Yes, we're under fire and definitely need to defend ourselves. However, keeping a secret list of "enemies of the state" is not the way to do it. If someone is on the no-fly list then they should be able to find out why they are on it and how to deal with the problem.

If the reason is "suspected terrorist" then I would expect a long road to get off of the list, and yes, the government would then say "we just let a suspected terrorist know that we suspect him/her of being a terrorist". Well, I suspect that there are suspected terrorists who are explicitely kept OFF of such lists so that the government can follow them around and see who they routinely associate with.

The real problem here, as with so many things implemented with the knee-jerk reaction to 9-11, is that they violate basic provisions of our Constitution. I understand the knee-jerk reaction, but there has been more than ample time to revisit the provisions of the (un)PATRIOT(ic) Act and pass real, permanent legislation to achieve goals by means within the provisions of our Constitution.

Each day we allow the restriction of the freedoms granted by the Constitution to remain in place is another day that the terrorists have taken from us. Every day that we let our lawmakers continue with things "as is" is another day we deserve to be led like lemmings by a Government that moves ever closer and closer to a complete police state.

OK, if he's on a "no fly" list, how did he get out of the country in the first place ?

Or does the FBI only issue the list to countries outside of the US, where they can do their illegal activities without that pesky Constitution getting in the way ?

Agreed Dirp. If he was on the no-fly list then how did he board a plane leaving the US in the first place? That pretty much tells the rest of the world, "We don't care if they crash a plane in YOUR country, just as long as they can't do it here".

That's OK. I'm sure the President has a personal apology for him. The United States is dismissive towards the world and dictates to everyone how they live. That's from the President himself. Thank you for projecting confidence in our nation across the world.

Tech_man20

Agreed Dirp. If he was on the no-fly list then how did he board a plane leaving the US in the first place? That pretty much tells the rest of the world, "We don't care if they crash a plane in YOUR country, just as long as they can't do it here".

I disagree. I think what it tells the rest of the world is that the pointless Department of Homeland Security is a worthless cluster @!$%#.

The no fly list will let you out of the usa but not back in thats why this happens so if they thought he was a terrorist it was ok to fly out of the country.Of course if he was he could have blew that plane out the sky and got his virgins.No it is not right but hey if you are a member of a group of people that have vowed to kill all americans then thats what is going to happen beter safe than burying the dead.

NOW I am not saying he looks like a middle eastern person............BUT I was brought up byt he Golden Rule. When in Rome do as the Romans do!

Remember that quaint pre-911 concept of "probable cause?" We could go back to that maybe and then we wouldn't be arbitrarily and unjustly trashing people and their travel plans...

Kate-344962

I feel for the guy, but the issue of muslim terrorists remains. So what are we to do? Let anyone fly and risk losing hundreds of American lives?

Let us not forget that this man was not some questionable foreigner, he was an American citizen. If our government is going to straddle us with the inept Department of Homeland Security they should make every effort possible to ensure it impacts our lives as little as possible. For an American citizen to be stuck for weeks in a foreign country and then delayed further after he finally makes it back to the States is beyond reprehensible. Someone should lose their job over this but it won't happen because the man is a Muslim and people will just say "I feel for this guy, BUT..."

When in Rome try the panini.

Kate, you're more than welcome to hide under your bed in fear the rest of your life if you want.

So what are we to do?

Perhaps go on with our lives? Not shriek in terror because you see a Muslim sounding name? Not assume every Muslim wears a bomb vest?

Let anyone fly and risk losing hundreds of American lives?

Something tells me that you already pegged this guy for a terrorist just because he is Muslim.

@vsmith-3340493

The no fly list will let you out of the usa but not back in thats why this happens...

That seems doubtful. A few years back my 15 year old son was traveling with a group to Australia and almost missed the flight because he has a common name that was on the no-fly list. Aside from that what difference would the destination make if the goal was to hijack the plane? Once that happens they can take it where ever they wanted.

It's happening to anybody the agent doesn't like the looks of and there's no way of finding out why you can't fly. It happened to Wade Hicks, a military dependent come home from overseas, again no reason given. At least they should have to answer WHY?. If your prevented from flying, if you have to spend your hard earned money and are inconvenienced to the extent these folks are someone should have to answer WHY.

@John Doe - You're right... he does deserve an apology. I've heard this whole "we shouldn't be apologizing" rhetoric ad nauseum. The bottom line is that he's right. We spend so much time trying to dictate how the world should be... and unfortunately/fortunately that isn't our job. We aren't TEAM AMERICA - WORLD POLICE and we shouldn't act as such.

Running around the world smoothing things over after previous administrations (plural) was the right thing to do. Get off your high horse and accept that the USA isn't infallible.

@border joe - THAT. That right there is exactly how the terrorists want you to be. Fearful of anyone/everyone; and don't kid yourself it IS fear.

When we start determining how to treat people based on the color of their skin or their belief system we become exactly what we're fighting, intolerant bigots.

Wow an itelligent conversation for once. Everyone has made some very valid points. There are no simple answers. We have a Constitution and we should respect it. We certainly failed to do that during WWII with those decendents of Japan. Of course now we will never know if internment of those people detered any attacks from within. We do know we have enemies within our country and we know they are radical Muslims. What we don't know is how many radical Muslims are pretending to be moderates. So how do you protect the general population from these people and honor our constitution at the same time. It has been said giving away your freedom for security means you don't deserve your freedom. If that is true then I guess we trust our fellow passingers to protect us should one of these killers get on board with us. While I am ok with that I don't mind some inconvenience to limit that risk. Now may I ask those who are apt to be discriminated by this inconvenience to be a bit understanding and take some advance precautions to limit their chance of delay? I know I would if I were one from that group.

