Slashdot Mirror


Gov't Puts Witness On No Fly List, Then Denies Having Done So

cathyreisenwitz sends word of a San Francisco trial in which the U.S. government appears to be manipulating the no-fly list to its advantage. The court case involves a Stanford Ph.D. student who was barred from returning to the U.S. after visiting her native Malaysia. She's one of roughly 700,000 people on the no-fly list. Here's the sketchy part: the woman's eldest daughter, who was born in the U.S. and is a U.S. citizen, was called as a witness for the trial. Unfortunately, she mysteriously found herself on the no-fly list as well, and wasn't able to board a plane to come to the trial. Lawyers for the Department of Justice told the court that she simply missed her plane, but she was able to provide documents from the airline explaining that the Department of Homeland Security was not allowing her to fly.

462 comments

  1. Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are no longer free to move about the country.

    1. Re:Southwest.. by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course you're free to move, citizen. You just need to present the proper papers, which you're not eligible for.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:Southwest.. by psergiu · · Score: 4, Interesting
      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    3. Re:Southwest.. by alexgieg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've once read an article by a guy who managed to escape a dictatorship. He said that no country truly appreciates freedom until it's gone through a few decades of fascism and/or of a dictatorship of the proletariat. It seems it's time for the USA to have such an "enlightening" experience. The good side: afterwards things will improve. The bad thing: a restoration usually happens only two or more generations down the line.

      Well, at least your grandchildren will see it.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    4. Re:Southwest.. by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      These aren't the witnesses you're looking for.

    5. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least your grandchildren will see it.

      No they won't. Tech is a game changer. It allows people to maintain power for longer and it makes it easier for the next corrupt official to seize power when one falls. Take a good look at Egypt today, not WW2 and 70 odd years ago. THAT is the future once a country goes down that path.

    6. Re:Southwest.. by kick6 · · Score: 1

      Any state run by the GOP/TEA/KKK fringe already has the dictatorship.

      Is this an attempt to say that a state run by democrats ISN'T? Cuz, no.

    7. Re:Southwest.. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      no country truly appreciates freedom until it's gone through a few decades of fascism and/or of a dictatorship of the proletariat. It seems it's time for the USA to have such an "enlightening" experience.

      People that say such things are MASSIVELY ignorant about US history. We've slid far backwards lately, but there's no question the situation was, far, far worse various times in the past. Get back to me when we're interning all the Arab-Americans in camps...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    9. Re:Southwest.. by cheater512 · · Score: 0

      Arguably it is better to live in a dictatorship in some ways.

      At least the lines are pretty clear and you know what not to do.
      In the US it seems the lines can be wherever they want them to be at a time to guarantee you cross them.

    10. Re:Southwest.. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      But.....aren't the Democrats mostly in charge? Executive branch and the Senate means they've got the upper hand. The GOP mostly just bitches and tries to slow down the hope and change.

    11. Re:Southwest.. by khallow · · Score: 0

      Any state run by the GOP/TEA/KKK fringe already has the dictatorship.

      No state is actually run by those guys. And your racism card is maxed out.

    12. Re: Southwest.. by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      Wish I had some mod points. Parent is exactly right.

    13. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but putting Japanese people in internment camps is not the same, nor 'worse' than government agencies oppressing everyone without exception.

    14. Re:Southwest.. by beatljuice · · Score: 1

      I agree that tech helps those in power, but it also empowers the week. Look at things like Bitcoin/Dark Wallet. Look at the book/music publishing industry etc.. My guess is that it will get more and more separated as those in power keep squeezing harder, while the freedom seekers will keep finding ways to circumvent the controls that are put in place. I imagine that this is how it has been during many historical times, where the powerful seemed to have it all with no consequences but the rebels were always out there causing trouble.

      --
      Look for a reason to smile you jaded #*^ *(%$
    15. Re:Southwest.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yep, it's funny how everyone acts like the Republicans are the reincarnation of Hitler himself, yet it's really Obama and the Democrats who are in charge now and are fully responsible for the stuff that's going on now. You can't blame the TSA and NSA and their shenanigans on the Republicans when a Democrat is in the Oval Office signing executive orders.

    16. Re:Southwest.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Funny

      but it also empowers the week

      It also empowers the month and year, as well as the day, hour, minute, and second.

    17. Re: Southwest.. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yes, They are called primates that like throwing poo at others and each other.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:Southwest.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people in 1933 Germany probably thought things wouldn't get so bad either.

      And it's not going to be Arab-Americans who are hurting, it'll be regular, everyday Americans. It's not Nazi Germany the US is becoming like, it's East Germany after the war was over, all the way until ~1990. The Nazi regime didn't last long, but the East German government lasted for about 45 years. It didn't oppress some disliked minority, it oppressed everyone; did you forget what happened to people who tried to escape? Restrictions on travel and movement are standard with oppressive Stalinist regimes, and the US is resembling that more and more every day (though a little different, since a lot of the power rests in corporations rather than a central government).

    19. Re:Southwest.. by beatljuice · · Score: 2

      Sorry. I meant that it empowers the weekly LAN party.

