|
|
And So It Begins
An article by a fellow who used to have Top Secret clearance and who was named one of President Bush's original 1000 points of light, yet who somehow ended up on the TSA's terrorist No-Fly watch list and is about to see his entire public speaking livelihood head down the sewer in the name of National Security. Some of the more important lines:
I'm embarrassed that it took my own ox being gored for me to see the threat posed by the Administration's current restricting of civil liberties. The worst of it is that being put on a list of America's enemies seems to be permanent. ... I'm guilty, says my government, not just until proven innocent or a victim of mistaken identity--but forever. This is why you can't sit around and wonder when people will come to their senses, or assume that they will never come for you. It could be you next caught in the grinding mill of the faceless security machine, and then it'll be too late. We need to diligently protect ourselves from what is truly the greatest threat to our liberties: our own government.
The founding fathers knew this well, which is why they worked so hard to create a system of checks and balances, a system that errs on the side of the individual, a system with the traditional tools of tyranny (religion and police state) removed, and topped it all off with a mission statement that clearly outlines the principles on which the nation was founded.
|
|
|
|
Some comments:
This at a minimum makes life difficult for some, and at an extreme can be used to thwart open dissent or people labelled enemies of the state. That's not a good thing.
Are you in favor of dissolving the no-fly list?
Short of that, what's the solution?
- Zam
If you read the article, you'll have seen that (a) it's not just making his life difficult, it's impacting his ability to perform his trade, ie: public speaking around the country. This would be like your having to call and get clearance to turn your computer on once a week, which would be mostly annoying until, for some reason someone neglected to answer the phone, in which case you'd be screwed.
And, (b) there's no way OFF the no-fly list. I'm fine with creating a list, and I understand that there will be accidents where people get mislabeled. My concern is that if these guys choose to annoy you for the rest of your life, you're screwed and there's nothing you can do about it. That's wrong.
Finally, my point is, this is just the beginning. People keep harping on the fact that these incursions into our rights are mere annoyances. But that's where it starts. My true concern is not so much that they are eroding our rights in the name of national security, which isn't the greatest, but I think we can all make some sacrifices. My concern is that they are doing so carelessly and with disregard to the rights of individuals they profess to be protecting. That's where the problem is, and that's what we need to be exceptionally cautious about, because it's these little things that gather together like snow on a roof. It looks harmless enough and it's not bothering anybody, so everyone ignores it, until at some point it gains enough momentum and comes crashing down on you ruining your day.
As for the solution, I think the solution is, first, to aggressively resolve any issues, either for or against, people on the no-fly list, and remove them if they don't belong there.
Also, I believe you have a right to know why you're on there, for two reasons. First, you should know what you're being 'tried' for so that you can defend yourself properly. And second, it's important that these sorts of things have as much transparency as possible. Frankly, there's nothing to be gained by keeping a person from knowing why they are on the list. The only winner there is the bureaucracy.
The other solution is for folks to be more wary and to tread more lightly on individual rights, being sure to only curtail as much as deemed necessary, and only until the threat is over. At the very least, make sure every potential cut, like the TSA no-fly list, goes hand-in-hand with a way to ensure that innocents can act to clear their name.
Yeah I didn't say that it's just making his life difficult. I'd rate his situation somewhere between what I called the minimum and the extreme. Probably closer to the extreme for him, frankly. (I *did* read the article, btw.)
So to paraphrase your solution is to keep the no-fly list, but have some transparent grievance procedures. I'm in favor of that. There's nothing on the TSA's website that tells you what to do if you are on it.
I'd suggest that the no-fly list procedure needs to go through the judicial system as well.
I can understand where out of the gate the country was afraid of more bombs, and so took an extreme reaction. But it's coming up on four years now, and that's long enough to have these systems perfected where they aren't violating rights.
In fact, this violates habeas corpus as I understand it.
- Zam
Habeas Corpus: "The Constitution of the United States states that the privilege of habeas corpus cannot be suspended. In this context, habeas corpus means that a person held in jail or prison has the right to make the authority holding the person justify the imprisonment. The prisoner may ask for a hearing in which a court determines that the proceeding, which resulted in the person being restrained, was fair and lawful."
So, in a strict reading, no. But in a general reading, it violates the spirit of "innocent until proven guilty", which is one of the core concepts that separates us from the rest of the free world.
this doesn't contribute much to either position, except to note that there are people with *active* clearances at higher level than that listed in the article, who happen to be on the no-fly list due to administrative or other error...and these people have been unsuccessful in getting off that list. So they deal with the hassle every time they fly, multiple times per month.
An interesting, but misguided, question. First, there are no God-granted liberties, except perhaps the liberty to be alive and make decisions. Otherwise, as we can see throughout history, God's doling out of rights to individuals is pretty slim. Hence our need to vigorously defend the incursion of our liberties by our fellow man. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what the founding fathers were up to when they founded this great nation.
As for the right to air travel, you're right in surmising that there isn't one, nor is there a right or guarantee of a specific standard of living or your right to practice your particular craft and be successful at it. And, I don't believe anyone claimed there was. There is however a very real impact on this guy's daily life and means to make a living, apparently due to an incorrectible bureaucratic snafu.
If we allow the bureaucracy to rule, and turn our back on those who are currently being ground beneath it, simply because we are at this point standing safely to one side, we run the risk of allowing this state-sponsered bureaucracy to build up so much momentum that it starts to take away even those rights you or others might deem "God-given".
This guy is being harrassed by his own government for no reason, and he has no way to fix that. That's a bad, bad precedent to set, and your callousness towards his plight bespeaks an ignorance of history and a lack of care for your fellow man.
What I mean by it violating habeas corpus is that there's no way to address the grievance against you.
"a prerogative writ (judicial mandate) to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody." (wikipedia)
So technically it's not a physical prison, but it does fit the definition in all other facets. It keeps the authorities from locking you up cause you might be up to no good somehow.
My problem with this is not so much that we are denying someone the privilege of flying, but that there's no way to see why or respond.
There really isn't. I looked. Nothin'.
I accept flaws in any system, but it's time to get these ironed out or at least address them. It's mental laziness on the part of this agency at best.
It's a real easy way to keep critics of the government from spreading their message. The only way to keep government from oppressing the people is that free dissent.
Post a Comment
<< Home