Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, and Ashcroft's put a stop to them?

He's advancing a ball that's objectionable to some. Why shouldn't he be held accountable for doing so? Clinton was certainly happy to take credit for eliminating a deficit through an economic recovery the basis for which was set under Bush. Should he not get credit for that?

No, but he's not taking a position different than the prior administration. Put when an R does it, it's a crisis.

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by bilmore
But the point is, they're doing things they could have done before using existing statutes, and merely listing the PA sections as the relevent authority on the warrants. No substantive difference - just an easier, all-inclusive label and statutory citer for cops to remember.

The question we're discussing relates to Ashcroft, not the PA, right? The PA is only relevant as a legislative measure backed by Ashcroft for these purposes, and is not either the beginning nor the end of the discussion?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Watchtower
The question we're discussing relates to Ashcroft, not the PA, right? The PA is only relevant as a legislative measure backed by Ashcroft for these purposes, and is not either the beginning nor the end of the discussion?

I have no idea what you just said.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So your concern, is the potential that these lists may somewhat profile? Okay, for now I'm comfortable with that, especially if the do not fly list is short, and justified. Profiling has been argued to death here, I won't repeat it. For now, to not profile is crazy, especially is the profiling only involves a closer search.

Given that they have been erroneously profiling nuns I'm not really sure that I have confidence in their ability to put only bad guys on their do-not-let-this-person-fly list. Plus, I haven't heard any proposals for a procedure of getting off the list if somehow you end up on it erroneously.

[Watchtower]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So your concern, is the potential that these lists may somewhat profile? Okay, for now I'm comfortable with that, especially if the do not fly list is short, and justified. Profiling has been argued to death here, I won't repeat it. For now, to not profile is crazy, especially is the profiling only involves a closer search.

I have no idea what profiling means (and that's rhetorical - there is no need for anyone to give me an exegesis on profiling).

My touchstone is whether or not (i) there is discrimination based on race or national origin; and (ii) with state participation or action or in a matter of public accomodation.

My further assumption is that when the government violates the constitution, the violation is one that affects all of us, because it means we can no longer count on having the rights set out in that document. And the violation doesn't only occur when someone complains.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I have no idea what you just said.

he was saying he fears the craftsman holding the tool, not the tool so much, I think.
I am starting to believe it is simply this fear, justified or no, which is the basis for the erosion talk.
NB in 1.5 hrs. Atticus will log on and remind us of the Afghan tribesman who insulted someones daughter, and ended up at Gitmo for a few years. I am not dismissing these issues, I'm simply trying to issue spot at this point.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Given that they have been erroneously profiling nuns I'm not really sure that I have confidence in their ability to put only bad guys on their do-not-let-this-person-fly list. Plus, I haven't heard any proposals for a procedure of getting off the list if somehow you end up on it erroneously.

1 profiling alone would be dumb. See Richard Reid, with haircut, shave and western clothes. That doesn't mean profiling is dumb. I will not engage this anymore, by the way.

2 No one is on the fucking list- since they haven't decided what will get you on the list, how can they decide how one gets off the list?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

I am starting to believe it is simply this fear, justified or no, which is the basis for the erosion talk.

perhaps. but isn't the perception nearly as important as the facts? If a sizable portion of citizens believe that they are no longer as safe engaging in activities that previously they could do, does that not have a chilling effect (not just in the legal sense) on one's liberty? Ashcroft and Bush certainly haven't gone on a PR campaign extolling their commitment to civil liberties.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
perhaps. but isn't the perception nearly as important as the facts? If a sizable portion of citizens believe that they are no longer as safe engaging in activities that previously they could do, does that not have a chilling effect (not just in the legal sense) on one's liberty

Certainly, but then you end up leveling the blame on the hysterical alarmists who keep yelling about a loss of freedom.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


2 No one is on the fucking list- since they haven't decided what will get you on the list, how can they decide how one gets off the list?

Yes. They shouldn't bother worrying about procedures for correcting errors until well after it becomes clear that the system occasionally makes errors. should help reduce the deficit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes. They shouldn't bother worrying about procedures for correcting errors until well after it becomes clear that the system occasionally makes errors. should help reduce the deficit.

Burger, since we dont' know how to get on the list, how can they detail how to get off? C'mon, you're too smart for this argument.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Burger, since we dont' know how to get on the list, how can they detail how to get off? C'mon, you're too smart for this argument.

I got on the list (well, some list) that made it incredibly bothersome getting on a plane for a short bit of time. Then, I got off. Apparently the key is, you need to make noise in the vicinity of someone who isn't too job-timid to actually take the risk of taking you off of a list.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

2 No one is on the fucking list- since they haven't decided what will get you on the list, how can they decide how one gets off the list?

Yes. There is a list. Actually, there are several. CAPPS II, the program that was announced yesterday, has not been implemented yet. However, the TSA admitted as early as January 2003, that there is a watch list, and people with similar names to individuals on that list were subject to intense scrutiny before getting on board any airplane. In July 2003, pursuant to an FOIA request by the ACLU, the TSA released documents that confirmed that there were two lists: a "no fly" list and a "selectee" list. Airlines could not transport anyone on the no fly list and more intense scrutiny was required for anyone on the selectee list. See http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=12740&c=206 for more information.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Burger, since we dont' know how to get on the list, how can they detail how to get off? C'mon, you're too smart for this argument.

No, I think it's a legitimate question. If you're placed on the list for whatever reason, why is it absurd to specify that a person who is on the list may submit some set of materials to whoever to prove they are not, in fact, the terrorist the list thinks they are.

I'm not going to waste time googling it, but I've read at least three articles, over the last year, discussing people banned from flying who, it turns out, simply had a name similar to those of suspected terrorists. Indeed, one of the passengers on the Christmas flight from Paris to LA suspected of being a terrorist on the basis of her name was a five-year old girl.

Now, if you're talking about someone on the list because, say, the CIA has information that they met with a known al qaeda operative in Spain in 1999, then, sure, don't tell them what they have to disprove. But the issue there isn't telling them, it's an issue of being confident we're right. Besides, what would be so wrong about telling such a person to "come into our office so we can talk to you?"

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
I got on the list (well, some list) that made it incredibly bothersome getting on a plane for a short bit of time. Then, I got off. Apparently the key is, you need to make noise in the vicinity of someone who isn't too job-timid to actually take the risk of taking you off of a list.

My solution was to come back from Hawaii. WHile we were there, however, we were subjected, before each 20 minute inter-island flight to the more extensive search. I have no idea why, other than a return flight to DC several days hence. It's not like we could have hijacked the plane and done damage to anything more significant than a taro grove.