      --
      Look for a reason to smile you jaded #*^ *(%$
    20. Re:Southwest.. by as.kdjrfh+sxcjvs · · Score: 2

      From reading what people write about living in Egypt, or Burma, or under Stalin, everybody has or had to do some things that might or might not attract punishment to survive; guilty and frightened all the time. Also, the rules change without advance notice.

    21. Re:Southwest.. by JSG · · Score: 1

      You feel happy to espouse views like that openly, using an account rather than AC.

      The US really does not resemble either the DDR or USSR in any way. I'm from the UK but recently visited the US (again) for some time. I have also briefly visited the DDR via Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin in the '80s - that was an eye opener, as was the Corridor and the Wall.

      There's no reason to dig up history for repression. You might like to note that women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia but some brave souls flout the rules. You may also think about what life in say Syria or large parts of Africa, let alone Afghanistan and other large parts of the world I've missed out, might be like.

      Are you sure the world is such a bad place for the likes of you and I?

      Cheers
      Jon

    22. Re:Southwest.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US really does not resemble either the DDR or USSR in any way.

      Of course it does, it just hasn't gotten really bad, yet. The US is absolutely an imperialist superpower, just like the old USSR, using threats of force to get other countries to bow to its will and routinely sending its army to invade other countries to control resources and establish hegemony, and now it's spying on all its citizens just like the Stasi did in the DDR. It's not a big step from there to abusing all that power and routinely oppressing regular citizens.

    23. Re:Southwest.. by maharvey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The internet is only "empowering" because they allow it. Which means it is not empowering at all, because they are not actually threatened by it.

      It is easy to turn it off, just pull a plug. And they haven't even begun the process of locking it down. Once they mandate authentication as a prerequisite for access it's pretty much game over. Try using your phone anonymously! Seriously, would you use your phone to plan a terrorist attack? Soon the entire internet will be like that, whether we like it or not, and we'll be back to the days of clandestine face to face meetings in lonely places if we want privacy... except good luck getting there, with cameras on the street corners (Hi, UK!), drones in the air (Hi, USA!), and cars reporting your movements with GPS (whassup, Oregon!), cops demanding to see the papers of pedestrians (its for immigration, really).

      The internet gives an illusion of power, an illusion of actually making your voice heard, an illusion of anonymity. Even the best anonymity we have is crackable by the NSA with sufficient motivation. Your voice? Drowned in a sea of clamor, cat pictures, celeb gossip, and media propaganda. Yet the feds can still hear you crystal clear, pick you out of the crowd and send a SWAT team to your house at 2am. Too bad they are the only ones. Slashdot, you're preaching to the choir here. It's just another soapbox illusion, gets us all riled up but we're still cooking with all the other frogs, with no escape and little hope.

    24. Re:Southwest.. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are quite the optimist. With today's technology, a locked down population is unlikely to be able to throw of the yoke of tyranny. And, government will be improving on today's technology, of course. Given a few decades of round the clock surveillance, mandatory forced indoctrination in the school system, and enforced thought policing, how are people ever going to regain their freedom?

      If the US falls to tyranny, there will be something equivalent to Europe's Dark Ages. It will be a long, long, LONG time before the pendulum swings back the other way.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    25. Re:Southwest.. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "I agree that tech helps those in power, but it also empowers the week."

      The NSA is "empowered" to snoop on your most intimate relations. Please explain how the same tech empowers you to snoop on the federal government, or any part of it's agencies and organizations.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    26. Re:Southwest.. by beatljuice · · Score: 1

      Wow. Haven't you heard of the indomitable human spirit? I recommend high doses of Star Trek. If that's not your taste, try Star Wars, Dune, Pern, Lord of the Rings (not all human, but it works). If you need some truthiness to it try Braveheart, Gandhi, Lincoln, Malcolm X - you get the point. If enough people want it bad enough, they can ALWAYS subvert the dominant paradigm. And remember to quit listening to anyone over 30.

      --
      Look for a reason to smile you jaded #*^ *(%$
    27. Re:Southwest.. by beatljuice · · Score: 1

      So, Snowden hand wrote all those secrets in a notebook? Wait, paper is a technology! He must have just memorized it all and then psychically transferred the documents to a printer (wait, the printer is tech! Doh!). At least the reporters who reported the news didn't... Gah!

      --
      Look for a reason to smile you jaded #*^ *(%$
    28. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that the KKK was founded by Democrats?

    29. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But.....aren't the Democrats mostly in charge? Executive branch and the Senate means they've got the upper hand. The GOP mostly just bitches and tries to slow down the hope and change.

      Playing the parties off against each is the technique the powers that be use to erode our rights. Thanks for playing!

    30. Re:Southwest.. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Snowden was a trusted agent of the NSA (or one or more of the NSA's contractors). I asked " Please explain how the same tech empowers you to snoop on the federal government," Do you, personally, have the resources, the knowledge, or the training to start sifting through NSA's communications in the same manner that the NSA snoops on you? If you don't personally have those resources, are you capable of commandeering the required resources? Which citizens of the United States might possess the capability to go head-to-head against the NSA?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    31. Re:Southwest.. by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US DID intern Arab-Americans in the week after 9/11, in mass roundups and arrests, and almost all of them were later released without charge nor apology. Then the government began a series of interrogations, fingerprinting, and in many cases deportation proceedings in 2002 for thousands of Arab and Muslim green card holders and immigrant families.

