The AP is reporting that a twenty-three year man, who had apparently been placed on a "no-fly" list, traveled from Oregon to New York by train and then boarded a cruise ship in order to sail to England.
The article identifies Michael Migliore as a "Muslim convert" who had tried unsuccessfully for months to fly to Italy, where he planned to live with his mother.
According to the AP, Migliore says he is on the no-fly list because "he refused to cooperate with FBI agents who wanted to question him after an acquaintance was charged in a plot to bomb a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland."
After being barred from flying, Mr. Migliore decided to travel across the U.S. by train and then sail on a cruise ship to Europe. Once he arrived in England the British police arrested him.
Now this strikes me as rather strange. I don't know Mr. Migliore. I have no idea whether he is a potential terrorist threat or a nice guy who was arbitrarily labeled a threat because he converted to Islam. I tend to sympathize with U.S. citizens having their liberties taken away without notice or due process.
But if the U.S. really placed him on a "no-fly" list because of a good faith belief that he is prone to blow up a airplane, why didn't it place him on a "no-cruise" list? This started me thinking - is there such a thing as a "no-cruise" list? If not, why not? If you are inclined to take down an aircraft, it seems like a cruise ship is an equally attractive target.
Does the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), Homeland Security, the FBI and Customs and Border people share information of potential dangers in the air and on the sea? If so, why is someone who is such a danger to be placed on a "no-fly" list permitted to board a cruise ship for a transatlantic cruise?
Photo credit: Burton Mail