# The "No Fly" List, an efficient and error free way of keeping us safe.



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 15, 2005)

*WASHINGTON (AP) -- Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the United States because their names are the same as or similar to those of possible terrorists on the government's "no-fly list."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/08/15/no.fly.babies.ap/index.html
*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 15, 2005)

A New ACLU Lawsuit Challenges "No Fly" and "Selectee" List Procedures:
 Do These Government Watch Lists Violate Due Process?
By ANITA RAMASASTRY 
  ---- Tuesday, Apr. 13, 2004​     The federal Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"), in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security, now maintains a set of passenger lists -- the "no fly" list and the "selectee" lists. 

 The consequences of being placed on either are severe -- and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") with co-counsel Summit Law Group -- is now challenging the constitutionality of the way each is administered.

 [font=Arial Unicode MS,Tahoma]	[/font]Those on the lists suffer a variety of consequences -- including being perpetually prohibited from using curbside check in, or an electronic ticket kiosk; undergoing police interrogation; undergoing public police questioning in full view of fellow passengers; and being delayed for hours and placed on a different flight. Many are asked to surrender their identification to the TSA or the airlines. Many are made to feel they are not free to leave the airport.

 Despite all these penalties, those on the lists have no right to know why they were listed, and no avenue to try to clear their names. In a suit recently filed in federal district court in Seattle, the ACLU is arguing that this violates the Fifth Amendment's right to "due process of law." And that is absolutely correct. 

 [font=Arial Unicode MS,Tahoma]	[/font]The issue should be of importance to every American. The "no fly" and selectee lists alone may affect literally thousands of innocent people. 

 Moreover, according to a recently issued General Accounting Office report, the "no fly" list is just one of 12 terrorist and criminal watch lists maintained by the federal government. 

 Finally, still on the drawing board is the Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System (CAPPS II), which would search secret intelligence and law enforcement databases and rate every airline passenger according to their possible terrorist threat , as I discussed in a prior column. Like the other lists, CAPPS II, as currently envisioned, apparently fails to comply with due process.
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20040413.html


----------



## Martial Tucker (Aug 16, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> *WASHINGTON (AP) -- Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the United States because their names are the same as or similar to those of possible terrorists on the government's "no-fly list."
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/08/15/no.fly.babies.ap/index.html
> *


  No, No.....That was the "no-CRY list"....They must have gotten them mixed up!


----------



## ginshun (Aug 16, 2005)

How I wish the ACLU would just dissapear.

 I didn't realize that "due process" extended to my right to fly on an airplane without having to be checked beforehand.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 16, 2005)

Why?


----------



## ginshun (Aug 16, 2005)

I guess I just don't agree with the vast majority of the lawsuits I see them invoved in.

 Personally I think we need "no fly lists" like this.  If there is a know terrorist who has the same name as me, security had better check me pretty damn close when I get on a plane.

 Is is a pain in the butt?  You bet.

 Is it worth neccessary?  I think so.

 Others may not, I suppose that is there choice.

 The ACLU just rubs me wrong.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 16, 2005)

The ACLU more real work to protect peoples freedom then just about any other group I can think of. Check their website. On the right hand side there is a list of issues and their constitutional stance on those issues. The bottom line is that the ACLU represent people who are having their constitutional rights infringed upon. They believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone.


----------



## OUMoose (Aug 16, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I guess I just don't agree with the vast majority of the lawsuits I see them invoved in.
> 
> Personally I think we need "no fly lists" like this.  If there is a know terrorist who has the same name as me, security had better check me pretty damn close when I get on a plane.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's so much the fact that you might get an extra pat down or be delayed.  The criteria for being put on that list are not known, which is a problem.  

To use your example, what if you did have the same name as a suspected terrorist?  How can you prove your innocence without knowing what you're being judged on?  Oh...  right... you can't let me know without compromising the security in itself.  

Wonder how long before trans-atlantic/pacific ships become the fashion again...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The ACLU more real work to protect peoples freedom then just about any other group I can think of. Check their website. On the right hand side there is a list of issues and their constitutional stance on those issues. The bottom line is that the ACLU represent people who are having their constitutional rights infringed upon. They believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everyone.


Lets see, they believe in 

Freeing terrorists

Freeing murderers

Taking tasers away from police officers

Ending the war on terror

Opening the borders

Suing anyone with money to give to the poo....er, themselves, actually.

