Should No Fly & Watch Lists Not Matter Unless a Person Has Been Convicted of Terrorism? (H.R. 248)

What is H.R. 248?

(Updated March 22, 2018)

This bill would prohibit the Dept. of Homeland Security from preventing a passenger from boarding a flight or cruise simply because they appear on an automatic selectee list, no fly list, terror watch list or any similar list maintained by the federal government unless they’ve been convicted of terrorism.

Argument in favor

The federal government has a very poor track record of ensuring that only genuine threats end up on no fly lists or terror watch lists. Being on a watch list alone shouldn’t prevent a person from boarding a plane or cruise ship unless they've been convicted of terrorism.

Argument opposed

What good is a no fly list if people on it are still able to fly? The terror watch list and no fly lists are imperfect and people have been mistakenly included, but the federal government should be able to use them to prevent people from boarding a plane or cruise ship.

Impact

People on an automatic selectee list, no fly list, terror watch list, or similar list; and the federal government.

Cost of H.R. 248

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) introduced because individuals on no fly lists often haven’t been charged or convicted of a crime:

“The government may not infringe on any of our rights without due process. People are added to the president’s no-fly list on the basis of secret criteria, without trial and the ability to confront the accuser, and without conviction. This list and others like it are unconstitutional.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) explained its opposition to the no fly list:

“The government contends that it can place Americans on the No Fly List who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime, on the basis of prediction that they nevertheless pose a threat (which is undefined) of conduct that the government concedes “may or may not occur.” Criteria like these guarantee a high risk of error and it is imperative that the watchlisting system include due process safeguards — which it does not. In the context of the No Fly List, for example, the government refuses to provide even Americans who know they are on the List with the full reasons for the placement, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.”

Media:

• ACLU (Context)
  
• Daily Signal (Context)