4 ms·

Yes a no-fly list that you can't do anything about is fascist and totalitarian. We in the free countries, ah never mind.

jimmy1 8y ago
Ah, but we can do something about it. We have something in America called "due process" so gather enough people around and force the FBI to fix their woefully inadequate form. The ACLU is doing just that in the mean time. "But why was it instituted in the first place?" Good question. People do things they aren't suppose to do in the first place all the time! But we can do something about it.
dTal 8y ago
You're right, the no-fly list is extra-judicial and a violation of civil liberties, unconstitutional even. But let's not engage in a false equivalence here - the no-fly list has maybe 100,000 people on it[1], of which supposedly fewer than 1000 are American citizens, added over the course of nearly two decades. The Chinese list has 23 million of their own citizens, added over the course of a single year. [1] recent sources are hard to find, and the list apparently grows rather fast - I'm going off https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/fbi-no-fly-list-revealed-81k-names-fewer-1k-us/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/fbi-no-fly-...
- linuxftw 8y ago
  Even one person on the list that hasn't been found guilty of a crime is too many.
- martin_a 8y ago
  > has maybe 100,000 people on it, of which supposedly fewer than 1000 are American citizens Your mindset is part of the problem. It's not about "them" or "us", about "American" or "Chinese", it's about the list itself and using systems like that. China just seems to be more ruthless about using things like this, but in the end, there are enough more or less totalitarian systems which would love to have lists and procedures like this.
  - arcturus17 8y ago
    The poster you’re replying to is saying that the no-fly list is bad, but that there are degrees of bad - the scales he exposes speak for themselves. It’s almost like you didn’t answer to their point at all.
    - majewsky 8y ago
      Grandparent's argument is that scales are irrelevant when talking about human rights. Similar positions have in the past been held e.g. by the German supreme court: In a landmark ruling, it barred authorities from shooting down planes with terrorists. The department of defense argued that shooting down a plane that is headed e.g. towards a stadium would save many more people compared to the number of civilians killed. The court dismissed that opinion, arguging that killing civilians is just something you ought not do. I think it's the same here: When you deny even just one person a fair trail, you're setting a dangerous precedent that can and will be expanded upon.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Fighting whataboutism with whataboutism, interesting approach.
simonh 8y ago
We have to look at the system as a whole. US No Fly lists have been repeatedly challenged successfully in court, so at least people have a remedy. This is 23 million people who have no legal recourse.
- devoply 8y ago
  Being challenged in court which literally costs thousands of dollars, takes a significant amount of time and only in a small number of cases effects a single individual, is not a real remedy.
  - simonh 8y ago
    The criteria and methodologies used have been litigated and also been changed due to political pressure, public pressure and in response to criticisms from within government such as the Government Accountability Office. The Chinese system has already applied draconian restrictions to about 2% of the Chinese population. The no fly lists affect roughly four ten thousandths of a percent of the US citizenry. These are not equivalent.

jimmy1 8y ago

Ah, but we can do something about it. We have something in America called "due process" so gather enough people around and force the FBI to fix their woefully inadequate form. The ACLU is doing just that in the mean time. "But why was it instituted in the first place?" Good question. People do things they aren't suppose to do in the first place all the time! But we can do something about it.

dTal 8y ago

You're right, the no-fly list is extra-judicial and a violation of civil liberties, unconstitutional even. But let's not engage in a false equivalence here - the no-fly list has maybe 100,000 people on it[1], of which supposedly fewer than 1000 are American citizens, added over the course of nearly two decades. The Chinese list has 23 million of their own citizens, added over the course of a single year. [1] recent sources are hard to find, and the list apparently grows rather fast - I'm going off https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/fbi-no-fly-list-revealed-81k-names-fewer-1k-us/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/fbi-no-fly-...

linuxftw 8y ago
Even one person on the list that hasn't been found guilty of a crime is too many.
martin_a 8y ago
> has maybe 100,000 people on it, of which supposedly fewer than 1000 are American citizens Your mindset is part of the problem. It's not about "them" or "us", about "American" or "Chinese", it's about the list itself and using systems like that. China just seems to be more ruthless about using things like this, but in the end, there are enough more or less totalitarian systems which would love to have lists and procedures like this.
- arcturus17 8y ago
  The poster you’re replying to is saying that the no-fly list is bad, but that there are degrees of bad - the scales he exposes speak for themselves. It’s almost like you didn’t answer to their point at all.
  - majewsky 8y ago
    Grandparent's argument is that scales are irrelevant when talking about human rights. Similar positions have in the past been held e.g. by the German supreme court: In a landmark ruling, it barred authorities from shooting down planes with terrorists. The department of defense argued that shooting down a plane that is headed e.g. towards a stadium would save many more people compared to the number of civilians killed. The court dismissed that opinion, arguging that killing civilians is just something you ought not do. I think it's the same here: When you deny even just one person a fair trail, you're setting a dangerous precedent that can and will be expanded upon.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
Fighting whataboutism with whataboutism, interesting approach.

simonh 8y ago

We have to look at the system as a whole. US No Fly lists have been repeatedly challenged successfully in court, so at least people have a remedy. This is 23 million people who have no legal recourse.

devoply 8y ago
Being challenged in court which literally costs thousands of dollars, takes a significant amount of time and only in a small number of cases effects a single individual, is not a real remedy.
- simonh 8y ago
  The criteria and methodologies used have been litigated and also been changed due to political pressure, public pressure and in response to criticisms from within government such as the Government Accountability Office. The Chinese system has already applied draconian restrictions to about 2% of the Chinese population. The no fly lists affect roughly four ten thousandths of a percent of the US citizenry. These are not equivalent.