Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:
Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.

Or go on a boat, I guess But with the smart alec response aside, and noting that I have no idea about the legal or constitutional basis of any of this, it just seems obvious and natural to me that while a government should be able to restrict travel to certain people on grounds of safety and law enforcement*, there needs to be a clear and proper process so that it is clear what kinds of actions will get you placed on it, and those improperly on it can be removed with minimal fuss. Instead the list is kept secret, the reasons why people are placed on it are kept secret, and there are massive hoops placed in front of anyone who attempts to be removed, and people are probably never completely removed.

I have no idea what is and isn't legal/constitutional in all that, but I know it's a fething terrible way for government to go about it's business and it should be reformed or abandoned as quickly as possible.



*This is, afterall, why we have passports in the first place. So that governments can deny them to certain people.

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The no fly list apples to all air travel including international flights. A US citizen can't drive to the EU or take a train to Africa. The no fly list is an unconstitutional travel restriction. Refusing to issue passports to communists didn't impact their ability to travel within CONUS either but it was still unconstitutional. Aptheker's inability to board an outbound flight leaving the US is no different than a no fly list member being forbidden from boarding international flights.

You do realize that boats exist, right? For example, if you want to go from the US to the UK (still the EU for now!) you can just go here: http://www.cunard.com/cruise-types/transatlantic-cruises/ and get your ticket. Or if you want to get there faster you could charter a flight, or even fly yourself if you have a license and don't mind crossing the north Atlantic in a small plane.

And, again, precedent disagrees with you. It is pretty clear that the government can and does impose restrictions on commercial air travel. No matter what legal theories you come up with the actual events that have been happening for a long time will continue to exist.

You do realize that Aptheker sued over not being able to board an international flight due to the refusal of the state dept to give him a passport because he was a communist? He could still board domestic flights or drive himself into Canada or Mexico but the court still ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Feds to put every communist on a list and revoke their passports to specifically hamper their ability to travel abroad. The SCotUS opinions specifically say that the federal govt doesn't have the right to punish any and every communist equally without presenting evidence that supports charges/a warrant. Not letting a citizen board a plane because he/she is a suspected terrorist is no different from not letting somebody board a plan for being a communist. The court ruled that the travel ban doesn't have to be a total ban on all travel to be unconstitutional because being put on an arbitrary secret govt list in the first place is a constitutional violation and any restriction placed upon a citizen for being on the list is fruit from that poisonous unconstitutional tree. That's not my personal theory that's what was written in the majority and concurrent opinions of Supreme Court justices.

The fact that the Supreme Court hasn't heard a case on the no fly list that allow them to uphold the Aptheker precedent doesn't change the fact that the Aptheker case and it's opinions exist as case law.

And people on the no fly list can't charter planes in the US, that loophole would negate the very purpose of the no fly list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.

Or go on a boat, I guess But with the smart alec response aside, and noting that I have no idea about the legal or constitutional basis of any of this, it just seems obvious and natural to me that while a government should be able to restrict travel to certain people on grounds of safety and law enforcement*, there needs to be a clear and proper process so that it is clear what kinds of actions will get you placed on it, and those improperly on it can be removed with minimal fuss. Instead the list is kept secret, the reasons why people are placed on it are kept secret, and there are massive hoops placed in front of anyone who attempts to be removed, and people are probably never completely removed.

I have no idea what is and isn't legal/constitutional in all that, but I know it's a fething terrible way for government to go about it's business and it should be reformed or abandoned as quickly as possible.



*This is, afterall, why we have passports in the first place. So that governments can deny them to certain people.

