Lydon and Murphy on the No-Fly List:
Over at Open Source, a Public Radio International program, Christopher Lydon has a very sympathetic interview with Walter Murphy about his experience in March at the Newark Airport. Murphy contends that his treatment at the Airport is "a Constitutional Crisis writ small, an attack on an individual who dares to point out" that the Bush Administration's view of Executive power is dangerous and troubling. (Here's the video of the speech that Murphy believes led the Administration to target him.)
Much to my surprise, I am personally named and criticized by Lydon as a blogger who "wants to make excuses for the government" by questioning the story. Lydon states that it is just "fascinating" that I would think to question Murphy's belief that he is being harassed for his speech. Unfortunately, Lydon doesn't explain why asking questions reveals a wish to "make excuses for the government" as compared to a wish to figure out the truth. Anyway, if you're interested, the mention of me is about a third the way through the program.
The guest following Murphy is a Washington Post staff writer, Karen DeYoung, who points out a bunch of likely alternative explanations for Murphy's experience. She suggests that Murphy was probably just on the "selectee" list, not the No-Fly list, both because he was allowed to board the flight and because he wasn't even questioned on the return flight. Hmm, who knew that a Washington Post reporter would "want to make excuses" for the Bush Administration, too?
Finally, Ryan Singel also interviewed Murphy recently; you can find his extensive interview here.
Much to my surprise, I am personally named and criticized by Lydon as a blogger who "wants to make excuses for the government" by questioning the story. Lydon states that it is just "fascinating" that I would think to question Murphy's belief that he is being harassed for his speech. Unfortunately, Lydon doesn't explain why asking questions reveals a wish to "make excuses for the government" as compared to a wish to figure out the truth. Anyway, if you're interested, the mention of me is about a third the way through the program.
The guest following Murphy is a Washington Post staff writer, Karen DeYoung, who points out a bunch of likely alternative explanations for Murphy's experience. She suggests that Murphy was probably just on the "selectee" list, not the No-Fly list, both because he was allowed to board the flight and because he wasn't even questioned on the return flight. Hmm, who knew that a Washington Post reporter would "want to make excuses" for the Bush Administration, too?
Finally, Ryan Singel also interviewed Murphy recently; you can find his extensive interview here.
Related Posts (on one page):
Some posters can (and have) use phrases like those to indicate some partisan distrust. Prof. Kerr's posting style and history makes me think that is unlikely.
I'd be honestly surprised if many people thought otherwise. Does anyone have an alternate explanation?
Not that it's right, but if you had someone going "Why am I being screened? I'm white! My name is German and Irish! Is it because I've been critical of President Bush?" you might be a little tempted to toy with him, mightn't you?
Issues of efficacy and government competence aside, questions, such as how such lists are populated and whether or not ones presence on the list may be used in some prejudicial manner now or in the future, are never raised.
Or is it just much easier to accept at face value one person's experience, perhaps because it fits in with your preconceived beliefs?
This is the beginning of the conspiracy. Shhh. Don't tell people who protest the war they will be on "no-fly." When it happens again, media will say, "See? This is the second time it's happened."
It has already happened. A even more prominent opponent of the President's, one T. Kennedy, apparently had his name on the list. It must be a conspiracy.
For example, the matching software did not correlate birth dates and only matched on something like the first 4 letters of the individual's last name. It was also generous in its use of initials to find matches.
GIGO applies to any list matching. Certainly, if the no-fly list is to have any value, then significant under inclusiveness would be a problem, especially if the targeted individual uses many aliases or is only known by aliases (i.e. no physical description), but broad nets present their own problems.
Gee, mom and dad, couldn't you have given me a creative, made-up name that's unlikely to be duplicated? Far easier to not get confused with another that way!
Oh wait, no one had heard of it till now, oops.
I have my VRWC secret decoder ring, do you?
As Orin implies below, the ordeal may be a case of name mix up:
“I'm also reminded of when Senator Kennedy's name ended up on the No-Fly list back in 2004. Based on news reports at the time, Kennedy's name wasn't on the list to harass Senator Kennedy. Rather, a suspected terrorist had at one point used an alias of "T. Kennedy," and the name was then entered into the database. I wonder, did something like that happen here?”
I think Orin’s style is to wrestle with possibilities and evidence when the truth is not obvious, see, e.g., his blogs on Gonzalez and AG firings, radiation surveillance, NSA searches, and torture.
Given his style, I suspect Orin may find himself being criticized by both the left and right on occasion.
You cannot make this stuff up.
Well, they do that a lot, actually. But Lydon's sneers at Prof. Kerr were embarrassing, to Lydon.
