3 ms·
> 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",
by 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 agoThe 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 agoGrandparent'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.