Post by Mya on Feb 17, 2022 8:18:06 GMT
Why Republicans are balking at a no-fly list for unruly passengers
Over the course of the last year or so, unsettling intimidation campaigns, largely from the far-right, have targeted far too many groups of Americans. From election officials to public health officials to school board members, it’s been a difficult year filled with threats, confrontations, and fear.
But let’s not forget about flight attendants and other airline personnel. Reports of “air rage” incidents have become increasingly common, often as a result of passengers being told to wear masks protections to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
To quantify matters, the Federal Aviation Administration received nearly 6,000 reports of unruly passengers last year, more than 70 percent of which were mask-related. The number of FAA investigations into these incidents was six times higher in 2021 than in 2020, and seven times higher than in 2019, before the global pandemic began in earnest.
In the hopes of addressing the problem, some domestic airlines, including Delta, have asked federal policymakers to help establish a national no-fly list. The appeal was directed to the Justice Department.
As The Washington Post reported, it appears several Senate Republicans have a problem with the idea.
A group of Republican senators is pushing back against efforts to create a federal “no-fly” list for unruly passengers, arguing that doing so would essentially draw an equivalence between terrorists and opponents of mask mandates. The eight Republican senators voiced their concerns in a letter Monday to Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The GOP senators said they “strongly condemn any violence towards airline workers,” but a federal no-fly list for those who lashed out on airplanes over mask policies “would seemingly equate them to terrorists who seek to actively take the lives of Americans and perpetrate attacks on the homeland.”
The Republican group — Wyoming’s Cynthia Lummis, Utah’s Mike Lee, Oklahoma’s James Lankford, Florida’s Marco Rubio, North Dakota’s Kevin Cramer, Texas’ Ted Cruz, North Dakota’s John Hoeven, and Florida’s Rick Scott — added that the Transportation Security Administration “was created in the wake of 9/11 to protect Americans from future horrific attacks, not to regulate human behavior onboard flights.”
Their letter went on to say that including such people on a no-fly list would “result in a severe restriction on the ability of citizens to fully exercise their constitutional right to engage in interstate transportation.”
Putting aside the fact that the Constitution makes no reference to "interstate transportation," and the idea that such a "right" exists is dubious, it's still not a persuasive argument: Americans who lashed out on airplanes, disrupting flights and throwing potentially dangerous in-flight tantrums, almost certainly should be restricted from “engaging in interstate transportation.” It's about holding people accountable for their own misconduct, the same way people who are caught driving dangerously are sometimes stripped of their licenses.
Why would that be a bad thing?
The rest of the GOP senators’ pitch is hardly better. Banning passengers who engaged in dangerously anti-social behavior “would seemingly equate them to terrorists” who also endanger passengers? Perhaps, but as a matter of public safety, who cares about perceived rhetorical equivalencies?
I can imagine some potentially compelling arguments against a no-fly-list policy, and in recent years, critics have pointed to real flaws in the existing list. But these Republicans’ pitch is hardly persuasive.
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-are-balking-no-fly-list-unruly-passengers-rcna16457
Over the course of the last year or so, unsettling intimidation campaigns, largely from the far-right, have targeted far too many groups of Americans. From election officials to public health officials to school board members, it’s been a difficult year filled with threats, confrontations, and fear.
But let’s not forget about flight attendants and other airline personnel. Reports of “air rage” incidents have become increasingly common, often as a result of passengers being told to wear masks protections to prevent the spread of Covid-19.
To quantify matters, the Federal Aviation Administration received nearly 6,000 reports of unruly passengers last year, more than 70 percent of which were mask-related. The number of FAA investigations into these incidents was six times higher in 2021 than in 2020, and seven times higher than in 2019, before the global pandemic began in earnest.
In the hopes of addressing the problem, some domestic airlines, including Delta, have asked federal policymakers to help establish a national no-fly list. The appeal was directed to the Justice Department.
As The Washington Post reported, it appears several Senate Republicans have a problem with the idea.
A group of Republican senators is pushing back against efforts to create a federal “no-fly” list for unruly passengers, arguing that doing so would essentially draw an equivalence between terrorists and opponents of mask mandates. The eight Republican senators voiced their concerns in a letter Monday to Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The GOP senators said they “strongly condemn any violence towards airline workers,” but a federal no-fly list for those who lashed out on airplanes over mask policies “would seemingly equate them to terrorists who seek to actively take the lives of Americans and perpetrate attacks on the homeland.”
The Republican group — Wyoming’s Cynthia Lummis, Utah’s Mike Lee, Oklahoma’s James Lankford, Florida’s Marco Rubio, North Dakota’s Kevin Cramer, Texas’ Ted Cruz, North Dakota’s John Hoeven, and Florida’s Rick Scott — added that the Transportation Security Administration “was created in the wake of 9/11 to protect Americans from future horrific attacks, not to regulate human behavior onboard flights.”
Their letter went on to say that including such people on a no-fly list would “result in a severe restriction on the ability of citizens to fully exercise their constitutional right to engage in interstate transportation.”
Putting aside the fact that the Constitution makes no reference to "interstate transportation," and the idea that such a "right" exists is dubious, it's still not a persuasive argument: Americans who lashed out on airplanes, disrupting flights and throwing potentially dangerous in-flight tantrums, almost certainly should be restricted from “engaging in interstate transportation.” It's about holding people accountable for their own misconduct, the same way people who are caught driving dangerously are sometimes stripped of their licenses.
Why would that be a bad thing?
The rest of the GOP senators’ pitch is hardly better. Banning passengers who engaged in dangerously anti-social behavior “would seemingly equate them to terrorists” who also endanger passengers? Perhaps, but as a matter of public safety, who cares about perceived rhetorical equivalencies?
I can imagine some potentially compelling arguments against a no-fly-list policy, and in recent years, critics have pointed to real flaws in the existing list. But these Republicans’ pitch is hardly persuasive.
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-are-balking-no-fly-list-unruly-passengers-rcna16457