David writes his request:
Same question I asked last time: Do you think that, say, 10 years from now, the regulations will have changed so that, instead of a No-fly list, there will be a May-fly list, so that the government will not allow people to fly unless they're on the list?
I am confused by the question. Arguably foreigners are the biggest problem for any "No-fly" list. There are so many of them, and they have so many unusual, overly common, or hard to transliterate names that we will never have a usable "May-fly" list of foreigners. Just a badly designed "No-fly" list. Given that is the case, it would be politically very difficult to apply an even tougher "May-fly" standard to U.S. citizens.
So I don't think the nature of the list will change, but perhaps I have not understood David's question.
Do you believe that the no fly list is actually a good faith effort to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack?
“Do you believe that the no fly list is actually a good faith effort to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack?” -Matt
I do, but many harmful government policies were started as good faith efforts to help some group or another.
I believe it was Milton Friedman who said that “Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.”
it seems to me that there is already a may-fly list for foreigners via the visa application process. The citizens of a few countries are on the list by default but most of the earth’s residents need a visa to get onto US soil.
Intractability and infeasibility are not usually successful arguments against government stupidity. The question is not whether a May-fly list would work, it’s whether we’ll get one.
Also we already have a May-fly list for foreigners, it’s called “applying for a visa”.
“Given that is the case, it would be politically very difficult to apply an even tougher “May-fly” standard to U.S. citizens.”
I know what we need. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor’—is what
necessary to bring this about.”
We must also remember we never want a serious crisis to go to
waste
Zelikow has done some good research
about the importance of beliefs about history, Zelikow has called attention to what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. If for some reason the people won’t accept Henry Kissinger as the head of a comission study some new catalyzing event, I think Zelikow would be perfect to control the message we want to get out.
Wouldn’t a “may-fly” list need to have a half-billion names – or numbers? Would every U.S. enplanement – all 2 million each day – then require searching that half-billion row database? That doesn’t sounds very practical.
I thought the no-fly list was great…until I learned that not letting Ted Kennedy fly was an error.
A may-fly list makes more sense, is less practical but is only marginally less asinine. If you think someone is going to crash a plane, arrest them. If not, get their name off the list and stop muddying the waters.
No more dogmatic constitutionalist please. We do not have the right to
drown the polar bears. We have to make sure that terrorist and cult-like
climate deniers are not clogging our airways. Only the enlightened need
to travel anyway, all the hicks can stay in their shacks clutching there
guns and religion. We will lead the way to a enlightened marginal
revolution http://www.inlex.org/stories/wells/opencons.html “> as described
by HG Wells.
We already have a “may-drive” list.
“What if the person is someone who previously served time for attempting to hijack a plane or for assaulting crew members?”
There are about 8k carrier planes and even more people on the list. Hijack attempts and crew assaults are not more prevalent than the number of planes that exist. The no-fly list is not practical either. There should have been 19 names on the list, but alas, they were allowed to fly, and their names can be take off the list and we can stop their document issuance.
Robert Book: “We already have a ‘may-drive’ list.”
But Robert, the challenge is not in creating the list. Rather, the challenge is how to enforce it. What percentage of American automobile trips do you suppose includes a check of the “may-drive” list?
The complexity of maintaining and operating a “may-fly” list is hugely greater than that of maintaining and operating a “no-fly” list. The number of passengers denied due to errors in a “may fly” list would be many, many times larger than with a “no fly” list. Airlines won’t stand for the added burden to their customers.
Comments on this entry are closed.