• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should names on the "no-fly" list be public?

Should names on the "no-fly" list be public?

  • Yes, full public knowledge.

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Not full access, but an individual should be able to know.

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • No, it's good 'as is', and the secrecy serves a valuable purpose.

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • Total voters
    20

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Should names on the "no-fly" list be public?

Or, if not public, should an individual be able to check at any time to see if they are on it?

If 'no' to either question, what would be good reason to deny?
 
I picked this. "Not full access, but an individual should be able to know". Preferably the individual should be notified that they are on a no-fly list so that if the individual feels that they were wrongly placed on the list they can fight it and not find out when they go purchase a plan ticket.
 
Should names on the "no-fly" list be public?

Or, if not public, should an individual be able to check at any time to see if they are on it?

If 'no' to either question, what would be good reason to deny?

Anyone on it should be notified that they are on it. Otherwise, no access. Of course, the ideal would be to get rid of this list all together.
 
I'd think that if a man was on a "no-fly" list that he would also be an undesirable....
Naturally, this has to be done correctly and legalilly...no errors...if this cannot be done, then the whole thing should be scrapped.
He does not have to know this, he should not even be here if "undesirable".
 
Should names on the "no-fly" list be public?

Or, if not public, should an individual be able to check at any time to see if they are on it?

If 'no' to either question, what would be good reason to deny?

My gut reaction is "No, it should not be made public." And "No, one shouldn't be able to check at any time to see if they're on it."

I think that some people on the No-Fly list are wanted. One of the ways we might be able to catch them is by their trying to fly and being taken into custody.
 
I'd think that if a man was on a "no-fly" list that he would also be an undesirable....
Naturally, this has to be done correctly and legalilly...no errors...if this cannot be done, then the whole thing should be scrapped.
He does not have to know this, he should not even be here if "undesirable".
The question presumed American citizens on the list. I should have clarified.
 
My gut reaction is "No, it should not be made public." And "No, one shouldn't be able to check at any time to see if they're on it."

I think that some people on the No-Fly list are wanted. One of the ways we might be able to catch them is by their trying to fly and being taken into custody.
To me, this sounds like a whole lot of "guilty until proven innocent". I'm just not into dicking with a large group of people just on the off chance that some of them will be wanted for something else.
 
I assume you're thinking about the various individuals who are on the "no-fly list" but have not done/cannot do anything to warrant such.

I’d have to say, somewhat reluctantly, that it should stay as-is.

Firstly, because (as I understand it) it potentially alerts law enforcement to someone who needs to be caught.
Secondly, because if some of the people on it knew they were on it, they would also know that they were under suspicion for something.

I would say that the entity who controls this list needs to be more careful/specific about its “no-fly” targets.
 
I assume you're thinking about the various individuals who are on the "no-fly list" but have not done/cannot do anything to warrant such.

I’d have to say, somewhat reluctantly, that it should stay as-is.

Firstly, because (as I understand it) it potentially alerts law enforcement to someone who needs to be caught.
Secondly, because if some of the people on it knew they were on it, they would also know that they were under suspicion for something.

I would say that the entity who controls this list needs to be more careful/specific about its “no-fly” targets.
Correct, I am talking about individuals who are on the list but haven't done anything.

I won't dismiss the point about people who are under suspicion for something, but... once a person tries to fly, and is denied, then at that point the cat is out of the bag and they know. Seems to me that, at the very least, once a person knows then they should have a legitimate shot to clear their name from the list... and to be told that they have been cleared (or not).

Many of these people are simply denied flying, btw, and not taken into custody for anything, so to me the argument that we might catch criminals for something else is negligible.
 
It should be public if it was used properly. If it was a "this guy is wanted for major crimes and is a flight risk", make it public. Having said that, you should see things that will put you on such a list. The FAA and TSA are beyond inept. Were they legit, sure.
 
No, it shouldn't be public. There was no due process to put these people on the no-fly list in the first place...they haven't been convicted of any crime, so it's unfair to smear their reputation by making the no-fly list public. I do think that people should be able to find out if they're on the no-fly list, and they should have the opportunity to appeal the decision to a judge. If the government can't implicate them in any crime (and if they're a US citizen or otherwise living in the US), then they should be removed.

Secondly, because if some of the people on it knew they were on it, they would also know that they were under suspicion for something.

They could find out anyway by going to the airport and trying to get on a plane. But in any case, the possibility of surprising a terrorist doesn't outweigh the denial of due process to everyone else on the no-fly list.
 
