FliesWay2Much

Based on what I know, I'd say you're on your way to being declared a terrorist as defined by the fine example of the constabulary in Denver. The screener's name wasn't "Crabtree," was it?

Regardless, I would check the telephone company box coming into your house for any recently installed devices.

Superguy

Sounds to me that the guy still hast to go thru a hassle ... just a different one. Regardless, both are DHS's fault.

Caradoc

Perhaps we should all play the "I am Spartacus!" game with the list.

halls120

Having met some of the people in DHS who work in this area, I can tell you that your response is pretty much on target. I walked out of one meeting at DHS in 2008 that scared the hell out of me - some of the DHS HQ types would have been right at home in the Gestapo or Stasi.

And most of them aren't doing anything critical. The DHS NOC in particular is filled with GS-15's who do nothing but sit around and watch TV, and when something operationally occurs, scurry to create situation reports for S1.

^^ If the press really cared about protecting the country, they would start investigating this aspect of our growing police state.

Once you are added to the watch list, there is a huge downside for anyone in the system to say placing your name on the list was a mistake. If you actually later commit a terrorist act, then all the fingers get pointed at the person who took the name off.

Houston.Business

What did the interaction involve? Enquiring minds want to know.

RichardKenner

If he has a name the same as somebody on the watch list, this probably wouldn't work because he'd be flagged as somebody who had to show their ID to the airline to compare it with the SecureFlight info.

barbell

Not necessarily.

As I noted upthread, I've flown 5 different times since the system was implemented. The name I entered into Secure Flight didn't match the name on my ticket AT ALL. Furthermore, the gender I selected didn't match the very gender specific names I chose, and the birthdates were never my own. Two of them weren't even in this century - one of which won't be born for another 72 years.

There was zero issue having my ticket issued, and I never once spoke to a ticketing or gate agent to do so. The name on the tickets/BPs matched my DL, and the TDC was none the wiser as each happily squiggled on them with a variety of highlighters and pens.

All anyone has to do is enter an innocuous name into Secure Flight. Done.

Superguy

Just had a Lord of the Rings flashback. Instead of "One ring to rule them all" we now have "One tip to screw them all."

BubbaLoop

I was watch listed. No one has my first + last name. Very few people in fact have my last name. I have reasons to suspect that it was really me (for the most ridiculous reason on planet Earth, but that is another story). I circumvented the watch list by using my middle name (which I never use and few people know about). This continues to work after Secure Flight.

The whole system is a joke.

beauvoir

Wow, so this is confirmation that there now exist thought crimes in the USA. That sucks.

n4zhg

I was listed for calling George W Bush a death eater. The bill of rights doesn't exist anymore, we just aren't to the "round them up, put them in boxcars, turn them into soap" stage yet.

GUWonder

I've seen females flagged down as a result of blacklisted males, so clearly a different sex is no protection from being harassed as a result of DHS getting its way.

If the alleged "white extremist" in the story has committed a crime, that US person should be convicted for whatever crime has been committed; if that US person is legally free and not wanted for crime, even the person's despicable political views ought not to be grounds for TSA's harassment of passengers; and if that US person is on the run and wanted for a crime, that's still not a good reason for DHS/TSA to operate a massive fishing expedition across America by netting all passengers using airports or airplanes over which DHS/TSA claims jurisdiction.

It already existed for decades in the US, with "conspiracy" charges in courts being an indicator of that. However, in more recent years, punishment for "thought crimes" in the US increasingly are delivered by ways that don't involve a fair, open trial presided over by an independent judiciary and a "jury of one's peers". Welcome to the kangaroo "courts" and "Star Chamber" approaches that are increasingly the way of the US Government when it comes to such matters as that mentioned in the OP.

whitearrow

To be convicted of conspiracy there has to be at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, so it isn't really a "thought crime."

That being said, I agree that conspiracy is ridiculously overcharged, especially in federal courts, and the threshold for overt acts is often pretty low.

Wimpie

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...-2023_01012011

GUWonder

With regard to the first paragraph, that is how it was sold. When it comes to federal arrests and/or prosecutions in the US on "security-"/terrorism-related "conspiracy" charges for US-based activity by US persons since the start of 2001, the" overt act" aspect seems increasingly often the product of US government-wanted-and-supported "overt act(s)" rather than anything the individual(s) did independently (read: independent of the government wanting-and-supporting such overt act). Some of these arrests, like some of the warrants issued, are done on the basis of the government pursuing "thought crime" and then making the person susceptible to conviction by whatever means the government can imagine and realize, even those realized actions that would be illegal if done by ordinary citizens rather than by the government.

"Conspiring" with the government is a thought crime, for the government thinks it so and pursues it as such, for minus government-wanted-and-supported "conspiring" there may be no conspiracy.

With regard to your second paragraph above, I agree in full too.