The Supreme Court didn't dispute the fact that the govt can refuse to issue passports it simply ruled that the govt can't deny passports to anyone believed to be a communist on the grounds that all communists are equally dangerous even in the absence of any evidence that a particular communist posed any danger at all. The arbitrary nature of the list and the lack of due process made it unconstitutional. The majority opinion specifically says that the offending statute is too broad and vague to be constitutional. The govt can't restrict an individual's Liberty without justification and due process. In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary everyone is presumed innocent and is entitled to full constitutional protection of his/her Liberty.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The Supreme Court didn't dispute the fact that the govt can refuse to issue passports it simply ruled that the govt can't deny passports to anyone believed to be a communist on the grounds that all communists are equally dangerous even in the absence of any evidence that a particular communist posed any danger at all. The arbitrary nature of the list and the lack of due process made it unconstitutional. The majority opinion specifically says that the offending statute is too broad and vague to be constitutional. The govt can't restrict an individual's Liberty without justification and due process. In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary everyone is presumed innocent and is entitled to full constitutional protection of his/her Liberty.

Read my post again mate, because I'm not sure your response follows from what I said. If you want me to give a tldr version, then;

1) The government obviously has the right to deny some passports and otherwise control travel.
2) I don't care what their constitutional limits on those controls are*, what matters is whether they are good and necessary restrictions that are applied fairly.
3) Clearly the No Fly List is unfair and poorly implement, because there is no well defined criteria that causes you to be put on it, the requirements for evidence are non-existant, and there is little ability to get removed from the list.


*And no, I don't much care to hear internet opinions on the constitution either.

Prestor Jon wrote:

No, you need to read the decision again. Aptheker v SecState specifically addressed the federal govt preventing US citizens who were believed to be Communists from bein allowed to leave the country. It didn't matter where they wanted to go it didn't let those people leave the country at all. The govt can't put citizens on a list for being a Communist and then not let anyone on that list travel out of the country. The Cuban embargo has nothing to do with no fly lists. The embargo isn't about putting certain citizens on a list and restriction their movements.

The majority opinion was that US citizens have the right to travel abroad, free from restriction. I'm a US citizen, my ability to travel to Cuba is restricted. To me, as a generic white guy from Chicago, that satisfies the "too broad" criticism the Court held in Aptheker v. Secretary of State. It is basically a no fly list that features the vast majority of American citizens.

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And there is also the difference between the party ideaologies...Democrats allow more differences in opinions, etc...Republicans are more about uniformity.

Unless you're a pro-life Democrat, small government Democrat, or free enterprise Democrat, or evidently support the Second Amendment.

Nope, Check, Check, And Check.

#independentparty

I am for alot of things perseverations, But I am also for banning drugs of all kinds, I am for tighter border control, yet I am against closing them. I am for gun control, but I am also against getting rid of the right to own a gun, I just think there need to be tighter restrictions and a maximum amount of weaponry you can own. I am for the bill of rights proposed by FDR that says:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

Yet I am against limiting the freemarket, I am against big coporations owning more than one part of an industry and holdinga monopoly on said industry, I am against wars, but I am for the UN and relations.

I am for puerto rico becoming a state, but I am against restrictions on video games, movies, music, food, at schools and for children.

I am also thoroughly against anything that violates the bill of rights or the constitution, but I am for removing parts of the constitution and updating it as time wanes on.

I personally have been reading up on the thing going on at the congress. I gotta say, I rather them try and fix this damn issue of gun control so we stop having loonies have guns.

Its not a radical terrorist or a muslim terrorist just some fething crazy guy.... with a rifle and pistol...

Ugh.

So much going on in politics.

 Ouze wrote:
Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.

It's hardly a dubious foundation. In fact it's one that's well established in the US. Remember how you have to consent to the government searching your baggage every time you get on an airline flight, contrasted with your ability to refuse a similar search if the police ask to search your car?

Prestor Jon wrote:
You do realize that Aptheker sued over not being able to board an international flight due to the refusal of the state dept to give him a passport because he was a communist?

Yes, in fact I've pointed out several times now that the passport is the key difference. If you are denied a passport you can't travel internationally by any means. If you are denied the ability to board an airline flight you can still travel by some other method even if it's less convenient. This is why the government is allowed to enforce all kinds of restrictions on airline travel that do not exist elsewhere.

And people on the no fly list can't charter planes in the US, that loophole would negate the very purpose of the no fly list.

