August 28, 2006
-
No-Fly List
Two U.S. citizens are being denied access to the U.S. according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Demain Bulwa wrote an article about the two men who were relatives of a man convicted of supporting terrorists. The two men were returning to the U.S. after a long visit to Pakistan.
They are not allowed to return because they were placed on a no-fly list that is an attempt by the U.S. government to keep suspected terrorist off airplanes. The U.S. is reported to have refused access to them until they are interrogated by US. officials.
An argument is being made that forcing the men to receive and interview is against their constitutional rights.
Should a U.S. citizen be forced to be interviewed in order to gain access into the U.S?
Comments (125)
Is there anything that makes them actual suspects, other than their relationship to the man convicted of supporting terrorists? If yes, then they should be interviewed. If not, then no.
yes, but I think that they should be given plenty of warning first! throws a kink in a mans plans!
woah…this has never happened to me before…being this close to the top!
On one hand, I don’t know why not. Didn’t the Oklahoma City bombing prove that terrorism can be homegrown as well? They were in a country that is known for harboring and aiding terrorism under the table. But on the other hand, relationship doesn’t mean alliance with a cause. I’m with Kaliful. If there’s provocation, yes. If not, then no. We’re supposed to be the good guys here…let the law work here.
Uhm, fuck yes. As I said in one of your other posts not too long ago, terrorists aren’t going to be foreign 100% of the time. The best and most dangerous ones are going to be home-grown.
Yes, there is no telling what those men would do.
It depends. Every person on this planet can supposedly be connected to any other person through 6 people, so everybody’s got ties to terrorists. If there is reasonable suspicion that the men are dealing directly with terrorists, then sure, interrogate them, but if a connection to a guy that’s helping terrorists is all they’ve got, then no, they should be allowed to come into the country like everyone else.
Gosh…..that is a tuff one and since I work in the airline industry I feel like maybe I should keep my nose outta this one. I mean, I wouldn’t want to scare anyone away from flying outta country, especially since each one of our Tokyo flights is a Million Dollar flight…Why oh why can’t the company share a little more with me? Hmmmmmm…… I will say though, for all of those that are traveling these days and are mad at the no lotions, no drinks, no applesauce, etc..etc..etc.. in your carry-on bags. We employees are not too happy with that either. I mean yesterday, I actually stacked some ones PURSE in the bin of an airplane…common….SOMEONE CHECKED THEIR PURSE! <3Rachel
that’s kind of a weird story… i think since the only way to get back to the united states is for them to eigther fly or get on a cruise boat and they are citizens… they should be allowed to fly. but maybe with extra security? i don’t know. that’s a tough question.
US citizens shouldn’t be allowed into/out of the US
I would think its ok. If you are a relative of a convicted terrorist, expect to be watched, monitored etc…
There’s a fine but VERY fuzzy line between privacy/freedom and security. If being interrogated meant keeping the country safe, I wouldn’t mind being interrogated, but if I had something to hide I might think twice.
yes! whatever is going to keep us safe…im all for it!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Relatives of a convicted terrorist, returning from a hotbed of terrorism. Sounds like probable cause to me. The constitution is not a suicide agreement
That is what immigration does… I was interviewed the last time I came home, they wanted to know if I had been to any farms and how long I had been away… seems like the right questions to ask someone returning from the UK, maybe long visits to Pakistan have a different set of questions.
You know my mother’s name is on that no fly list…Karen Davis. Yeah, that’s a real suspect name, isn’t it? Yet everytime she attempts to fly, she is pulled into an interrogation room and asked questions until they are satisfied that the short, white, red-headed Irish woman isn’t a Jehad terrorist. As she says, it’s just a part of today’s modern life that she must learn to accept and deal with.
yeah
why not?
If they have nothing to hide then there shouldn’t be a problem with the interview, so why not?
)
Yes
Sure.
yes
if you’re related to a terrorist, I guess that’s expected.
Ah, a question worthy of pondering…
Yes, if it can keep us safe then yes. If the governement did not do it and something happened then people would ask “Why didn’t you interrogate them especially since they are related to a terrorist.”
sometimes yes
it all comes down to whether you think that a US citezen would bomb a plane. I don’t think they would, but there are those people that like to fake that they have the right papers.
