US Homeland Security barred a British Muslim family from boarding a plane to enter the US. The extended family group, a party of 11, was planning to visit Disneyland. Homeland Security offered no reason.
Another air travel security news story:
TSA can now require full-body scans
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/2015/12/23/tsa-can-now-make-you-go-through-body-scanner/77802418/
Any thoughts on balancing public security with civil liberties?
We don’t know all the details, so it is hard to know what is the right thing to do. But hey, using Mickey Mouse as a cover for getting into the country, that would certainly be creative of the terrorists. Nothing is beyond suspicion these days.
It’s easy to talk about, much harder for officials on the ground, in the heat of the moment, to gather intel and make hard decisions.
Yes, there will be some bad decisions made along the way. Is this one of them? Too soon to tell.
The CIA used filming a phony movie (Argo) to spirit US Embassy staff out of Iran.
Sheesh… I’m still waiting for any decent explanation where all the X-ray scanners have disappeared… I refused to go through those untested, unapproved, dangerous medical devices operated by yahoos.
Yes, the spy business has to get creative also. I would have really liked the Argo movie if they could have bleeped out even half of the curse words. It was still interesting to imagine the true story behind the movie plot line.
We, the general public, have no earthly idea about intel. I believe there is a legitimate reason. Period. Why do we not have faith in the system? Why do we have to fall all over ourselves being oh so politically correct and liberal? Things have changed. If someone is suspect for good reason, then too bad. I personally believe security is working most of the time and we are NOT allowed to know, nor should we be allowed to know how or why. Something obviously came up on the big radar against someone in this family. Heck, probably, obviously most in the family don’t even know. Can’t help that. Ever since 9/11, the scrutiny is serious. But the media jumps all over the “poor,poor us” aspect of it.
I am (often) one of those politically correct liberals, but here I agree with VABluebird. We don’t know the reason they were not permitted to board. We are not entitled to know. Maybe the judgment was spot on in this case. Or maybe the screening was a bit overinclusive. But even if it was a bit overinclusive in this one particular instance (which we do not know), in the current security situation I unfortunately conclude that SLIGHT overinclusiveness in screening is preferable to UNDERINCLUSIVENESS.
I think generally the primary difference between MODERATE Republicans and MODERATE Democrats is the tolerance for risk in terms of overinclusiveness and underinclusiveness. For example, I think MOST people would agree that the most needy among us – those who have NO ability to fend for themselves – should have a safety net funded by the government (or private charity performing a government-like function). The problem is in identifying those people. I, as a moderate Democrat, am willing to tolerate a small amount of fraud and abuse and bad incentives to ensure very few of the truly needy fall through the cracks. My moderate Rebublican friends are more concerned with curtailng fraud, making sure the right incentives are set, and making sure abuse is curtailed. They believe this is important even though, unfortunately (and we all agree it is unfortunate), some truly needy folks will fall through the cracks. So they would err on the side of underinclusiveness is passing out aid while I would err on the side of overinclusiveness. Of course, we would all agree the best result would be to get it 100% correct, but that is simply impossible. (The problem is that in that situation there’s a huge gap between slightly overinclusive and slightly underinclusive).
The same principle applies to security. There is absolutely no way too get it 100% correct. MOST of us, right now, would probably conclude SLIGHT overinclusiveness is preferable to SLIGHT underinclusiveness which would allow truly dangerous people to slip through. We don’t know if these particular people posed an ACTUAL threat. But right now, based on the information available, I choose to believe that even if they didn’t ACTUALLY pose a genuine threat, there was enough justification to refuse them pasage under the SLIGHTLY overinclusive standard. If future info comes out contrary to this view – and there was no reasonable basis to conclude they MIGHT be dangerous – I will be the first to admit I was wrong. But that’s where I am right now.
Experience.
I agree we don’t know. I also think people make mistakes. I think we way over-police and I think a lot more innocent people are being discriminated against in the name of “safety” than we know about and is acceptable.
I was able to bring a knife into the country in my carry on. It was an accident. It was post-9/11. I don’t (personally) have a ton of faith in airport security. shrug
It could be that the US had intel that some of the family members had done something suspicious, like travelling to places like Syria or Yemen where radicals were known to be training terrorists, or it could be some of the family members had been found to be posting crap online or had been associating with radicals, we don’t know. It could also be a giant mistake, where there was a mistake with the family name with someone who was a suspected terrorist, think about if a “John Smith” was on the watchlist how many people would be inconvenienced.
There are only two possibilities in terms of decision making. One is being 100% correct. The other is not being 100% correct. I think we can all agree that it is probably unrealistic to think the TSA will be 100% so like Nottelling, I’d rather the mistakes be on the side of being overly cautious. Sorry if that means that a family who is safe misses DisneyLand. But I’d rather that then finding out their intentions included other events too.