    32. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no country truly appreciates freedom until it's gone through a few decades of fascism and/or of a dictatorship of the proletariat. It seems it's time for the USA to have such an "enlightening" experience.

      People that say such things are MASSIVELY ignorant about US history. We've slid far backwards lately, but there's no question the situation was, far, far worse various times in the past. Get back to me when we're interning all the Arab-Americans in camps...

      "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

    33. Re:Southwest.. by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      Most of those occurrences were during a time of war, a war that eventually ended. What we have today with the advent of the "war on terrorism" and the now fading "war on drugs" is a state of perpetual "war" because they are such an abstract concept. They also tended to target a very small portion of the population (Japanese, communists, anarchists, etc) whereas today the government targets large swaths of the population, the only thing keeping the system in check is limits on prosecutor & correction facility resources. One of the few pluses to the economic downturn is it finally put a dent in those resources, up until 2008 the inmate population was increasing at the same obscene rate it had since the 70's/80's. After that it "miraculous" began declining.

    34. Re:Southwest.. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 0

      the dems are NOT in charge! if they were, they would be able to get things done.

      what we have is a deadlock since the R's will do anything to stop obama from trying to make changes.

      I'm not a big obama fan (anymore) but I certainly am not going to think the dem's have any kind of real control, today. things are locked up and the total lack of progress we see is proof of that.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    35. Re:Southwest.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      You're an idiot if you believe that. Who do you think is in charge of the TSA?

    36. Re:Southwest.. by beatljuice · · Score: 1

      You just want to argue, don't you. If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could spy on the NSA. Could I find out everything I wanted? No. Do they know everything about me that they want? No. My main point is that people will always find freedom somehow, either by breaking the law and hiding or fighting the powers that be, and yes, they will use technology.

      --
      Look for a reason to smile you jaded #*^ *(%$
    37. Re: Southwest.. by khallow · · Score: 1

      ...TEA...

      ...racism card...

      Are the tea baggers now a race? Wow

      Sorry, buddy, but your brain code is broken. Maybe we could hack it like an Arduino and put something useful in there, like you wet your pants whenever someone says "Rosebud".

    38. Re:Southwest.. by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1
      Welcome.

      You must be from the alternate dimension where the people have somehow ensured the federal government operates within the bounds of law.

      Over here, the feds wipe their arses with the constitution and completely ignore the fact that they're only allowed certain powers and anything not enumerated is left to the people and the states.

      The first thing I should tell you is that the secret feds have created their own secret interpretation of their secret version of the constitution which you're not allowed to know about, unless their secret courts use secret evidence which you're not allowed to see to put a secret gag order on you, which you're not allowed to talk about to the public who doesn't care and ain't listening..

      Sit down, relax, watch a game of football or baseball on tv as is the local custom and forget about pesky things like justice and liberty, it's gonna be a while.

      --

      Liberty.

    39. Re:Southwest.. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      You are free to move about this cell.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    40. Re:Southwest.. by stenvar · · Score: 1

      and now it's spying on all its citizens just like the Stasi did in the DDR

      That analogy is wrong. US spying on its own citizens is the same kind of spying that has been going on in France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and other Western democracies for decades; it is wrong and should be stopped everywhere. However, none of them are doing what made the Stasi so particularly offensive, namely the recruiting of large numbers of civilians to spy on their neighbors and relatives.

      The US is absolutely an imperialist superpower

      Yes, but I don't mind that. What I mind is that the US over the last couple of decades has adopted European-style government intrusion into the private lives of its citizens, and that needs to stop.

    41. Re:Southwest.. by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      In the US it seems the lines can be wherever they want them to be at a time to guarantee you cross them.

      Yeah, that can never happen in a dictatorship.

      --
      No sig today...
    42. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry to be A/C but as someone with experience with the DDR, listen to Grishnakh. The US is playing a very dangerous game, and it's a game which cannot be won.

      You should not fear the people in power on the day your privacy and freedom are first lost. It's the assholes who come later with bold plans to abuse the new powers who your children will learn to fear.

      It took decades after their rights were removed until the full perversity of the brown shirts grew to be what it was. But thought crimes became a real offense and listening to forbidden radio could make your dad dissapear without recourse when they stormed your house in the night. When your child was sick you weren't alowed to visit in hospital. Going to church would land you on a watch list in an athiest country, and you had to lie every day about your thoughts and ideas to preserve the safety of your family. And there are many places in the world today where people still suffer under this form of opression so one needs to remember that it is very real.

      American ignorance is to think that "it happened over there but it can never happen here".
      Wake up. Humans are humans; you should never give them power over each other because they will abuse it in the name of whatever stupid ideology they feel is "best for you". It won't matter what you think if you're on the bottom.

      Every indication as far as I can tell is that the strong foundation of liberty and protected freedoms that made the USA great is being steadilly broken down and removed, brick by brick.

    43. Re: Southwest.. by RafalLos · · Score: 1

      ...also that resurgence of liberties comes at the cost of blood and lives.

    44. Re:Southwest.. by rioki · · Score: 2

      The modus operendi of the Stasi was based solely on technological restrictions. The important part was that everybody felt like they where watched and monitored. The number of IMs (Inoffizieller Mittarbeiter = unofficial employee) was way lower than most people thought and that was the entire point. (1 in 10 is still awesomely high though.) The main goal was to make organised dissension impossible. When it all fell together it showed that the Stasi's power was solely based on intimidation.

