View Single Post
  #91  
Old September 10th, 2004, 01:52 AM
Frank F. Matthews
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt wrote:

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...

Matt wrote:

"Miguel Cruz" wrote:

To my reading it ought to be happening before the fact. That's why we


have

all that stuff with warrants and judges.

So how to police get away with arresting people and holding them until


their

arraignment? By your logic they must have the arraignment in front of a
judge before they are arrested. But that is not how it's done because


the

courts decided police can hold suspects for 48 hours (I think that's


right)

and still meet the due process requirements.


The police are subject to a fairly high standard - they have to


demonstrate

concrete reason to believe the person they arrest committed a crime.


Failure

to adhere to that and a whole host of other standards jeopardizes the case
and the person may be set free even if guilty.

It doesn't work that way with the no-fly list at all. People are put on
there for unknown reasons, and frequently, for reasons that are clearly
bogus (like the old nuns who were put on there for protesting Bush). Once


on

the list, people have no way to determine how they got on it, or reliably


to

get themselves off.

miguel



I agree, there should be a way to get off of the list, and there should be
valid reason for getting put on the list in the first place. But you don't
throw out the whole list because of mistakes, you fix it. Just like you
don't disband a police department because of a bad arrest.

Matt


You are all forgetting that there is no such thing as a list of persons.
What there is is a list of names and a matching algorithm. If the
funky matching algorithm matches a name on the list you are dumped. The
problem is that they keep making you prove that you aren't the person
who they are interested in. It is ridiculous that they cannot manage a
list of persons with a match who have been cleared as safe despite
matching. Extremely inefficient.