On the other hand, while there was a T Kennedy on the list there was no S. Brownback. Just like Florida....hmmm
The no find list: 10 million strip searches of 3 year olds. A wonderful Stalinist/Libertarian program in action
As for how Mr. Murphy got his name on the list in the first place, there are a great many possibilities that I won't go into. The accusation of retaliation for an anti-Bush speach sounds both a bit far fetched and, yet, par for the course. Certainly, it's the sort of behavior that the Bush administration seems to cultivate in their loyalists.
My understanding is that this is incorrect. I have a friend on the list who goes through the same rigamarole every time she flies.
Speaking of which, a lot of people seem to know someone whose name is on the list. How many people do we actually think are on there, 100,000, a million? When they're throwing "T. Kennedy"s on there 100,000 seems small.
I had hope at the beginning that this story would lead to a reexamination of the no-fly list and a series of articles about how useless it actually is.
I think this is at least as plausible as Mr. Murphy's own theory.
By the way, can anyone explain why Cindy Sheehan is not on the no-fly list? I mean, she is camping outside the President's private residence and she still hasn't made it onto the no-fly list.
One of the major problems with this list (not counting the utterly useless security value) is its secrecy. What if someone responsible for adding names on the list did target him specifically? We can't know one way or another without knowing more about the list. That's the story, to me.
:-)
Of course, if the good Professor had access to the airport lounge, I can better understand his constrination.
Get rid of the secrecy and the security value declines to zero. If everyone knows exactly what triggers a names placement and all of the names on the list, then it is relative easy for a terrorist to avoid the triggers and pick a different alias.
"Issues of efficacy and government competence aside, questions, such as how such lists are populated and whether or not ones presence on the list may be used in some prejudicial manner now or in the future, are never raised."
You're not serious. Those questions are never raised? I definitely agree that those issues have not been addressed at all (much less adequately), but those issues are obvious and raised in every case that I've seen. And of course, the entire purpose of the list is to be used in a prejudicial fashion, so we don't have to invent a worry... It's here right now.
I suspect you and I agree on this one point, but I'm just puzzled as to the point of your post.
Professor Murphy's wife is a big contributor the Lyndon LaRouche for President Campaign. Chris Wallace calls Karl Rove to discuss this. Mr. Rove says, "Yeah, I heard that, too." Wallace does some fact checking and airs the story. A special prosecutor is assigned to see if any criminal acts were commited when Rove discussed Mrs. Murphy's contributions. It's immediately apparent that no laws were broken, but they eventually get Harriet Meiers on an obstruction of justice charge for deleting archived e-mails.
Does anyone else think Bush's hands are tied here, and that they can't respond because the the Plame "scandal." If this story continues to percolate, won't a response by Bush just be viewed as a viscous attack on free speech?
People on the "No Fly" list still get to fly, by all available accounts - they just get extra searches, checks, and annoyance, often quite a bit of it.
That's an important distinction to make, assuming the information is correct, if only because it makes it clear that getting on a plane doesn't mean you're not on the list. (It also means that the list isn't the burden it would be if it really was a prohibition on flying, though it's still burdensome.)
I would personally love to see actual investigation of how many "Administration Critics" are on it (if only via interview or following them as they fly; anyone on the List should be searched and questioned every time, no?) to either (in order of likelihood)
A) put this stupid rumor/slur to rest
or
B) make the people who control the list answer some Very Tough Questions, and make the whole thing more transparent, which is necessary if it's being abused for political ends.
(I think the A) alternative far more likely, both because the list is - by the available accounts - controlled by career bureaucrats without a political axe to grind for the Administration, and relatedly because if they were given orders to enter names for political reasons there'd be huge incentives to report it.
I mean, instant media stardom and expensive book deals, and the patriotic satisfaction of uncovering real dirty-dealing and subverting a security process for political ends? Neither a greedy bastard nor a Patriot should balk at it!)
Although, I wouldn't mind if the Whitehouse spokesman made some comedy about this if he were asked about it during a briefing. Honestly, this is a comic gold-mine:
--A presumably intelligent professor takes the word of a counter clerk.
--Professor thinks he's being retaliated against.
--A presumably intelligent professor thinks that the Administration cares about him so much that they'll lose his luggage.
--A presumably intelligent professor thinks the NSA is listening to his phone calls.
There's plenty of material here.
The reporter is a bit confused about how the no fly list works (or doesn't to be more accurate).
Without commenting on Murphy's claim which I agree is a bit weak. As a person on the no fly list myself I can assure you I'm always allowed to board my flight and have never been questioned other than the usual "did you pack your bags" etc.
Airlines do have to generate some special documentation to allow those on the list to fly but most have automated the process through software modifications.