Legalizing drugs (But not guns)

Prosecuting cops and protecting criminals

Did I mention protecting NAMBLA members?

Yeah, everyday I feel safer knowing the ACLU is there for me....lol.

Which reminds me, do you know why lawyers HATE asset forfeiture by the police? It isn't because they thinks it's violating their clients rights, it's because it takes potential money out of the coffers of attorneys. If their clients, who's assets come from criminal interprises, and those assets get seized, how is the client going to pay for his attorney's BMW?

All clients are innocent until proven broke. A little pro-bono work does not clear the conscience of a lifetime of slime, though i'm sure it's tax deductable.



Now that i'm off my tirade about the ACLU, lets address the issue.  Detaining 2 year old children and their pregnant mom for a soundex hit is asinine.  Especially when, while they're detaining THEM, they're letting Mohammad Akbar who's standing behind them on the plane.  Of course the ACLU will rail against that as well.

The problem is that pregnant women and 2 year old children aren't notriously hijackers.  In fact, I don't remember a singe incident where a pregnant woman and a 2 year old child have hijacked a plane and flown it in to a building.

Many of you won't believe this, however, but one of the real PROBLEMS here IS the ACLU.  They caused this situation.  Instead of going after those who are the most likely to perpetrate these type of attacks, we had to build a convoluted system that appears "Fair".  

We're checking little old ladies and 2 year old children with the same effort and intensity that we are those who are the prime perpetrators of terrorist attacks....Arab males between 18 and 35.  

Why?  So we can have the appearance of fair, while utilizing a bloated, ineffective system that does nothing but inconvenience everyone.  

The profile has not changed from day one.  There are no hispanic 70 year old women hijacking planes, it hasn't happened, and it's not really a high likelyhood.  Yet, we are trapped by political correctness, mostly because of the ACLU.  By the way, profile is not a bad word.  Profiles save lives.  Profiles work.  It's when a profile has no basis in reality that it's wrong.  BUT I feel pretty secure in the high statistical probability of THIS profile.  

Now, lets say you want to make the argument, not a good one, but the argument that "Hey, Timothy McVeigh was a white guy", ok, one white guy in ALL these years.  Fair enough, though, if you want to expand the profile to include ALL males between 18 and 35, fine....i'll get in line, that seems fair.  There are some white and black islamic terrorists, so that's a reasonable request.  I'll gladly submit to fitting that profile, because it is reasonable.  

It certainly saves grandma and my 2 year old daughter from getting the full body cavity search while the shoe bomber gets flagged through because he's customer 3.

As for the ACLU, how dare they want it both ways.  So typical of that organization and that mindset.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 16, 2005)

The ACLU picks some good causes, and some not so good ones.

Denying boarding to infants...where will it end? Well, at least you can still practice archery on a plane:
http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=47367


----------



## still learning (Aug 16, 2005)

Hello, Do all terrorist use their real names when flying?  Then  these No fly list will work.  (Pun intended)

 Our government is famous for making laws that do not work effectively. Like TRO's - issue by the Judge.....does it stop someone from causing more harm? It is just a piece of paper with words on it.....Stop it?


 Maybe we should give'em to all known terrorist too? Since they(Judges) believe it works...............TRO for all known terrorist...tro's

  It is a good thing we live in a educated country?    ..........Aloha


----------



## ginshun (Aug 17, 2005)

> Hello, Do all terrorist use their real names when flying?  Then  these No fly list will work.  (Pun intended)


 I would think that the lists have known aliases as well as real names on them.

 As far as not knowing the criteria for how a name gets on the list, well I think it pretty much goes without saying that you can't release that information.  If they tell everybody exactly how a name gets put on the list, then it would be as simple as avoiding those criteria and you could be sure to never get put on it.

 Obviously the lists won't be able to include every name and alias of every terrorist on earth, but even if they stop only a small percentage of terroists they are worth it IMO.

 Profiling is another issue, but one that I think needs to be used as well.  Whether it is politically correct or not.  Like was mentioned, if the profile needs to include all males 18 - 35 so be it.  Search me while you let my grandma and grandpa through without a hassle, I can live with that.  As opposed to picking people at random regardless of what they look like.  

