Slashdot Mirror
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."
At the very least, someone on the No-Fly list should be allowed to fly if they pay for a second seat and an armed government agent to sit behind them the whole flight.
It seems like if the increased screening actually worked a no-fly list is rather pointless... I mean that should catch any weapons of power enough to do anything, right? And if you simply don't want them entering the U.S. well that's what customs is for.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Besides trying to fly?
I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky....
From the article:
Judge Anna Brown has not concluded whether the government's use of the no-fly list violated the plaintiffss constitutional rights to due process, stating in her opinion that, "the court is not yet able to resolve on the current record whether the judicial-review process is a sufficient, post-deprivation process under the United States Constitution." Brown has given both parties till September 9 to file a joint status report setting out their recommendation as to the most effective process to ensure that the court may come to a conclusion on the remaining issues
So there are still some big issues to resolve, before the practically inevitable appeals begin.
There will be some tough issues to work through since no doubt some of the evidence in individual cases is classified. Still, there should be some sort of process to have information in one's favor considered. Both sides have a point.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
at least for distances like from SF to LA.
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.
Of course not. It would without doubt compromise National Security if the secret lists were known. I mean, think about it - they would have to justify the names, and risk losing face. That's always a National Security issue.
No, you'll never get me up in one of these again. Cause what goes up, must come down.
I cannot see how a "right to travel" implies a "right to fly". According to openstreetmap, the U.S. has a nice road network that anyone can use . . .
Does the no-fly list make it illegal for the person on the list to fly, or illegal for a common carrier to carry them, or some other thing like they can't enter the controlled space at the airport? I could do the research but maybe someone who knows can explain it much better than the legalese in the law, and I'm not even sure if the relevant laws aren't in that crazy "secret law" category that seems to show up when the TSA is mentioned.
One part that is concerning to me, beyond the constitutional issues, is that even if one accepts that it is necessary for safety to have a list of people who should be subjected to additional scrutiny prior to flight, that suspect person can't be cleared as "safe to fly" with essentially unlimited invasive screening by the TSA. Which means either (a) the security measures are easily bypassed even when a person is targeted for extreme scrutiny or (b) the no fly list actually serves a policing or political function, that is, to locate / harass / intimidate / prevent the free travel of / etc. of people who manage to make it on the list. I'm guessing it is the latter, which is depressing, but not surprising. Abuse of power seems to be an unavoidable part of giving people power.
I believed I could fly
I believed I could touch the sky
I thought about it every night and day
Just board a plane and fly away
I believed I could soar
Now agents are running through that open door
I believed I could fly
I believed I could fly
I believed I could fly
Although it's really more like:
I shot for the sky
I’m stuck on the ground
So why do I try, I know I’m gonna fall down
I thought I could fly, so why did I drown?
I'll never know why it’s coming down, down, down.
Oh I am going down, down, down
Can’t find another way around
And I don’t want to hear the sound, of losing what I never found.
or what about useing the Israeli airport security system?
At worst, being on the list should mean you're subject to a full search of your luggage and person to make sure you're not carrying explosives or weapons. Not that you can't fly at all.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Can't the airlines reject anybody on the no-fly list since the airlines are a private corporation? They're not violating any discrimination laws. How is this any different from a restaurant that "Reserves the right to refuse service"?
If Delta won't fly people on the do not fly list, go find an airline that will fly them.
Jump out of the window. If you miss the ground, then you're not on the list.
At least we can still detain people indefinitely without charging them or a trial, and assassinate american citizens and foreigners using radio controlled missiles, amirite?
I would like to know how I can drive to Hawaii? Or how I can drive to Alaska without the permission of a foreign government.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
No? So, take a boat.
Have gnu, will travel.
You can board the ferry at Bellingham, washington and get off at Alaska without ever going through Canadian customs.
You can't drive to Hawaii that I know of but you can take a cruise there from the mainland.
Not sure what your real point was though.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I was wondering how many of them were named Mohammed.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1244
I don't know; 'shall not be infringed' is a rather strong standard to me.
Oxford: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
For example I think the closing of the NFA registry is unconstitutional, though given that 'due process of law' is a reason to remove rights from criminals, I'm okay with background checks.
I don't read AC A human right
I wish I could fly way up to the sky but I can't,
You can,
I can't!
I wish I could see what folks see in me but I can't,
You can,
I can't!
Look, Orville,
Yes?
Nothing that you can say
Will change how I feel today:
I know that we'll never part;
Now hear what I'm saying, Orville?
Yes?
Who is your very best friend?
You are.
I'm gonna help you mend your broken heart.
Thank you.
This document is still technically a part of the United States Code,
No, the Articles of Confederation are not part of the US Code. They were superseded by the current US Constitution. They are not law in any way shape or form, except perhaps as an occasional interpretive guide to the current constitution when in court cases we try to compare it to the current document to argue that the new language means something different.
Repeat: The Articles of Confederation are not part of the US Code.
(But what would I know? I'm just a law prof who has taught constitutional law...)
I have a blog.
Here's one: require that Voter Registrars in the United States submit the name of voters to the keepers of the No-Fly list, and revoke the voter registration of anyone on that list. If someone isn't "good enough" to fly in this country, they aren't "good enough" to vote. In this way, the people get notification they are on the no-fly list. The right to fly and the right to vote are equal, yes?
Until the administration decides that the no fly list applies to cruises also.
Right, that'll happen the day after a Carnival ship sails into the pentagon...
My point is that the administration's claim that driving is an alternative method of transportation which people on the no-fly list can use is not even valid for interstate travel, let alone international travel.
Although as I said I disagree with the driving thing I'm really just being pedantic, I do totally agree with your main point. It's really unreasonable to restrict some people from flying, especially without recourse or stated grounds...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
actually authoritarian-apologist nonsense.
Exsqueeze me?
I'm against the no-fly list. I'm against the TSA entirely. Were it up to be they'd issue every passenger a tranq gun and a bat and let anyone fly with anything including live goats and hand grenades. The NSA already read what everyone was planning to do on the flight anyway so they can just slip a mickey in the drinks of the actual terrorists on board, if any.
Too bad you are too dense to understand what I said, every other responder seemed to grasp what I meant.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A "no-fly list" that "cannot be challenged by court of law" is obviously the Hallmark Of Tyranny. If the government has reason to embargo somebody from flying, they must produce evidence supporting this decision, if challenged in court.
If they cannot produce said intelligence, person must be removed from list. THAT IS ALMOST THE FUCKING DEFINITION OF "rule of law". You Americans are incredibly fucking stupid.
Must read: "If they cannot produce said PROOF". I know that a lot of these people came onto these lists based on some flimsy COMINT, SIGINT, rumors, software bugs, operator laziness, naming confusions and pure malice. THAT is why "rule of law" allows citizens to demand PROOF from the government. We simply cannot trust them to work properly and ethically all the time.
Of course the American Tsheka will claim that "we cannot possibly divulge our proofs, as that would betray sources&methods, so there cannot be a review of a no-fly list". It is up to you to decide whether you want to tolerate the Growth Of The Tsheka, my dear Americans.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tscheka
deneme deneme
This is surprising. Usually nothing is classified as a right via the constitution. I figured they'd say you're perfectly free to get a rowboat and row your ass accross to Canada to fly somewhere. That or just row across the entire ocean.