I think risking a couple incidents like this is worth it if it makes us significantly safer, now you can make an argument that it doesn't have an effect which is worth looking at, but the premise behind it is sound - prevent people who are potential terrorists from being put in control of a flying object.
The problem is not just one of pilots. Are you aware that government employment forms and information are screened through the "watch list"? Are you aware that the government can notify an employer that their new-hire is on the list? Employers will often discharge someone for that, especially if they work in some sensitive area - the manager of a store, a financial worker, a computer programmer or similar functions.
Are you aware than banks are notified too? That means if you try to take out a home loan, a personal loan and even a car loan, banks can decline to approve the loan? I worked with an immigrant from India, a naturalized US citizen. He's also a turban-wearing Sikh, a former mathematics professor, father of three and a great person. But his last name is "Singh"... a common name among Sikhs (equivilant to "Brown" or "Jones" in the US). He had to submit documents and an affidavit when he went to buy a new house to get himself off the "watch-list" a few years ago.
I concede, the FBI/NSA needs to prove there is enough evidence to suspect him of being a terrorist to a jury or at least a judge, if they view him as a likely potential threat then he can still live his life, just without flying until the matter gets sorted out.
So, you're saying that being on the watch-list is the equivilant of being charged with a crime? That's the way it sounds if you must appear before a judge or jury to prove your innocence (or for the gov't to prove your guilt). If the gov't has sufficient evidence to "suspect him of being a terrorist" then why are they not charging him? Or is mere suspicion sufficient reason to drag people into court in your fantasy world?
In your scary fantasy world, many members of this forum could not fly on business as required by their employer. If your employer has a need to send you to another city for your job - a requirement you cannot meet - you could potentially lose your job. All based on mere suspicion or a common name.
You have to give Bush credit for not allowing another attack on US soil to occur, he has done a very good job in that respect.
Really? I'd rather give credit where it's due. I credit the men and women of the western intelligence communities and their partners. The British have been reasonably successful in breaking up terrorist groups and gathering intelligence on them too.
