Hacker News Reader

Comment by linuxhansl | Hacker News Reader

> The Obama administration has vigorously contested the case, the first of its kind to reach trial, warning that it might reveal top-secret information about the anti-terrorism program

How often and how long will we hear this nonsense. The no-fly list has never caught or deterred a terrorist. We cannot stop the legal process with the blanket "national security" card.

View on HN

Seriously, if there is anybody on that list that is on that list legitimately, why the hell haven't they been arrested for whatever they did to get themselves on that list?

The answer of course is that nobody on that list has actually done anything illegal. The entire thing is a perversion of justice.

> why the hell haven't they been arrested for whatever they did to get themselves on that list?

Read my reply to the parent. It's a preventive measure.

> radicalized American

And yet tried for nothing and convicted of nothing. It is a perversion of justice, full stop.

I'm beginning to feel that the purpose of this list is actually quite different - that it is a deterrant for regular people, an incentive not to speak out or talk to any non-mainstream-political group in fear of having their lives being made increasingly difficult by things like getting included on this list.

This list is not aimed at terrorists, it's aimed at us. Er, US.

That is a really terrifying and cynical possibility. I wish I could conclusively disbelieve it.

Cynical or not, it's suprisingly common. I started to notice those patterns of thinking after reading too much Schelling's "Strategy of Conflict". A good book, btw.

One could ask the same thing about Guantanamo. If those people are sufficiently dangerous that it's necessary to keep them imprisoned for 12 years (and counting), then the least they should expect is to be charged with something and tried for it.

The no-fly list is not about capturing or deterring a terrorist. Or at least not to deter in the way you may be thinking: blowing up a plane? It's about keeping an individual from traveling to a location with the intention to cause violence. For example, a radicalized American traveling to Somalia to join Al-Shabaab.

This probably works as a preventative measure about as well as banning criminals from owning guns.

Who gets to decide who's radicalized and who's not? Some NSA or FBI agent? System cannot rely on that. Being added to the no-fly list should be a result of a court decision and nothing less.

Or to prevent annoying witnesses from testifying: http://boingboing.net/2013/12/04/dhs-stalls-no-fly-list-tria...

You only mean non-stop, right?

Oh please. This line of logic can be abused such that for their own good, as preventative measure, all Muslims could be on a no fly list. And the great bit about that is that if Muslims cant fly it protects them from accusations of terrorism. Its for their own good, you see....

In fact, this logic completely justifies what the NSA are doing.

So you drive to Canada or Mexico, and take a flight from there. Presumably someone who is radicalised enough to want to put their life on the line would just get more angry if faced with the no fly list.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com