One Strike Against No Fly List; More Scrutiny To Come

New submitter MickyTheIdiot writes "The Jurist reports: 'A judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled Wednesday (PDF) that those placed on the U.S. government's no-fly list have 'a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in traveling internationally by air, which is affected by being placed on the No Fly List.' The plaintiffs in the case are 13 U.S. citizens who were denied boarding on flights over U.S. airspace after January 2009.' Judge Anna Brown hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of the No Fly List yet, and has instructed the attorneys involved to present a roadmap for deciding the remaining issues. However, she has acknowledged that the No Fly List is a major burden to those on the list and they have the right to get that status reviewed."

Comments

There's going to be a lot

[i kan reed]

There are a lot of people coming in here, saying "about time" or something similar. What this attitude fails to incorporate is that the judicial system isn't concerned with unjust policies until they actually create injustice. And even then, an actual judge has to be less terrible than those that created the policies in the first place.

It takes a long time, and is a natural component of how checks and balances work in the US. It's not perfect, and sometimes the bad comes from congress faster than it can be addressed, but this is how things are supposed to work.

Re:Anyone should be able to fly

[i kan reed]

Yes, but when you're using statistics to pre-judge people, you aren't confident enough to spend a fortune on addressing the risk they represent, but you're more than comfortable blindly squashing their rights.

Come on, you jackbooted apologists...

[retchdog]

Tell us, misleadingly, how the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the right to travel, and then sleazily recast this into the context of coercion of private corporations. You've done it a hundred times before, so get to it.

Re:Come on, you jackbooted apologists...

[SirGarlon]

The argument that the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the right to travel is bullshit, according to the Ninth Amendment. Anyone who holds a diploma from a US high school should know that. A Federal judge who actually supports that bullshit argument is, in my opinion, incompetent. Parent's "jackbooted apologist" label would also fit such a judge.

Re:Come on, you jackbooted apologists...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a Right to keep and bear arms, but not any arms you want.

You have a Right to travel, but not by any mode you want. For example, there is no Right to drive a motor vehicle in the US, nor is there a Right to fly on an airplane.

Says who? A lot of gun owners have t-shirts and stickers which say things like "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" Maybe you don't like guns. Doesn't really matter because what the Constitution says is what it says. I would ask the same thing of just about everything else. It's true that the government says it has the right to restrict arms, and it's true that the government says it has the right to restrict driving a car or flying on a plane, and I would ask just exactly what besides complacency gives them the right to do any of that?

The Constitution, and this is very important so read slowly, does not grant any rights at all. Barack Obama caught hell from people who don't understand the law or the English language during his first campaign when he very correclty used the phrase "negative rights" in describing the Constitution. The Constitution states that rights are inherent in being a person, period. It points out some rights, mostly by way of those specific things having been the cause for much abuse during colonial days, but it also says specifically the following: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (Ninth Amendment).

In other words, just because the Constitution doesn't specifically say you have a right to fly doesn't mean you don't. Same with driving. Government doesn't get to grant you those rights because government under this constitution can't grant any rights at all. It can only restrict some, subject to what the Constitution says it can (hence the 'negative rights' stuff). I get that regulators, cops, and other such busybodies have conned everybody into believing the opposite, but what we've really got going on here is a fundamental forgetting of who we are as a people and what our founding documents actually mean.

Never, ever for one minute believe otherwise. Try to convince others of the same. What we've got here is authoritarianism run amok and it's way past time that we un-run it.

Re:Anyone should be able to fly

[wisnoskij]

Except that it has been proven that the increased screening actually hardly prevents anything at all.

Conviction without a Trial.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the government decides that someone is a threat such that they shouldn't be allowed to fly, then they should be arrested and tried for whatever crimes they're accused of.

If they haven't committed a crime and are simply guilty by association, then they are being punished without a trial. Not being able to fly is a very strong punishment.

Re:Anyone should be able to fly

[DaHat]

It's always odd to me how some are incapable of using the term 'profiling' without the misplaced prefix of 'racial'.

They engage in profiling. Period.

Profiling comes in many different kinds, shame you are ignoring them.

Example: If you pay cash for a one way ticket an hour before the flight leaves and you are carrying only a carry on bag... regardless of race or nationality, you are going to get a more in-depth look than someone who books 6 weeks in advance with a credit card along with their family and multiple bags.

Re:A constitutional right to fly?

[vux984]

There is no Right to Drive in the US, where driving is a rather a privilege.

The privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads, and the right to be a passenger in one are VERY VERY different things.

Similiarly I don't think anyone is especially outraged that the government restricts who can fly a plane. (That would be anyone without a pilots license in good standing, which is most people, including me.) The contentious issue is restricting who can be a passenger in one.

Re:International? What about Hawaii?

[nbauman]

These problems were discussed in detail in the Opinion and Order.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_holder_opinion_and_order.pdf

Many of these Plaintiffs cannot travel overseas by any way other than air because such journeys by boat or by land would be cost-prohibitive, would be time-consuming to a degree that Plaintiffs could not take the necessary time off from work, or would put Plaintiffs at risk of interrogation and detention by foreign authorities. In addition, some Plaintiffs are not physically well enough to endure such infeasible modes of travel.

Amayan Latif: Latif is a United States Marine Corps veteran and lives in Stone Mountain, Georgia, with his wife and children. Between November 2008 and April 2010 Latif and his family were living in Egypt. In April 2010 Latif and his family attempted to return to the United States. Latif was not allowed to board the first leg of their flight from Cairo to Madrid. One month later Latif was questioned by FBI agents and told he was on the No Fly List. Because he was unable to board a flight to the United States, Latif’s United States veteran disability benefits were reduced from $899.00 per month to zero because he could not attend the scheduled evaluations required to continue his benefits. In August 2010 Latif returned home after the United States government granted him a “one-time waiver” to fly to the United States. Because he cannot fly, Latif is unable to travel from the United States to Egypt to resume studies or to Saudi Arabia to perform a hajj, a religious pilgrimage and Islamic obligation.