FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues-686/)
-   -   Illinois student not allowed to board plane at STL (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues/1069692-illinois-student-not-allowed-board-plane-stl.html)

Pluma Apr 3, 2010 1:42 pm

But now that TSA is deploying all those WBI, the no fly list should go away.
Isn't the TSA touting that WBI will be able to spot anything bad being brought on an airplane? So we go back to an age old question, what difference does it make who flies, as long as we know they have brought nothing bad onto the plane.

n4zhg Apr 3, 2010 3:13 pm


Originally Posted by studentff (Post 13701835)
Declaring someone (again, in the US) to be an unacceptable threat, and using that to deprive them of liberty, with no due process or effective means of redress is most certainly unacceptable.

It's going to get even worse.

There are proposals to ban anyone on the NFL from buying or owning a gun.

Watch the feces hit the air impeller if/when that happens.

jkhuggins Apr 3, 2010 3:40 pm


Originally Posted by n4zhg (Post 13703726)
It's going to get even worse.

There are proposals to ban anyone on the NFL from buying or owning a gun.

Watch the feces hit the air impeller if/when that happens.

On the other hand ... that might actually be productive.

IANAL, but "I can't sell you this firearm, and I'm not allowed to tell you why" sounds like a clear violation of the US Constitution's Second and Fifth Amendments. The only way I could see this passing constitutional muster is if placement on the NFL could be challenged in court --- which would be a substantial improvement on the current state of law.

PhoenixRev Apr 3, 2010 4:11 pm


Originally Posted by n4zhg (Post 13703726)
It's going to get even worse.

There are proposals to ban anyone on the NFL from buying or owning a gun.

Watch the feces hit the air impeller if/when that happens.

I doubt it would pass muster with the current SCOTUS considering their ruling in the DC gun case and the way things look for the Chicago gun case.

mikeef Apr 3, 2010 7:38 pm


Originally Posted by Pluma (Post 13703351)
But now that TSA is deploying all those WBI, the no fly list should go away.
Isn't the TSA touting that WBI will be able to spot anything bad being brought on an airplane? So we go back to an age old question, what difference does it make who flies, as long as we know they have brought nothing bad onto the plane.

Oh, don't worry. They'll keep all the "traditional" security, as well. Didn't ya know? It's all about layers.

Mike

Critic Apr 4, 2010 4:34 pm


Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13701604)
1. The TSA does not write or produce the No Fly List. Stop blaming the TSA for this.
2. In answer to your question, no its not a violation of his 6th Amendment rights.
A. He is not being accused of a crime.
B. As we all know, he has no right to flight on a commercial aircraft.
C. No one is preventing him from getting to his destination, he only has to choose a different method of getting there. There are many choices available to him that have nothing to do with the No Fly List.

Ron - show me where, in my original query about challenging the NFL on constitutional grounds, I even invoked the TSA name, let alone 'blam[ed] the TSA for this'.

wildcatlh Apr 5, 2010 10:14 am


Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13701604)
B. As we all know, he has no right to flight on a commercial aircraft.

[Citation Needed]. Please point to me what clause of the Constitution, or amendment thereto, allows the government to maintain the NFL. Show your work.

Since I feel like playing your game for some reason, a person's right to travel on commercial aircraft (from the government's perspective) is subsumed under Natural Law, and is reflected in the 9th Amendment to the Constitution.

studentff Apr 5, 2010 1:23 pm


Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13701604)
1. The TSA does not write or produce the No Fly List. Stop blaming the TSA for this.

Your (TSA) managers have brainwashed you into believe DHS/TSA is not responsible for NFL problems. They have tried to do the same things to the airlines and the American people. None of that changes the fact that DHS/TSA forced the airlines to check passenger names against the list, DHS/TSA has officially taken over the matching process with Secure Flight, DHS/TSA is the one that threatens to fine the airline and airline agent if they go ahead and issue a BP to a paying customer that happens to match the NFL, and DHS/TSA is the agency that runs an inneffective/useless "redress" program that does nothing to help most victims.


2. In answer to your question, no its not a violation of his 6th Amendment rights.
A. He is not being accused of a crime.
B. As we all know, he has no right to flight on a commercial aircraft.
C. No one is preventing him from getting to his destination, he only has to choose a different method of getting there. There are many choices available to him that have nothing to do with the No Fly List.
What about his fifth amendment rights? No one is to be deprived of liberty without due process. Not letting him fly is depriving him of a liberty.

Do you honestly believe that the government should be able to arbitrarily deny a US citizen the ability to fly on a commercial aircraft, without any explanation, evidence, or redress process? Just because they say so?

Do have any idea how prone such a system is to abuse for both personal and political vendettas? Do you have any idea how error prone such a system is?

ND Sol Apr 5, 2010 1:47 pm


Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13701604)
1. The TSA does not write or produce the No Fly List. Stop blaming the TSA for this.

Based on this, would you like to reconsider how the TSA and its employees are involved with the lists. Here is part of the article:


Once armed with information for those three categories, about a half-dozen experts from the Transportation Security Administration who work at the screening center have two options. They can add a suspect to the "selectee list," a roster of about 18,000 people who can still fly but must go through extra screening at the airport. Or, if analysts determine a person is too dangerous to board a plane, they can put the suspect on the no-fly list.
This is a subset of "the government-wide terror watch list. This is a list of about 418,000 people, maintained by the FBI."

PTravel Apr 5, 2010 1:52 pm

Oh, boy. He's back.


Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13701760)
Due process is specifically for criminal cases,

Care to place a little bet on that? Same deal: if you're right, I'll leave FT forever. If you're wrong, you'll leave FT forever.

I'll even give you hint:

"No person shall be . . .deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Guess where that is from?

Scubatooth Apr 5, 2010 2:01 pm

PTravel - I believe you have a check mate; Ron go ahead and tip over your king

"What is the Consitution/Bill of Rights, Alex"

ND Sol Apr 5, 2010 2:15 pm

Well, he hasn't strayed from the beliefs he stated in November:


Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 12867509)
Inaccurate Legal Assumption:

Without a criminal penalty associated with being on the list, due process requirements do not apply.


Big Mo Apr 5, 2010 3:03 pm


Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13701760)
Due process is specifically for criminal cases

Non-lawyers routinely make ridiculous statements of law on the Internet, but this is among the worst I've ever seen.

If this were true, the government could seize your property and even kill you without due process so long as there WASN'T a criminal case against you. That's insane.

PoliceStateSurvivor Apr 5, 2010 3:21 pm


Originally Posted by Big Mo (Post 13714261)
Non-lawyers routinely make ridiculous statements of law on the Internet, but this is among the worst I've ever seen.

If this were true, the government could seize your property and even kill you without due process so long as there WASN'T a criminal case against you. That's insane.

Not only the government, but also any individual or business. TSORon has obviously never heard of a right to due process in civil cases.

makfan Apr 5, 2010 3:37 pm


Originally Posted by TSORon (Post 13701604)

C. No one is preventing him from getting to his destination, he only has to choose a different method of getting there. There are many choices available to him that have nothing to do with the No Fly List.

Please advise me of those many methods of getting to a US destination like HNL that don't involve the No Fly List and don't take weeks.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:20 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.