Depends on the charter, actually. Larger aircraft (anything over 12,500lbs maximum takeoff weight) require security checks, anything smaller doesn't. And there are quite a few charter operations flying those smaller aircraft.

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The no fly list apples to all air travel including international flights. A US citizen can't drive to the EU or take a train to Africa. The no fly list is an unconstitutional travel restriction. Refusing to issue passports to communists didn't impact their ability to travel within CONUS either but it was still unconstitutional. Aptheker's inability to board an outbound flight leaving the US is no different than a no fly list member being forbidden from boarding international flights.

You do realize that boats exist, right? For example, if you want to go from the US to the UK (still the EU for now!) you can just go here: http://www.cunard.com/cruise-types/transatlantic-cruises/ and get your ticket. Or if you want to get there faster you could charter a flight, or even fly yourself if you have a license and don't mind crossing the north Atlantic in a small plane.

And, again, precedent disagrees with you. It is pretty clear that the government can and does impose restrictions on commercial air travel. No matter what legal theories you come up with the actual events that have been happening for a long time will continue to exist.

No reason they couldn't extend the unconstitutional list to sea travel, public transportation, or well anything. Thats why the government likes it.

 Ouze wrote:
Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.

Outlaw bullets to save lives too !

No fly lists aren't inherently unconstitutional if they provide adequate due process. The current setup has been successfully challenged in at least one federal court (http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/NoFlyOpinion.pdf). In that opinion, the court held that the process did not provide adequate notice or opportunity to contest inclusion on the list.

I would think that just from a common sense perspective that Americans would be troubled by a list that the federal government uses to restrict rights that has no disclosure of why you are on there and no way to challenge it. Heck, what if a name shows up due to a clerical error?

 jmurph wrote:
No fly lists aren't inherently unconstitutional if they provide adequate due process. The current setup has been successfully challenged in at least one federal court (http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/NoFlyOpinion.pdf). In that opinion, the court held that the process did not provide adequate notice or opportunity to contest inclusion on the list.

I would think that just from a common sense perspective that Americans would be troubled by a list that the federal government uses to restrict rights that has no disclosure of why you are on there and no way to challenge it. Heck, what if a name shows up due to a clerical error?

Exactly. The no fly list has always violated due process. It continues to exist only because the government literally makes it impossible to contest your inclusion on the list and get yourself removed. It's existence doesn't make it constitutional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Saying that your right to travel to say, Hawaii or Alaska isn't being unconstitutionally barred because you're always free to charter a private plane is pretty much exactly the logic that is allowing legal abortion to be destroyed in this country despite it still being "legal". It's a pretty dubious foundation to build on.

It's hardly a dubious foundation. In fact it's one that's well established in the US. Remember how you have to consent to the government searching your baggage every time you get on an airline flight, contrasted with your ability to refuse a similar search if the police ask to search your car?

Prestor Jon wrote:
You do realize that Aptheker sued over not being able to board an international flight due to the refusal of the state dept to give him a passport because he was a communist?

Yes, in fact I've pointed out several times now that the passport is the key difference. If you are denied a passport you can't travel internationally by any means. If you are denied the ability to board an airline flight you can still travel by some other method even if it's less convenient. This is why the government is allowed to enforce all kinds of restrictions on airline travel that do not exist elsewhere.

And people on the no fly list can't charter planes in the US, that loophole would negate the very purpose of the no fly list.

Depends on the charter, actually. Larger aircraft (anything over 12,500lbs maximum takeoff weight) require security checks, anything smaller doesn't. And there are quite a few charter operations flying those smaller aircraft.

You don't need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico millions of people do it every year without showing anyone a passport.

The passport is irrelevant, the right of the state dept to refuse to issue a passport was never in question, the PROCESS by which the state dept was refusing passports, nobody on the list of alleged Communists could get one, was what was being sued over because it violated due process. That's what the Supreme Court ruled and that's what the all the majority and concurring opinions state, the travel restrictions require that the govt follow due process and not use nebulous secret lists.

You're focusing on passports as if that somehow nullifies the right to due process when it clearly doesn't according to the court.

