Slashdot Mirror
People On No-Fly List Can Sue In District Court
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to a new ruling, those put on the No-Fly List can challenge their inclusion in federal court. Previously, they had to go directly to an appellate court, which would deprive them of any chance to subpoena documents or witnesses and make gathering evidence difficult or impossible. Knowing the government, they will get around this by creating a 'No-Sue' list and making it even harder to change your name."
What next, national gun ownership registration lists?
No, no, people are brainwashed enough to think that if they can still have their gun, they're not living in a totalitarian state.
You don't need to take people's guns away if you've already poisoned their minds with your crap.
Actually, Under Bill Clinton/Janet Reno (Waco much?), "instant background" gun checks were being kept indefinitely. John Ashcroft (you know, that guy you used to love to hate) had them purged after 7 days. He (and the Bush administration) also viewed the second amendment as an individual right (something the supreme court recently confirmed).
Denise Robinson says she tells the skycaps her son is on the list, tips heavily and is given boarding passes. And booking her son as "J. Pierce Robinson" also has let the family bypass the watch list hassle.
Capt. James Robinson said he has learned that "Jim Robinson" and "J.K. Robinson" are not on the list.
Terrorist's wouldn't even need to use fake names! They'd just need to abbreviate their real ones.
What a sad state of affairs.
Amnesty International
Yes, and we know how much our government respects our constitutional rights...
Our enemy has become, not the Muslim fundamentalists, but the federal government of the United States. We are spending a lot of time and bandwidth talking about and complaining about their actions. There is kind of a resigned tone to many of the comments that I hear and read. The US government has become sort of not "of the people, by the people, and for the people," but more "against the people." The corruption in congress and the White House is not helping at all.
And a "No Fly" list that is so easily added to that includes children *isn't* a violation of Constitutional rights?
Remind me to show you how to keep elephants away...
Watch yourself. Those who question The List are probably destined to end up on The List.
Understand.....whether or not it works for the stated purpose is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is that ignorant people believe that it works. It's like Homeopathic Government. Rule by Placebo.
And also understand.....all these draconian measures have little or nothing to do, really, with fighting terrorism. That's the "cover story." It's all about control -- control of "We, the people." The people who more and more are considered an utterly irrelevant nuisance to those in power.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Really, why does Ashcroft or Bush get any credit for 2nd amendment? I seem to recall a thing called the court system that had to overturn washington specific problems created by people before and supported through (the bush administration). I would give absolutely 0 credit to either of them for that. Once again the Judicial branch had to come to the rescue.
To blame anyone, blame Judge Scalia for being retarded on the issue.
The no-fly list is also nothing compared to the rest of what the Bush administration had pushed through with the help of a Congress that either supports him or too spineless to stand up to him.
I don't know of people that were held indefinitely overseas without access to counsel or even a description of what they've been charged with as a result of alleged drug dealing. The Reagan and Clinton administration actually appeared to respect the anti-domestic spying laws passed in the wake of Nixon's abuses; now on top of spying laws that appear to be unconstitutional on their face, Bush's people are stepping beyond the modest limits set by their own laws.
Bush may not have opened the action, but he's certainly raised the stakes with the PATRIOT Act, his watered-down FISA law, and signing statements effectively saying he's not going to obey certain sections of laws that show up on his desk. It's not like he could have vetoed those laws and asked Congress to draft versions that Bush approved -- oh wait, he could have.
Now we've got the Nixon-era racketeering laws (not specifically drug-related, though he was certainly opposed to illicit drugs), the asset forfeiture you mentioned, the extremely harsh and internally inconsistent drug laws, and now a return of domestic spying and indefinite detention. The last, which before Bush hadn't been seen in earnest since WWII, is an especially troubling development. Now it's conceivable to spend the rest of your life in a military camp without trial if you're judged to be an enemy combatant.
Invasion of privacy and property are bad, but infringing on someone's physical freedom is much, much worse. And unfortunately, I agree that many judges don't even seem to care what the Constitution says; it wouldn't shock me at all if despite the 13th Amendment some federal court decided slavery was once again legal.
Just because his predecessors infringed liberties doesn't give G. W. Bush or his successors the right to do so. And I would argue that our current president has been the most aggressive in history, with Nixon a close second.
We now have "wars" against terrorism, drugs, child pornography, drunk driving, and probably some other domestic causes; in addition to two actual wars and possibly two more on the horizon (Iran and Georgia). Why can't some general come out and say that if you spend all your time and money starting wars, you won't win any of them? I guess our recent commanders-in-chief don't seem to grasp that concept.
I am too dangerous to fly but I can still buy an assualt rifle.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Strengthen and lock the flight deck door. If they cannot get into the flight deck they cannot hijack the aircraft. And no the pilots are trained professionals, they will not open the door untill they are on the ground. If the Israelie airline can do it why can't everyone else.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The crazy principle is, by their logic you are not proving who you are, you are proving who you aren't. Now if that other person is such a threat that under no circumstance should they be allowed to board a plane etc. then why aren't they keeping track of their location sufficiently well to know that they are not at your current location attempting to board a plane.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
How he's better than a constitutional scholar for running the executive branch.
You mean the Constitutional Scholar that voted for a bill including retroactive telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping?
I think Obama is the best choice out of the five who are running but don't delude yourself into thinking that he has anymore respect for the rule of law than any of the other 43 Presidents we had. He'll expand the power of the Executive Branch just like all the others have.
Hell, it's not really surprising that Presidents would want to expand the power of their own branch. What's surprising/depressing is that the other two branches let them get away with it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.