|
Us sued no fly list { April 22 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2608357http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2608357
U.S. Sued Over 'No-Fly' List, to Revise Policy
Tue April 22, 2003 08:19 PM ET
By Adam Tanner
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. government was sued Tuesday for maintaining a secretive "no-fly" list to keep potential terrorists off flights and hours later said it was taking steps to prevent innocent people from being detained as victims of mistaken identity.
The Transportation Security Administration announcement came as two women who publish a magazine critical of the U.S. "war on terrorism" sued it and two other government agencies, saying that they and hundreds of others were detained by police for questioning at a San Francisco airport after being told they were on the FBI "no-fly" list.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which joined the suit filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California, said officials have stopped and questioned at least 339 passengers at San Francisco International Airport since September 2001, when the government beefed up security after the World Trade Center attacks.
The suit, against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Justice Department and TSA, seeks access to records on "no-fly" lists and the payment of legal fees.
Rebecca Gordon and Jan Adams, co-publishers of War Times, were stopped at San Francisco's airport last August and detained for about 20 minutes by police before they were allowed to board their flight. Their publication takes a critical look at the U.S. "war on terrorism."
ARRESTED IN 1980s
Adams, 55, said that she and Gordon, 50, were arrested several times in the 1980s for civil disobedience but did not understand why they would be on a "no-fly" list today. Since the August 2002 incident the have flown without incident.
"There are people who are being misidentified," said TSA spokesman Brian Turmail. "Airlines, because of the software they use, are saying this person might be on the no-fly list because they have three letters in their name that are similar (to names of persons the government has identified as potential security threats)."
Turmail said his agency, which oversees transportation security, acted on Tuesday after receiving complaints in recent months. He said the decision was not connected to the suit.
"We've just sent security directives to airlines today that all those individuals can contact the TSA office of the ombudsman," he said.
"They can provide some information so we can then share that with the airlines so they do not have to go through any additional questions while registering for their flight."
The spokesman said foreign names triggered more mismatches than Anglo-Saxon names.
"To detain innocent people because their names are similar to someone who the FBI feels may be a danger to this country is frustrating and not acceptable," said Barbara Musante, a San Francisco computer consultant who has also been questioned.
POST-SEPT. 11 MEASURE
La Rae Quy, a spokeswoman for the FBI in San Francisco, said the "no fly" list came into existence after the Sept. 11 attacks and was an effort to gather information about the hijackers and their associates.
"A great majority of the people are just those we wanted to talk to," she said, adding the list was akin to names of witnesses at a bank robbery who would be later questioned.
Although the FBI adds names to the list, it is now managed by the TSA, Quy said.
ACLU lawyer Jayashri Srikantiah said it appeared all 339 San Francisco fliers questioned were finally allowed to fly.
"If that number is any indication, it is likely that thousands of individuals at airports across the country are being routinely detained and questioned because their names appear on a secret government list," she said.
"What we are trying to do is get information," she said. "Virtually all information about this list is based in secrecy. One of the things were are very concerned about is whether First Amendment activity is a reason for being on the list," she said, referring to actions protected by the Bill of Rights guarantee to freedom of expression.
"What is disconcerting about this is the lack of any published criteria," Adams said. "It is a remarkable bureaucratic mess."
|
|
