Rahm Emmnauel says, on the no fly list, no 2nd amendment.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

scarysuperd

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
16
Watch this VIDEO, It's the POINT of the POST.

>>>>> Rahm Emanuel says "On no fly list, no second amendment">>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZKlvrP4

Given the inaccuracy of the no fly list, this is dangerous.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/21164res20051026.html

Whatever, I'm crazy right.

Are the No Fly List and Selectee List accurate?
These watch lists are inaccurate in at least three ways.

1) It is virtually impossible to know in advance whether a person is a terrorist. The September 11 hijackers, for example, were in the country lawfully and were not on any of the watch lists that existed at the time. At the same time, the definition of the No Fly List -- persons who "may" be a "risk" to civil aviation -- is so broad that it is certain to include many people who pose no danger and have done nothing illegal. If the government has probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime, the person will be arrested and prosecuted. But the people on the No Fly List and Selectee List are not charged with any crime, so the government does not have probable cause to believe they are criminals.

2) The lists contain names that are not linked to a physical description, birth date, or other unique identifier that allows airlines to easily determine whether the passenger at the counter is the person on the list. Large numbers of people have been delayed, searched, or interrogated at airports because they are "false positives" who have names that are the same or similar to names on the list. Senator Ted Kennedy is the most famous false positive, because he was repeatedly delayed at airports because someone else identified only as "T. Kennedy" was on the list.

3) The TSA has not been accurately keeping track of which people are NOT on the watch lists. As a result, false positives undergo delays and anxiety again and again, even after they have been cleared to fly on one or more occasions.

Marine coming home from Iraq on no fly list;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12284855/
 
Last edited:
I've developed, by necessity in light of my profession(s), a high tolerance for suspicion, distrust, and restrictions, as well as a lot of surveillance and searching not encountered by most citizens. It's not all bad; from experience and instruction I now can make a tail or a sit very quickly, and am quite comfortable in places like holding areas and jail common and visiting areas that would induce anxiety or discomfort in most people, for good reason.

Being delayed at the airport due to a pointless or needless search or questionning, even if it involves a brief detention, just isn't that big a deal.
 
Duke of Doubt: I've developed, by necessity in light of my profession(s), a high tolerance for suspicion, distrust, and restrictions, as well as a lot of surveillance and searching not encountered by most citizens. It's not all bad; from experience and instruction I now can make a tail or a sit very quickly, and am quite comfortable in places like holding areas and jail common and visiting areas that would induce anxiety or discomfort in most people, for good reason.

Being delayed at the airport due to a pointless or needless search or questionning, even if it involves a brief detention, just isn't that big a deal.
Click to expand...

Does the word Un-constitutional mean anything to you, I'm sorry, but am I the only one who's tired of this BS for the last 12 years, and 12 years more?

I mean seriously, this isn't about flieing, this is about getting on the NO FLY LIST.


JImbothefiveth: Well, I'm not sure the ACLU is a reliable source, but if that's true, that's outrageous.
Click to expand...

Thank God, someone has a backbone here.
 
Being delayed at the airport due to a pointless or needless search or questionning, even if it involves a brief detention, just isn't that big a deal.
Click to expand...

It will be when or if you are unable to purchase a firearm for the same reason.
 
You don't get onto the No Fly List for no good reason; you CAN be delayed at the airport for no good reason. It was that part of the OP (his paragraph 3) to which I was responding.
 
You don't get onto the No Fly List for no good reason
Click to expand...

So all those infants or Senators that got onto the NO Fly list are terrorists? It happens all the time. The list is estimated to be over a million people now. Most of them average Americans who have broken no law. Some it's because of mistaken identity, some because they went to a protest. Some, because of political reasons.

Applying this BS list to gun ownership is wrong on so many levels.
 
If it's mistaken identity you can get off the list. It's happened.

If it's for political activity, well, I don't necessarily AGREE with that reason, at all -- but it IS a reason. The first thing they tell you when travelling abroad on government business is, avoid political events and demonstrations. Unless, of course, you are there precisely FOR that event. I'm probably PNG in a few countries on the basis of prior employment. Haven't checked, doesn't matter; I don't need to go there, and they aren't very interesting to me anymore.

