@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:What is the purpose of having a secondary or tertiary watch list if someone whose name appears on it can board an American airliner without luggage, without a passport, with a one-way ticket paid for with cash, AFTER his father has warned the State Department that he has been radicalized?
Oh yes the lists have hundreds of thousands of names! Ooh such big numbers! You would need the computing power of an electronic brain to identify this guy! Do we really expect our security forces to use computers?
I don't think the size of the list has anything to do with the ability to find someone on it, but rather to do the background work that would be reasonable enough to prevent someone from flying and what that would cost.
Imagine if you could prevent me from flying just because you make a call and claim I'm "radicalized". They need human legwork, not computers. Scale is a legitimate limitation to such lists.
Entirely disagree.
The briefs-bombers was not added to a watch list because someone alleged he was radicalized.
He was on the list before his father (father - not disgruntled lover or co-worker) felt it important enough to consult the US State Dept about the intentions of his son.
Clearly, there were factors concerning his life and behaviors that put him on the list.
We can argue all day whether or not those factors were legitimate, but the proof is in the pudding: He belonged on the list!
Now he is on "a" list and he:
Purchases a one way ticket with cash
Has neither checked nor carry on luggage
Has no passport
Has a name that by most parameters of reasoning suggests he is a muslim.
His father has taken the time and effort to advise the US State Dept than he might be a threat.
Are you so frozen in the 60's as to believe that there is some sort of legitmate generational war and that parents cannot be trusted to want is what is best for their children?
Given that the kid actually tried to bring down an American plane are you really going to insist that his father"s efforts to warn the world were somehow the product of paternal maladjustment?
He was on the secondary or tertiary watchlist.
By most accounts these lists hold far less than a million names.
Matching a name entered into a computer program with anyone of a million names is childs play for a computer. Google any word or phrase and the results will pop up almost instantaneously.
No leg work was required here.
Yours is a ridiculous assertion which I defy you to substantiate.
There is virtually nothing in my profile to suggest that I am a terrorist and I suspect the same can be said about you.
If somehow there is, I am happy to address my situation with security forces.
I travel often to the UK and did so in the mid 80's. I am of Irish heritage and took to wearing my hair quite short, and my clothes of a certain style.
Apparently, at least my physical appearence caught the attention of the UK security forces and I found myself subject to "intensive screening."
Great story to tell but nothing more. I wasn't affronted or outraged by the scrutiny. It made perfect sense to me and, obviously, the UK authorities didn't make a wrong call --- I got on my plane and returned to the US.
If men with green skin are blowing up buildings around the world, it makes sense to keep an eye on men with green skin.
If young muslim men are blowing things up around the world, it makes sense to keep an eye on young muslim men.
Only a reflexive liberal response can explain how some may see this as injurious.