Perhaps American citizens treated this way should start filing suit in other countries, such as, in this case, Germany or Austria. The violation occurred in Germany and Austria, and I suspect European laws would allow for such lawsuits naming the US as defendant. Much of Europe is losing respect for the US because of its draconian abrogation of civil rights and, I suspect, there are many European citizens who would be eager to drop a judgment against the US government for its new less-than "American" habits.

yes he can challange it? WITH A $100.000.000 lawsuit for both violating his civil rights as well as discrimation and wasting his time and expenses ! i suggest he sue the balls off the TSA/homeland , use that money to travel by ship or private boat

Government Logic:

"Government policy is not to disclose that for security reasons," said the official. As an example, the official said, an aspiring terrorist who learned he or she was listed might change his or her identity.

Real Logic:

If that was the case, then why wouldn't a prospective terrorist just try flying before hatching a plan? If they get denied because of the no-fly list THEN they can "change their identity".

No the reason the list is secret is because Government is out of control and they don't want anyone questioning their authority. From the first lines of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, DERIVING their just powers FROM the consent of the governed.

YOUR RIGHTS DO NOT COME FROM GOVERNMENT.

THE ONLY PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT THAT WHICH WE ALREADY INALIENABLY HAVE.

AS INDIVIDUALS WE CONSENT TO ONLY THE ABOVE PURPOSE AS A REASON FOR GOVERNENCE.

That means that every human has the right to travel freely on this planet, and it is the duty of a just government to PROTECT THAT RIGHT. Only an unjust and unconstitutional government would keep secret no-fly lists, secret kill lists, spy on their citizens, etc. The price of true freedom is less security. Deal with it and be FREE MEN AND WOMEN.

Tell it to the USA troops murdered by the likes of John Walker and Major Hussen of Ft. Hood shame!!

So what do we tell the families affected by Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols?

Where does your walks like a duck line fit in there?

If we continue on with your line of thinking, we should be wary of everyone on the planet and live in perpetual fear that our neighbors are planning to execute us since every race and religion has committed horrible acts against humanity.

Also, why you tried to invoke Godwin's Law (albeit very poorly) is beyond me.

I'm off to the movies. If I don't reply, that's why. And not that I am afraid to stand behind my words.

WE could make an easy argument that when we as Americans are willing to give up that which we clam is so important to us, ie equality, freedom, justice, individuality, choice, for a sense of safety(real or not) that they(enemies of those things) have won a major victory. When we are so willing to turn on our own, so willing to do things which we know in our hearts is wrong(or even evil) they have won a victory. It seems since 9/11 we have done a good job of justice/revenge, but we have also put a side that which makes America such a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. When we start to do things that it seems our enemies are willing to do they again win. Its seems that its only when we hold fast to that which we know is right, and just, and fair that we win.

I am very sorry that this happens to U.S.citizens.He should be upset but has to understand that we've had young men that are U.S. born that turn out to be terrorists.It's a no win situation.By his appearance sans the cap I couldn't tell you what his religion is.I'm sick of people playing the race card,the gender card and now the religious card.

I wonder if ALL the Mormons are on that list--or is it just the Lutherans?-or some of all those other Christians from here who has killed over one million in 2 countries the last 12 years, by taking down other countries governments, in the name of Christianity versus Muslims?

This, after a couple found out they couldn't fly because THEIR BABY was on the no fly list. I didn't know infants were yet of an age where they could join any group, at a time where they hadn't even learned to say mama and papa yet. I mean, did the infant cry in a threatening way or something, a couple days ago so now they were suspected? And now this...

Like some others, I too am wondering how he got out of the country, if he couldn't fly back; if he was on the list... Lets go back to 9/11, we weren't dealing with over-seas planes that were hujacked. The terrorists were already in the country, attended flight school in the country, and comandered flights out of Newark Liberty air port for instance, scheduled for a cross country flight, and flew them into the world trade center. Those were domestic flights, making a whole "but they can fly out" seem kinda specious. But then again, we're talking our government here, beuracrats don't always make a whole lot of sense. They do things like where my parents retired, the city would pave the road, and only after it finished paving they road they'd send blasting crews out so they could lay sewer pipe. When done, they'd put hot tar patches in where they blasted, which couldn't survive a winter, so by next spring the "newly paved road" would be a mess again. Somehow the logic of laying the sewer pipe first, then paving the road escaped the minds of beuracrats, so the nonsensical isn't beyond them.

At cost, is the 2 flights, the time and stay, and if we were talking civil damages, I could see a lawyer claim "pain and suffering" here. But there is one other possible financial damage caused. If the person had a job, was on a payed vacation, and it took 22 days to get back due to this, a person could resonably expect to be fired, before they could get home. Not all employers would hold one's job for a month, while was was going through beuracratic loopholes. A loss of job, could be even more perniscious then the thousands incurred in those 2 plane tickets; because it would represent a loss of revenue, in a job market where a new job isn't easy to find... That too would constitute damages; especially as on a new job application, reason for leaving the last job "I suspect I must have been put on the no fly list without my knowledge, and was barred re-entry to the country. I swear I'm not a terrorist, but there it is" would be giving any new job recruiter red flags, right there... Least here in Jersey, it isn't kosher to cost someone, their job; and no it isn't that people in the tri-state area are unaware of what happened on 9/11, it happened in our own back yard. And considering that many who work in NYC, also commute from Jersey, yeah, it did hit home... But still, getting someone in trouble at work? without trying to clean up the mess with their employer... I wonder if big brother will take accountability, if loss of job occured from this.

How would YOU feel if you had to apply and wait weeks to go on vacation or visit an ill relative? Having an Arabic name is not a crime. Treating Muslims as criminals is unconstitutional.

This is probably one of the most INOFFENSIVE message I've seen collapsed in a long time. Hope it's restored soon.

.He should be upset but has to understand that we've had young men that are U.S. born that turn out to be terrorists.

Does that mean that all tall, redheaded male American citizens should be "understanding" when put on a no fly list as well?

Maybe it's just me but would the "friends and relatives" he went to visit have prompted his addition to the no-fly list?

Sure, you can be an American citizen without a criminal history and go visit your uncle Osama bin Laden (before he was killed) and I'm sure the government would take exception to you just waltzing back in to the U.S....we don't know who he visited or what he was doing. He SAYS he was visiting friends and relatives...but the guy cheating on his wife with someone overseas would tell her he's going to see his "friends" too.

