Ms. Ibrahim’s case has rekindled residual concerns embracing due process and government secrecy following the Sep 11 attacks that have spawned a brush between the government’s modus operandi and civil liberties. Americans across the nation are blasting authorities with their opinions on their counterterrorism tools. Allison Kilkenny, a contributing reporter to Huffington Post, Alternet.org, and The Nation, in her recent article titled Error-Laden ‘No Fly’ List Continues to Grow, writes:
“If people can’t be told they’re on a watch list, they can’t challenge their automatic ‘guilty’ verdicts. That’s how children and hysterectomy survivors end up on the watch lists. That’s why people, who are guilty of nothing except sharing a name picked up in some chatter from who knows where, are handcuffed -- some might say terrorized -- searched, and jailed. If they’re really lucky, they get out of jail without being tortured, wait a year, and then get a letter from the government saying, ‘Our bad.’”
While victims of the terrorist screening process who have been wrongfully detained and political activists argue otherwise, the government maintains that it is crucial to the nation’s security. In 2006, 60 Minutes was able to take a look at the list through an aviation security employee. Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, along with 60 Minutes studied the names on the No Fly List for months. At the time Trento said, “It’s awful, it's bad. I mean you’ve got people who are dead on the list … It makes no sense.” However, the overseer of the project, Donna Bucella responded, “Well, just because a person has died doesn't necessarily mean that their identity has died. People sometimes carry the identities of people who have died.”
Ms. Ibrahim’s case also challenges the logic behind an arrest based solely on an individual’s name appearing on the list which the government claims is a critical mechanism of the anti-terrorism strategy that has been employed since 9/11. However, the government parties involved are bound by secrecy and it remains unclear on what grounds she was arrested. Officials refuse to comment or release information pertaining to details of the case, along with hundreds of others who have been victims of the terrorist screening process in the past. "The problem is that this list has no public accountability: People don't know why their names are put on or how to get their names off," said Jayashri Srikantiah who is an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle.
The aftermath of 9/11 included Americans demanding increased security and protection from the government and while the complaints against beefing up security has become louder, civilians have willingly paid for the cost of protection with freedom and privacy. In response, the government federalized airport security and continues to do so. A senior writer at Slate Magazine, Timothy Noah, Senior Writer at Slate Magazine, in his article "No-Fly Like Me" writes:
"Let's suppose--just suppose--that the No-Fly List has caused only one terrorist not to board an airplane with a sharp tool or explosive shoes. Wouldn't that still be worth these mild inconveniences? Of course it would. I don't mind being the haystack because Sept. 11 taught me that there are needles out there. By all means, let's find better ways to search for them. But let's not make the perfect the enemy of the mediocre."
On the other hand, the screening process elicits considerable criticism from Americans and foreigners. The President of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, in 2005, said:
"No-fly lists seriously impair the rights of ordinary citizens. The U.S. experience has shown that persons are pre-selected for flight refusal or enhanced scrutiny on the basis of secret and undiscernable criteria. Listed persons are unable to effectively challenge their inclusion on the list. Regardless of how the criteria for listing persons is chosen, the system will of necessity be over-inclusive. People will be denied access to basic transportation and subject to enhanced scrutiny on what appears from the outside to be an arbitrary basis. The system itself is a model for abuse and discrimination … To date, not a single terrorist has been apprehended by the no-fly system. There is no evidence that no-fly lists improve aviation safety. The expected benefit of any such list is marginal and speculative."
Today, after the attempted Christmas Day bombing by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the rules and regulations pertaining to aviation security are being fine tuned to avoid another mishap on the part of intelligence, according to the Obama administration; although Abdulmutallab’s father had reported his son to intelligence officials, his name was not on the list. Since then, the list has ballooned, to about 6,000 names according to an AP report. While this means safer travel, it increases the chances of mistaken identity. The revised process that remains anything but foolproof will make it easier to identity terrorist suspects, say authorities.
Unfortunately it’s a no-win situation. Adopting intensive measures means inconveniencing innocent travelers, while lax procedures may allow a terrorist to sneak on a plane. It’s an inescapable trade-off.
Comments