I was reading Bruce Schneier’s blog and he had an article on a man who was on the Transportation Security Administration’s no-fly list. The person was detained and had his passport confiscated upon his return to Canada. The strange part in this story is he never set foot in the United States, having flown from Canada to Mexico and back, without actually ever having landed in the United States.
Question: Exactly why and how does a man get detained and have his passport confiscated just for being on the no fly list if he never enters the US?
Also in his article, he had a link to a story about another potential terrorist. I think this second story really highlights how incompetent the TSA is about the no-fly list. The person in the linked story, whose name is on the no-fly list, is four years old. My, Al Qaeda must be recruiting in pre-schools now.
Actually, the linked story goes on to clarify that Edward Allen, the four-year-old, isn’t actually the person on the no-fly list, but that he will be haunted because he shares the same, fairly common, name as someone who is of interest to the TSA. Given the amount of money spent by GWB and the department of Homeland Stupidity Security, you would think that they should be able to distinguish four-year-old Edward Allen, from terrorist suspect Edward Allen relatively easily.
The fact that the TSA requires Edward Allen to show three forms of identification to prove he isn’t the individual they are looking for is rather absurd. How many four-year-old children have three forms of identification, much less three forms of picture identification.
Question: Why can’t the TSA distinguish between people with similar names, but obviously different characteristics?
This is not the first time having the same name as someone on a terrorist watch list has caused problems. James Moore, author of several books critical of the Bush regime, has had a run in with the no-fly list as you can read here.
Of course, Schneier’s article from last July discusses what a complete failure Secure Flight has been. Given that the Bush Administration seems more interested in the appearance of doing something about national security, terrorism and using the threat of terrorism to expand its own powers, rather than doing anything to substantially increase the actual security of Americans, this is not a surprise.
Question: Why can’t the Bush regime actually concern itself with real security, rather than using national security for political and personal gain?