I don't think he was picked on because he is Muslim....I think it's more likely he caught the attention of someone because of who he was seeing and what he was doing.

Four Points Shy Of Genius: well reasoned. Brilliant!

Ok so he was inconvenienced - who cares !!!! Bottom line if the no fly list keeps one terrorist out of this country and saves one American life then I could give a @!$%# that this Muslim American or anyone else has been inconvenienced. Suck it up!!!

Randy,

We do know we have enemies within our country and we know they are radical Muslims.

There's two things here. One is that not all our enemies within are radical Muslims, nor is it true that all radicals are Muslims. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nicholes were no Muslims. The guy who shot up the movie theater in Denver was no Muslim, nor was the person who shot up the Sikh temple in WI. We can't pin those on Muslims, or argue anything wrt Muslims in those cases. And the same applies for the shooting that occured in a mall outside Milwalkee a couple days back. That was all on "some of our own guys"... We have some rather bad people, who aren't Muslim, or perhaps any religion at all, who do terrible things, shoot up places, bomb places, etc... And what can be said? I doubt anyone would want a blanket suggestion wrt people of say Christianity, should the guy who shot up the Sikh temple, well you get my idea... We've had enough blanket accusations out there, without creating ammunition for one more...

But here's the second matter, we've been here before. One other historical matter, the time of Joe McCarthy, and the whole "red scare" surrounding the then House UnAmericans Committeee. McCarthy also had secret lists of "suspected Communists", and if anyone questioned him, they'd mysteriously be on it as well. Is this what we want? And if we go down that path, aren't we giving the terrorists the best attack against the culture, the ideals, the very thing that makes this country America? Not the buildings, not the streets, but that which lies at the soul of the nation, what anthropoligists would refer to as the culture's core. The words of Thomas Jefferson wrt this, about those who would trade away their freedoms, for a sense of safety would come to mind here.

But the thing is, we've been down this path before, and we know where it can lead. We went down it with Joe McCarthy, we went down it during the Salem Witch trials, while this country was still but a bunch of colonies. We've lived this history. Do we need to protect ourselves from attack? Sure, but not at the expense of killing off that which makes us Americans. An attack need not just be an attack in the physical sense. If we give up our way of life so as to protect our way of life, then what are we really protecting (because it will have been given up), and what are we saving? An attack can be a psychological one (aka psychological warfare) as easily as it can be a physical one. One isn't necessarily preserving anything, if they cease to remain true to themselves. But on the matter of witch hunts, we have been down this path several times, and history has recorded the outcome many times. With McCarthy for instance, what was really served and what was really protected? But on the other hand, how many lives did McCarthy ruin, because he wanted to run for public office, needed a platform, and someone suggested he run as the staunch anti-Communist. Course he had no real knowledge about the Soviet Union, or what was faced on the geo-political front. It didn't matter, he didn't consider it a matter worth knowing, instead he turned his accusations inward, and the country paid the price.

That means that every human has the right to travel freely on this planet, and it is the duty of a just government to PROTECT THAT RIGHT. Only an unjust and unconstitutional government would keep secret no-fly lists, secret kill lists, spy on their citizens, etc. The price of true freedom is less security. Deal with it and be FREE MEN AND WOMEN.

Let's pretend for a second that you understand that 1)human rights only matter if they are codified into legal rights and, 2) every nation has their own sovereign laws.

Other than that, you have a superb grasp of the concept.

/s

My rights have been infringed upon because Muslims destroyed the world trade center on 9/11. I have accepted this infringement because I do understand we are at war and we do need to secure and safeguard our country and the American people as much as humanly possible.

That this man or anyone else has been "inconvenienced" is unfortunate but we all have been inconvenienced. He feels persecuted - like I said - who cares - we Americans have unjustly been persecuted by the only religion to declare war on everyone they consider a non-believer.

Consider yourself lucky that you were eventually allowed back into this country - many country's (every Muslim Arab country in the middle east comes to mind) you would have been barred from re-entering simply because of your religion if you were Jewish and if christian would be persecuted probably jailed, tortured, raped and killed. So sorry stud no sympathy for your sorry ass here, your supposed to be an American then you should understand your fellow Muslims have perpetrated world wide terror on innocents in every country in the world.

Ternan, inconvenienced doesn't begin to cover the financial damages that were incurred, or the money lost here. Inconvenience is you're 5 minutes late because you were stuck in traffic, it isn't you're thousands of dollars out in air fair, more in hotel stays, and a possibility of losing your job, because you couldn't return to work in time. And under civil law, one would be well within their rights to file a lawsuite and sue the government for lost lages, monetary expenses incured, and if their job was lost, for that, as well as collect unemployment on the government's dole, until they can find another job even considering the questionable circumstances under which they would have lost their last.

And in a strict sense, many a judge would find reason, and rule in favor of the complaintant, for financial damages, incured in the process. And, lets be honest here, lawsuites is a very American thing to do under such circumstances. It's how we, as a country deal with this sort of thing. Unlike in the Middle East where they might bomb someone, we tend to take them to court, charge them under the law, and seek justice through a court of law. One couldn't fault someone for that, and then it would be the US treasury that would have to suck it up, if so ordered by a judge.

J R Browenstein,

That, would make some sense. We don't know who he was going to see, and though they might not have been investigating him, they could have been investigating some of the people he ran into, which raised some red flags. I'd still say there's some accountability for the financial consequences brought upon him from this; but it would put it in a whole other light if that is what happened, and at least provide some sense to how whoever might have been operating. In effect, if it was he went to see people who were suspected terrorists, so got flagged from it, the motives behind what had happened here, would be different, and in the realm of understandeable...

he's not the only one that been thru this. The Japanese, Chinese and more during WWI and WWII. if all Muslim were to Unite against terrorism maybe they would make a difference. Japan did look at them now. If you don't educate your children don't expect other to do it for you. I'm sorry this happen but we need to be extra careful.

Let's pretend for a second that you understand that 1)human rights only matter if they are codified into legal rights and, 2) every nation has their own sovereign laws.