      Today you simply don't need that many people, you can tap into almost anybody. Again the important bit about mass surveillance is not about the actual surveillance, they probably do not have the resources to act on all or even many accounts, but that you feel under surveillance and government scrutiny.

      The current state if the US similar to the DDR in the early years and comparing it with fully fledged dictatorships does not make it better. THE US WAS FOUNDED TO REPEL OPPRESSION AND GRANT CIVIL LIBERTIES TO IT'S CONSTITUENTS!!!

    45. Re:Southwest.. by rioki · · Score: 2

      Death to Eastasia! Save our friends from Oceania!

      Death to Oceania! Save our friends from Eastasia!

      Even in dictatorships the leading class changes their mind. Be sure to change yours quicker.

    46. Re:Southwest.. by rioki · · Score: 1

      Great messed up the quote... s/Oceania/Eurasia/

      Oceania is the "county" it takes place in.

    47. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republicans and the Democrats are equally bad. A two-party system is a fundamental problem.

    48. Re:Southwest.. by ultranova · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Nazi regime didn't last long, but the East German government lasted for about 45 years.

      The Nazi regime didn't last long, because it started war after war until it was everyone's enemy - sounds familiar? And East German government lasted for 45 years because it had the backing of a greater power, and fell pretty much instantly when that backing failed.

      Anyway, the US doesn't really resemble either. Nazis and Communists were ideology-based tyrants, while the US looks more like a failing state: the economy continues getting worse, everyone loots as much of the pie as they can to themselves and their friends, tribalism rises, the state tries to compensate with ever-increasing internal security (both surveillance and "though" penalties), the rulers mostly live in and react to their own little world... It's the standard "rot from the inside" pattern of collapse, with the "blinded by past glories" flavour.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    49. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's funny how everyone acts like the Republicans are the reincarnation of Hitler himself, yet it's really Obama and the Democrats who are in charge now and are fully responsible for the stuff that's going on now. You can't blame the TSA and NSA and their shenanigans on the Republicans when a Democrat is in the Oval Office signing executive orders.

      Maybe that's because we all know the Republicans would be worse. Seriously, they've been over the top law enforcement at any cost for my entire life. They've tried to interfere with people's sex life and still consider that a top issue. Trampling on minority has won them many elections. Yes the Dems suck, at least they aren't Republicans.

    50. Re:Southwest.. by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      It requires someone on the inside to turn on the oppressors. Look at Farenheit 451, Brave New World, Equilibrium, Snowden. Keeping the Plebs oppressed is easy, maintaing loyalty among the ranks is tougher.

    51. Re:Southwest.. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Lincoln, who freed the slaves, was a Republican; in fact, he was the first Republican president. Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, helped to found the KKK and was its first Grand Wizard. Virtually all of the authors of "Jim Crow" legislation after the Civil War were Democrats. Democrat Senator Richard Byrd, who died only a few years ago, cut his teeth on politics as the Grand Kleagle of the Klan. Sheriff "Bull" Connor was not only a Democrat, he was a member of the Democratic National Committee. Virtually all of the big-name racists in the country before 1964 were Democrats, and LBJ was only able to pass the Civil Rights Bill with a lot of Republican support.

      It's true that the Bushs were no friends to Liberty, but the Clinton/Obama machine has been FAR worse in terms of the surveillance state.

    52. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but putting Japanese people in internment camps is not the same, nor 'worse' than government agencies oppressing everyone without exception.

      Bullshit. I'd feel less bad if we had interned all German and Italian Americans along with the Japanese Americans, but we didn't. Why? Because we were racist fucks and it's time to accept that about ourselves. We deprived multi-generational Americans of life, liberty, and property without apology and later tried to self-justify that shit with statements like "those little, sneaky, yellow bastards might be spies. Can't trust'em." And yet, what ethnic background were the ONLY fucking tried WW2 CONUS espionage cases? HINT: Those crafty NAZIS, both before we entered the war and after See this.

      The Japanese Internment Camps were nothing less than us extending state sanctioned racism from the black man to the yellow and was probably AT LEAST as fucked up as fucking the entire population over equally. We've allowed state sanctioned and implemented racism and oppression in the past and we are accepting it again. Until we stand up, we are all losers. Saying that an incredible travesty was "no worse" is bullshit. We accepted it then and we are accepting it now. BAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    53. Re:Southwest.. by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      It takes a real idiot to ignore the recent history of tbe US. Perhaps that is who you think you are talking to. But the democeats have taken just about anything the evil republicans have done and put new meanings to the word evil. Outrage over bush posibly listening in on citizens phone calls has turned into welcomed complacency of obama scraping every possible piece of information availible to support a war on terror that he himself said was over.

      You tools really amaze me. But..but...but the republicans are worse doesn't fly when history and fact directly show otherwise to anyone paying attention. And even if it was remotely true, stop using it as justificatiin to accept the evil of the democrats.

    54. Re:Southwest.. by Jmc23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's too funny. Are you a USian? Because why else can't you see that the USA is an ideology based state.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    55. Re:Southwest.. by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Really? You guys don't seem to have yellow/orange/red alerts every single day anymore. You might be more oppressed (if you cross their path) but you certainly don't seem like your government is terrorizing you all the time anymore.

