same drones.
Maybe we shouldn't have walked into Iraq with complete arrogance and allowed the violence to get away from us to the tune of 97,000 documented civilian deaths.
Maybe we should stop thinking about foreign policy with the same short-sighted quarter-to-quarter-profit thinking that subverted our economy.
Maybe we should look at Israel and see what 60 years of hardline, no-compromise thinking gets you.
Maybe troops overseas should get out of their APCs and live among the people, protect them. Maybe we should use that as a model for intelligence collection instead of the CIA's model.
Maybe we should consider disbanding the CIA, an organization with verifiably accurate books dedicated to their list of failures that border on war crimes at best. An organization that, conveniently, is allowed to keep its successes (if there are any) secret.
-
Maybe we shouldn't hire mercenaries and let them run around war zones shooting civilians.
Maybe we shouldn't randomly abduct people, take them to countries with "vague" legal systems, and torture them in secret prisons.
Maybe we should listen to the ranks of Army interrogators that shun "intense" interrogation methods and have first-hand success with "soft" interrogation methods.
Maybe we shouldn't condemn other countries for human rights violations and then operate the same way they do.
It just baffles me that you want to protect our way of life by throwing it away.
-
Slackr: As of 2010. the situation Obama has inherited is desperate and near critical. We are in two wars. We are committed. We have no time machine to undo it, only to go forward.
Hanging a surrender flag will not change anything--but enable criminals to go wilding. Let barbarians run the world?
Ossama promised one thing that would stop him from targeting America. We are the land of Christian infidels. He will not attack another brother Muslim nation. All we have to do is surrender and convert to the true religion.
I guess we could prove to be subversive half-a**ed Muslims who drink beer, watch porno and don't go to temple. But appeasing Hitler, Stalin and Bin Ladin never ceased their Barbarity. It increased their bloodthirstiness. And American women do not want to wear a black burka in 100 degree summer heat.
You seem reasonable. And I am sure the mujadeen and Ayatollahs would listen to you. You should go negotiate with them. They are human and love their children. I am sure they would enjoy this back and forth conversation and be opened minded. And you may keep your head or it would be placed conveniently nearby.
Peace.
-
Dear TOL,
I wanted to hear from a government representative on the case you just discussed. If the ACLU lawyer makes claimes about what the government will or will not confirm, or do, or reveal, that is just her claim. Did you attempt to get anyone from the Justice Department or the FBI to comment? Even if they all they said was that they could "neither confirm or deny" anything, at least it would be them saying. it. Getting a comment from both sides is standard operating procedure in reporting... the ACLU rep keeps saying (she is doing it now as I type) what "the government" is and is not doing....let's hear from them.
Patrice
-
We would have loved to hear from someone from Homeland Security, or the FBI, or the TSA. No one was made available.
-
There are multiple lists where people life is being affected and impacted. I for one have been subjected to long hours of wait to get a boarding pass, the look on the faces of airline agent when he or she types your name, having a gun put to your head when crossing from british columbia are just a few of the issues. What really makes it dangerous is that the US government is giving such lists to governments who have little freedom or very bad justice system. This is more scary and i am always thinking of this possibility.
-
Secret trials, secret verdicts, secret punishments, boy, this system that Conservative Republicans set up sounds just like the former East German Stasi, Stalins USSR, Mussolini and Hitlers Corporative State, all of the really bad governments that we Americans have fought against since 1776.
-
Both sides of the aisle implemented or tacitly supported politically expedient measures that we aren't proud of... Roosevelt and Japanese-Americans... the Kennedy's embracing McCarthyism... and our current president whose passive support of the list indicates that he evidently isn't terribly concerned about it.
-
Why does Emily Harris keep referring to the government's "redress procedure?"
A procedure is a series of steps that result in an outcome.
The TSA has no procedure for people who are on the No-Fly List.
An unknown bureaucrat places you on the list for unknown reasons. You cannot get confirmation that you are on the list, and you cannot request to be removed from it.
The only procedure that exists is a procedure to clarify the names of people NOT on the No-Fly list.
It's irresponsible for OPB to keep repeating there's a "redress procedure" when no such procedure exists.
-
Maybe proceedure is the wrong word. I'm not sure what else to call it. Homeland Security calls it the "redress inquiry program." They say:
The Department of Homeland Security's Travel Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP) is a single point of contact for individuals who have inquiries or seek resolution regarding difficulties they experienced during their travel screening at transportation hubs--like airports and train stations--or while crossing U.S. borders. These could include:
- denied or delayed airline boarding
- denied or delayed entry into and exit from the U.S. at a port of entry or border checkpoint
- continuously referred to additional (secondary) screening
Here is that link:
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/customer/redress/index.shtm
As we heard today, a main focus of the ALCU lawsuit is that attempts to resolve problems with the list are secret and not working, certainly for the plaintiffs.
