4 ms·

This sucks, and what sucks more is that I assume it's true. Also, what's the point of putting people on the no-fly list if they can take a private charter jet

This sucks, and what sucks more is that I assume it's true. Also, what's the point of putting people on the no-fly list if they can take a private charter jet and get in anyways?

fweespeech 12y ago
It sounds like it was paid for by the Swedish government: > Sweden paid for a private jet to fly him to Portland five years after he left. I'd assume the "no fly list" isn't going to apply to requests from other governments to transport US citizens. I don't think the US is worried about friendly European governments shipping terrorists into the US on private planes.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - natch 12y ago
    Not strange if you consider that the no-fly status was really an intimidation tactic.
- hydrogen18 12y ago
  That is not the case. Flights that don't even intend to land in the US can't enter the airspace of the US if they have someone on board that is a member of the no-fly list. My theory is that someone in a diplomatic role in Sweden called in a couple favors to handle this. Since his request for asylum in Sweden was denied his visa there was likely to expire soon.
  - fweespeech 12y ago
    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terrorism-loophole-fly-list/story?id=10149211 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terrorism-loophole-fly-list/st... > Both TSA officials and FBI Terrorist Screening Center director Timothy Healy confirmed to ABC News last week that the effort to keep U.S. airspace off-limits to terror suspects has not included vetting the passengers and pilots on large private jets such as the one owned by Chagoury, which he has used to shuttle between Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New York and Europe. I'd suspect there are similar loopholes for private jets chartered by friendly governments. But you may be right and someone in the Swedish government called in a favor.
duaneb 12y ago
> Also, what's the point of putting people on the no-fly list if they can take a private charter jet and get in anyways? To intimidate citizens. What do you think?
sciguy77 12y ago
> what's the point of putting people on the no-fly list if they can take a private charter jet and get in anyways? Most people can't afford charter jets
- superuser2 12y ago
  Sure most people can't afford charter jets for day-to-day use, but for an average middle-class person, if you had to make a choice between chartering a jet and never going home again, you'd probably find a way.
  - pavel_lishin 12y ago
    I'd look for a ship before I looked for a private jet.
    - psykovsky 12y ago
      Really. Who needs to fly to enter a country?
    - tracker1 12y ago
      The no fly list is also checked at other border crossings (ships, trains, border crossings) as well.
      - pavel_lishin 12y ago
        Bit of a misnomer then, isn't it? Does that mean those on the no-fly list are just flat-out not allowed to cross borders, whether they're inside the US or not?
  - codezero 12y ago
    Home is subjective.
pyre 12y ago
Because no one creates laws that might inconvenience the kind of people that can afford private charter jets from other countries.
rhino369 12y ago
Sadly I don't think I can say that it's definitely not true, but this is mostly speculation. UAE could have easily just gotten a memo from the FBI about a terrorism suspect and they decided on their lonesome to torture him. There are only 500 U.S. citizens on the no fly list, it doesn't appear like it is being used a weapon of coercion on a wide scale. The US has to share that sort of terrorism suspect list in order to get other countries lists and to make connections. That said, I'm not sure how the fuck the No-Fly list has survived so long. It is boldly unconstitutional.
- notahacker 12y ago
  > Sadly I don't think I can say that it's definitely not true, but this is mostly speculation. UAE could have easily just gotten a memo from the FBI about a terrorism suspect and they decided on their lonesome to torture him. True. It's perfectly plausible the FBI would outsource their dirty work in a deniable manner, but equally plausible the UAE would be highly motivated to take extreme measures in interrogating someone circumstantially linked to terrorism entirely of their own accord. Arguably the interrogator volunteering the US and UAE are definitely working together is better evidence for the latter than the former. Either way the beatings actually add to the suspicion that the approach - joined up or otherwise - was governed more by a "just because we don't have any evidence of your guilt doesn't mean we believe you're innocent" attitude than "we really badly want you to work for us"
- djf1 12y ago
  Do you have a source on the number of U.S. citizens on the no fly list? I see a report from 2012 which cites 500 Americans, out of a total 21,000 (https://www.aclu.org/national-security/factsheet-aclus-challenge-us-governments-no-fly-list https://www.aclu.org/national-security/factsheet-aclus-chall...), and a report from 2014 which cites 47,000 total (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/05/watch-commander/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/05/watch-commande...), so I would assume the number of U.S. citizens on the no fly list is at least double the figure you list.
  - zo1 12y ago
    Wow, those numbers are way larger than 500. Kind of makes my points above (your post's sibling) quite a fair bit more scary.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- tracker1 12y ago
  Depends on how devoutly religious he is... I could see any number people of catholic, jewish, etc. faith enduring torture vs spying on their own church.

