3 ms·

> If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once? Extend this logic just a millime

> If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once? Extend this logic just a millimeter further and you should understand how awful the no fly list truly is. If we have evidence a person is too dangerous to fly, and we're willing to let everyone know that we know they're dangerous, why wouldn't we just take them into custody and charge them with a crime? Put them in prison, or get them to roll on someone involved in their conspiracy? But of course, there's approximately never any evidence.

refurb 6y ago
Maybe people can now understand why putting the Capitol rioters on the list was a horrible idea and people should vote out any politician who suggested it.
- justin66 6y ago
  > the Capitol rioters Those people are, by the definition you've used, perpetrators of an actual crime. (at least 375 have been charged, as of a few days ago) Not comparable to the traditional victim of the no fly list at all.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Nobody has been convicted of anything but you’ve got no issues be being put on a no-fly list?
    - justin66 6y ago
      People who have been convicted of something, or who are on parole, are by definition not a part of the constitutional argument about the no fly list. The judiciary and the department of corrections can keep them off a plane if that's needed, that's their role, and if a no fly list is needed for that, no problem. Suspected rioters travelling to and from riots, whose arrest is imminent, would appear to be the most sympathetic use of extrajudicial law enforcement action to keep people off a plane via a no fly list. I don't think there's a big problem there. It is a case that has nothing to do with the standard due process arguments against the no fly list. I agree that using the no fly list to prevent anyone who was present as a protestor in DC from flying, regardless of whether they were suspected of having committed a crime, would be excessive. I saw shortly after the riot that the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security suggested TSA and the FBI put protestors identified as having entered the Capitol building on the no fly list. That position, working under the assumption that people who entered the Capitol building during a riot while federal law enforcement was trying to secure it committed a crime and ought to be indicted, doesn't seem crazy.
ce4 6y ago
Because the no-fly-list was originally a tool against terrorism but has been misappropriated for other uses like the one here? That case of misappropriation is not alone, just look at other things like surveillance or civil asset forfeiture. Or social security numbers. Edit: It probably has already settled at "now included in too many useful applications" that it's too big to fail now.

refurb 6y ago

Maybe people can now understand why putting the Capitol rioters on the list was a horrible idea and people should vote out any politician who suggested it.

justin66 6y ago
> the Capitol rioters Those people are, by the definition you've used, perpetrators of an actual crime. (at least 375 have been charged, as of a few days ago) Not comparable to the traditional victim of the no fly list at all.
- refurb 6y ago
  Nobody has been convicted of anything but you’ve got no issues be being put on a no-fly list?
  - justin66 6y ago
    People who have been convicted of something, or who are on parole, are by definition not a part of the constitutional argument about the no fly list. The judiciary and the department of corrections can keep them off a plane if that's needed, that's their role, and if a no fly list is needed for that, no problem. Suspected rioters travelling to and from riots, whose arrest is imminent, would appear to be the most sympathetic use of extrajudicial law enforcement action to keep people off a plane via a no fly list. I don't think there's a big problem there. It is a case that has nothing to do with the standard due process arguments against the no fly list. I agree that using the no fly list to prevent anyone who was present as a protestor in DC from flying, regardless of whether they were suspected of having committed a crime, would be excessive. I saw shortly after the riot that the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security suggested TSA and the FBI put protestors identified as having entered the Capitol building on the no fly list. That position, working under the assumption that people who entered the Capitol building during a riot while federal law enforcement was trying to secure it committed a crime and ought to be indicted, doesn't seem crazy.

ce4 6y ago

Because the no-fly-list was originally a tool against terrorism but has been misappropriated for other uses like the one here? That case of misappropriation is not alone, just look at other things like surveillance or civil asset forfeiture. Or social security numbers. Edit: It probably has already settled at "now included in too many useful applications" that it's too big to fail now.