A Slap in the Face

Last night, Jon Stewart reported on... oh hell, you have to see it to believe it:

The Daily Show - Friends Without Benefits
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Part 2:

The Daily Show - Friends Without Benefits - 9/11 Responders
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Yes, so the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, intended to help the heroes of 9-11 with their medical bills, "requires the WTC Program Administrator to determine whether a WTC responder or survivor is on the terrorist watch list prior to his or her enrollment or certification."

Jon Stewart handled the whole WTF, what a slap-in-the-face angle quite well, so I want to bring up one other issue. The U.S. Terrorist Watch List was intended to stop suspected terrorists from boarding commercial aircraft for travel in or out of the United States. I always felt the list was a bad idea to begin with, but now it has turned into a monster. Since September 11, 2001, the list has bloated to over 1 million names. People can be added to this list without due process -- no trial before a judge or jury will take place before a citizen's right to travel is diminished. Furthermore, there is no system to get your name removed from the list. And if you happen to share a name with somebody on the list? Tough luck.

But now it's not just a "no fly list." The stupid thing is being used in new, novel and purely political ways. I don't know how, in a democracy, we can tolerate a secret list of citizens who must constantly be scrutinized as suspects, yet never be given a day in court. If a "no fly list" can turn into a "no health care compensation list," then how long until Congress turns this into a "no vote list" or worse?

Grounded for Life

Today I learned about an important court victory: a federal appeals court ruled that would-be passengers can ask a judge and jury to decide whether their inclusion on the government's secret no-fly list violates their rights. So, who would object to this ruling?

The "no fly list," also known as the "terrorist watch list," is a secret list maintained by the FAA of people who are not permitted to board a commercial aircraft for travel in the United States. The list has swelled to over 1 million names. In the past it has famously included some very unlikely suspects like Nelson Mandela and Edward Kennedy. The list has brainlessly included air marshals hired to protect us. The list has also been used as a political weapon.

So, shouldn't ordinary people (like those who are NOT a Kennedy) be able to challenge their inclusion on the list? Who would be against this recent court ruling? The answer is my father.

For those who don't know me personally, I'm embarrassed to admit that my father is a neocon. I know there is nothing I can do about it. He hasn't always been this way. I think he became more extreme after retirement when he had more time to watch FOX News.

Anyway, his nonsensical argument goes something like this: "I love these people who come to our country and think they can challenge our Constitution. There should be some kind of reciprocal rule. They should only have the rights of their own country when they come here. Then Sharia can apply here and they can be beheaded."

Anyway, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that's very close to what he said. And when he said "love" he didn't really mean "love." I'm pretty sure the word he was looking for was "hate," but that's typical for Mr. Cranky Pants.

But doesn't his argument leave you with your jaw on the floor? The factual errors are bad enough -- the would-be passenger challenged the no-fly list not our Constitution -- but the saddest mistake in my father's argument is not understanding fundamental human rights -- the ones we call inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are natural rights. They are not granted. They are not conditional. They apply to all humans.

Likewise, justice isn't exclusively for American citizens. If our laws really work, then they work for everybody. If the woman challenging the list is innocent, then she is innocent no matter what her country of origin. And why would any thinking person even dream of legitimizing another country's primitive laws?

I don't know. It's frustrating. I'm a person concerned with our loss of liberties and our government's unchecked power. My father is an authoritarian septuagenarian raised on WW II propaganda and fear of Communism.

Turns out there are some aspects of Communism he really really likes.

Beating Big Brother to the Punch

Last night Stephen Colbert interviewed his favorite terrorist, Hasan Elahi. In 2002, Elahi, a US citizen, found out he was probably on the terrorist watch list when he was detained by the FBI on suspicion of hoarding explosives. He did not have explosives, but the FBI refused to give him a written letter clearing him of suspicion, and instead asked him to "check in with them periodically." Elahi beat Big Brother to the punch by launching his web site Tracking Transience which follows his every move.



The US terrorist watch lists contain over 700,000 names including some very unlikely suspects like Nelson Mandela and Edward Kennedy. The ACLU states "This is not just a problem of numbers. The numbers are merely a symptom. What's needed is fairness. If the government is going to rely on these kinds of lists, they need checks and balances to ensure that innocent people are protected."