This sucks, and what sucks more is that I assume it's true. Also, what's the point of putting people on the no-fly list if they can take a private charter jet and get in anyways?

fweespeech 12y ago

It sounds like it was paid for by the Swedish government: > Sweden paid for a private jet to fly him to Portland five years after he left. I'd assume the "no fly list" isn't going to apply to requests from other governments to transport US citizens. I don't think the US is worried about friendly European governments shipping terrorists into the US on private planes.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- natch 12y ago
  Not strange if you consider that the no-fly status was really an intimidation tactic.
hydrogen18 12y ago
That is not the case. Flights that don't even intend to land in the US can't enter the airspace of the US if they have someone on board that is a member of the no-fly list. My theory is that someone in a diplomatic role in Sweden called in a couple favors to handle this. Since his request for asylum in Sweden was denied his visa there was likely to expire soon.
- fweespeech 12y ago
  http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terrorism-loophole-fly-list/story?id=10149211 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/terrorism-loophole-fly-list/st... > Both TSA officials and FBI Terrorist Screening Center director Timothy Healy confirmed to ABC News last week that the effort to keep U.S. airspace off-limits to terror suspects has not included vetting the passengers and pilots on large private jets such as the one owned by Chagoury, which he has used to shuttle between Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New York and Europe. I'd suspect there are similar loopholes for private jets chartered by friendly governments. But you may be right and someone in the Swedish government called in a favor.

duaneb 12y ago

> Also, what's the point of putting people on the no-fly list if they can take a private charter jet and get in anyways? To intimidate citizens. What do you think?

sciguy77 12y ago

> what's the point of putting people on the no-fly list if they can take a private charter jet and get in anyways? Most people can't afford charter jets

superuser2 12y ago
Sure most people can't afford charter jets for day-to-day use, but for an average middle-class person, if you had to make a choice between chartering a jet and never going home again, you'd probably find a way.
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  I'd look for a ship before I looked for a private jet.
  - psykovsky 12y ago
    Really. Who needs to fly to enter a country?
  - tracker1 12y ago
    The no fly list is also checked at other border crossings (ships, trains, border crossings) as well.
    - pavel_lishin 12y ago
      Bit of a misnomer then, isn't it? Does that mean those on the no-fly list are just flat-out not allowed to cross borders, whether they're inside the US or not?
- codezero 12y ago
  Home is subjective.

pyre 12y ago

Because no one creates laws that might inconvenience the kind of people that can afford private charter jets from other countries.

rhino369 12y ago

Sadly I don't think I can say that it's definitely not true, but this is mostly speculation. UAE could have easily just gotten a memo from the FBI about a terrorism suspect and they decided on their lonesome to torture him. There are only 500 U.S. citizens on the no fly list, it doesn't appear like it is being used a weapon of coercion on a wide scale. The US has to share that sort of terrorism suspect list in order to get other countries lists and to make connections. That said, I'm not sure how the fuck the No-Fly list has survived so long. It is boldly unconstitutional.

notahacker 12y ago
> Sadly I don't think I can say that it's definitely not true, but this is mostly speculation. UAE could have easily just gotten a memo from the FBI about a terrorism suspect and they decided on their lonesome to torture him. True. It's perfectly plausible the FBI would outsource their dirty work in a deniable manner, but equally plausible the UAE would be highly motivated to take extreme measures in interrogating someone circumstantially linked to terrorism entirely of their own accord. Arguably the interrogator volunteering the US and UAE are definitely working together is better evidence for the latter than the former. Either way the beatings actually add to the suspicion that the approach - joined up or otherwise - was governed more by a "just because we don't have any evidence of your guilt doesn't mean we believe you're innocent" attitude than "we really badly want you to work for us"
djf1 12y ago
Do you have a source on the number of U.S. citizens on the no fly list? I see a report from 2012 which cites 500 Americans, out of a total 21,000 (https://www.aclu.org/national-security/factsheet-aclus-challenge-us-governments-no-fly-list https://www.aclu.org/national-security/factsheet-aclus-chall...), and a report from 2014 which cites 47,000 total (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/05/watch-commander/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/05/watch-commande...), so I would assume the number of U.S. citizens on the no fly list is at least double the figure you list.
- zo1 12y ago
  Wow, those numbers are way larger than 500. Kind of makes my points above (your post's sibling) quite a fair bit more scary.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tracker1 12y ago
Depends on how devoutly religious he is... I could see any number people of catholic, jewish, etc. faith enduring torture vs spying on their own church.