I picked other. First the names need to be routinely reviewed. Many names are on the list because they sound like...not good enough now that the panic and panty wetting is mostly over. The criteria for being put on the list is very broad, Cat Stephens was refused travel into the USofA because his Muslim name was similar to a suspected terrorist. It didn't stop there, hate/fear mongers connected Yusif Islam to certain Muslim Charities that supported Palestinian widows and orphans.

Second there should be a way for a citizen of this country to check if they have been added. It seems the American Way, the ability to check if false information is being gathered about you.
 
For American citizens, I simply think that being denied a lawful activity, such as flying, should require one having committed a crime. If there is some rationale, like it being a privilege or some such nonsense, I don't buy it. As such, you shouldn't be on it until there is some trial which shows you to be guilty or some relevant something, and thereby you should already know about your being on the no fly list. Because there is such an affront to liberty with the way things currently are, I am left with requiring the following: For American citizens, if you are on it, you absolutely should know about it, by being automatically notified. Presumed innocent until proven guilty, the inconvenience and other harm from not being able get on a flight, unexpectedly, is entirely unconscionable.

I honestly cannot believe that any American believes differently. Amazing. These are American principles.
 
No, it shouldn't be public. There was no due process to put these people on the no-fly list in the first place...they haven't been convicted of any crime, so it's unfair to smear their reputation by making the no-fly list public. I do think that people should be able to find out if they're on the no-fly list, and they should have the opportunity to appeal the decision to a judge. If the government can't implicate them in any crime (and if they're a US citizen or otherwise living in the US), then they should be removed.

They could find out anyway by going to the airport and trying to get on a plane. But in any case, the possibility of surprising a terrorist doesn't outweigh the denial of due process to everyone else on the no-fly list.

There is no "right to fly." The no-fly list is no different than a casino who bans card counters. I don't think they're entitled to due process before being denied boarding. No Shirt/No Shoes/No Service applies...my airplane/my rules.
 
There is no "right to fly." The no-fly list is no different than a casino who bans card counters. I don't think they're entitled to due process before being denied boarding. No Shirt/No Shoes/No Service applies...my airplane/my rules.

Well, yes it is different, because the casino is a private enterprise which can decide for itself who it allows in the casino. If they don't want you there, you can try a different casino instead. The TSA is a government agency which can prevent you from boarding any flight anywhere in the country.
 
Should names on the "no-fly" list be public?

Or, if not public, should an individual be able to check at any time to see if they are on it?

If 'no' to either question, what would be good reason to deny?
I said, "no, it's good as is" for two reasons. First, it should not be public simply because the public itself would probably start attacking people on the list just like they do sex offenders. Second, individuals should not be able to check for their name because no-fly lists might be good for getting "wanted" people. Third, for individuals who are unjustly on the list, they are going to find out anyway if the list actually affects them when they try to fly, so when they do find out, they can challenge it.
 
I said, "no, it's good as is" for two reasons. First, it should not be public simply because the public itself would probably start attacking people on the list just like they do sex offenders. Second, individuals should not be able to check for their name because no-fly lists might be good for getting "wanted" people. Third, for individuals who are unjustly on the list, they are going to find out anyway if the list actually affects them when they try to fly, so when they do find out, they can challenge it.
...and that's really the whole point behind the question. Yes, they can challenge it, but... they will never be told the outcome. Ever. The ONLY way they can find out if their challenge was successful or not is to try and fly again.

To me, that is an unacceptable way to treat a fellow American citizen who has not been convicted... or even formally accused... of a crime.
 
Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens).

Full public knowledge. How else will we know if there's unjust entries?
 
Full public knowledge. How else will we know if there's unjust entries?

The person himself should be able to privately verify if he is on the list and appeal it...without having his name dragged through the mud by the federal government (i.e. full public knowledge) without any due process.
 
For American citizens, I simply think that being denied a lawful activity, such as flying, should require one having committed a crime. If there is some rationale, like it being a privilege or some such nonsense, I don't buy it. As such, you shouldn't be on it until there is some trial which shows you to be guilty or some relevant something, and thereby you should already know about your being on the no fly list. Because there is such an affront to liberty with the way things currently are, I am left with requiring the following: For American citizens, if you are on it, you absolutely should know about it, by being automatically notified. Presumed innocent until proven guilty, the inconvenience and other harm from not being able get on a flight, unexpectedly, is entirely unconscionable.

I honestly cannot believe that any American believes differently. Amazing. These are American principles.
I kinda agree with you...

It's that balance between security and freedom again.
 
Back
Top Bottom