I already acknowledged that the govt has that ability to revoke passports and restrict travel. However, the govt MUST follow due process when they restrict travel for citizens.

 jmurph wrote:
I would think that just from a common sense perspective that Americans would be troubled by a list that the federal government uses to restrict rights that has no disclosure of why you are on there and no way to challenge it. Heck, what if a name shows up due to a clerical error?

This here is the new 'Merica, where apparently people are cool with this sort of thing, as long as it's that other guy, because clearly he had it coming.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
This here is the new 'Merica, where apparently people are cool with this sort of thing, as long as it's that other guy, because clearly he had it coming.

Pretty much. No Fly Lists and secret government lists were the antithesis of democracy when a Republican was in charge, now the Democrats are protesting for the chance to expand it's influence. The fact that a champion of the civil rights movement is campaigning for others to lose their rights adds a nice layer of unintentional irony.

I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.

yes they did, but at the time the Democrats had the power, all I know is when you have no fly lists that stop people from flying because they share the same name as someone on it (like a certain 8 year old boy) and the Democrats want to use that as a basis of preventing gun ownership I see way too many ways that can be abused by the Government.

Also it does not take much to get on the no fly list and you don't even find out you are on it till you try to go buy a plane ticket.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14watchlist.html?_r=0

According to this the PATRIOT Act was brought in by a Republican, most of the dissenters were Democrats, and it was a Republican president who signed it into law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

If this is correct I am somewhat at a loss to understand your previous comments a few posts above.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
According to this the PATRIOT Act was brought in by a Republican, most of the dissenters were Democrats, and it was a Republican president who signed it into law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

If this is correct I am somewhat at a loss to understand your previous comments a few posts above.

I don't recall the "no fly / terrorist" list being *passed* by any Congressional critters.

I could be wrong, but it's likely a bureaucratic artefact.

So can anyone explain to me the "Brexit happened, so Trump can win" thing that's going about the internet right now?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.

The No Fly List was in place prior to the Patriot Act, so who voted for it is immaterial to this discussion. Or is your contention that because members of a party voted one way that they cannot then object to the implementation of that law?

The fact of the matter is that during Bush's tenure Democrats considered the No Fly list unconstitutional. To pretend otherwise is historical revisionism.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
According to this the PATRIOT Act was brought in by a Republican, most of the dissenters were Democrats, and it was a Republican president who signed it into law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

If this is correct I am somewhat at a loss to understand your previous comments a few posts above.

The Democrats had the power in congress, the law could not get passed without Democratic backing to a degree.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was under the impression that many Democrats and Republicans voted for the PATRIOT Act and other new laws that set up the No Fly list and so on in the early 2000s.

The No Fly List was in place prior to the Patriot Act, so who voted for it is immaterial to this discussion. Or is your contention that because members of a party voted one way that they cannot then object to the implementation of that law?

The fact of the matter is that during Bush's tenure Democrats considered the No Fly list unconstitutional. To pretend otherwise is historical revisionism.

just like Democrats voted for the ACA then a couple years ago many back peddled on that. its all about what is popular at the time, when 9/11 happened the country was unified and one, then time came in and everyone went back to their roots and the country became divided.

 djones520 wrote:
So can anyone explain to me the "Brexit happened, so Trump can win" thing that's going about the internet right now?

Basically don't discount the populations propensity for doing something which can cause a lot of harm to their own country, especially if they've been told that doing so will "make X great again".

 djones520 wrote:
So can anyone explain to me the "Brexit happened, so Trump can win" thing that's going about the internet right now?

This person tries to

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/06/24/daily-202-stop-underestimating-trump-brexit-vote-shows-why-he-can-win/576c89e9981b92a22d2dd3dc/

Trump 2016.

 djones520 wrote:
So can anyone explain to me the "Brexit happened, so Trump can win" thing that's going about the internet right now?

It's really dumb... like fething dumb.

My sense is that it's the old ELITIST vs. THE COMMON MAN dichotomy.