Essentially, the list is a sad joke.
Therefore, following Murphy's logic, I was late for work because the evil local officials are retaliating against me!
Anyone who doubts me is a kool-aid drinking right wing nazi haliburton chimp wing......
Declines to zero? I think it never had any security value.
Why do you assume the list is "a sad joke" just because it only inconveniences people you know? Maybe the government is perfectly aware that there are 50 Walter Murphys in the world and 49 of them are harmless. They can't identify the one they want by ID card because (a) there is no international ID card, and no required American ID card (i.e. passport) as long as you're not traveling abroad, and (b) forged IDs are easy enough to get hold of. They can't identify the Walter Murphy they want by name and address because it's easy enough to change addresses. So they use name + pictures. And they keep an eye on all 50 Walter Murphys, quickly waving on the 49 they're not interested in, but if #50 ever shows up, they will quietly contact security and have him hauled away in handcuffs. Has this ever happened? I would guess it has. How many times? None of my business, or yours. This is guesswork, but my points should be clear: 1. just because you don't see the systme working doesn't mean it's not working. 2. It may be that generating lots of false positives is the only way to get the occasional true positive they're looking for. Don't the police do the latter all the time? For instance, if a crime victim has a partial license-plate for the perpetrator, don't they check all possible matches, ruling them out one by one as they find that the color or model doesn't match? Wouldn't they in some cases inconvenience innocent people by asking for alibis for those that fit the description and the partially-matched license plate? How is this situation different?
Of course people on the no fly list can fly. They just have to id you.
Notice, once you've been ID'd, you are cleared for the return trip as well. This might clear up some confusion Murphy had about his return trip.
I of course never knew I (or my rather common name at least) was on the list until I was informed of it at Schiphol Airport by KLM representatives who also explained how they modified their system to accomodate the reporting requirements.
Consider these names that are on the list. John Lewis, Robert Johnson, Daniel Brown, James Moore.
These are incredibly common names IMO. The list is next to useless IMO.
Davebo, I think what you mean to say is that people with the same name as someone on the no-fly list can fly after proving that they are not that person.
The actual person on the no-fly list cannot fly, period.
You yourself are not on the no-fly list. Someone else with the same name as you is on the no-fly list.
Am I right?
I did do a stint in Saudi Arabia years back. Who knows?
Disagree all you want, but you have no idea how many actual 'No Fly' individuals have been rightly prevented from flying or even arrested, which means you are in no position to say whether it's worth doing or not. Neither am I, of course, but I'm willing to give the TSA the benefit of the doubt.
Not me. But then being in the transportation industry I've had significant dealings with the folks from "Taking Scissors Away".
Theorem #1: Hijackings are bad, and we've got to do something to stop them. A no-fly list is something. Therefore it is the right thing to do.
Theorem #2: Negative existence is impossible to prove empirically in an infinite universe. So the fact that there have been no hijackings since the no-fly list was instituted is proof of its effectiveness. Nobody can prove that it didn't cause the absence of hijackings.
Political science lemma #1: Things feel better when they stop hurting. People who are inconvenienced, or even seriously injured by the no-fly list policy are so relieved when they get to Grandma's, or finally make that important business meeting, that they forget that their injuries were gratuitously inflicted. They will rationalize that, after all, they have arrived safely, and realize that safety is the reason for the policy.
Political science lemma #2: Anybody who questions the necessity for a no-fly list is either a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. Most people understand this intuitively, and that understanding will eventually be universal when people get used to the policy. So the no-fly list is here to stay, and all those jobs strip searching grannies are safe.
Economic lemma #1: Based on theorem #2 above, there is no way anyone can ever question the need for expanding the numbers of granny strip searchers indefinitely. Only a terrorist event could possibly interrupt monotonic expansion of the policy. But such an event has an upside, as it would plausibly support a need for even more granny strip searchers, Ooops! We let a terrorist get through. We'd better do even more pointless security theatre. Cf: rain dances, garlic to keep away vampires, and other known effective bulwarks against evil.
Economic theorem #2: The more people who are inconvenienced by the policy, the more publicity the policy gets. Therefore the more opportunities for beneficiaries to tout how they are "Keeping America Safe".
Economic theorem #3: Counterproductive policies are forever if the policy makers are careful to develop the right constituency. Just ask any farmer paid for not growing cotton, or any drug cop. The list of such beneficiaries of insanely injurious policies is endless.
I hope this brief and incomplete introduction to the rigorous theory of security theatre has contributed to your understanding of the subject.
You interfered with his inalienable right as a professor to play government surveillance victim when he sees fit. No questions or comments allowed!