      Maybe you're just a republican?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    56. Re:Southwest.. by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Let me introduce you to the concept of the meaning of a word changing over time.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    57. Re: Southwest.. by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      Why would you waste an Arduino on him?
      He has stuffed his head with oily rags and he likes it that way.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    58. Re:Southwest.. by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      According to FiresignTheatre the Egyptians developed the calendar and with the power of the week they built the pyramids..

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    59. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true that the Bushs were no friends to Liberty, but the Clinton/Obama machine has been FAR worse in terms of the surveillance state.

      That's like making me choose from Stalin, Tito or Hitler. Terrible and slightly more terrible...you choose.

    60. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nintendo graphics for $10, yeah right.

    61. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ehh, yeah, but that far back, political positions were reversed. Democrats were the old white guys, and Republicans were the "lets make things better" hopeful younger guys. Ideologies have since switched sides since then. And then blended together, and then sold out to the highest bidder.

    62. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has never been imperialist. Empires extract tribute from their tributaries. They do not spend billions supporting them (Guam, PR, Samoa, USVI, Marshalls, Solomons) or billions developing them and turning them loose (Cuba, the PI), or more billions restoring their conquests (Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy) or give more billions to warring factions whom they disagree with (any Arab state or Afghanistan).

      But if you're going to keep accusing us of it, I'm all for yanking the choke chain on all of them and showing them some REAL imperialism.

    63. Re:Southwest.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Of course you're free to move, citizen. You just need to present the proper papers, which you're not eligible for.

      Speaking of which... I hope you do have those papers proving you are a citizen. It would be a shame if something happened to the birth record archives, wouldn't it?

    64. Re:Southwest.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That's not really true. At least, in a stable dictatorship (like, say, DDR, or late USSR). There is certainly a gray area with unclear borders that shift over time, but people are generally well aware of what falls into that area, and you can avoid it and the associated risk if you so desire.

      The part that is hard to avoid (but also rather unlikely if you don't deliberately seek it) is when you get personal attention of those in powers... say, becoming Saddam's personal cook? It was a very risky occupation, I'd imagine.

    65. Re:Southwest.. by kmoser · · Score: 1

      We've slid far backwards lately, but there's no question the situation was, far, far worse various times in the past. Get back to me when we're interning all the Arab-Americans in camps...

      Remember when people used to kill people based solely on the color of their skin? Good thing we don't do that any more and haven't for a long time, and that the police never do anything that reprehensible. Right?

    66. Re:Southwest.. by kmoser · · Score: 1

      Chris Rock put it succinctly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poqoClsEhR4

    67. Re:Southwest.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I agree that tech helps those in power, but it also empowers the week.

      I hope English is your second language.

      Look at the book/music publishing industry etc

      I used to think that until I released Nobots. I'll be lucky to make the investment in a copyright registration, ISBN, and bar code back, let alone earn any money from it.

      I'm reading a James Patterson novel and have discovered that marketing always trumps talent and hard work, the guy's really not that good a writer. But all his books are best sellers and every time I see a woman with a book, it's one of his.

    68. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean IF the US falls to tyranny?

    69. Re:Southwest.. by goozer321 · · Score: 0

      Locked down population. Yoke of tyranny. Really? Did your post slip through the lockdown then? I feel sorry for the poor G employees who have to read cack like your post.

    70. Re:Southwest.. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I just finished watching a pirated Blue Thunder. I watched some of the series when I was a kid, never saw the movie before. You should maybe watch it yourself. Keep in mind our current monitoring by NSA and the militarization of police forces, including drones, as you watch the movie.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085255/

      I'm sure you know how to use a torrent search.

      Enjoy

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    71. Re:Southwest.. by beatljuice · · Score: 1

      Wow. You have the cojones (See how I used another language there?) to make fun of my English typo when you have links to Web pages that look like the worst of 1999?

      --
      Look for a reason to smile you jaded #*^ *(%$
    72. Re: Southwest.. by DEN_GUY · · Score: 1

      Agreed, hence us pesky libertarian tea baggers that both established parties bitch about.

    73. Re: Southwest.. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Let me introduce you to Strom thrum good who was a democrat and became a republican during his 40 plus yeasts in office.

      Today it is democrats who stand up for the people(generally).

      Both however a more beholden to corporate interests than citizens.
      Democrats back the copyright/entertainment industries and gave us dcma and trying to export it

      Republicans won't touch the militar industrial complex even though it was a republican war leader who warned us about it(Ike).

      Pick your poison the moderates are fiscally conservative but socially liberal as that is the only way to advance society

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    74. Re: Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read your history. KKK fully covers the dems. (of course, they also have black and union militias to silence you)

    75. Re:Southwest.. by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      In case you are unknowingly ignorant or parroting this nonsense from Fox News, enlighten yourself: The Southern Strategy

      If your statement was just political posturing, then simply piss off.

    76. Re:Southwest.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Virtually all of the authors of "Jim Crow" legislation after the Civil War were Democrats.