There's two tweets that jumps out at me (man i wish we could embed tweets here...), so I'll transcribe as best as I can.

The snarky one:

#Brexit happend because elites became fatally disconnected from, then grew contemptuous of, average citizens... This has wider implications.

Here's what the head of BBC political research said:

"It seems to me that the London bubble has to burst if there is to be any prospect of addressing the issues that have brought us to our current sitution. There are many millions of people who do not enthuse about diversity and do not embrace metropolitan values yet do not consider themselves lesser human beings for all that. Until their values and opinions are acknowledge and respected, rather than ignored and despised, our present discord will persist. Because these discontents run very wide and very deep and the metropolitan politcal class, contronted by them, seems completely bewildered and at a loss about how to respond ("who are these ghastly people and where do they come from?" doesn't really hack it). The 2016 EU referendum has witnessed the cashing in of some very bitter bankable grudges but I believe that, throughtout this 2016 compaign, Europe has been the shadow not the substance".

The idea that Brexit "proves" that Trump has a chance in November is both lazy and asinine.

The no fly list wasn't part of the Patriot Act passed by congress, it was created and implemented by the Bush Admin. It was a secret for its first two years of existence. It actually existed before 9/11.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
The no fly list wasn't part of the Patriot Act passed by congress, it was created and implemented by the Bush Admin. It was a secret for its first two years of existence. It actually existed before 9/11.

The list—along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection—was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: "The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense."[1] However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.

The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. As of June 2016 the Terrorist Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities

I don't see the Brexit having a big effect on American politics. Americans are much too insular as a whole and tend to have very little interest in anything outside of the US unless it relates to war or celebrity.

Trump: "They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people."

He said before flying away in his golden helicopter.

One interesting parallel is the division of support- Scotland and Ireland seemed to be solidly remain. Likewise, the US shows some pretty stark geographical political divides.

Now that Brexit happened... those annoying Texit are going to get noisy...

(secretly plans to move to Texas)

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So can anyone explain to me the "Brexit happened, so Trump can win" thing that's going about the internet right now?

This person tries to

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/06/24/daily-202-stop-underestimating-trump-brexit-vote-shows-why-he-can-win/576c89e9981b92a22d2dd3dc/

So it is less "A makes B happen" than "A happened so there is proof B can happen", it seems.

Asterios wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
The no fly list wasn't part of the Patriot Act passed by congress, it was created and implemented by the Bush Admin. It was a secret for its first two years of existence. It actually existed before 9/11.

The list—along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection—was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: "The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense."[1] However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.

The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. As of June 2016 the Terrorist Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities

If you are going to quote Wikipedia, you might want to read all of it. "Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. federal government had a list of 16 people deemed "no transport" because they "presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation"

 Ahtman wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So can anyone explain to me the "Brexit happened, so Trump can win" thing that's going about the internet right now?

This person tries to

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/06/24/daily-202-stop-underestimating-trump-brexit-vote-shows-why-he-can-win/576c89e9981b92a22d2dd3dc/

So it is less "A makes B happen" than "A happened so there is proof B can happen", it seems.

problem is Hillary doesn't stand a chance her "a" game is missing and she is currently giving her "D" game, Trump did and said what he had to to get Republican voters during the primaries and a whole lot of free press, now his tactics will change to adjust to not getting Republican votes but even Democratic votes, meanwhile Clinton hasn't realized the war is on yet.

Trump is a stage man, a carnival barker, charismatic and has presence, Hillary has none of that, that is why I say she is doomed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
The no fly list wasn't part of the Patriot Act passed by congress, it was created and implemented by the Bush Admin. It was a secret for its first two years of existence. It actually existed before 9/11.

The list—along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection—was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: "The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense."[1] However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.

The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. As of June 2016 the Terrorist Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities

If you are going to quote Wikipedia, you might want to read all of it. "Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. federal government had a list of 16 people deemed "no transport" because they "presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation"

but we are dealing with a no-fly list, not some list some agency made up to make themselves feel better, big difference between thousands on a list and barely over a dozen on a post-it note.