If your objective is to enter the US, and you are not allowed on a flight, then why not enter by land or sea? The article carefully avoided this subject.
I can understand the reason for having no-fly lists, but the total and complete secrecy around them makes a mockery of the democratic and legal process which is supposed to protect people. A person on the list should at least be able to know why, even if there is still no way to be taken off of it.
As an American expat living overseas, the possibility of not being able to return to the country of my birth is rather frightening. It's highly unlikely I would be placed on it, but I imagine most of the people on the list weren't expecting to find themselves on it either!
> I can understand the reason for having no-fly lists, but the total and complete secrecy around them makes a mockery of the democratic and legal process which is supposed to protect people.
That may be, but publishing the no-fly list would betray the intelligence methods used to compile it. In this data-rich era, terrorists could simply look at the no-fly list, examine the information that led to its compilation, and adjust their methods to stay off the list.
I'm not arguing about the fairness of the policy, only pointing out that publishing the list would destroy its effectiveness.
> A person on the list should at least be able to know why ...
Same answer. The policy might prove to be be totally unconstitutional, but I can see the reasoning.
> It's highly unlikely I would be placed on it, but I imagine most of the people on the list weren't expecting to find themselves on it either!
The really scary thought is that someone might be put on the list by mistake, and have no recourse. In one case, a completely innocent person was frisked only because he had the same name as a suspicious person:
