Originally Posted by
jkhuggins
We're splitting hairs between the two of us here ... but, what the heck, I'll go ahead and dispute with you for just a little bit.
Right now, the "no-fly" list is a list of people who are not permitted to fly. Presumably, there has to be a reason to be placed on that list (as arbitrary as it might be in practice). Consequently, one doesn't specifically need positive permission to fly; one needs to verify (to the satisfaction of the government) that one has not been banned from flying.
There would be a significant difference if one had to obtain specific, positive permission to fly. Officials would have to have a specific reason to grant permission to a passenger. They could deny permission solely on the basis of not having enough information on which to act ... or other, less savory reasons. (Images of
Casablanca are coming to mind ...)
Anyways ... I agree that the distinction between the two scenarios is subtle. But there's a difference between asking "Am I on the no-fly list?" and "May I fly today?". Gratefully, we're not at the latter stage. (Yet.)
I agree it is a subtle difference, and I think the difference is subtle enough to be nil. What concerns me is an item published in the Federal Register, August 23, 2007 modifying the APIS system (Advanced Passenger Information System). This system was created by the airlines and Customs in the aftermath of Lockerbee. It took some time and it was supposed to allow the feds to do exactly what you said: make sure no one is on the no fly list. Once the airplane was enroute, the manifest was checked and in some instances, the airplane was denied entry into US airspace, causing the airlines significant expense.
But, in 2007, that changed. The rule making was to change the former procedure to require the advanced transmission of the pax/crew manifest and the aircraft
could not depart until CBP/TSC vetted the manifest and authorized the airplane to depart.
This manifest is used for
"enforcement and security queries
against various multi-agency law
enforcement and terrorist databases in
connection with, as appropriate,
international commercial flights to,
from, continuing within, and overflying
the United States and international
commercial vessel voyages to and from
the United States."
. . .
TSA is assisted in the further
vetting process by the TSC and, in some
circumstances, by other Federal
security/law enforcement agencies, such
as the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI). The process involves the air
carrier’s transmission of passenger APIS
data to the CBP system no later than a
specific deadline prior to departure as
specified in the final rule
. . .
The applicable
provisions of the regulation (the
interactive batch and AQQ provisions),
as amended in this final rule, specify
that carriers must collect all required
APIS data, at the gate or other suitable
place, and await appropriate vetting
results (‘‘cleared’’ or ‘‘selectee’’) before
boarding these passengers (
. . .
One commenter stated that
the NPRM, if adopted, would infringe
on First Amendment rights because the
rule restricts free movement of people
into the United States.
Response: CBP does not agree that the
changes made in this final rule will
restrict the free movement of people
arriving in and departing from the
United States. Requiring carriers to
submit passenger information in
accordance with current APIS
regulations and the amendments of this
final rule, which affect the timing of
data transmission and process, does not
deny or impede the ability of people to
travel to and from the United States.
These regulations, as amended by this
final rule, are within CBP’s authority
pursuant to the Aviation Transportation
Security Act of 2001, the Enhanced
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform
Act of 2002, and the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
As stated by CBP in the 2005 APIS Final
Rule (70 FR 17828), the U.S. Supreme
Court has recognized that the right to
travel abroad is not an absolute right
and that ‘‘no government interest is
more compelling than the security of the
Nation.’’ Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307
(1981). The Supreme Court also has
stated that the government may place
reasonable restrictions on the right to
travel in order to protect this compelling
interest.
This rule-making includes commercial vessels such as RMS Queen Mary II.
Next, CBP/DHS/TSA moves on to private aircraft and vessels in 2009 with the extension of eAPIS to private flyers using the same rationalization. Prior to departing or arriving in the US, a pilot must file a pax/crew manifest, even for a 2 seat airplane, via the internet, and must receive affirmative permission from the government to depart the United States.
When I was a young man, traveling in Austria near the Yugoslav border, I asked an Austrian about going into the eastern Bloc near Villach. He said going was not a problem, the border gate was a 4 inch pine board. Coming back was another matter. The Yugoslav border gate was reinforced steel with armed guards in towers. He confided in me that it wasn't to keep Austrians from trying to sneak into Yugoslavia.
You may be correct, but I fear you won't be soon enough.