4 ms·

The premise is somebody might be so dangerous they can't be allowed to fly, but simultaneously so innocent there is nothing the government could arrest and conv

The premise is somebody might be so dangerous they can't be allowed to fly, but simultaneously so innocent there is nothing the government could arrest and convict them for. It's total bullshit. The politicians who created this system should be prosecuted for subverting the constitution, but there is no conceivable way for that to happen.

shajznnckfke 6y ago
I’ve read articles about how the government will engage in elaborate sting operations to entrap people with some level of extremist sympathies into participation in terrorist plots [1]. From that perspective, it isn’t the case that the government will instantly throw someone in jail if they suspect them of being a potential terrorist. It wouldn’t be a good look if one of these people went and actually did some terrorism while the government was busy constructing the fake terrorism to convict them. An intelligence agency can probably figure out that someone is associated with terrorists before evidence is available to convict them beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe it’s even appropriate that the legal standard to get secondary physical screening during air travel is lower than the legal standard to get thrown in jail? I welcome any opinions on that question - I feel it’s in the background of the original post and this discussion. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/terror-or-entrapment/Content%3foid=12242075&media=AMP%2bHTML https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/...
- liability 6y ago
  > Maybe it’s even appropriate that the legal standard to get secondary physical screening during air travel is lower than the legal standard to get thrown in jail? No. That's a subversion of due process and politicians who support such systems are enemies of the American people.
  - shajznnckfke 6y ago
    It does seem a little odd, to me. If somebody tries to bomb a place, and the government screwed up the chain of custody on the evidence, of course they shouldn’t be imprisoned (see cases like Mapp V. Ohio). In addition, they have a right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Throwing someone in jail for years is the most severe of civil rights violations if unwarranted, justifying a very high standard of evidence. Perhaps the evidence our suspect bombed a plane wasn’t quite strong enough for “beyond reasonable doubt”, but they did lose a civil case from the victim’s families under “preponderance of evidence”. Whence cometh the opinion that “beyond a reasonable doubt” must be the standard of evidence before someone is searched before boarding a plane? When attempting to board an airplane, where different levels of physical screening take different amounts of time and resources to perform, and it’s not practical to fully screen everyone, we ought to apply the same legal standards of a criminal conviction to differentiate different levels of screening? Even if there’s “clear and convincing” evidence the person bombed a plane before, we ought to let them through anyway without even patting them down? Do we need a jury of peers at the ready at every checkpoint to make this determination? Would you also apply this same standard before someone could be restricted from admittance to the halls of congress, to Fort Knox, or to a warehouse in a major city storing many tons of seized fertilizer? For reference, here’s a full list of the standards of evidence in the US, ordered from weakest to strongest: 1. Some evidence 2. Reasonable indications 3. Reasonable suspicion 4. Reasonable to believe 5. Probable cause 6. Some credible evidence 7. Preponderance of the evidence 8. Clear and convincing evidence 9. Beyond reasonable doubt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
    - gumby 6y ago
      How about just seeing if they are carrying a bomb? The additional scope creep reduces the chance of a bomb being detected. Sure, a trained person can probably kill with dental floss, but nowadays between the armored cockpits and the willingness of passengers to swarm a bad guy the risks of anything but a bomb are pretty low.
      - shajznnckfke 6y ago