We are a world at war, when you have terrorists ties, this will happen. Shoot, I don’t even have terrorists ties & I get stopped by the police if I’m out passed midnight! – Though I’ve never been ticketed PASSED midnight, I still get stopped! Why? Probably because I’m Hawaiian, Samoan Filipino, but the officer doesn’t know that, he only sees BROWN skin and so he stops me. – Life in the DEEP SOUTH.
Remember what I said on your post a few posts back…the hells angels, black panthers, and the mafia are gone, gone, gone…very soon these terrorists cells will be gone too.
that all depends on what basis they were put on the list
and if its a fair interview
yeah
Yes, if it can keep us safe then yes. If the governement did not do it and something happened then people would ask “Why didn’t you interrogate them especially since they are related to a terrorist.”
Posted 8/28/2006 at 9:19 AM by wheaties2bk
I couldn’t have said it better myself!
That doesn’t seem very “American…”
According to the Patriot Act, yes. I belive if they are suspected of terrorism they should. All they have to do is fly to Mexico and cross the border there…. very bad joke…. shouldn’t have said it…(No- I’m not against immigration- just illegal immigration)
I do believe the Patriot Act was passed a little too quickly… happens in Congress a lot. They have so much business to attend to, they forget to read the fine print and after passing the bill start to read what they approved and think ‘oh God! what have I done~?!?!’. And with the Patriot Act, we’ve pretty much okayed the government to do anything in the name of protecting (yes, they can perform illegal searches, inprison “suspected” terrorists for any amount of time without giving reason or charges, they can keep people from coming into the country…), I think they need to look at the Patriot Act, revise a few things, and interview those guys who want back into the country. If they like it here so much, an interview shouldn’t kill them.
If there are more clues to the person to be a terrorist then of course, btu if not, they shouldn’t be interviewed.
if theres other evidence of terrorism plots, then yes, interrogate away. if there isn’t, then the whole case is a bunch of bull. being safe is important, but so is our sanity.
If they are related to a convicted terrorist and decide to go to a nation known for harboring terrorists, then yes. That fits even the loosest definition of probable cause. If they wish, they can have a lawyer present.
I agree with Kaliful82
“Is there anything that makes them actual suspects, other than their relationship to the man convicted of supporting terrorists? If yes, then they should be interviewed. If not, then no.”
Well – I think if they are suspected of being a criminal then there is no harm in questioning them before allowing them to enter the country.
Whoa, how can you keep your own citizens out. That is seriously bad. You should just keep a locse eye on them. Especially on the plane.
It is against their constitutional rights.
the constitution never took into account the possibility of terrorists. i say its outdated.
Anyway, America’s obession with terrorism is ridiculous, there are real problems and then there is terrorism. Seriously, if that’s how you react to a few thousand deaths five years back, then why aren’t you fighting the “war on obesity” or “the war on speeding” maybe we should be fighting “the war on stupid politicians and an evens stupider public”.
i have a relative convicted of running a meth lab..does that mean i am forbidden from buying diet pills if i so choose..?
and if i attempt to, does that mean i will be banned from entering a Walgreens..?
No, especially since they are U.S. citizens. They are supposed to be able to come to their home without hassle.
The only way I would disagree is if there was some kind evidence that they were up to something.
How can you question if they are related to known terrorists and returning from overseas. It would be negligent for them not to be questioned. Oh, and about them being inconvenienced . . . well, having one of our skyscrapers blown up is slightly inconvenient too, so I think in a time of war that’s just something you have to live with.
YES !!! since they have been in Pakistan for a long visit …. and have at least some times to terrorist activity …. you bet they need to be interviewed.
They need more cause than simply being related to a convicted terrorist. That is insufficient cause to pull aside a US Citizen. I don’t think being related to a terrorist makes you that so much more likely to actually be one. However, if they have evidence of that person’s suspicious activities, or perhaps suspicious behavior, then sure.
if you ask me, this is all beginning to get a little ridiculous.
YES
YUP
Question. Do people sit on your page ane refresh it constantly in hopes that one refresh will produce a new post and they will be able to rush to sign it “1st!”?
Unfortunately, this is a new day and age, and sometimes we have to inconveniences a few to protect the welfare of the many. I lived in OKC when the Murrah building was bombed, and that’s as close as I want to get to terrorism. Scary stuff.
you ask the tough questions. i think it’s unconstitutional to force a citizen to be interviewed to gain access back into your own country but the constitution was written when there weren’t any of the same issues as there are today. Unconstitutional? yes. Unnecessary? no. These are dangerous times my friends.
