So who else has a problem with having airlines release passengers’ personal information and itineraries to the Dept. of Homeland Security (specifically, the Transportation Security Administration) so it can be cross-checked against unspecified “commercial databases,” and passengers potentially subjected to additional screening or even denied boarding without the ability to rebut the information? (No word so far on whether they will even be able to review the informaiton.)
For starters, what does “violent felons” even mean? Does that mean that everyone who ever shoved someone in a teenage fistfight and completed probation will be barred from boarding an airplane ever again? I foresee numerous lawsuits from people who pled guilty and would now be forced to face restrictions on their freedoms that were never contemplated at the time of the plea.
And what about the ability to rebut or correct erroneous information? At my job we’re already having huge problems with false positive matches of clients who go through security screenings when applying for a visa. How to you prove you’re not the Jesús García who was convicted of assault, or (worse) has an outstanding warrant for murder, vs. the 100 other Jesús Garcías with clean records who happen to have the same birthdate? We’ve had clients stuck outside the U.S., away from their families and jobs, for months at a time while they try to prove a negative. And unfortunately, experience has shown that just because you prove a negative once doesn’t mean you won’t have to prove it again every single time you travel. Throw in the transcription errors that inevitably happen when dealing with various systems for writing names originating in foreign alphabets into English, and watch the fun.
If that’s the case for the comparatively small number of false positives in the visa application process, just think how much worse it could be if you multiply it by the annual number of passengers every year in the U.S.
Once again, here we have a half-baked plan to collect still more oodles of reams of data, while DHS still hasn’t figured out what to do with the data they’re already collecting. And that’s even we start criticizing the potential invasions of privacy. Isn’t there some way to use the resources more effectively?
A “violent felon” is one who has committed a very serious crime causing or intending to cause bodily injury to another.
Not unless your teenager shoved someone off a building. In most states, it’s not a felony unless you do serious bodily harm (i.e., it could have or did cause death) and/or use a deadly weapon and/or there are other aggravating factors (e.g., you beat up a cop or a child).
And I see those lawsuits being laughed out of court.
I would have thought you’d be lauding this type of initiative to start focusing security on the people that actually pose a potential threat. No more forcing grandma to take off her shoes, or forcing the mother travelling with 3 kids to step over there with the security guard for a more personalized search. Now we can focus on potential terrorists and violent felons.
What privacy right do you think you have in your travel itinerary? After all, you’ve already shared the information with the airline and FAA, and you’ve already agreed to security searches just by buying and using the ticket.
Not that I’m in total diagreement with you Age Quod Agis but I do have a few quibbles.
I’m not sure that’s accurate. For instance I’m pretty sure Arson is a violent felony, as is rape and child molesting. Not that I want to fly with a bunch of molesters, arsonist and rapist. (Why am I thinking of Blazing Saddles). I also think domestic violence also qualifies, at least in California.
I also agree with Eva Luna over the potential for lawsuits. I’ve seen estimates that show 60-90% plea bargain rates in large cities. I think it’s perfectly reasonable that at least some of those people pled to avoid trials.
None. Never said any of 'em did. However, they all plan on dismantling John Ashcroft. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
What the hell does this system pick people out by? Is it just a computer-guided way to screen all the guys called Mohammed without bothering to also check the white guy behind him? Why can’t the US govt take advice from the British, and learn that a constant blanket gathering of evidence is thoroughly ineffective?
Not a trick question at all. Definitions of terms like “felony,” or “pardon,” or even “expungement” vary greatly depending on who you’re dealing with. For example, convictions that were expunged by a state court, or records that were sealed by a juvenile court, haven’t necessarily disappeared for Federal immigration purposes.
I’ve seen plenty of cases where INS (at the time) trial attorneys used a conviction that was basically for selling a dime bag to a friend, or even passing a joint to a friend, as evidence of someone’s “distribution of a controlled substance,” from which there is essentially no salvation from a deportation standpoint. I’m sure some resident SDMB attorneys could come up with other instances in which an unclear term led to a whole lotta heartache, not to mention a successful appeal or two. (If y’all are around, please feel free.) And since the term “violent felon” hasn’t been publicly defined AFAIK by those who intend to implement the program, I will continue to be quite skeptical, thankyouverymuch. Does leaving someone, or even intending to leave someone, with a bruise or a fingernail scratch make one a “violent felon,” incapable of behaving in polite society, forevermore? I certainly hope not.
Huh. Maybe I missed it, but I was unaware of this epidemic of “violent felons” slipping aboard our aircraft and wreaking havoc. Oh, well, the DHS says its a problem, surely it must be one :rolleyes: . And despite what AQA seems to think, I believe this particular brain wave is likely to be tested in the courts early and often.
As for (presumably) the main target, Mohammed Ibn Hijacker, I think this will be pretty much like the foreigner photo- and fingerprinting deal. A mainly feel-good effect for those of us lucky enough to be considered non-threatening by our loving government, while a bunch of other folks who are, of course, Not Like Us in some way or another will fall afoul of false positives and have their lives disrupted for no particular reason. Meanwhile, maybe it works to prevent a hijacking or two, maybe it doesn’t. How many of the millions of nail clippers confiscated by the TSA were going to be used for nefarious purposes? Can’t say? Well, we most likely won’t be able to say whether any particular person denied boarding was gonna do anything but complain about the food, either.
When you think about it, all this security is ridiculous when you think about the relatively small number of people who hijack airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers.