      True - and those who survived to see desegregation have virtually all split away as southern Democrats / Dixiecrats, and who have then rejoined the Republican party, which resulted in several decades pursuing the "Southern Strategy", which was described by Republican party strategist Lee Atwater as follows:

      You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

    77. Re:Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unbeknownst to the vast majority of Americans, unfettered travel is a Creator given right which has once again been compromised in the name of government security.

    78. Re:Southwest.. by Si · · Score: 1

      Get back to me when 45 years is a long time.

      --


      Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
    79. Re:Southwest.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Actually, the link in the sig actually is from 1998, a blast from the past that hasn't been on the internet in ten years. The other is simple html; a single graphic, text, and links. Ever heard of the KISS principle?

      BTW, su Englis es no mal por un Hispanico.

    80. Re:Southwest.. by JakeBurn · · Score: 1

      And this is why we value our private firearms and put up with high murder rates due to them. We allow our government to take certain actions because we hold the trump card; our willingness to die for our belief that governments should be restricted past a certain point. We are enjoying a decent life. When the government stoops to a level we find unacceptable we will forcibly remove them and start again. Countries like Germany were able to do what we can not because they were brain-washing their children to love the state first, family second. That's why Americans get all bent out of shape when schools try to get stupid and take authority away from a child's parent. We accept parents teaching their kids things we disagree with because once you control that aspect of a child's life entirely you have taken the first critical step in creating what the SS had in Nazi Germany.
      It could happen in the USA, but its not likely. The undercurrent of distrust and dissatisfaction that used to only reside on the fringes of our society have crept into much of the mainstream. Obama, the savior of all and next greatest president, is at an all time low approval rating because he thought he could ride that wave of support and take away people's constitutional rights. Hopefully his wake-up call is realizing that his average approval rating is lower than the great Satan, George Bush. Sadly, though, he seems to honestly not give a shit about anything but his own agenda and the results will only be people being less trusting of his party.

    81. Re:Southwest.. by Yew2 · · Score: 1

      document thriller? lol

      --
      will work for dragon quest localization
    82. Re:Southwest.. by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      The PATRIOT Act disagrees with you. The Iraq war disagrees with you. The blatant misreporting of the Florida State votes and the complete negation of black and other non-white American's votes disagrees with you. Bush Snr's sales of chemical weapons in the 80s to the Middle East coming full circle with his son's invasion of it for the possession of WMDs disagrees with you with you. The NSA and CIA operations in America when Saddam was still a CIA agent inciting wars and selling weapons by proxy disagree with you. The Carlyle Group disagrees with you. The fact that double digit numbers of Bin Laden's brothers all share seats on the board with Bush Jnr and Snr at The Carlyle, and the fact that Bush himself made over $3bn from the investments of that group by investing in military industrial complex companies prior to the war disagrees with you. The TSA disagrees with you.

      Substitute "you" with "your statement" where applicable.

    83. Re:Southwest.. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      You should probably avoid posting when drunk, stoned, or hallucinating.

      The inanimate concepts and attributes that you mention have no opinions, agreements or disagreements. My original post was to object to the conflation of the GOP, the Tea Party, and the KKK. These entities are not similar in any respect. The Tea Party and the GOP are mostly orthogonal, and the Tea Party and the KKK have virtually nothing in common.

      Further, your inane association with the worst conspiracy theorists does not do you credit.

    84. Re:Southwest.. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Like I said, it takes a real idiot.

      Nothing you said counters anything I said except you said "seem" in the process to be purposely ambiguous in the process. All of the Bush Era policies that the democrats cries until their faces turned blue has been embraced and extended under Obama from warrantless wire taps all the way down to No Child Left Behind. Even after campaigning on not having industry insiders in high level government offices, Obama quickly put his insiders into them.

      Wake up and stop being an idiot.

    85. Re:Southwest.. by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      You're so funny. Why do you automatically expect that if somebody says something they're directly attacking you and your argument?

      Social much?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    86. Re:Southwest.. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why do you automatically expect that if somebody posts a reply to your comment which attempts to run counter to it they're directly attacking you and your argument?

      There, fixed that for you.

      Are you attempting to say that your comment was not in reply to mine and that you were just spouting musing randomly or something? Or are you suggesting that what you said somehow supported what I said?

    87. Re: Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like +1

      That does suddenly explain a lot about us.

    88. Re: Southwest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Oregon we had a guy who was a dem and took the state GOP. Then his grandkid did the reverse, but for the same reasons as grandpa had. And one of ny favorite senators was a GOP person, the sole vote against Nam, had to go independent, won, but the dems would not be nice to him because he was Ind?, so he won as a dem, so both parties then made sure he lost the next primary. I am proud to have been able to vote for him but ashamed I signed off on his retirement. Maybe we should all be ashamed. Well, Mandela today comes to mind as an exception.

    89. Re:Southwest.. by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      It was directly in response to your claim that Clinton and Obama have been worse to the state that Bush, the body of the text I was not addressing. I also encourage you to flatly disprove any of the aforementioned statements (or indications of foul-play, cheating et. al to that effect that were blocked from being investigated by the accused in the case of the Florida votes scandal... as we both know that Bush v. Gore demanded a recount.)

    90. Re:Southwest.. by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      Gore requested a PARTIAL recount only in a few carefully selected districts; Bush's advisers said "All or nothing". Gore's lawyers wanted to exclude all overseas military ballots; Bush's people wanted them included. The Florida state supreme court was dithering when the US Supreme Court overruled them.

