|
Babies caught in US 'No Fly' list confusion
|
View this Thread in Original format
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Babies Caught Up in 'No-Fly' Confusion
By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Infants have been stopped from boarding planes at airports throughout the U.S. because their names are the same as or similar to those of possible terrorists on the government's "no-fly list."
ADVERTISEMENT
It sounds like a joke, but it's not funny to parents who miss flights while scrambling to have babies' passports and other documents faxed... |
More here - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050815...DltBHNlYwM3MTY- |
|
|
| Orko |
| haha. another reason not to enter the US. |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
haha. another reason not to enter the US. |
"I'm sorry ma'am you're baby is a terrorist..." :stongue:
Although what you said is silly :) there are A LOT of reasons to enter the US...lots to see :) |
|
|
| girllovingtvibe |
| argh - ridiculous....and seriously just ignorant |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
This is legitimate concern. Congratulations to the brave people who made sure those airline passengers would be safe (despite possible unreasonable public complaint).
An item to consider: how many grams of C4 explosive can be easily hidden in, on, or via a baby or small child?
I can guarantee you that the amount of C4 that could be concealed via a baby would cause catastrophic damage to a jetliner. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
"I'm sorry ma'am you're baby is a terrorist..." :stongue:
Although what you said is silly :) there are A LOT of reasons to enter the US...lots to see :) |
its things like this that make me scared to go to the US. Remember the following was said by a lawyer who is defending the US government in the Maher Arar Case:
http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/wor...suit050811.html
| quote: | Flyers passing through U.S. have few rights, Arar judge told
Last Updated Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:10:12 EDT
CBC News
A senior lawyer for the U.S. government has told a judge hearing a lawsuit over Maher Arar's deportation to Syria that foreign citizens passing through American airports have almost no rights.
At most, Mary Mason told a hearing in Brooklyn, N.Y., passengers would have the right not to be subjected to "gross physical abuse."
The policy has implications for Canadians who head for international destinations via big American airports in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other major centres.
Mason said the U.S. government is interpreting its powers in such a way that passengers never intending to enter the U.S. connecting to international flights at U.S. airports must prove they are no threat and could be allowed to enter the country.
If passengers are deemed to be inadmissible, they have no constitutional rights even if later taken to an American prison. Mason told Judge David Trager that's because they are deemed to be still outside the U.S., from a legal point of view.
"Someone who's inadmissible is in the same category as the people that the CIA snatches and grabs from other countries," said Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer for the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which is suing a number of U.S. officials on Arar's behalf.
"You are fair game for however executive branch wants to treat you."
Mason said the interpretation means travellers can be detained without charge, denied the right to consult a lawyer, and even refused necessities such as food and sleep.
That's what happened to Arar, a Canadian-Syrian citizen who was stopped while trying to board a connecting flight in New York in 2002 and accused of having terrorist connections.
The Ottawa engineer was detained, not allowed to speak to a lawyer or the Canadian consul, and eventually deported through Jordan to Syria, where he claimed he was tortured while being held in prison for a year.
At most, Mason told the judge, a foreign passenger detained while travelling through a U.S. airport might have a limited right to protection from "gross physical abuse."
But in a motion filed this week, the U.S. Justice Department argues that even if torture does occur, U.S. officials can't be sued under the Torture Victims Protection Act because it only applies to foreign individuals committing or allowing torture.
The department wants the Arar lawsuit dismissed on that basis.
The U.S. Department of Justice declined to discuss the case or what the new interpretation could mean for Canadians travelling through the United States.
However, department spokeswoman Cynthia Magnuson issued this short statement: "The United States does not practise torture, export torture or condone torture."
In legal briefs written by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Justice Department has defined torture to mean "pain consistent with major organ failure or death."
|
|
|
|
| starsearcher |
^^^ this shouldn't scare you unless you have something to be scared of :)
And that issue regarding having no rights, it's pretty much the same in every country you go to...if you are on a connecting flight you can not just leave the airport, by all standards you are "still abroad" and have not entered the country. :)
Either way it's like I've always said, if you have nothing to hide then why worry :) |
|
|
| bass drive |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
This is legitimate concern. Congratulations to the brave people who made sure those airline passengers would be safe (despite possible unreasonable public complaint).
An item to consider: how many grams of C4 explosive can be easily hidden in, on, or via a baby or small child?
I can guarantee you that the amount of C4 that could be concealed via a baby would cause catastrophic damage to a jetliner. |
alittle paraniod?
btw, I like your wording
"Congratulations to the brave :conf: people who made sure those airline passengers would be safe"
"despite possible unreasonable :wtf: public complaint"
now don't get me wrong, these guys have to follow the orders given from above, even if it's an obvious misunderstanding |
|
|
| bass drive |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
^^^ this shouldn't scare you unless you have something to be scared of :)
And that issue regarding having no rights, it's pretty much the same in every country you go to...if you are on a connecting flight you can not just leave the airport, by all standards you are "still abroad" and have not entered the country. :)
Either way it's like I've always said, if you have nothing to hide then why worry :) |
the policy that you shouldn't lock your luggage seems ridiculous to me..
Personally, I think the customs in the US and Canada are very bad.
relax, am not smuggling any gooddamn apples or cheese :whip: |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
We’ve been discussing babies being on American airline terrorist watch lists – and now, with a very loose association, we have an added issue of a foreigner being deported from America to Syria. Lets try to avoid relating quasi-relevant events. It gives an “anti-America” tone to what (in this case) should be about the idea of scrutinizing babies before air travel.
But since you brought up the deportation – let me respond with some further considerations:
On the rights of citizens, at home and abroad: this is not an America only issue – it is a global one.
The reality of the your quoted situation is this:
Foreign citizens passing through non-homeland airports have varying, often limited and possibly no rights.
There are 193 countries - each with their own policies relating to immigration, visa, security, etc.
Anybody who travels ANYWHERE outside of their own country CANNOT reasonably expect to rights to legal representation or other so-called "rights". |
|
|
| bass drive |
^
but why was he deported to Syria?
the guy wanted to get in contact with Canadian officials :conf:
and the having no rights at foreign airports seems hard to beleive for me.. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by bass drive
but why was he deported to Syria?
the guy wanted to get in contact with Canadian officials |
All dual-citizens (such as myself) having taken the time to get dual citizenship - would be reasonably expected to understand that having the dual passport presents various legal and obligational "gray" areas when travelling abroad (or even being within one of your passport countries). If you're dual and in trouble abroad - the country you are in at that time gets to pick which of your citizenship nations deal with you.
Also keep in mind that landed immigrants are not citizens. Canadian landed immigrants retain their citizenship their home country. If someone has trouble internationally - returning them to their country of citizenship is very reasonable.
| quote: | Originally posted by bass drive
and the having no rights at foreign airports seems hard to beleive for me.. |
Oh, you have rights in foreign airports. One has the rights, rules and law of the country the airport is in (which is some cases may be next to none when compared to home), rights which are often reduced due to not being a citizen. |
|
|
|
|