        Yeah, it could well be the case that our scanning technology has improved to the point that we can efficiently screen everyone without any need to single out people that get flagged. Then again, there was also lots of resistance to the introduction of this improved scanning tech too (people seeing blurry monochrome outline of human genitalia is apparently a major civil rights violation). It seems like people are in opposition even to improvements in the screening process that make it more effective, and therefore fairer (less need to single flagged people out for a pat down).
Swizec 6y ago
> The premise is somebody might be so dangerous they can't be allowed to fly, but simultaneously so innocent there is nothing the government could arrest and convict them for. What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up? What if they’re not ready to arrest because they think you might lead them to people higher up in your organization? Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting. You want the boss. Or to use a more scifi spin: Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. But you have done nothing illegal yet. Now what? edit: for the record I don’t think any of this is a good idea, I’m exploring what the reasoning might be
- liability 6y ago
  > sci-fi spin So basically you watched Minority Report and thought it was a great idea? I think you missed the point. > Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting If there is evidence somebody might blow up or hijack a plane and they must therefore be kept off that plane, then that person should be arrested. Do you think forbidding them from boarding the plane but letting them walk free without being arrested won't tip off the rest of their organization? Give me a break.
  - Swizec 6y ago
    I didn’t say I agree with any of this. I explained what the reasoning might be. Also I’m pretty sure you can’t arrest people for something you have evidence they might do if they haven’t done it yet.
    - liability 6y ago
      Conspiracy to commit terrorism is a crime somebody could lawfully and constitutionally be arrested for if there were actual evidence.
    - bdowling 6y ago
      > can’t arrest people for something you have evidence they might do if they haven’t done it yet. If “might do” means actually planning to commit a crime and then taking some material action to further that plan, then they can be charged with attempt.
adrianmonk 6y ago
I'll play devil's advocate for the theory behind the no-fly list. (Though certainly not for the government's sloppy implementation.) I think your argument is that the government simply cannot be justified in restricting someone who hasn't been convicted of any crime. Wouldn't that reasoning also apply to restraining orders and personal protective orders? They do not require a trial, and the burden of proof is pretty low. You could make a distinction based on how broad or narrow the restrictions are. Not being able to fly anywhere is more restrictive than staying 100 yards away from one particular person. But that's a different argument than there being something fundamentally wrong with the concept.
- gumby 6y ago
  Someone can’t just show up and get a restraining order (would be quite handy if so, for prank value if nothing else). You have to present evidence before a judge, evidence that could be admissible in court. Yes, the bar for most restraining orders is low (often simply the sworn word of the requestor plus some other evidence like police reports or testimony of others), but so is the level of restraint. The key fact is the subject of said order can fight it in open court and the claims or evidence raised by the requestor can be challenged. One can reasonably argue as to the merits and drawback of such a system but at least they interlock with due process. But a secret no fly list based on classified or otherwise inadmissible evidence is a completely unrelated and immoral thing.
  - adrianmonk 6y ago
    Thanks for the point about judicial review. That's obviously very important. (And, if judicial review were added to the no-fly list, the list would probably get orders of magnitude smaller.) But it would still be possible (with judicial review) to put people on a no-fly list who the government nevertheless has no grounds to arrest for anything, just as it is possible today to issue restraining orders for people who the government has no grounds to arrest. That specific argument against the no-fly list is really the only thing I was trying to take issue with.
- xxpor 6y ago
  To be fair, the issue is there's no judicial review at all to be put on the no-fly list. That's really the difference between it and a restraining order.