That’s a fair point (and that’s a funny Blazing Saddles reference). What constitutes a felony varies from state to state and crime to crime. I made my definition more simple than it should have been. I guess I was trying to dumb it down.
I wasn’t aware that domestic violence was a felony in California. In Texas, it can be as low as a C misdemeanor (the same level as a speeding ticket) or as high as a felony, depending on the severity of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it.
[hijack]Not that I oppose making domestic violence a felony. I react to men who beat their wives or children in much the same way Eva Luna apparently reacts to the DoHS – complete insanity at the mere mention of their names.[/hijack]
I’d be surprised if the number wasn’t at least 80% in a city of any size.
These violent offenders have no grounds for filing suit. No one has a constitutional right to fly in an airplane. What’s their argument going to be? That when they admitted to committing a violent felony, they didn’t realize there would future consequences beyond the plea agreement?
Baloney.
This type of argument didn’t work when the states began requiring sexual offenders to register with the state, and it’s not going to work now. And since flying involves locking people inside a metal tube and lifting that tube up thousands of feet above the ground, then it doesn’t seem irrational for the airlines to make sure they aren’t locking you in there with violent felons and terrorists.
And I was unaware that things had to rise to epidemic proportions before we acted on them.
By whether they are violent felons or suspected terrorists. Do try to keep up.
I don’t know if you’re just trying to be difficult, but I just got through saying that violent felonies usually involve death or the risk of death. Scruffy then pointed out that the definition can include arson or rape.
Do you understand that the term “felony” is a legal term with a clear definition? Do you understand that the behavior we’re seeking to protect against is much worse than “not behaving in polite society?” Do you understand that leaving someone with a bruise or a fingernail scratch does not constitute risk death, arson, or rape?
Apparently not.
Yes, those extra fifteen minutes it takes to get through airport security aren’t worth the thousands of lives that were lost in the WTC attacks, or the lives that would be lost if such a disaster were to ever occur again. :rolleyes:
Ummm, did I not just make a rather detailed post explaining that the term “felony,” along with several related criminal justice terms, can vary greatly by situation and jursidiction? And that there has been no definition of “felon” made public for purposes of a program for barring people from a major form of transportation, and in many cases the only practical way to get from one place to another? And that the possibility for grave and disproportionate injustices therefore continues to exist? What if in a particular state, simple assault is classified as a felony? It’s violent, correct? So then a teenage fistfight could conceivably leave someone barred from boarding an airplane ever again, as a convicted “violent felon,” correct?
BTW, as a former court interpreter and current paralegal, I do have a pretty decent understanding of how the meaning of legal terms can vary.
No, you did not. You pointed out that the effect of an expungement can vary depending on INS circumstances. You also pointed out that passing a joint can constitute “trafficking in controlled substances” for purposes of an INS hearing. You also pointed out that selling a dimebag of dope can constitute “trafficking in controlled substances” – which is an interesting point to make, since selling a dimebag quite clearly is trafficking in controlled substances. I’m still waiting on a definition of “felon” that varies from “one convicted of a felony.”
That’s why someone that bruises someone or scratches a fingernail can’t be characterized as a “violent felon.” It’s not because their acts can’t be characterized as violent (they could); it’s because their acts aren’t a felony.
So all these people did was commit a crime which likely involved rape, arson, or an act that caused or could have caused another person to die. And now they’re forced to take a [shudder] boat when travelling to Europe?
Oh, the humanity! Somebody call the Hague!
[hijack]In many countries, violent felonies are routinely punished by death, incredibly long and brutal prison terms, amputation of body parts, and worse. In America, we debate whether it’s OK to limit their use of one mode of transportation. I love that about this country.[/hijack]
Absolutely correct. In fact, simple assault includes any unwelcome touching. So you could be considered a violent felon just for touching someone!
Now if you can produce ONE cite to ONE state or American territory that characterizes simple assault as a felony, I will not only concede your point, I will eat my shoe.
And as a current lawyer, I’ve also got some familiarity with the meaning and use of legal terms.
What ‘things’, fer cryin’ out loud? Seems like your saying saying that all, or even most previous hijackings in US airspace were carried by ‘violent felons’ who had been previously convicted in US courts. 'Cause otherwise, I can’t quite see what exactly the justification is here.
Geez, perhaps I got it wrong, but I sort of assumed that msmith537 was maybe being a teensy bit sarcastic there.
No need to hyperventilate so, in any event. DHS is a giant juggernaut that must be seen to be Doing Something, else what was the point in creating it in the first place? I simply question whether this particular step will be of any significant benefit in preventing future hijackings. We shall see, won’t we?
Then I’ve been unclear. I’m saying that we don’t need to wait until there is a wave of violent felons hijacking planes before we say that maybe those aren’t the people we want up in metal boxes with limited security and the ability to cause lots of destruction. In fact, we don’t need to wait until it happens even oncebefore we decide that we want to do something about the possibility that it could happen.
If that’s true, then I’ve been whooshed. msmith537, care to clarify for me?
That’s a good point. I don’t know that it will prevent any future hijackings. I don’t even know that it won’t be a complete waste of law enforcement’s limited resources.
I also don’t know that our laws against drunk driving will prevent anyone from driving drunk. But I still think they’re a pretty good idea.
Anyway, I hope we never find out, because I hope no further terrorist attacks ever happen. But I kind of doubt it.
Do you actually think that this matters to people who complain about the rules that are being made? I personally think that Secretary Ridge is a joke, but IMHO those that have done something that puts the tag of “violent felon” on their record need to live with it.