Other than that, you have a superb grasp of the concept.

Well he left out the gist of Thomas Jefferson's argument, which is also at the heart of what the Declaration of Independence was, which was the lines that followed. It was afterall a document which layed out the reasons for the otherthrow of government, and layed out why the American Revolution (followed by the Revolutionary war) was to come. In large measure, it was an impassioned document, meant to motivate people towards rising up to claim their independence; as at the time only about 1/3 of the colonists were in favor of revolt, and another third were still loyal to the British, and the remainder not necessarily decided on the matter, largely wanting to live their lives in peace... But it's very well, I don't think no fly lists is a reason to invoke that in and of itself, and send this country straight into another civil war or what have you. There are also ways this can be discussed politically, which are far less drastic, whatever the case may be.

And as to the other reply, I still say that economic damage, isn't simply being inconvenienced, which is where civil law comes into place, and specifically the rights to sue to recover damages (such as loss of money, lost wages, etc).

I am the reddest of the red conservatives and this kind of crap is simply wrong, wrong wrong.

If they put an American citizen on the no-fly list they must be required to tell you. If they don't know you are an American, wtf are they doing?

I do not care if they think that you are the next OBL - if you are a citizen you have rights. You own them - not the other way around. If you are detained or prevented from traveling and you present yourself at an American embassy or consulate or FBI office in the US - they have 48 hours to clear you to travel or present you with the basis of their allegation. You then are able to refute specific facts upon which they placed you on the DNF list. That is how it should work. none of this hidden secret we can't tell you double secret probation crap.

That said - if you are overseas and pass a TSA patdown search and your travel goods are hand searched and you consent thereto - and nothing that can endanger that specific aircraft is found - you are allowed to travel home. Period.

Thats how it should work. The potential for abuse of this list - especially given the refusal to provide information or specific criteria as to how you got there - thats wrong.

I am all for keeping non-citizens suspected of terrorism out of the country. These folks are guests and guests can be refused entry if we suspect you are criminal. People - even normal law abiding people - do not possess a right to enter the US or any constitutional guarantees of due process. Citizens are different.

If they believe a citizen is a terrorist, arrest him/her upon entry. Otherwise - let them go.

As I said I'm a hawk to the right of Bush - but American citizens own this country and these bureaucrats serve them. If they have real verifiable facts then act on them. Otherwise stop hassling people.

Airports are filled with armed officers, some even with automatic weapons. Therefore, if you have reasonable evidence he is a terrorist, arrest him. If you only suspect he might possibly a terrorist, do a second, manual inspection of him and his bags for dangerous items, and if none found, let him board the plane in peace. Security doesn't require the complete violation of peoples rights.

Is everyone that stupid to believe this numb nuts got held up because he is Muslim? There are some very classified reasons why people get on the no fly list. Wake up America before another twin towers happen again.

Nuadormrac - dream on. You need a serious lesson in American law. The king can do no wrong - hence the US Govt has sovereign immunity and in this case- not a chance of recovery of anything for our Muslim victim here.

Not a judge anywhere would even consider overruling the professionals on the idea of safety and terrorism. Never going to happen.

To all the uber-Patriot anti-Terrorist jackwagons here who think that it is ok to oppress someone just because they are "different" or happen to ascribe to a religious belief other than Christian, there is a quote which applies to you directly.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ---Benjamin Franklin, Historical review of Pennsylvania, 1759

All of you uber-Patriot anti-Terrorist jackwagons who think it is ok for the U.S. Government to oppress someone because of their religious, ethnic, or political differences -- i.e., indefinite detentions, "no-fly" lists, warrant-less wire taps, secret tribunals, etc -- deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Invoking executive privelege as an excuse to do anything and everything, without probably cause is beyond the realm of reason. Blind trust for everything that comes from the government, we did that in the 1950s... And while all that was going on, Congress in the 1970s was to learn of matters such as COINTELPRO, which included the various counter intelligence operations that J Edgar Hoover placed against Martin Luther King, because he wanted a "safe (the word he used would be considered offensive today) leader for the black people". It was out of that, that the House and Senate Congressional intelligence committees were first formed, where previously there was no oversite.

A blanket "well they must have reasons, everyone be good and just trust us on blind faith" argument HAS lead to abuses, which are part of our own history now. And it isn't unreasonable that a discourse on this, and moving ahead should be held. Afterall, when all is said and done, the most valid of questions would be what are we protecting? This country isn't just it's buildings, it's streets, it's what have you. There's the intangeables which are very much a part of who we are as a people, what could be termed as lieing at the soul of a country. And if the terrorists want to destroy one thing, it isn't necessarly the buildings, it would be who we are, as a people, our way of life, our values, and our culture. It's not beyond reason to keep this in mind, when deciding how we, as a people want to respond, so that the soul of the country if you will, isn't lost in the process (which for them would be a victory, if what they hate about America is what it stands for).

If a person was talkign about saving the life of another, they wouldn't be very effective in doing this, if what they saved was the body, but in the process they killed the very thing that makes them human, in the process... The individual is more then the body alone, as a country is more then it's streets, and the buildings people pass through. And this is that something, that human something, that makes a person a person, and makes a people a people. The consciousness of the people, have much to do with who they are...

J R Browenstein Let's pretend for a second that you understand that 1)human rights only matter if they are codified into legal rights and, 2) every nation has their own sovereign laws.

Please explain what you mean by "only matter" with respect to Rights. Are you saying my supposition that Rights are Unalienable and existed before consideration of governance is wrong, and that Rights only come from government when they are codified as law?

Please explain how geo-political boundries change human Rights.

Also, if you could refrain from ad hominem attacks on me ("pretend to understand"). I might have time to have an adult conversation with you.

