Hey be careful what you say on this bbs. The Bush /Ashcroft gang may put you on the list, too. Screw that. Everytime Americans self censure out of fear of Bush/Ashcroft, we lose a bit of freedom. We should be enraged at this list of people who are exercising their American right to free speech and assembly. This includes those who try to support the GOP 110%. US anti-war activists hit by secret airport ban By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles 03 August 2003 After more than a year of complaints by some US anti-war activists that they were being unfairly targeted by airport security, Washington has admitted the existence of a list, possibly hundreds or even thousands of names long, of people it deems worthy of special scrutiny at airports. The list had been kept secret until its disclosure last week by the new US agency in charge of aviation safety, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). And it is entirely separate from the relatively well-publicised "no-fly" list, which covers about 1,000 people believed to have criminal or terrorist ties that could endanger the safety of their fellow passengers. The strong suspicion of such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is suing the government to try to learn more, is that the second list has been used to target political activists who challenge the government in entirely legal ways. The TSA acknowledged the existence of the list in response to a Freedom of Information Act request concerning two anti-war activists from San Francisco who were stopped and briefly detained at the airport last autumn and told they were on an FBI no-fly list. The activists, Rebecca Gordon and Jan Adams, work for a small pacifist magazine called War Times and say they have never been arrested, let alone have criminal records. Others who have filed complaints with the ACLU include a left-wing constitutional lawyer who has been strip-searched repeatedly when travelling through US airports, and a 71-year-old nun from Milwaukee who was prevented from flying to Washington to join an anti-government protest. It is impossible to know for sure who might be on the list, or why. The ACLU says a list kept by security personnel at Oakland airport ran to 88 pages. More than 300 people have been subject to special questioning at San Francisco airport, and another 24 at Oakland, according to police records. In no case does it appear that a wanted criminal was apprehended. The ACLU's senior lawyer on the case, Jayashri Srikantiah, said she is troubled by several answers that the TSA gave to her questions. The agency, she said, had no way of making sure that people did not end up on the list simply because of things they had said or organisations they belonged to. Once people were on the list, there was no procedure for trying to get off it. The TSA did not even think it was important to keep track of people singled out in error for a security grilling. According to documents the agency released, it saw "no pressing need to do so". It is not just left-wingers who feel unfairly targeted. Right-wing civil libertarians have spoken out against the secret list, and at least one conservative organisation, the Eagle Forum, says its members have been interrogated by security staff. The complaints by the ACLU form part of a pattern of protest since the 11 September attacks, with the Bush administration repeatedly under fire for detaining people on the flimsiest of grounds in the name of the "war on terror". Many Muslims have had a hard time, especially if they have a surname such as Hussein.
Whatever you do, don't focus extra security on those who are anti US government. If anything people that hate the current administration are the least likely to cause problems.
Wow, there ya go folks. It's all okay. Just mind your own business and make sure you put a flag on your SUV's radio antena. God bless! SM, I don't really know where to start. I apologize for that sarcasm, but good lord almighty this is disturbing. I marched in some anti-war rallies, and that makes me "anti US government?" Uh, hell no. It made me anti one decision and anti one international policy of the government (a government that I am allegedly part of as a voting citizen, as someone who reviews copious numbers of grant proposals for the US of A, who does science for the US of A on federal grants, who has served on juries in the US of A, et cetera). You really and truly think me showing up at a couple of rallies to speak my mind makes me a natural terror suspect? I really hope you are kidding. edit: I think one important point is that you should distinguish between "causing problems" and killing people. Good, active citizens are supposed to speak their minds, even if that causes a politician or two "problems," but good citizens do not blow up airplanes. The chasm between those types of actions speaks for itself. edit2: It would make even more sense to say that anti-abortion people are anti-USA. Unlike anit-war hippies, a few anti-abortion nutjobs have actually bombed clinics. I hope all anti-abortion folks are on a special government list that will make sure they get hassled when they travel. (hint: no I don't)
Everyone is at some point on the scale of terror suspect. No one is exempt. Does going to anti-war rallies immediately push you into confirmed member of al Queda territory where you will be shot on sight. Of course not. What it does is make you a little bit more suspect than someone who is otherwise the same as you but has not spoken out against what the administration has defined as part of the war on terror. Just like being a Saudi Arabian immigrant does not make someone a terrorist. They are just a little more suspect than someone from Australia. No one is suggesting that the people who get put on the list are arrested, beaten, or killed. They just want a little more scrutiny given to them at the airport. If such a list had existed prior to Sept. 11, maybe the Saudi immigrants who came over and took flying lessons where they weren't interested in learning to land might have been put on it. Is being inconvienced at the airport really that big a deal that we need to fight against it? Does it really make America into a radical right-wing police state as glynch suggests? I, for one, do not think so.
