six year old girl on "no-fly" list

[Toke]

What does this have to do with anything? The issue is not stopping people who are travelling with children, it is stopping people who are children. If the mother or father had been stopped, I doubt many people would complain about that just because they had their child with them. But the point in this case is that the child was stopped for being a possible terrorist. Unless terrorists are now planning on using no-one other than 6 year olds, I don't see how deciding that a little kid probably isn't the droid terrorist you're looking for could cause any problems.

I suspect the problem is institutional, the people at the bottom is not trusted to think on their own.
So if a 6 years old have a name that match some list or other, the issue have to be referred further up the line for a decision.

The really strange thing is that such a no-brainer is accepted, or at least that it generates nothing more than a few articles.
Why is nobody demanding that the responsible government member resign over such incompetence in setting up a system?

 

[theprestige]

Why is nobody demanding that the responsible government member resign over such incompetence in setting up a system?

Probably because anybody who might be arsed enough to do such a thing already understands that the system isn't incompetent at all, but rather makes perfectly understandable tradeoffs.

 

[Rolfe]

And you don't think that when small girls are prevented from travelling, the interference with your civil liberties has reached the point where the terrorists may justifiably celebrate a victory?

Rolfe.

 

[theprestige]

And you don't think that when small girls are prevented from travelling, the interference with your civil liberties has reached the point where the terrorists may justifiably celebrate a victory?

Victory is a matter of opinion. If that's what they think is a win, they're certainly justified in calling it a win. All I can say is, if that's their idea of "victory", then they've set their bar disappointingly low.

All the effort that went into a major operation like 9-11, and what do they have to show for it, really? A girl is on the no-fly list by accident? As bureaucratic nightmares go, this doesn't even merit a film by Terry Gilliam.

Was that really Bin Laden's ultimate goal? "I'll rain down such horror and death on Americans, that for some of them, their lives will become watered-down versions of scenes from Brazil! Mwahahahahaha!!!"

I doubt it. The more I think about it, the more I think that after the initial frisson of "sticking it to The Man" passes, there's not much payoff in making terrorist attacks on the U.S. I think this is the biggest reason why there have been so few of them in the U.S. recently.

I think the real payoff is in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan--places where a sustained campaign can actually win hearts and minds, cripple local governments, and carve out a domain in which the terrorist organizations can actually wield real power over their own lives and the lives of their subjects.

I think one IED in Helmand province is worth more to the Afghani Taliban than a thousand IEDs in America. I think one car bomb in Pakistan is worth more than a hundred car bombs in the U.S., which is why the Pakistani Taliban cuts their incompetent jihadis loose to fend for themselves in Times Square, while the promising recruits focus on hitting high-value targets in Pakistan. In Pakistan, the jihadis actually have a shot at taking control of the country--something no 9-11 will ever get them in the U.S.

I think a person would have to be pretty foolish indeed, to think it a worthwhile investment of resources, to perpetrate terrorist attacks on the U.S., just so that one could claim "victory" when a little girl accidentally ends up on the no-fly list.

 

[Rolfe]

If you think the restriction on your civil liberties is confined to one little girl on a no-fly list, you have not been paying attention.

Rolfe.

 

[carlitos]

I think this is actually a good point. Maybe I'm wrong:

Quick! Make a list!

• Everybody in the world must be either on the list or off it.
• Nobody who should be on the list may be left off it.
• Nobody who should be on the list may be put on it.
• Everybody who needs to know about the details of the listing process should be fully informed.
• Anybody who should not know the details of the listing process must be kept fully uninformed.
• The process for changing the list must be extremely well controlled.
• The process for changing the list must be extremely easy.
• Anybody who matches a certain profile should be on the list.
• The listing process should not involve any kind of profiling.
• Anybody whose judgment can be trusted should be allowed to grant exceptions to people on the list.
• Nobody whose judgement can't be trusted should be allowed to grant exceptions to people on the list.
• Nobody on the Internet should be able to find fault with the list.

How did you do?

The larger problem is that we keep fighting the last battle, while the bad guys are planning the next one. I sure hope that FBI / CIA / ATTF and whomever else are sitting around, thinking 'out of the box' or at least reading some fiction thrillers written by people who are doing so. The odds of the next terror attack coming on a plane and being successful are nearly nil at this point.

 

[Toke]

Probably because anybody who might be arsed enough to do such a thing already understands that the system isn't incompetent at all, but rather makes perfectly understandable tradeoffs.

Would you like to elaborate on that?
To me it looks just like something done to make it look like an effort is being made.

 

[theprestige]

If you think the restriction on your civil liberties is confined to one little girl on a no-fly list, you have not been paying attention.

Don't look at me. You're the one who suggested one little girl on a no-fly list is a justification for terrorists declaring victory.

But in fact my point was that I don't see how any amount of increased restrictions on our civil liberties--and certainly not the relatively paltry increase we've seen in the U.S. in the past few years--would benefit global terrorism significantly (if at all).

Why should it? In what way, exactly, does the Afghani Taliban benefit from increased restrictions on our civil liberties? Do they comfort themselves with thoughts of our no-fly list and our warrantless wiretaps, as they hide in caves and dodge missile drones and engage in deadly firefights with foreign armies for control of a country they straight-up ruled before those planes hit those towers?

Do you think that's what Al Qaeda has really been fighting for, the last several decades? Do you think this is all working out the way they'd hoped and planned?

 

[Rolfe]

All? No. Does the term "gradualism" mean anything to you?

Rolfe.

 

[theprestige]

All? No. Does the term "gradualism" mean anything to you?

To me the term's meaning depends on the context. Could you put your use of it in context, please?

You seem to think that your point is obvious, based on a shared perception of the term "gradualism" between you and I.

But in fact, I wasn't even aware that "gradualism" formed the basis for your point until just now. I have no idea what you mean by it, or what it has to do with anything else you've posted in this thread so far.

Would you be willing to present an end-to-end narrative, that starts with "Gradualism is... ", ends with "... and that's why I think an imperfect no-fly list is a justifiable victory condition for Al Qaeda [or whoever]", and clearly makes whatever point it is that you'd like me to understand, even if I don't end up agreeing with it?

 

[funk de fino]

There is a no fly list and there are other lists. Do not confuse them. I was on a list but it was not the no fly list.

No-one has told them it was a no fly list. They have assumed that and so has the Fox piece. There seems to be a temporary extra security list also. This could be the one she was on.

 

[Modified]

Suppose you are a terrorist and your name is "James Smith" (probable most common name in the US). Can you be put on such a list? Wouldn't that cause a mess?

 

[WildCat]

If you think the restriction on your civil liberties is confined to one little girl on a no-fly list, you have not been paying attention.

Rolfe.

Well they haven't managed to ban guns yet.

 

[Aepervius]

Well they haven't managed to ban guns yet.

Due to assymetric power, gun don't do diddly squat when a dictature or a totalitarist governement has the army on their side.

And before anybody trot the "but the army is people too", think about it, this is true in all dictature. There are many reason why that particular argument fall on face value.

So , have go at your gun. From all the box used for democraty (soapbox, ballot box, munition box), due to the assymetry, the munition box isn't anymore on the folk side.

And be glad the loss of liberty is only gradual instead of being brutal.

 

[Toke]

Well they haven't managed to ban guns yet.

It is kind of strange.
A list can be made with names that for mysterious reasons are not allowed to fly. Too bad if it happens to be your name.

But the same list cannot be extended to weapons without evidence against each individual affected?

Anyone with the name mr W. Cat. can be banned from flying, but not from buying guns.