Wasn’t everyone just bent out of shape because the San Bernardino bride was not ferreted out on social media? I can’t get too upset. He and his brother were traveling with nine children and he claimed his wife was sick when in fact she is in Pakistan. Something is odd there. Lie once and you lose all credibility. Individuals will be inconvenienced from time to time; maybe frequently. We are at war.
From the article you linked:
If I had to hand back my duty free booze, I’d also be in tears.
When I learned there was a teenage boy in the travel party, I did wonder whether the kid was surfing ISIS web content.
Warning…sarcastic comment approaching…avert your eyes if you are gender role sensitive…
Homeland Security was alerted that 2 men were escorting NINE children to Disney. Of course this caused an ALERT to sound. Who in their right mind would believe that 2 men would willingly care for 9 kids 24/7 for a couple of weeks, much less take them all to a theme park??!!
This concludes today’s sarcasm. Please return to eating the candy you had planned to put in your children’s stockings tonight…
I agree that not enough info was released to make a judgment, but also agree that the media (as overzealous as they’ve become trying to beat internet bloggers to the next big story) helps to ‘keep the government honest’.
The thing about the story that has stood out to me is that one of the travelers said he’d obtained permission to travel, but I didn’t see anywhere who had granted that permission. Did he obtain permissions from the US government, the British government, some other source?
I’ve also seen many people on the internet commenting about how their money wasn’t refunded, but it wasn’t the airline that denied the right to travel and it would have been difficult for them to fill those seats at the last minute, so I understand that justification although I think if the travelers can prove that they were denied permission in error that the government should be funding their next trip.
As for balancing security with civil liberties, personally I play my life by the odds. My neighbor could be a child molester, a car could hit me head on next time I’m driving on the freeway, my co-worker could ‘go postal’ next week, someone could break into my house to steal my holiday gifts… bad things can always happen, but none of them are likely to happen. I have to take reasonable precautions - not leave children with adults I don’t know, drive cautiously, have a dog to alert me if someone enters my home… but that’s all I can do and I have to keep living knowing that bad things still can and do happen, but that they most likely won’t happen so I can’t live in fear. If I’m going to be afraid of everything that could potentially turn out badly, I really wouldn’t be living anymore.
I’m confused. I thought it was conservatives who don’t trust the federal government.
My problem with this kind of situation is that the people affected aren’t given any kind of reason for the exclusion. They aren’t going to get their air fare back from the federal government, because they won’t be able to prove the exclusion was done in error. (The airline might refund the money if the PR is bad enough.) I don’t like it when something can happen to anybody, with no real recourse. What if it happens to one of us next week, and nobody will tell us why?
According to CNN, the US is saying that not all family members were banned, just some of them. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/23/europe/british-muslims-denied-boarding-to-la/
Sounds like there was a suspicious Facebook page involved.
In theory, it seems as if the family should have been told the reason. In reality? I’m not so sure. Reporters found the Facebook page. What if the 18 year old had sent emails or text messages tor phone calls to a third party who is under surveillance for legitimate reasons, maybe even one approved by court order?
So, does the US government have to say “We are barring your S because we intercepted a phone call he made 3 weeks ago to Mr. X, whom we believe is recruiting Muslim youth in the West to fight for ISIS. Your S arranged an in person meeting with another person during the US trip.” What if Mr. X is unaware he’s under surveillance?
IMO the government doesn’t have to justify. He’s not a citizen. Has anyone else seen the video where he says they were going to “California Disneyland, Orlando.” If he had planned such a trip there’s some red flags there. I’m too lazy to find the video now.
This is an unusual case because it involved such a large family with kids… Foreigners can be denied entry without any specified reasons (e.g., failing to overcome the presumption that the person will not return), and those cases do not make the evening news.
@jrcsmom wrote
Which government? The American govt? Why should American taxpayers on the hook for reimbursing travel costs to people our govt didn’t invite? As a sovereign nation we don’t “owe” any non-diplomatic foreigners entry into the country, PERIOD.
Every year, there are MILLIONS of intl air travellers to the US booked on scores of different carriers. It would be impractical for the US to offer refunds to visitors denied entry.
I’ve gotten bitten by travel visa SNAFUs more than once and had to eat the cost of nonrefundable air tix and prepaid hotel. When you’re travelling from one sovereign nation to another, those are some of the inherent risks.
Big expensive trips like this one are the reason travel insurance exists. I feel bad for them that they might lose out on their tickets and time off, but the Facebook page mentioned sounds like pretty serious business.