      But the recounts WERE DONE. Several newspapers got together and carefully, over the next several months, recounted ALL the Florida ballots. You probably didn't hear about it, because in EVERY recount scenario, Bush still took the election. Even the limited "Only My Friends" scenarios; Gore lost. Get over it.

      Full disclosure; I'm a retired Navy officer. I didn't vote for either Bush. I strongly opposed the Iraq invasion on the ground, but believe that we should have leveled Afghanistan, the "Graveyard of Empires". If neither the British nor the Russians could make Afghanistan work, why did Bush think HE could? But once we attacked Iraq, we should have leveled Baghdad. And once our folks dug Saddam out of his hole, we should have executed him on the spot and left, with a warning to whatever new government sprang up, "Don't make us come back here, because we'll do even worse to YOU."

      The Patriot Act, the TSA and Homeland Security are farces, and all of then should be abolished. But Obama has done more with government surveillance of OUR OWN CITIZENS that he has done for potential adversaries. He should be impeached, and tried for treason.

      You, on the other hand, are simply being foolish.

    91. Re:Southwest.. by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      The recount only covered 175,000 of the 6 million votes. It only counted 'marked or blemished ballots'. They arranged the ballots so confusingly that 113,000 people voted for two people at the ballots. 79,000 chose Gore and a minor candidate, and 29k chose Bush and a minor candidate. (don't know how many chose both Bush and Gore but I should think blue and red are easier to tell apart)

      http://web.archive.org/web/20040820122543/http://www.norc.org/fl/results/media/mediagroup_readme.txt

      Even at that stage, the recounts drove down Bush's end result by nearly 400 points from 537 to 154

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

      They also arranged the ballots so confusingly that 113,000 people voted for two people at the ballots. 79,000 chose Gore and a minor candidate, and 29k chose Bush and a minor candidate. (don't know how many chose both Bush and Gore but I should think blue and red are easier to tell apart).

      http://www.issues2000.org/Florida_Recount_Official.htm

      Realistically, the Supreme Court ended things for a number of reasons. Firstly, if we had found out that Florida was cheated, then the whole integrity of the voting system, and public confidence in it, would have been shattered. Secondly, Bush had just been granted executive power over the Courts anyway.

      Also, whilst the NSA have existed during Obama's watch, he certainly wasn't he person who put PRISM in place. Bush put PRISM together. First he tried to use the Protect America Act in 2005, then when he found that the wiretapping hole still wasn't open for the internet he later amended the FISA act despite a lot of resistance. Without those changes in law PRISM would have never been legal. Granted, Obama re-signed it, but at that point in time PRISM would have kept on running whether or not it was legal.

      Source: Protect America Act: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm
      (That's actually a NYT report, but NYT pulled it from their site in 2007) See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qYGbieoMM for lawsuits

      Source FISA Amendments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/20/ST2008062001087.html Resistance: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/senate.fisa/

    92. Re:Southwest.. by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      Woops, tried to rearrange the post and I forgot to delete a bit.

    93. Re:Southwest.. by as.kdjrfh+sxcjvs · · Score: 1

      (Did Saddam's personal cook write a memoir?) Either we've read/talked to different people, or we get different things out of the same stories. `You can avoid risk' sounds like the Just World fallacy at best, to me. F'rex, in tyrannies, it's always easy to be accused of something you don't get a fair trial for, so `avoiding risk' includes `never pissing anyone off'.

      I am grateful that I don't have a personal opinion on this in most of my life, since I would probably get a decent legal hearing for most things in the US. But I sure think about the ways the TSA and now the NSA could wreck me, if they wanted to. It does change my behavior, and not to be more moral or productive or braver.

    94. Re:Southwest.. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In my case, the people I've talked to are my parents and grandparents - my passport says "Place of birth: USSR".

      F'rex, in tyrannies, it's always easy to be accused of something you don't get a fair trial for, so `avoiding risk' includes `never pissing anyone off'.

      Tyrannies don't generally try to mess people up just because. If you get in a random dispute with another guy, most likely you will actually get a fair trial and such. It's usually only when you trod on the toes of someone in a position of power, or (more likely) one of their unknown friends, when you find yourself in trouble. That's what I meant about "personal attention", and, as noted, while it's not something you can truly control, the chances of ending up in a spotlight inadvertently is very low (though not nil).

      There are exceptions to that - e.g. if the regime instigates a witch hunt, and your background happens to be matching whatever it is they are after. Say, Jews in Nazi Germany, or people of noble descent in the USSR. But this actually isn't that common, and paranoid stages tend to pass and give way to stability. So late USSR, or, say, Fracoist Spain, you more or less knew what you had to do to draw such attention - and avoid doing so.

  2. Let's see what the judge says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The defense should have a field day with this. If the past is any indicator, the judge is going to tell the DOJ to EABOD.

    1. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Louis CK.

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    2. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by davydagger · · Score: 2

      should but won't. mabey in another decade.

      The only diffrence between now, and the 1970s, is that we don't even have a single shred of pretense of freedom left. No one is even going to bother with a new church commission.