 I will conceed that you can't only search people that fit the profile.  The terrorists are not stupid.  If we consentrate 100% of our efforts on one supgroup of people, they are going to start recruiting from outside that group.  That is just common sense.  It also seems like common sense to me though, that if 95% of terrorists fit into a certain profile, then you have to watch that group closer.  Regardless of what the ACLU tells us.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 17, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I will conceed that you can't only search people that fit the profile. The terrorists are not stupid. If we consentrate 100% of our efforts on one supgroup of people, they are going to start recruiting from outside that group. That is just common sense. It also seems like common sense to me though, that if 95% of terrorists fit into a certain profile, then you have to watch that group closer. Regardless of what the ACLU tells us.


 That's absolutely correct.  We need a random element of searching for all people, so they don't bypass the profile.  But that random searching elemend does not need to be as intrusive.  For those that meet the profile for 95%+ of terrorists, the requirement needs to be very thorough.  

Even if you don't want to use race, then use age and sex.  We know that it is men, 18 to 35, who commit most violent acts of all sorts.  This is not even in dispute.  It's true for terrorists, it's true for soldiers (I mean, who does the fighting), it's just statistically overwhelming.  To ignore those simple facts in the name of political correctness is pure idiocy.


----------



## ave_turuta (Aug 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> For those that meet the profile for 95%+ of terrorists, the requirement needs to be very thorough (...) To ignore those simple facts in the name of political correctness is pure idiocy.


 Europeans have unfortunately been subjected to terrorist attacks for much longer than Americans have. We know (and the recent news from England regarding the execution of a Brazilian innocent man on the metro confirm this) that racial or any other type of profiling simply doesn't work. To give you but a simple example: what exactly is the "profile" of a terrorist in a country like Spain? I, for instance, have both a Catalonian and a Basque last name because my grandpa was Catalan and my gramma was Basque. Since "racially" speaking we are the same people, how do you tell a "terrorist" Basque apart from one who isn't??? Does someone named "Urrutikoetxea" have a greater chance of being a terrorist than someone named "Gonzalez"? Over a period of more than 30 years, ETA has left a trail of more than 1,000 dead and several thousands injured; yet, after every single terrorist attack in Spain claimed by ETA, we have poured onto the streets asking for peace, carrying signs in both Spanish and Basque (PAZ / BAKEA and "ETA NO/ETA EZ") and most importantly, saying things like "Vascos si, ETA no" (yes to Basques, no to ETA). Today, ETA has been considerably weakened and we are on the brink of beginning a peace process that may bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict. 

  I guess my point is: the US has arrived somewhat late to the fight against terrorism. Racial or ethnic profiling have never been useful in other contexts (it hasn't been useful in Spain, or Northern Ireland, much less in places like Italy or Germany were the Red Brigades or the Baader Meinhoff were not ethnic but more political organizations); why would they work here?? The truth is, terrorism is like a mutant virus: when you think you have the vaccine ready, the movement has already muted into something else, and in the meantime it will have achieved its goal of altering the normal functioning of the society it is attacking. 

  That said: I am flying on the 23rd 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 so who knows 

  Peace, 
  A.T.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Aug 18, 2005)

ave_turuta said:
			
		

> Europeans have unfortunately been subjected to terrorist attacks for much longer than Americans have. We know (and the recent news from England regarding the execution of a Brazilian innocent man on the metro confirm this) that racial or any other type of profiling simply doesn't work. To give you but a simple example: what exactly is the "profile" of a terrorist in a country like Spain? I, for instance, have both a Catalonian and a Basque last name because my grandpa was Catalan and my gramma was Basque. Since "racially" speaking we are the same people, how do you tell a "terrorist" Basque apart from one who isn't??? That said: I am flying on the 23rd
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While you make good points, I will have to disagree with you on one. The 19 hijackers of 9/11 were all young Middle Eastern men. While this does NOT mean that Middle Eastern young men are terrorists, it does make it, historically, more likely that Al Quaeda sponsored terrorists do have a Middle Eastern background.

I agree with you on the Spanish situation with the Basques. Most Basques have been as horrified, if not more so, by the ETA's indiscriminate murdering of civilians than has the rest of Spain. My parents lived in Spain during the height of the terrorism in the 1970's and they have told me of the police having to be on nearly every major corner armed with submachine guns. I sympathise with what your country has gone through.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 18, 2005)

The general problem I have with "profiling" of this sort is that its a slippery slope that leads to all sorts of worries...