We do have the First Amendment, and we have the right peaceably to assemble. A political rally is peaceful. A political demonstration arguably is not, depending on the circumstances. If government property is damaged, say the anti-sonar coating of a submarine, the individuals involved get prosecuted and the rest are subject to dispersion. And that may be sufficient reason to keep them off airplanes. Not sure I agree with that, but many might.
 
Unless I'm mistaken, being placed on the No-Fly List does not require a hearing before a Judge and/or Jury where you are allowed to present evidence in your own defense and confront your accusers nor is it a finding of guilt.

Being denied your individual right to keep and bear arms because you might possibly present an unknown danger to some unknown person at an unknown time when you've never been convicted of a felony, have not been adjudicated criminally insane or mentally defective and are an adult whose tax dollars are being used to fund this nonsense is blatantly unconstitutional. It not only violates the right to keep and bear arms it violates your right to the due process of the laws. Your rights cannot be suspended based upon speculation without a fair hearing, at a minimum. Rahm Emmanuel's position on this issue is both disgraceful and a terrifying portent of things yet to come.
 
It's also NOT HAPPENED to a lot of people. The Washington Post has recently run some articles on folks who travel weekly and can't get off the list.

A delay isn't a big deal? It is if you miss your connecting flight and therefore miss your cruise, wedding, job interview, business meeting or whatnot.

I'm not too sure you know what's going on in this country.

John
 
The Wash. Post:

"Every time Kiernan O'Dwyer arrived at the airport after traveling overseas in recent years, he was flagged as a potential terrorist. But his uniform was a dead giveaway to his true identity: He is a veteran pilot for American Airlines.

U.S. customs agents have stopped him about 80 times since 2003, apparently because his name and birth date nearly match those of an Irish Republican Army leader, one of at least 300,000 names on the U.S. government's watch lists. O'Dwyer falls under an unenviable category of false positives, people who are wrongly detained because some of their personal information matches that of a terrorist or other suspect."
_________________
 
That will go to the courts and they will overturn it. You CANNOT ABRIDGE SOMEONE'S RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

I am sorry, but if they have not been convicted in court or currently under arrest or bond for an alleged offense, I do not see how in the world that you can make that stick. Especially since we know that the NO FLY LIST hasn't done any good as of late. Below is a excerpt from Bruce Schneier monthly free newsletter Cyrptogram. November '09 news letter.

It doesn't mention guns, but I think that the criticism of the TSA procedure and of the no fly list are completely accurate.


Me and the TSA



There was a great article from The Atlantic about me helping evade airport security. We printed fake boarding passes, explained how anyone on the no-fly list could get through security, and brought on more liquids than should be allowed.

Kip Hawley, head of the TSA, has responded to the article on his blog.

Unfortunately, there's not really anything to his response. It's obvious he doesn't want to admit that they've been checking ID's all this time to no purpose whatsoever, so he just emits vague generalities like a frightened squid filling the water with ink. Yes, some of the stunts in article are silly (who cares if people fly with Hezbollah T-shirts?) so that gives him an opportunity to minimize the real issues.

Hawley says: "Watch-lists and identity checks are important and effective security measures. We identify dozens of terrorist-related individuals a week and stop No-Flys regularly with our watch-list process."

It is simply impossible that the TSA catches dozens of terrorists every week. If it were true, the administration would be trumpeting this all over the press -- it would be an amazing success story in their war on terrorism. But note that Hawley doesn't exactly say that; he calls them "terrorist-related individuals." Which means exactly what? People so dangerous they can't be allowed to fly for any reason, yet so innocent they can't be arrested -- even under the provisions of the Patriot Act.

And if Secretary Chertoff is telling the truth when he says that there are only 2,500 people on the no-fly list and fewer than 16,000 people on the selectee list -- they're the ones that get extra screening -- and that most of them live outside the U.S., then it is just plain impossible that the TSA identifies "dozens" of these people every week.

The math just doesn't make sense.

And I also don't believe this: "Behavior detection works and we have 2,000 trained officers at airports today. They alert us to people who may pose a threat but who may also have items that could elude other layers of physical security."

