DHS proposes "permission to travel" / Claire watches United 93

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:47:12 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Claire Wolfe clues us in on the latest rule-making from Amerika's Gestapo (Department of Fatherland Sekurity). Do you haf your trafel papers, citizen?

She also hightly recommends the movie United 93. Added to my Netflix queue.

Claire's source for the proposed DHS rule-making was Edward Hasbrouks' Freedom to Travel blog. It is also posted at PapersPlease.org as Mother May I, but I think they're misrepresenting the proposed regulation. I posted the following:

Your description of the proposed rule (PDF) is not quite accurate. The rule proposes that airlines and ships be required to provide passenger manifests to DHS before travel, and that DHS may deny travel. It does not require a "Yes" answer, just the absence of a "No". Still despicable, and to be fought tooth and nail, but not as you described.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (1):

You say, "It does not

Submitted by Edward Hasbrouck on Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:00:09 GMT

You say, "It does not require a 'Yes' answer, just the absence of a 'No'." Unfortunately, this is not correct. According to the proposal, "A carrier must not board any passenger subject to a
'not-cleared' instruction, or any other passenger, or their baggage, unless cleared by CBP." In this context, "any other passenger" is a passenger with respect to whom the airline has received no instructions, or soemthing other than a "cleared" or "not-cleared" message. The absence of a "No' is not sufficent: the airline must receive an individual 'Yes".

Edit comment