Ok, so we know that young Arabic men are more likely to commit acts of terrorism than perhaps other groups of people. This is supposed to "justify" singling them out for questioning and interrogation at security checks.

We also know that Christians (particularly conservative/traditional Christians) are more likely to commit acts of social prejudice than non-Christians (at least in the United States). Ergo, should we single out all evangelicals whenever a "hate crime" has occured and we have no key suspects? Even though we have zero proof these evangelicals had anything to do with the crime, we do know they're "more likely" to hold sympathetic views and commit such acts...

Let's assume for the second that, for whatever reason, Asians working in accounting offices have a statistically higher probability of committing financial fraud than non-Asians (this is completely hypothetical, mind you). When we notice funny spots in a company's financial records, should we then single out the Asian men and woman working for said company because they're "more likely" to have done it??

And then, we're left with the further moral wrinkle of exactly _how far_ to take this process of "profiling". So we single all these groups out for questioning and interrogation, some of which (as in a few prisoners at Gitmo) are denied some of their constitutional rights (such as access to an attorney). But, how far do we take this? What if, at some point in the future, someone proposes the argument that because young black men are more likely to commit urban crimes, we don't just restrict their rights to carry firearms, or revoke all their driving licenses, or install security cameras every 100 square feet on locales their frequent?? 

We don't have proof any of these young men will actually do anything even remotely criminal, but because they're "more likely" to do so than any other groups, it could be argued to be "justified".

This is all a slippery slope I am not comfortable with. Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 18, 2005)

Y'know, after reading the post I just made, I am suddenly reminded of the movie _Minority Report_...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 18, 2005)

"Profiling" of one sort or another has been going on since forever....

You prevent all that by using profiles as "indicators", you use them as cues for further investigation, not as reasons for enforcement.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 18, 2005)

Origins of Profiling

Which differs from "racial profiling" in the sense of just thinking "X race are all criminals so I will **** with them". However to ignore statistical, environmental, and experiential data makes no sense. The trick is how to use the data without clouding it with bias/bigotry.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 18, 2005)

There were also some interesting points on this topic brought up in this thread...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24871&highlight=racial+profiling


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "Profiling" of one sort or another has been going on since forever....



I should point out it is a logical fallacy to assume a particular practice is valid solely on the basis of it being commonplace or traditional:

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Common Practice

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Tradition



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> You prevent all that by using profiles as "indicators", you use them as cues for further investigation, not as reasons for enforcement.



Regardless of how they are _supposed_ to be used, the reality is that they are utilized as reasons for enforcement quite commonly... 

Oddly enough, it is only the "profiling" of non-Whites and non-Christians for which this "bending" of the rules seems to apply. Evangelical White Christians are rarely, if ever, singled out for questioning or denied access to a lawyer whenever, say, an anti-Semitic "hate crime" has recently occured.

You're right about one thing: "profiling" does go far back. In fact, it predates civilization as we know it. My guess is it has the same psychological origins as a belief in slavery or "evil".

All correlational, mind you, but significant nonetheless.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 18, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Regardless of how they are _supposed_ to be used, the reality is that they are utilized as reasons for enforcement quite commonly...
> 
> Oddly enough, it is only the "profiling" of non-Whites and non-Christians for which this "bending" of the rules seems to apply. Evangelical White Christians are rarely, if ever, singled out for questioning or denied access to a lawyer whenever, say, an anti-Semitic "hate crime" has recently occured.


Really? Which fallacy in your favorite web page does that assumption fall under?

Save your links. I wasnt supporting the negative aspects of profiling, I was saying lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. When I observe a carload of white teenagers going into an area known for drug dealing and drive out 10 min later. Stop them for an improper lane change. I find that they are all from an affluent suburb miles away. When asked where they were coming from I get a lie. The passengers story doesnt match up with the drivers. I see the tobacco from a hollowed out cigar on the floor boards.....eventually I make the arrest for marijuana possession. What do you think I employed there?