Thank you,
Emily
-
As a point of clarification, all pilots, including general aviation private pilots, must file a passenger manifest with Customs and Border Protection before crossing the border.
http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1226943980107.shtm
-
Why could anyone even be allowed buy a ticket if they're on that list?
Why wouldn't you tell people that they're on the list and why? Why all the secrecy? Why not have the local FBI agent tell the person personally and hand them a paper explaining why and all?
-
The Founders of the US revolted against people like Conservative Republicans, Bush/Cheney, and their secret government and abuses of human rights! Here's what they had to say about it:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
-
Geez, that new show is giving a live microphone to libertarian propagandists. That sort of *** belongs on the Rupert Murdoch Conservative Republican propaganda media empire, not on public radio. The job of public radio ought to be to tell the truth, not to enable the Conservative Republican CATO Institute to spew right-wing propaganda.
-
Libertarianism has its' roots in Feudalism, the right of Conservative Nobles to ride roughshod over the peasants and merchant classes. It is the freedoms of bullies to bully without interference by government of the behalf of those being bullied. They don't respect the human rights of the lower classes, they just respect the Far Rights of the upper classes to do whatever they want without being held responsible for the damages they cause.
-
That show (Here and Now) sounds like a commercial, or a break between programming. I didn’t even realize it was on until it was half-way over, and was like, wait a second this is ‘the show.’
-
Tom, As you know I am an Obama Deomcrat. But you should get your nose out of the Communist Manifesto once in a while and read something more fortifying. ;)
-
Ha ha ha, that's funny on so many levels.
-
He has no idea? He's the Imam of the only Wahhabi mosque in Portland! If you don't agree with their extremist ideaology, you are simply thrown out of the mosque.
The fed's should investigate where he was flying in the 90's.
-
Sheikh Abdirahman Kariye may not know why he's on this draconian no-fly list, but i know exactly why: He's BLACK. He's MUSLIM. Individually, being either of these is bad enough. But to combine them strikes hysterical fear into the hearts of red-blooded REAL christian Americans everywhere!
I wish someone on todays' show would've had the nerve to address the massive white elephant that's been loudly stomping around in the room: that is, most of the people on this list are either Muslim, Black/African, Arab, or a combo of two of these. And the fact that the American citizens who've effectively been exiled in "brown-skinned" countries [because they can't get back into the U.S.] speaks volumes! I also suspect that among the Whites/caucasions who're on this list, you'll find a majority of peace activists, Muslim coverts, "green" activists, anti-zionists, etc.
Let's be ****ing HONEST! The entirety of this list is grossly unconstitutional - at best. At worst, it's a political weapon used against certain people with certain political or religious views. I'll remind you all that the late Ted Kennedy & Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) were once on this list!
-
DamosA: ' He's BLACK. He's MUSLIM'
Statement 1: So is President Obama. And I am sure the President particularly wants to target blacks.
Statement 2: So was the father of President Barack Hussein Obama. And I am sure the President would want this Muslim targeted based solely on his religion.
Simplistic racism accusations ring hollow.
The Shiekh played dumb when he fail to mention his militant Wahabi beliefs. I nterestingly neither TOL Hosts, Emily nor Dave, was informed of these critical facts promoting an innocent victimhood.
-
Actually, President Obama isn't Black, he's bi-racial (his mother being White n' all).
Also, you want to bring up someone's beliefs, which mat or may NOT be true. But since when did simply having a "belief" warrent being placed on some draconian "terror" list?
Again, as i've said before: Blacks, Muslims, Political radicals - THAT'S who's on this list!
-
Comments are now closed.
I think that the list is poorly executed, even if the motivation is sound and well-reasoned. We have heard reports in the news of children whose parents discovered when they tried to travel that the infant or toddler's name was on the no-fly list. What the hell could a 2 year-old do that would bring down an airliner? Mess in his diaper? (Okay so that is foul -- but it likely won't cause a 747 to crash.)
Not only that, but there are so many people that have the same name, but vastly different lives, jobs, and political views. For example, there is a musician who has the same name as my brother, and a person who works for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety who also shares that name, just to name a couple of examples. (NO, I won't disclose my brother's name -- that would be a violation of his privacy!
I do agree with the motivation -- I surely don't want a 767 falling onto my house because somebody got aboard that should not have been allowed. I just think that better controls need to be in place to make sure that the "right people" are kept out of the air. (And by "right people" I don't mean solely Muslims -- I mean the people of whatever nationality, ethnicity, political leaning, or religious background who intend to do harm to Our People and Our Great Nation. Remember, Timothy McVeigh was raised Christian -- and look what he did to Oklahoma City!)