Terrorism has killed almost exactly the same number of American civilians (terrorism HAS TO BE directed at civilians, otherwise the Geneva conventions see suicide bombing and such against military and government targets as a legal tactic) over the last 11 years (the height of the problem was 9/11) as....bathtubs. Statistically speaking, if you are an American civilian, you have almost the same exact odds of dying in a terrorist attack as you do in the bathtub taking a bath or shower. It's a tiny threat to your life. It was never a huge threat. Three thousand Americans died on 9/11....every single year house fires kill 4,000 Americans. You could have a 9/11 every year, and your house is still more dangerous. Thirty thousand Americans die of the flu every year. 40,000 Americans die on government maintained roads a year. 15,000 Americans (mostly artthritis patients) die from NSAIDs every year (over-the-counter drugs that are as weak as asprin, including asprin as the most used and most causal). I can go on and on...

The point is we are told to IRRATIONALLY fear things, not for the likelihood they might kill us, but for HOW we'll die. People IRRATIONALLY fear flying even though planes are far safer than cars. You are far more likely to die in a car than a plane, and that's a universal stat. Yet people fear flying. They are afraid of the IRRATIONAL fear of HOW they'll die (plane dropping to the ground) than the RATIONAL chance of it actually happening (less likely than in a car).

This prevents cost-benefit analysis in choices and spending priorities. There is a book out that looks at our terrorism prevention spending...it's the least cost effective and least risk vs reward justified spending we do. We are throwing money away on a paranoia about a threat no more dangerous than bathtubs!

This is all very counter intuitive...but it is deductively logical.

Let's look at the 4 big fears, and then look at what kills more than they do:

1. Terrorism (less than 300 American death a year in the HEIGHT of its threat - ie., right now)

2. Illegal Drugs (around 20,000 annual USA deaths)

3. Pandemic Disease ( the normal flu kills 30,000 Americans a year...the so-called "pandemic" of Swine Flu killed far less, and never was projected by any credible source to kill anymore than the normal flu virus). BTW, My sister and nephew had Swine Flu. I also am very good friends with a person who was affected directly by 9/11...so let's not use the old "until it happens to your loved ones" nonsense. This is a rational discussion. Keep your emptional irrationality out of it.

4. Guns (kill less than 10,000 people via murder in the USA a year...only about 30,000 if you include all accidents, and suicides, and legal self defenses, AND gun murders....but really its gun murder we need to fear, as swimming pools and bicycles claim more lives - especially children - accidentally; and because psychologists have pointed out that bridge jumpers and people who shoot themselves in the head MEANT to die, meaning their suicides are unpreventable, only delayable and made to be more painful. One woman hammered a knife into her sternum because no gun was around...not exactly an instantaneous death.

Now for comparison:

1. Bathtubs are basically equal in threat to terrorism. If you are far more afraid of terrorism than bathtubs, you're being IRRATIONAL. Stop being a paranoid irrational person.

2. The flu kills 33% more people than all illegal drugs combined. Unless you are afraid of a person with a cough/sneeze who is sweating 33% more than you are of drug legalization, then you're being IRRATIONAL. Stop that. (BTW, look to foreign legalization/decriminalization, and USA Prohibition of Alcohol numbers, to see that use goes up only slightly when something is legalized, BUT addiction drops severely...especially among children. Look at per capita (as a percentage of population, or "per person")...that way you are adjusting for population growth.

3. Pandemic Disease is mostly hype, because normal disease we aren't really all that afraid of actually kills more people. Unless you're MORE afraid of the normal flu than you are Swine Flu (H1N1), you're being IRRATIONAL. Stop that.

4. If 30,000 die from the flu, and only less than 10,000 die from gun MURDER every year in the USA, then clearly you need to be afraid of a man with a sneeze/cough and sweating THREE TIMES more than you need to be afraid of being murdered by a gun carrying person. I've buried friends due to gun murder...but the stats aren't liars. It's counter intuitive, but deductively logical. Take the emotional irrationality out of it. You have to be more afraid of the flu than gun murder....or you're being TOTALLY irrational. Stop that.

In short, libertarians are pretty correct, and pretty rational. In fact they test over and again more as the 4 Rationals (of the 16 personality types in psychology), which are the rarest personality types by population, than do the general population. Them being more rational leads to more rational beliefs. That's why they support gun rights, drug legalization, an end to "pandemic disease" media-hyped paranoia (to sell medical products no one needs - which have later side effects, BTW), and an end to the over-hyped and completely blown out of proportion fear of terrorism. They don't support these things because those are things they like...many libertarians are pacifists and don't own guns....they support them because they are rational to support, given risk vs reward ratios, cost-benefit analysis, reason, and logic.

The same can be said of economics...most libertarians are not upper middle class or rich (in fact, their per capita income is less than most liberals and conservatives)...but they support what is rational, not emotional. They full well know they won't likely benefit personally from free markets (in terms of becoming a billionaire)...but the society as whole will (meaning in some small ways, we all will too). Did you ever notice libertarians never get big corporate sponsors? Why? Because big business does NOT want a free market. It would be an end to their artificial corporate personhoods and protections they should not have under the state's laws.

So on this issue, and all issues, liberty is preferable. Of evils, it is the lesser. Of virtues, it is the greater. Liberty doesn't solve all problems...what it does is make the problems less widespread and harmful than authority does. It's a choice between bad or worse, not utopia and hell. I choose bad over worse, everytime, because it's rational.

Liberty is not free...it comes at a cost. That cost is NOT your taxes or soldiers lives in wars of aggression and occupation so we can nation-build the next puppet regime to do our bidding on the promise of "foreign aid" bribery. Nope...liberty's cost is two-fold:

1.Eternal Vigilance (not in a literal sense, although that helps too...but in the sense we must always fight for and defend our liberties...vigilance to see when our rights are infringed upon, and not taking it lying down).

2. Freedom comes with risks (being free to walk the streets as an adult at your leisure also means the risk of being hit by a bus or murdered by a mugger....the more you try to limit low risks like those, the more you give up liberty. I'd rather be free than alive...because safety is no prize to a slave, and slavery can be what you need being made safe from even though it was supposed to be the cure to being unsafe. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. If you want a free country, you must accept some risks to your life...including terrorism, drugs, guns, and disease. The pursuit of total safety leads to tyranny every single time.)