Note this is not the same as saying "I know you white kids just bought drugs, get out of the car and empty your pockets". Which is the connotation most people place on profiling. Oddly I find that the residents of the depressed area support the scenario above. I have heard "keep thoes suburban kids out of here. They are the ones that cause all this drug dealing here." Which isnt really entirely true, but is a factor.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Really? Which fallacy in your favorite web page does that assumption fall under?



Can you identify a particular trend (not isolated instances) in which Whites are singled out for interrogation just because they're White?? How about Christians being singled out for interrogaiton just because they're Christian??



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> When I observe a carload of white teenagers going into an area known for drug dealing and drive out 10 min later. Stop them for an improper lane change. I find that they are all from an affluent suburb miles away. When asked where they were coming from I get a lie. The passengers story doesnt match up with the drivers. I see the tobacco from a hollowed out cigar on the floor boards.....eventually I make the arrest for marijuana possession. What do you think I employed there?



At a guess, I'd say a situational analysis derived from several bits of information pointing to a converging conclusion. This is hardly the same thing as "racial profiling" (in which there is little or no "evidence" besides the suspect's race by which to single them out). In fact, their race doesn't seem to have been a significant factor in the arrest at all.

Something tells me perhaps we are confusing definitions here. Laterz.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 18, 2005)

When I see a carload of white kids going into that area it attracts my attention moreso than if they were black and I wait for them to come out and look at their vehicle for a traffic infraction....what does that mean?


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> When I see a carload of white kids going into that area it attracts my attention moreso than if they were black....what does that mean?



"Attracting attention" or "arousing suspicion" is not the same thing as "singling out for questioning and interrogation".


----------



## Tgace (Aug 18, 2005)

Splitting hairs. I know from experience (arrested quite a few people using the "roadway interdiction" technique above) that white kids going into that part of the city quite frequently do so to purchase marijuana. The fact that I stop them for a valid traffic infraction on the pretext of finding out if they just purchased marijuana is perfectly legal (google "pretextual traffic stops legal" if you dont believe me). So in effect I have "singled them out". Now if the story was "i just picked up my friend" and the friend is in the back seat and all stories match, the "interrogation" ends and I decide to write a ticket or not and they are on their way. If I cannot find a valid reason to stop the car they drive on, there will be plenty of other opportunities and its not worth an illegal car stop.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 18, 2005)

"Splitting hairs" is important when a significant distinction is being made.

A major difference, in this context, is the presence of the so-called "legal prextext". This is a far cry from isolating and interrogating an Arabic man because his skin is brown and he carries a Quran, not even giving him access to an attorney.

In the example you gave, you had reason (based on situational factors) to believe the "white kids" in question were buying pot, and you confirmed your suspicions using a legal pretext. This is not the same thing as denying a man access to his attorney because his name appears on a list.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 18, 2005)

No...not at all. However when it comes to air security, whats wrong with say, randomly asking the "where are you coming from, going to?" questions from random passengers but ALL Arabic ones? Same with baggage checks etc. 

Denying anybody their rights or subjecting them to someting that you wouldnt do to anybody else is wrong. That technique above is an example where race is only an indicator, one among many, if that were the only reason I proceeded with an investigation I would be wrong.

Even in my example, if it were a middle aged housewife that I stopped and she lied about where she was coming from, my radar would go off and I would start digging further.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 19, 2005)

The REAL logical fallacy, heretic (and others making this argument), is ignoring the overwhelming empirical evidence and appealing to emotion instead. 95% of all terrorists who have attacked the US in the last 20 plus years have been Middle Eastern men between 18 and 35.

But lets ignore the racial element. 99.9% of those involved in terrorist attacks around the world have been men between 18 and 35 of whatever race. That's statistically significant on a scale so as to be absurd to attempt to argue against it's relavence.

To make the argument that we need a random system of searching (who's only benefit is the illusion of fairness), with the argument that we might catch that terrorist who represents less than .1% of total terrorists, is completely asinine. It's like vaccinated for malaria before your trip to Antartica.  

It's a lot like going to the dentist with a toothache, and he decides to check your feet and get a chest X-Ray. We know what they problem is, lets work toward a solution. 

Again, random searches only serve the motive of the appearance of fairness, and are built on a foundation of complete stupidity. There is no slippery slope present. 

What's more, I fit the profile, and i'm alright with that, because I know I fit the profile. So, put me in line, and give me extra scrunity, because it is a guy my age who is going to hijack my plane, not the 82 year old lady down the way. 