Eh. We get grilled returning from Canada every year. Apparently we fit the stereotype of gun-toting, fruit-smuggling, bomb-assembling terrorists. If you are gonna spend time in Pakistan, you need to expect this kind of thing.
*inconvenience
…and I was wondering about the refreshing thing myself…
If they have nothing to hide, then why should they be adverse to being interviewed? If they are suspected of being terrorists or supected of conspiring to commit a terrorist event …. HECK YES DENY THEM ENTRY UNTIL INTERVIEWED. Our freedoms are going to kill us. The terrorists know how to use our freedoms against us.
It’s a scary time we live in. To maintain security, they should be interviewed before entering the country again.
-Guru on the Hill
sure. if you’re doing “the right thing”, there should be no problem. Interview me all you want. serch me too. i could give a rats arse.
No.
Have you tried recently, to enter the U.S. from Canada? It isn’t that easy of a process. No matter where they are, if they are suspect then question them. If they aren’t guilty, then it shouldn’t bother them.
Well, I think its somewhat messed up, because my dad went to Canada for a business trip, and he came back, and he was stopped cause he didn’t have his passport, and he asked the guy “How are you supposed to deny me into my own country?” so he shrugged his shoulders and let him go
fuck terrorists. Interview and beat if necessary.
thats a bunch of bull hoooooooohohohoooooooooooohohohooo-oooonky Bull honcky.
no
I’m not sure.
HELL NO!!!!!!!!! Just because they happen to have a Middle Eastern name doesn’t mean a thing. This is racial profiling to the fullest……
absolutely… if they have ties to known terrorists, the NO QUESTION they should be questioned and interrogated.
In this day and age, yes. And it should make them happy to do it…make them feel safer that our government is working that hard to protect them and their fellow citizens.
yes
YES!
If they’ve spent lots of time in a country where there are known terrorist training camps, and if their family members have ties to terrorist organizations, then it’s probably a good idea to question them. It’s just an interview. Now, if the government were throwing them in jail or something, that’s another story.
yea
Perhaps…That circumstance could be logical. Hard call.
There’s a reason these guys are on the list. They need to be cleared first. If this was a random case, it would be bad.
they can be. But right now we should force to interview air traffic controllers to see if their brains work no?…
Yes. If there is probable cause.
i am confused.
I think we should just ban Islam. Just be like “freedom of religion, except for Islam. They blow stuff up.” You know, better safe than sorry.
I think that if they are involved or support a known terrorist then they should be interrogated the government has to protect the country.
I don’t even want to talk about this. It makes me sick.
absolutely. why not?
Depends on why they are suspected of terrorism… if it’s just by relation, then no. They should be looked at more closely, but that is not a good enough to reason to strictly forbid it. If they truly have hard evidence that these people are suspected terrorists, then yes. Yes, American citizens should have freedoms, but we’ve had American citizens launch terrorist attacks on us before. The terrorists are not as stupid as we think they are. They calculate their attacks very well.
Yes, if it can keep us safe then yes. If the governement did not do it and something happened then people would ask “Why didn’t you interrogate them especially since they are related to a terrorist.”
Posted 8/28/2006 at 9:19 AM by wheaties2bk
Have a GOOD Monday Dan
…
Once again, only if he/she is ugly.
Well duh, just because a person is an American citizen doesn’t mean he can’t also be a terrorist. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
I don’t think anyone should be forced to interview. They have the right to not speak if they choose. However, for security purposes, anyone and their belongings can be searched.
yes
Those with close ties to a convicted terrorist ought to be interviewed and thoroughly examined before access to the United States is given, despite citizenship status.
No. Have you ever thought about how all the rights you keep throwing away to “keep us safe” are intended to keep us safe too?
Well…hm…I think they should be able to question them, but putting them on a damn no fly list?!
Depends on how they were supporting them. If it’s against their right then no it’s not because what if keep making exceptions on our rights? I believe that they should be interviewed but if they refuse to answer a question that’s their right as a US citizen, if anything they can fly only with police escorts or whoever escorts the people on planes in cases like such.
I’m taking Political Science but prior to this I probably would have said yes.
If being interrogated meant keeping the country safe, I wouldn’t mind being interrogated, but if I had something to hide I might think twice.
Posted 8/28/2006 at 8:45 AM by VinceHayter
Blanket search warrents… what the fourth amendment was based on…there’s a reason why we have a bill of rights.