Remember what Ben Franklin warned us about:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Don't be among the undeserving...be a patriot and accept a few risks with your freedoms.

It doesn't get anymore plain and simple than that...and it's a timeless truth. Those men back then shared this continent with hostile nations from Europe, not to mention Natives. They were raided, murdered, and raped constantly (and did their fair share as well, I'm sure). Where was there TSA? In the trash can of bad and anti-liberty ideas, where it belonged.

Comanchedriver,

You are the one who needs to dream on and get a few lessons in American law. And you, have no idea what lessons I had or had not got in the subject either, what I was majoring in in college, before changing majors, and what I had studied. But it was very relevant to the subject at hand.

And yes, for economic damages, there is a basis in the law for suing the government, and people have. Perhaps you're thinking of a different America then the one where people have sued McDonalds for spilling a cup of coffee, which has far less consequence then this; because in this America people have won civil suites on less... With the right laywers of course...

Right on ProIndividual-3906907!

Nuadormrac But it's very well, I don't think no fly lists is a reason to invoke that in and of itself, and send this country straight into another civil war or what have you.

To be clear I purposely left the next line out as it wasn't relevant to my point which is where Rights come from, the purpose of Government, and where it gets it's powers from and how in this context what happened is wrong.

I agree that a simple secret no-fly list isn't not civil war worthy, and that we still have some avenues to redress grievances (except in free-speech free zones of course). But I'll point out there is quite the growing list of growing grievances and overstepping within Federal Government that are FAR outside the context in which We The People consented to be governed.

"NOW I am not saying he looks like a middle eastern person............BUT I was brought up byt he Golden Rule. When in Rome do as the Romans do!"

The "Golden Rule" states "do unto others as you would have them do to you." Following the golden rule would require you to think about how you might feel if you were barred from returning to your country for three weeks without any criminal charges, accusations, or explanations.

Even if we observed the principle of "when in Rome," then we would have to refer to our Constitution and core values of liberty, which would also tell us that this is wrong.

(Seriously, though, is the level of cultural literacy so low that people really don't know what the Golden Rule means? Shocking.)

Ternan

My rights have been infringed upon because Muslims destroyed the world trade center on 9/11. I have accepted this infringement because I do understand we are at war and we do need to secure and safeguard our country and the American people as much as humanly possible.

No your rights were infringed upon BECAUSE you accepted it. You bought into the con that you'd be safer so you willingly gave up a little piece of what countless others have died defending.

That was one long body cavity search. How many times can you check someone or their luggage in 22 days? What threat was he if he did not have any bombs, guns, knives, etc.? They could have handcuffed him to a seat like a dog. What would he have done then? Bite someone? Come on it was not like he was not a U.S. citizen. Did he need a muzzle too? Of course we do not care about our citizens. Look at what we did to Japanese Americans during WWII, among other people. Look at the Patriot Act, the current NDAA, etc. He better get reimbursed at a minimum for his troubles not to mention an apology.

The only thing you have to do to get on the no-fly list is to mention Israel and nuke in the same sentence or post. I am not joking either, that is how much fear they live in, they bring it upon themselves, and are partially to blame for why some people treat them how they do. If only they did not act like scared little children... Stop putting your hand in the cookie jar and you would not get into trouble. Keep stealing cookies and the other kids get pissed since there are no more cookies for them to eat. You would not have to live in fear if you could be happy with your share of the cookies.

I have to agree with what many have already said here. I tested as an INTP and was borderline INTJ. 51% versus 49%, I do not like to lead, but will when I have to.

Beth,I do not mean that it is right to put him on a no fly list.I said he needs to understand why.I don't think it's right but like I stated earlier,I would not know this young man's religion by looking at him.I also stated that everybody keeps on blaming being picked on due to their gender,their race and their religion.And I agree with other posters as to why he was flagged.It probably was because of who he was visiting.It was not about him being a Muslim.

Once again der Fuhrer Big Sis and der Department of Homeland Security, have Violated an Americans Constitutional Rights yet all these NAZI Fascist Posters can do is "Make Excuses" for these Contentious Not War Crimes Against America! Don't believe watch this PBS Documentary....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l-8PFk8j5I

America always remember 911........and the Fascist Government that allowed it to happen, by design or neglect!

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent; I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Psst you NAZI Supporting Posters don't bother to respond......we've heard enough of your kind of cowardly nonsense already!

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever." George Orwell, 1984

Please explain what you mean by "only matter" with respect to Rights. Are you saying my supposition that Rights are Unalienable and existed before consideration of governance is wrong, and that Rights only come from government when they are codified as law?

Please explain how geo-political boundries change human Rights.

Also, if you could refrain from ad hominem attacks on me ("pretend to understand"). I might have time to have an adult conversation with you.

"Unalienable Rights" are a fabrication of human social mores. The do not exist in a natural world. Your "unalienable rights" do not exist unless they are recognized by the society in which you live...and they are recognized by their codification into law. Each nation on earth has their own sovereign laws...your "unalienable rights" don't transcend borders merely because you say so.

Since we're on the subject....the Declaration says that your unalienable rights are granted you by your Creator. Our government demands a separation between the state and religion so that would rule out your claim to "unalienable rights" because your "rights" are defined by the Constitution, which takes its authority from the consent of the governed and not from man's Creator.

You have legal rights....unalienable rights are not the same thing. Until there is a single government under which every person on the planet lives, your unalienable rights are a gust of hot air.

Agreed.

The Dated System had to be checked and rechecked.... Wouldn't it be Great if you could Sue..But there is most likely.... a made up Law somewhere... that would not let you ....Welcome to America we just think we are Free..... WRONG

When a security guard travels to a country like Montenegro, of course they have questions. Does it say they mixed up his name? He offers no explanation except that he went to visit relatives. What did he expect, a warm welcome?

"He offered no explanation other then to visit his relatives". That sounds like an explanation to me. I think he expected to be treated like an American citizen, not like an enemy because of his name and ethnicity.