Nuff said


----------



## ginshun (Aug 19, 2005)

> Oddly enough, it is only the "profiling" of non-Whites and non-Christians for which this "bending" of the rules seems to apply.


 When police are serching for a serial killer, who do they look for?

 I'll give you a hint, its not black women over 50.

 Why is that?  Oh ya, its because 95% of serial killers are white males between 20 and 40 years old.  It would be stupid to just look at a random cross section of people when you are 95% sure what the person is going to look like.  But you still can't forget about the other 5%.

 Looking for a terrorist is exactly the same.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 22, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> When police are serching for a serial killer, who do they look for?
> 
> I'll give you a hint, its not black women over 50.
> 
> ...


 It's because most of the country has gotten conditioned by the mainstream media to simply respond to certain words with a positive or negative emotion, devoid of any real denotation.  We don't even try to understand those words anymore, the simple connotation apparently is now enough. 

"Profiling" has been one of those words that the media has conditioned people to think, "Bad...bad, bad, bad", about, even though they don't have the slightest flipping clue what it really means. They've just been conditioned over the whole "racial" profiling mythology of the last 10 years to respond with an emotional response.  

Hey, that's fine, but policy decisions shouldn't be made by people who are simply responding emotionally to subject matter that they don't really know the first thing about. 

It's really more intellectual laziness on the part of the public and the media, than any real conspiracy, though.  Instead of actually educating themselves on these types of topics, people have become content to simply say to the media "Just give me a word for a phenomenon, and tell me in very short terms how to respond when I hear it", thus, we have "Profiling...bad, bad, bad".  Pathetic.  We should have more respect for ourselves as a nation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 22, 2005)

Question...how would you profile every single arabic male between 18-35 in the country?


----------



## Xequat (Aug 22, 2005)

Just a few quick points here.  Not much time, so I was really just planning on lurking.  

Some helpful info on bypassing the no-fly list.  Book with your middle initial.  For example, and especially if you're usually singled out, book your reservation as John X. Smith rather than John Smith.  The list is trying to target individuals in particular, so if they're looking for a John A Smith and you're John X, then you should be fine.  But once the reservation is made and you get selected, then you can't change it because both you and the airline employee will get into some real trouble for bypassing security measures or some such thing.

Two-year olds are no longer to be selected.  If you are traveling with a two-year old, and s/he is selected, then get the kid exempted.  You might still be selected, but the kid shouldn't.  There are other criteria than the traveler's name which can cause security problems.  Also, if you are selected, just go to faa.gov and fill out some forms and you can probably get taken off of the list within 45 days.

El Al is an Israeli airline that has been around for a while, so it's an obvious target; but, somehow, they are among the safest, most secure airlines in the world.  Why?  Because they don't just look for bombs, they look for people who might carry bombs.  You can have all the x-ray screening you want, but if someone is determined enough, then they will either find a way or keep trying.  So they look for individuals; that is the key.  Interviews, profiles, etc.  So maybe the no-fly list is a step in the right direction, and maybe some degree of profiling does work, even though it's annoying and we are all in some great hurry when we step into the airport.  Does it profile members of a certain race?  Not really, because it looks for specific names that have been entered by the government, I believe.  It's not the seemingly random selection process that is used for added security, although that's another part of the big picture.  There are are what's called selectee passengers, but I think the government works on the airlines' software to select passengers who fit into that category, so it's either random or we just aren't allowed to know how those people get selected.

Hope that helps.


----------



## ginshun (Aug 22, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Question...how would you profile every single arabic male between 18-35 in the country?


 I don't think anybody has suggested that we do. What we are talking about is having a profile of someone more likely to be a terroist than the general population and having those people checked closer when ingaging in activites that have an inherent risk to terrorism i.e. flying on a plane.

 How many times in the last 20 years has a 45 year old Asian women commited an act of terrorism? Not very many. So why bother checking people of that profile? 

 It doesn't have to be only arabic males. If people are getting on a plane, 90% of the people that they are pulling aside and thouroghly checking over should be males between the age of 18 and 35. Males of all races. To pick people completely at random is just plain stupid.

 Why check people at random, when you know with close that close to a 100% of the time, a terrorist is going to be a male between 18 and 35.

  How dense does someone have to be to not understand this concept?


----------