prejudging is prejudging. Let's just open the floodgates and have at it. First up, I want all anti-abortion people profiled and tracked. Makes sense to me. I want them to be hassled when they leave their homes, especially if they are within 100 miles of an abortion clinic. Gun owners are more commonly linked to gun violence than those who do not own guns. Let's keep an eye on those gun owners. Pull over their cars and hassle them. Next, I want all stupid people monitored because they tend to cause more traffic accidents than other people. Man, this is going to be good. By the way, your ability to accept that a few anti-war hippies are more likely to blow up a plane than any other Americans amazes me as few things can. No offense, but wow. These people are primarily opposed to violence. It's like assuming that President Bush is more likely to chain himself to an old growth redwood than I am. Or that he's more likely to do dru--- whoops, strike that.
Call coloring your decisions based on trends and past observation prejudging if you like. I choose to think of it as rational decision making. As an opponent of abortion, I could certainly understand and accept any decision to be put on a list of anti-abortionists. My name and picture can be given to everyone who works at an abortion clinic or anyplace where abortions are performed. I even volunteer to submit to search upon entry into any such locale. I am not at all sure that either of these statements are accurate. I do wish that the driving tests were more difficult and had to be passed more than once. It isn't about anti-war hippies, it is about people who have done things which somehow fit into a terrorist profile. I don't think you are any more likely to blow up a plane than MadMax, glynch, Refman, or LHutz. Mostly, I just don't think the list is that big a deal. No one's rights are being taken away by the list. In fact, if it were possible I would volunteer to be put on the list. President, bomb, al Queda, bin Laden, assassinate, kill, hijack, Iraq, Saddam, murder, launder, drugs, prostitution, blah. Maybe the FBI computers can catch that and include me as someone to watch out for.
This may actually be the stupidest of your positions yet, SM. I halfway can't even believe you're serious. But while you obviously don't care at ALL for your own civil liberties, that doesn't make it right for this oppressive government to take away the rest of ours'. Some of us actually love living in a free country. Those who seek to limit or remove our guaranteed freedoms (and those who defend those ones) are the truest threat to America and all it stands for. You're really blowing my mind here. You've expressed several positions which I find to be utterly indefensible, but this is the worst.
Which of you is going to be willing to share the resonsibility for the next American tragedy at the hands of terrorists?
Exactly what freedom is being taken away here? The right to go on an airplane without being searched? I must have missed that one while perusing the constitution. It isn't like people are being thrown in jail here. In fact no one in this case is being deprived of life, liberty, or property, with or without due process. It is a rediculous thing to be up in arms about. Who cares if they keep an eye on you at the airport. If you are really that concerned about it, don't go to an airport. I just don't understand what the big deal is.
it's not just being watched. it's being strip searched by fake cops and refused admittance to flights for no good reason.
I haven't heard the whole story. It doesn't seem impossible that those people were complaining about being searched and/or scrutinized and then were subjected to those things. There are also d******d airport security people out there that do things like make that woman drink multiple bottles of her own breast milk. I think it is unlikely that official policy is to strip search or deny flight privledges to everyone on the list.
I don't have a problem with airport security having direction as to who should be searched as I think that this type of direction would guarantee that people like Cameron Diaz, Al Gore, and Dionne Warwick will not get pulled out of line for a private meet and greet with the security personnel. I do believe that running a background check on people before they get on a plane is a good idea as this type of check could have kept the 9/11 hijackers off of those planes. That being said, this list is a bad idea as it does not rate the person based on their likelihood of being a terrorist, it rates people based on their choice of protests and opinions. This is just a way for the government to harass people who have the audacity to speak out against government policies and will do very little to reduce the chances of terrorism.