Well, Samir might be an Arabic name, but Suljovic certainly is not. In fact, I would have pegged it as being of one of the Yugoslav nationalities--which in fact Montenegro is.
Orthehighway, what do you mean by "a country like Montenegro"? That's a European country--Slavic, to be more specific. According to Wikipedia, about 72% of the population is Orthodox Christian. And if you go to the country of your origins to visit relatives--and ONLY to visit relatives--what further explanation would you have?

Seriously?! A man, although an American citizen, with a strongly Middle Eastern Heritage, flys to Montenegro and Homeland security has concerns and some of you take exception to that? Does anyone remember the Lackawanna six? A whole group of Buffalo born and raised residents that were all convicted of Terrorism. Drop all the Political correctness BS. If you are from Middle eastern heritage, and you travel to the worlds hot spots you are in for some very careful observation. That is our life now. DEAL with it and move on.

mpp-2029706

Your point is well taken. However, the man in question should have been told whether or not his name was in fact on the no-fly list AND he should have been given assistance to clear his name. He should not have had to wait weeks to get this resolved and then still have no answer as to why he was detained.

MPP - maybe you should check a map, Montenegro is in East Europe, no where near the Middle East; he is of Slavic heritage.

But go a head and live in fear of a persons name or appearance if you want.

The problem is, we're allowing some low level bureaucrat to made a determination based on a name or religion or ethnic background. I would imagine that most of these bureaucrats have no idea why some of these names are on the list to begin with. It's reminding me of the unlimited power J Edgar Hoover had in the '50's with the FBI and Nixon's "enemies list". In several of the other cases of individuals on the no-fly list, the FBI just wanted to try to pressure and coerce them into "spying" for them. These guys are now suing Homeland Security. If we allowed our government to get away with this, who will they "target" next? If you are outspoken about the government's policies, could you end up on a no-fly list? It won't stop with having a Middle Eastern surname or being a member of a religion which isn't Christian or Jewish.

Apparently that only applies if done by the US government, within the US.

Once you are out of the country, all bets are off, apparently.

It doesn't say he was detained without cause. It says he was denied access to his flight. I'm all for that, and it's not illegal. If they can tell me I can't carry a bottle of shampoo in my purse, they sure can tell a man he can't board a flight because he's take a suspicious trip to Montenegro. Maybe he doesn't really have verifiable relatives there or none close enough to warrant spending thousands of dollars on airfare. He doesn't tell you very much of his side of the story, does he? These articles only say enough to get people mad. Any suspicious person can be denied access to a flight at any time. If you have a lot of time you can read the Patriot Act.

Orth, I would say getting questioned by the embassy and having the cell checked smacks of "detained". And again, if they were REALLY woried about him, why not simply stop him from leaving the US in the first place? As for the Patriot Act? Well, I'm not educated enough in the law to fully explain and understand all of it, there are many people that are and have read it. And there are people on both sides of the political river who say that it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Orthehighway, I ask you--what is suspicious about a person with a clearly Yugoslav last name traveling to one of the countries of the former Yugoslavia to visit relatives??

Some people are TOO suspicious; some will find ANYTHING suspicious.

I visited Poland when it was still Communist--and I am and have always been FAR from Communist. I did it for cultural and educational reasons to do with my heritage, and I no longer have relatives there. I'm glad such suspicion wasn't raised over my trip--but if it had been, I would hope it would be BEFORE I WENT THERE, and not when I'm trying to get home.

Hmm. As an American citizen I wouldn't think I had to come up with an excuse to go anywhere. Maybe he recently became acquainted with a distant cousin from Montenegro on facebook and always wanted to travel, so decided to take a trip. Of course, me being a red-headed white chick, they probably wouldn't have questioned my reasons at all. Seems a bit unfair to me.

Maybe you should take this up with Obama...he's the President who kept the Patriot Act alive, after all.

Obama did not keep the patriot act alive... he made an even worse monster... the NDAA!! now he can detain U.S. citizens indefinitely!! He went even more dictatorial than W.!! I didn't think that was possible in this country. Shame on anyone who votes for obama or any of the overwhelming majority of congress (both parties) that put the ndaa into law.

I don't think we gave away our rights because we were never asked and never voted on this crazy policy. It has just been imposed on us. I don't fly (domestically) anymore because I don't like being physically molested. I have an ankle replacement and no matter how many "security" people I informed of this condition or how many medical documents I proferred, I was frisked head to toe every time I flew.

SRBINAT

Religious nutters are nutters regardless if they are muslim or christian. Religion is a disease and creates barriers where there should be none. Your statement corroborates that.

I too am American. I relish in the fact that I live in the only country on the planet that specifically invokes a secular constitution.

SRBINAT perhaps you did not read the story where it says he was BORN HERE, in Queens, NY. Somewhere else I read that he is on that list because his name is similar (or the same) as someone else who did something to get himself on that list. The person in this article did nothing wrong.

BTW you need to take off that tinfoil hat.

SRBINAT, your handle suggests where your prejudices come from (which is NOT to say the everyone of some ethnic persuasion is going to entertain any particular prejudice.

Saying he's a citizen is not eluding; it's being specific. He's a U.S. citizen, or he isn't. And if he is, and he says he is, he's not eluding. And if he's a U.S. citizen, he's an American--as was the earliest of your own ancestors to be either naturalized or born a citizen.

You don't fly much, do you cory?

I do not, all I'm saying is, they should be able to take a traveler, establish him as a risk or not a risk, and make a decision based on the facts. This process should not take 3 weeks.

They should have let him get home, even if it meant spending the flight handcuffed to his seat just in case.

They let him onto embassy grounds (legally US territory...), he could have commited an act against the US there, if that was his goal.

And that's the rub, Cory. Some junior level clerk in Homeland Security probably thought his name looked similar to someone else and then just added his name to this list. It only takes one idiot to put him on the list, but it takes weeks and multiple personnel to clear it up. Homeland Security owes this guy $$$$$.

I wish I was stuck in Hawaii right now

Yes I blame Christianity for Timothy McVeigh blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma.