It does work, but I don't see the TSA doing it properly. (Fly El Al if you want to see it done properly.) But what I think Hawley is doing is engaging in a little bit of psychological manipulation. Like sky marshals, the real benefit of behavior detection isn't whether or not you do it but whether or not the bad guys *believe* you're doing it. If they think you are doing behavior detection at security checkpoints, or have sky marshals on every airplane, then you don't actually have to do it. It's the threat that's the deterrent, not the actual security system.

This doesn't impress me, either: "Items carried on the person, be they a 'beer belly' or concealed objects in very private areas, are why we are buying over 100 whole body imagers in upcoming months and will deploy more over time. In the meantime, we use hand-held devices that detect hydrogen peroxide and other explosives compounds as well as targeted pat-downs that require private screening."

Optional security measures don't work, because the bad guys will opt not to use them. It's like those air-puff machines at some airports now.
They're probably great at detecting explosive residue off clothing, but every time I have seen the machines in operation, the passengers have the option whether to go through the lane with them or another lane.
What possible good is that?

The closest thing to a real response from Hawley is that the terrorists might get caught stealing credit cards. "Using stolen credit cards and false documents as a way to get around watch-lists makes the point that forcing terrorists to use increasingly risky tactics has its own security value."

He's right about that. And, truth be told, that was my sloppiest answer during the original interview. Thinking about it afterwards, it's far more likely is that someone with a clean record and a legal credit card will buy the various plane tickets.

This is new: "Boarding pass scanners and encryption are being tested in eight airports now and more will be coming."

Ignoring for a moment that "eight airports" nonsense -- unless you do it at every airport, the bad guys will choose the airport where you don't do it to launch their attack -- this is an excellent idea. The reason my attack works, the reason I can get through TSA checkpoints with a fake boarding pass, is that the TSA never confirms that the information on the boarding pass matches a legitimate reservation. If all TSA checkpoints had boarding pass scanners that connected to the airlines'
computers, this attack would not work. (Interestingly enough, I noticed exactly this system at the Dublin airport earlier this month.)

And finally: "Stopping the 'James Bond' terrorist is truly a team effort and I whole-heartedly agree that the best way to stop those attacks is with intelligence and law enforcement working together."

This isn't about "Stopping the 'James Bond' terrorist," it's about stopping terrorism. And if all this focus on airports, even assuming it starts working, shifts the terrorists to other targets, we haven't gotten a whole lot of security for our money.

Atlantic article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security

Hawley response:
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/10/tsas-take-on-atlantic-article.html

Chertoff on the no-fly list:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/10/22/no.fly.lists/index.html

Hawley responds to my comments in my blog. Yes, it's really him.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/kip_hawley_resp.html#c321445
or http://tinyurl.com/6692n5

My interview with Hawley from last year:
http://www.schneier.com/interview-hawley.html

In other news, Kip Hawley says that the TSA may loosen size restrictions on liquids. You'll still have to take them out of your bag, but they can be larger than three ounces. The reasons -- so he states -- are that technologies are getting better, not that the threat is reduced.
http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2008/10/path-forward-on-liquids.html
I'm skeptical, of course. But read his post; it's interesting.

The Atlantic is holding a contest, based on Hawley's comment that the TSA is basically there to catch stupid terrorists: "And so, a contest:
How would the Hawley Principle of Federally-Endorsed Mediocrity apply to other government endeavors?"
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/new_contest_can_you_outlame_th.php
or http://tinyurl.com/6e5t7w
Not the same as my movie-plot threat contest, but fun all the same.

And lastly, what would the TSA make of this?
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/24/chanel-gun-heel.html
Click to expand...
 
So big deal, they've reviewed about half of the 43,500 requests for mercy. :)

New boss is coming... or here....

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102202646.html

"Thursday, October 23, 2008; Page A05

The Department of Homeland Security will take over responsibility for checking airline passenger names against government watch lists beginning in January, and will require travelers for the first time to provide their full name, birth date and gender as a condition for boarding commercial flights, U.S. officials said Wednesday."

"Details about why certain passengers are stopped are normally not shared with travelers, who often endure long delays and pointed questions. DHS has received more than 43,500 requests for redress since February 2007 and has completed 24,000 of them, with the rest under review or awaiting more documentation, TSA spokesman Christopher White said."
 