Maybe Madmax or a lawyer can help me with this one as SM claims astonishingly that making American citizens, who have protested the war, subject to special searches at airports due to their names being placed on secret lists made up by the government is not only right, but Consitutional. He starts with a statement Whatever you do, don't focus extra security on those who are anti US government. If Great if you protest this or any other war you are anti Us government I guess he means going to an anti-war demo makes one "anti-government", unpatiriotic, traitors, Un Americans or whatever.. Next we have: Everyone is at some point on the scale of terror suspect. No one is exempt. Does going to anti-war rallies immediately push you into confirmed member of al Queda territory where you will be shot on sight. Of course not. What it does is make you a little bit more suspect then we have: Exactly what freedom is being taken away here? The right to go on an airplane without being searched? I must have missed that one while perusing the constitution. It isn't like people are being thrown in jail here. In fact no one in this case is being deprived of life, liberty, or property, with or without due process. Well in this country we have a consitutional right to free speech. Going to an anti-war demonstration is our right as Americans. If you selectively punish people who went by putting them on secret lists for additonal hassles and searches at airports (and who is to say not other places, too given the secrecy of the whole process,) isn't this taking away their freedom of speech? You also claim that this isn't being done without "due process". Due process might be simplified as the right to a fair hearing before being pusnished or classified. Ashcroft or guys like you making up the list in secret is a fair hearing or due process? As an opponent of abortion, I could certainly understand and accept any decision to be put on a list of anti-abortionists. My name and picture can be given to everyone who works at an abortion clinic or anyplace where abortions are performed. I even volunteer to submit to search upon entry into any such locale. SM volunteers to restrict his freedom to travel or be subject to searches , but what gives him or Ashcroft in secret lists the right to force such restrictions on others who don't volunteer or even know they are on the secret llists? BTW what does going to an anti-war demo have to do with entering an airport anyway? Fascism in Germany and Italy started off slowly. Hitler was even voted in democratically, though he didn't initially publicly espouse such things as putting those who disagreed on secret lists for unequal treqatment. Hopefully stupidmoniker just got carried away trying to be a ditto-head Bush guy in the best way he knows and he isn't representative of a growing consensus in America. But even if this explains his lack of a feel for American style Constitutional freedoms, and the willingness to give is up this freedom is somewhat frightening.
glynch -- i think airport searches may have to be absolutely random. but, honestly, airports are the place where courts have given us the least protection in our rights...probably for good reason.
stupidmoniker, I apologize for the tone of the last paragraph. IO still think that there have been democracies where people gave up their rights gradually and eventually ran into messes. Max, I think there is an Equal protection argument when you have people put on these secret lists because they protested the war or the policies of conservatives in government. We don't know exactly who is on the secret lists, but I assume the aren't people who protested or heckled Clinton at events or protested outside a postofffice on April 15 against excess taxation. Granted there is more of a right to search people at Federal buildings or airports than while walking down the street.
giddy, this makes no sense to me. Please explain. So you think an American hippie is going to blow something up, and then I'll have to share the responsibility because I didn't want the hippie on a special list? Is that what you're saying? Let me say this more clearly, if that's possible: I see no reason whatsoever to think that a peace-loving anti-war person is somehow more likely to commit a horribly murderous and violent act than any other random person. Do you see an error in my thinking?
Admittedly I am over-reaching but I have seen too much constant criticism of Ashcroft. I just want everyone to consider how they would handle these problems if they were going to be held responsible for any catastrophes that occur. I'm pretty sure that most US based terrorists stay underground politically, so I don't really see the point of this particular endeavor... but even moreso I am tired of Ashcroft being likened to Fascists.
That's a very fair position, IMO. Any sort of law enforcement is difficult at best, but I can't imagine being at the top level. That being said, I think a lot of criticism of that man started a long, long time before 9-11. He is a tad extreme and a tad wacky (e.g. his song-writing), to say the least. I don't doubt that his heart's in the right place... even if I consider it a somewhat twisted place.