Wow you are a hick

Goodtimes, McVeigh did not terrorize in the name of religion. Those involved in 9-11 did. If you want to blame anyone for a no-fly list, blame those that caused us to have to have it.

Goodtimes: McVeigh did not terrorize in the name of religion. Those involved in 9-11 did. If you want to blame anyone for a no-fly list, blame those that caused us to have to have it.

Goodtimes: McVeigh did not terrorize in the name of religion. Those involved in 911 did. If you want to blame anyone for a no-fly list, blame those that caused us to have to have it.

GTBT: McVeigh did not terrorize in the name of religion. Those involved in 911 did. If you want to blame anyone for a no-fly list, blame those that caused us to have to have it.

GTBT: McVeigh did not terrorize in the name of religion. Those involved in 911 did. If you want to blame anyone for a no-fly list, blame those that caused us to have to have it.

Yeah, what phillie said, again and again, lol!

Was McVeigh Christian? I've never read where Jesus said to blow others up. Jesus said to love one another... anyone that doesn't is not really a follower of Christ... even if they say they are.

Sooooo TRUE !! !! !! [To: 5Oceans]

Yeah, take a shower with the 2 ounces of fliud him might have brought? Shave, as if they would let a razor in his carry-ons.

Or do you just consider anyone with brown skin 'Dirty'?

Yeah, it seems that more people would rather watch someone die then to have someone inconvienced.

Are you trying to say that me being Persian and Christian allows me to board planes? That's a crock of @!$%#, religion or looks has nothing to do with it. Its "big government" putting fear into people's minds and telling them to believe what they want them to believe. Sorry dudes, I was a natural born American citizen that saw our country's citizens fall trap to an elaborate scam to mass control its people with fear and prejudice....I have officially stopped buying shares of "bull@!$%#" from our mainstream right winged and left winged media.

Mass Reform 2012

@Orthehighway

If I went to visit my long-lost relatives in Pakistan, people would be suspicious. Well, if you want to go so bad, you should stay there

Why stay there when we have people like you who are perfectly willing to bring that sort of oppression here?

@Orthehighway- You are a colossal dope!

A few questions for you slick:

1. What in this article leads you to surmaise that he was up to no good?

2. What in this article leads you to surmise that they had good reason to put him on the no-fly list?

3. He doesn't need a good reason to travel anywhere - he's an American citizen and that's enough.

I don't know why he went nor why he was put on the list but what I do know is that you are a big dufus for surmising anything from this article because this article doesn't tell any of us anything.

What I do know is that you are a complete and utter fool whose tiny little brain is unable comprehend what you are reading so you just make it up based on your obviously backwards upbringing.

YOU ARE UNCONSTITUTIANAL AND I WILL REPORT YOU TO THIS WEBSITE!!

have fun in jail after i report you...

I suggest you speak for yourself and don't include everyone in your collective "we".

@getoverit,

You're obviously an internet troll and spewing that crap to get a rise out of people.

Fail troll is fail imo

Speak for yourself, bigot. I want nothing to do with your "American" views of the rest of the world. You're a part of the problem.

While I do not agree with what you are saying, I defend your right to say it. Look at all the tattletails, "I'm gonna report you, I'm gonna report you!" Say something that offends another, how dare you, right? Look at all the namecalling that followed your last comment, and they think that they are "better" than you and not equally part of the problem. Fact is, someone says something that is unpopular, and the masses try to crucify that same person. Agree with all of us or we will insult you, call you names, tell the teacher/ website on you.....

@ John sniths:

Easy up there Johhny- get a grip.

FYI a person cannot be unconstitutional as you put it- only actions,policies and legislation can be.

FYI a person cannot be put in jail for expressing personal viewpoints- if that were possible I think that you might have already been locked up for gross misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

And if you have something to say then say it- don't be a tattletale- nobody likes a tattletale.

we track their movements to kill bigger fish. that's a pretty good reason.

Looks like back to you jhonny!

Just because a few Muslims are terrorists doesn't mean that all should be treated as terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Should we ban all white men from flying? He is an American-born citizen. OF COURSE he should expect to come and go freely- just like you do. In addition, I see plenty of young, non-Muslim men walking around with scruffy beards and knit caps. Should they be banned? Not to mention the fact that Mohammed Atta was clean shaven.

I still stand by what I said... If you're going to look, dress, and admit to being a Muslim, you must expect to be treated a certain way. With all the trouble those *few* Muslims have caused here in the US and abroad, he should not be shocked. None of us should. The level of concern was also driven higher, due to the fact he is from NY. Who cares if he was born here? I don't. He's a Muslim. Period. The simple fact that he is, marks him for concern. As I said before, it's better to be safe than sorry.

@2cents-1516431

... more to the story & this guy people. How else out of 50,000 and only; 500 are American; is this guy on the list? And ofcourse he has to come from NY...oy.

Considering they won't tell us why they put anyone on the list and that the Dept of Homeland Security is a worthless cluster @!$%#... for all we know being a Muslim from NY is the only thing that got him on the list to begin with.

For all we know, he cut a Homeland Security guy off on the turnpike, so the HS guy looked up his license plate number and added him to The List out of spite.

Does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell?

How about Eric Robert Rudolph?

Theodore Kaczynski perhaps?

All Americans, all white , two of them so-called Christians.

So much for your "John Smith" argument.

How horrible to treak a muslim like that? Some are mass murderers-terrorists I say we dont let any muslims in america ever no execptions.

Good question...why can't he speak clear English if he was born here in the US. Permanent scowl... Muslims are taught from birth to be that way. And it does matter who they worship. Their god was a bully. And they are too. Peaceful religion? That's a lie outta Hell.

I'm with you Mark. Go the Freak home if you don't like it here. And take off that Dumass looking hat or whatever the Hell you call it and assimilate into AMERICAN life. He looks like a Damn Terrorist so I would be afraid too to sit next to this Weird ass myself. Well maybe not afraid because I would like to just kick his ASS! Mooselimbs go Home!

mark vega, i gave you a thumbs up because of the obama remark.