Even if you have nothing to hide, why should you be watched and treated like you do? Freedom
“He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither”
~Ben Franklin
But on this issue specifically flying on a plane isn’t a right, it’s a priviledge… I don’t think it falls under the priveledges and immunities in the 14th amendment on a rational basis..
the constituion argument is flawed
I think that people who have gone to a country that is less suspicious should have no reasons To worry. On the other hand, if one is returning from a suspicious country without journalistic credentials then they might expect to face such a situation. It might be wiser to err on the side of caution, rather than be forced to investigate yet another act of terrorism and inform families of great losses even though this precaution would have at least made it more difficult for such a thing to happen.
hey, its our citizens, we can interrogate them if we want
If there is a legitimate reason why you are thought to be a threat, yes.
[ariana]
I have no problem with it in fact I applaud it.
Sure. It’s just for safety
they probably should.. so long as they are not being put n jail and someone is paying for their accomodations and making sure their employers know what’s gpoing on… it shouldn’t have been made public maybe because it’ll ruin their credibility for most of their lives.
yes….but only if they are honestly suspected of being affiliated with terrorists.
Yes. In any war, liberties have always been curtailed. Regardless of how unpleasant that may be, it is necessary for national security. Absolute freedom does not exist. It never has.
isn’t national safety more important that two guys friggin constitutional rights? i get my rights denied every single day in one way or another. the constitution is just a bullsh*t document these days. no one takes it seriously unless it is themselves who need its protection.
ok so maybe i am just being a cynic…
I’m with the first commenter. Is their relationship to the convicted man the only reason? Then no. Something else? Then yes.
Yes, I think so.
Nah, US Citizens have never done anything wrong.
No
If it works, then inconviencing thousands is better than killing millions.
Sure – Whatever keeps me, my family, and my friends safe is OK by me.
Yes
Hell no. You should be allowed home, and then talked to for a little bit in your own home.
no. it’s guilt by association. it’s stupid.
I honestly think that all the people that fight back against airport security and whatnot for not being able to get on a plane are the actual terrorists. I, for one, wouldn’t mind having to go through that stupid interview or whatever if it was for keeping our country safe. I think that the people that fight back are the ones that have something to hide. But yes, technically, that is against those men’s rights.
-KrIsTiN-
It’s mean to not let them go to this country, (Gosh, it’s like The Terminal! I think, because I never actually saw it) and it probably won’t stop them from hurting it. Then again, we don’t want terrorists living here. I think they should be allowed to live here, but they should be on extreme probation. Safety over privacy.
some of you people are stupid, ‘if it keeps us safe’. alot of you need to Buck up, If they’re already US citizens they should be allowed in. That is just like someone saying “You can’t enter YOUR house becuase you might be a threat to our neighborhood. We’re going have to interview you if you want to enter your house”. I’m tired of you people living in fear all the time and it makes me sick. It’s discriminating, same situation. “Oh your brother raped a child, we better throw you in jail to so you don’t rape someone”
God damn republicans. Make me sick.
Particular dilema. However, sometimes you have to go along with the line ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Because someone is related to a known terroist can be a cause of suspicion, it’s only fair that they are interviewed, however in this case the interview should be conducted with a lawyer present on behalf of those being questioned, so boost impartiallity.
’nuff said…
WHO THE F*** ARE U
WHO THE F*** ARE U
I’m gonna let the government decide that.
I just think it’s just a very very sad thing that we are even having terroists issues anywhere, I mean I hate to sound so cliche’ but what has our world come to… Are we call just going to kill off each other in a matter of a few decades??
~Lynds
well i dont know.if that happen to be well trust me some people might not live.Accusing me of stuff…better apologize to me but with cash….
but with my luck and how i look they prolly would suspect me.I had dreams that i went to texas and they thought i was mexican and sent me to mexico so i got all mad and came back and jumped the border and all this stuff.But yeah i always have weird dreams like that.
I think it really depends on if they’ll have a fair interview in the first place.
If they are a U.S. citizen, they should be allowed into the U.S., I think. Otherwise, what’s the point? I mean, sure they were relatives of a man supporting but that doesn’t mean the two other men are.
Gosh, America’s so dumb these days.
YES!WOULD YOU LET YOUR ENEMY IN YOUR HOUSE SO THEY’D KNOW ALL YOUR SECRETS?
WE ARE ABOUT FREEDOM BUT WHEN YOU TAKE OUR FREEDOM WE TAKE YOUR RIGHTS. IT’S AN EVEN TRADE, I THINK!