One more from that article...

"On average, DHS screeners discover a person who is actually on the no-fly list about once a month, usually overseas,..."
 
You don't get onto the No Fly List for no good reason; you CAN be delayed at the airport for no good reason. It was that part of the OP (his paragraph 3) to which I was responding.
__________________
Click to expand...

you missed the point.
the no fly list is reportedly composed of mere names.
so if some other "duke of doubt" gets put on the no fly list, there goes that trip to hawaii, dude.
 
If I found myself getting delayed every time I flew, I'd make allowances for it before scheduling a last minute flight for an important meeting or event.

I've occasionally been stopped or pulled over for "routine checks." The cops weren't trying to give me a hard time, and had no articulable suspicion or probable cause that would stand up in court. Didn't matter; they were almost certainly looking for known associates/clients of mine being sought either on outstanding warrants or on information. A minute or two by the roadside, a few pleasantries and jokes, and I was on my merry way. I learned to expect it and how to handle it, and how to explain it to passengers not involved with my practice if we happened to get pulled.

I'm not saying I ENJOY airport delays, but I have little patience for the infrequent flyer who decides to give the entire security checkpoint a noisy lecture on his Constitutional rights and how this is how it started with Mussolini. A time and a place for everything.
 
i´m from germany....
i studied history....
i know facism, when i see it.

RKBA for all but proven violent offenders.
Everything else reminds me of....
 
"Well, I’m not going to confirm is and who isn’t," Hawley replies.

What Kip Hawley wouldn’t tell 60 Minutes is that some of the some of most dangerous terrorists never even end up on the No Fly List, because the intelligence agencies that supply the names don’t want them circulated to airport employees in foreign countries for fear that they could end up in the hands of the terrorists.

Cathy Berrick, the Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues for the General Accounting Office told Kroft that the lists that the airlines get have been sanitized of the most sensitive information.

"They're not given all of the names for security reasons because the government doesn't want to have that information outside of the government," Berrick says.

"But if the point of the system is to keep dangerous people from getting on airplanes, why would you leave some of the potentially most dangerous people off the list?" Kroft asks.

"Yeah, it's a concern. And I think if you talk with the Department of Homeland Security they would agree with that," Berrick says.

The Transportation Security Administration has been trying to fix some of these problems for the past three years with a program called "Secure Flight." It would take the job of screening passengers on the No Fly List away from the airlines and place it in the hands of TSA employees with the necessary security clearances.
 
Emanuelism is the new McCarthyism? Putting U.S. citizens who have never been convicted of any crime in an U.S. court of law on a blacklist which denies the free exercise of constitutionally guranteed rights is both unethical and unconstitutional. Flying is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, the individual right to keep and bear arms, however, IS, according to the Supreme Court of the U.S. in D.C. vs. Heller.
 
The video was done in 2007, before the Heller decision.

Also, he's only Chief of Staff. He's a glorified human PDA. Who cares what he thinks. Its not like he can influence anything, everyone he's around has already made up their minds. His opinion isn't worth squat. It's more Brady feel-good nonsense.
 
"Also, he's only Chief of Staff. He's a glorified human PDA. Who cares what he thinks. Its not like he can influence anything..."
Click to expand...

Less than 2 weeks ago the NY Times called him:

"arguably the second most powerful man in the country and, just a few days into his tenure, already one of the highest-profile chiefs of staff in recent memory."
Click to expand...

(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/us/politics/25emanuel.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)

So, yeah, I care what he thinks, especially when I don't like what he thinks. Scoff at the NY Times as being biased all you want, but that is not an insignificant source of information and opinion.
 
That's sad and disturbing. Revoking someones rights without due process.... How unAmerican is that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
DHS Admits 30,000 Names Wrongly on Terrorist Watch List
Replies
18
Views
655
StopTheGrays
S
Confederate
  • Locked
Obama Targets No-Fliers for Handgun Restrictions
Replies
21
Views
1K
damien
D
R
  • Locked
US terror watchlist 80,000 names long
Replies
8
Views
343
Peet
P
A
  • Locked
TSA- Deny infants to fly
Replies
13
Views
597
280PLUS
2
J
  • Locked
No fly-no gun
Replies
19
Views
1K
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top