shajznnckfke 6y ago

I’ve read articles about how the government will engage in elaborate sting operations to entrap people with some level of extremist sympathies into participation in terrorist plots [1]. From that perspective, it isn’t the case that the government will instantly throw someone in jail if they suspect them of being a potential terrorist. It wouldn’t be a good look if one of these people went and actually did some terrorism while the government was busy constructing the fake terrorism to convict them. An intelligence agency can probably figure out that someone is associated with terrorists before evidence is available to convict them beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe it’s even appropriate that the legal standard to get secondary physical screening during air travel is lower than the legal standard to get thrown in jail? I welcome any opinions on that question - I feel it’s in the background of the original post and this discussion. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/terror-or-entrapment/Content%3foid=12242075&media=AMP%2bHTML https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/...

liability 6y ago
> Maybe it’s even appropriate that the legal standard to get secondary physical screening during air travel is lower than the legal standard to get thrown in jail? No. That's a subversion of due process and politicians who support such systems are enemies of the American people.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  It does seem a little odd, to me. If somebody tries to bomb a place, and the government screwed up the chain of custody on the evidence, of course they shouldn’t be imprisoned (see cases like Mapp V. Ohio). In addition, they have a right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Throwing someone in jail for years is the most severe of civil rights violations if unwarranted, justifying a very high standard of evidence. Perhaps the evidence our suspect bombed a plane wasn’t quite strong enough for “beyond reasonable doubt”, but they did lose a civil case from the victim’s families under “preponderance of evidence”. Whence cometh the opinion that “beyond a reasonable doubt” must be the standard of evidence before someone is searched before boarding a plane? When attempting to board an airplane, where different levels of physical screening take different amounts of time and resources to perform, and it’s not practical to fully screen everyone, we ought to apply the same legal standards of a criminal conviction to differentiate different levels of screening? Even if there’s “clear and convincing” evidence the person bombed a plane before, we ought to let them through anyway without even patting them down? Do we need a jury of peers at the ready at every checkpoint to make this determination? Would you also apply this same standard before someone could be restricted from admittance to the halls of congress, to Fort Knox, or to a warehouse in a major city storing many tons of seized fertilizer? For reference, here’s a full list of the standards of evidence in the US, ordered from weakest to strongest: 1. Some evidence 2. Reasonable indications 3. Reasonable suspicion 4. Reasonable to believe 5. Probable cause 6. Some credible evidence 7. Preponderance of the evidence 8. Clear and convincing evidence 9. Beyond reasonable doubt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
  - gumby 6y ago
    How about just seeing if they are carrying a bomb? The additional scope creep reduces the chance of a bomb being detected. Sure, a trained person can probably kill with dental floss, but nowadays between the armored cockpits and the willingness of passengers to swarm a bad guy the risks of anything but a bomb are pretty low.
    - shajznnckfke 6y ago
      Yeah, it could well be the case that our scanning technology has improved to the point that we can efficiently screen everyone without any need to single out people that get flagged. Then again, there was also lots of resistance to the introduction of this improved scanning tech too (people seeing blurry monochrome outline of human genitalia is apparently a major civil rights violation). It seems like people are in opposition even to improvements in the screening process that make it more effective, and therefore fairer (less need to single flagged people out for a pat down).

Swizec 6y ago

> The premise is somebody might be so dangerous they can't be allowed to fly, but simultaneously so innocent there is nothing the government could arrest and convict them for. What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up? What if they’re not ready to arrest because they think you might lead them to people higher up in your organization? Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting. You want the boss. Or to use a more scifi spin: Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. But you have done nothing illegal yet. Now what? edit: for the record I don’t think any of this is a good idea, I’m exploring what the reasoning might be

liability 6y ago
> sci-fi spin So basically you watched Minority Report and thought it was a great idea? I think you missed the point. > Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting If there is evidence somebody might blow up or hijack a plane and they must therefore be kept off that plane, then that person should be arrested. Do you think forbidding them from boarding the plane but letting them walk free without being arrested won't tip off the rest of their organization? Give me a break.
- Swizec 6y ago
  I didn’t say I agree with any of this. I explained what the reasoning might be. Also I’m pretty sure you can’t arrest people for something you have evidence they might do if they haven’t done it yet.
  - liability 6y ago
    Conspiracy to commit terrorism is a crime somebody could lawfully and constitutionally be arrested for if there were actual evidence.
  - bdowling 6y ago
    > can’t arrest people for something you have evidence they might do if they haven’t done it yet. If “might do” means actually planning to commit a crime and then taking some material action to further that plan, then they can be charged with attempt.

adrianmonk 6y ago

I'll play devil's advocate for the theory behind the no-fly list. (Though certainly not for the government's sloppy implementation.) I think your argument is that the government simply cannot be justified in restricting someone who hasn't been convicted of any crime. Wouldn't that reasoning also apply to restraining orders and personal protective orders? They do not require a trial, and the burden of proof is pretty low. You could make a distinction based on how broad or narrow the restrictions are. Not being able to fly anywhere is more restrictive than staying 100 yards away from one particular person. But that's a different argument than there being something fundamentally wrong with the concept.

gumby 6y ago
Someone can’t just show up and get a restraining order (would be quite handy if so, for prank value if nothing else). You have to present evidence before a judge, evidence that could be admissible in court. Yes, the bar for most restraining orders is low (often simply the sworn word of the requestor plus some other evidence like police reports or testimony of others), but so is the level of restraint. The key fact is the subject of said order can fight it in open court and the claims or evidence raised by the requestor can be challenged. One can reasonably argue as to the merits and drawback of such a system but at least they interlock with due process. But a secret no fly list based on classified or otherwise inadmissible evidence is a completely unrelated and immoral thing.
- adrianmonk 6y ago
  Thanks for the point about judicial review. That's obviously very important. (And, if judicial review were added to the no-fly list, the list would probably get orders of magnitude smaller.) But it would still be possible (with judicial review) to put people on a no-fly list who the government nevertheless has no grounds to arrest for anything, just as it is possible today to issue restraining orders for people who the government has no grounds to arrest. That specific argument against the no-fly list is really the only thing I was trying to take issue with.
xxpor 6y ago
To be fair, the issue is there's no judicial review at all to be put on the no-fly list. That's really the difference between it and a restraining order.