      Or we might have to wait for a powerful CIA/FBI figure like hover to expire, before they get lax enough to stop threatening senators to keep it quiet, because that is how Hoover stayed in power so long.

    3. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by wizkid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Alsop is the Judge. One of the few good ones left. He'll probably Fillet the DOJ and serve them up for lunch. Unfortunately, the DOJ will appeal when they don't get their way.

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    4. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by erroneus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Question: Does the judge have the authority to command an army of paramilitary police with ACTUAL assault weapons and armored vehicles? The DoJ does.

      Another question: Despite the courts ruling that the Washington DC ban on firearms was unconstitutional, the law continues to be enforced. What weight does a judge's ruling have any longer?

      The government (the executive) follows the law when it's convenient. It breaks the law when the law is inconvenient. And no one is interested in countering it.

    5. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can you point to a ban on firearms in Washington DC? No, you can't because such a thing never existed. They did ban handgun ownership, which was rightfully (IMO) overturned by the courts. But if you're going to be claiming that the DC police are still preventing anyone from owning a handgun in the district, which is what I assume you mean by a "ban on firearms," I think you need to provide a citation for that. The NRA would have a field day with that if it were happening.

    6. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Another question. Can't the judge summarily rule against the government since they wouldn't allow the person to testify? Essentially they've denied a fair trial and he could just drop the hammer.

    7. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll simply ask you to google "Adam Kokesh." He has been charged with violation of that ban. As a form of protest, he went into DC with a shotgun, turned on a video camera, loaded and made ready his weapon and then posted it on the internet.

      Please learn and stop presuming. The NRA is a lobby group. They are still fighting that and many other laws. Lobbyists are most effective at preventing new law and helping to write new law. That's what lobbyists do.

    8. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      How about just google it? Or read a news story or two.

    9. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's waiting for the personal testomony of the witness in this case. I'd imagine the DHS would be smart enough not to do the same thing twice so we'll get to see what happens after her testomony

    10. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to think this is a new phenomenon. Read up on such ancient supreme court cases as Worcester v. Georgia, when President Jackson mocked the USSC for its toothlessness, or Kerr v Watts (1821), when politicians from Kentucky to Wisconsin lined up to declare that the justices didn't know what they were talking about and their ruling wouldn't be enforced.

      The idea that the USSC is sovereign and un-defiable is a fairly recent invention.

    11. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by erroneus · · Score: 0

      They'll either let her into the country to testify, or a terrorist attack will occur and she will become an unfortunate victim.

    12. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, he's been charged with possession of drugs AND a firearm, in VIRGINIA, Not DC. "Kokesh was originally arrested July 9 after a police search of his suburban Washington home in Herndon, Virginia, found a firearm and an illicit drug, an illegal combination in the state of Virginia."

      Also this guy is the son of the guy who owns Dakota Rifles.

    13. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Emily Gets Her Gun is a book on the topic. The author tried to get a handgun permit in DC and detailed the obstruction she was given by the city government, who is acting as though the handgun ban was never overturned.

    14. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If the past is any indicator, the judge is going to tell the DOJ to EABOD.

      So what? The DoJ is under no obligation to listen, or heed the Judge's ruling. Remember what happened the last time the Judicial Branch tried to tell the Executive Branch it couldn't do something? The Trail of Tears was the result. The Judicial Branch has no ability to enforce its rulings at all.

    15. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      Not only is there no ban on firearms in DC, there is not citation you can give to back up your claims. Please prove me wrong.

      Done and done. Check out Emily Gets Her Gun, which is a book about the topic. Asshole.

    16. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by ArbitraryName · · Score: 2

      He was arrested in Virginia on those charges, yes, however while he in custody he was also arrested on the Federal charges

      Adam Kokesh, a controversial activist seen loading a gun in D.C.'s Freedom Plaza in a video posted to YouTube July 4, has been transferred from Fairfax County and charged in D.C. with openly carrying a shotgun in violation of D.C. laws.

      He is specifically being charged with violating the following offense:

      Carrying a Rifle or Shotgun (outside Home or Place of Business), in violation of 22 D.C. Code Section 4504 (a-1) (2001 ed.)).

    17. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or more likely probably not.

    18. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by niftymitch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Another question. Can't the judge summarily rule against the government since they wouldn't allow the person to testify? Essentially they've denied a fair trial and he could just drop the hammer.

      It is a good thing I am not a member of the bar...

      I think you are wondering if he can dismiss the case....
          Yes he can.
      I am wondering if he can dismiss the case with prejudice so it cannot be refiled.
          I hope he can.

      I am wondering if he can incarcerate the entire prosecution team
      for contempt of court.
          I hope he does if it is clear that they tampered with witnesses.

      It is a federal crime to tamper with witnesses and conspiracy amplifies
      the reach of the crime.

      The recent revelation of a false conviction based on withheld evidence
      by the prosecution makes me want to see 4x penalty. The man spent
      25 some years in jail. Those that knew should be locked up for 100 years
      and have their lives turned inside out. Abuse of power is difficult
      to tolerate.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    19. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they just sat in the lobby.

    20. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
      --Andrew Jackson?

      Yeah, the authenticity is in question, but the idea was still used in Andrew Jackson's time.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    21. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      Remember what happened the last time the Judicial Branch tried to tell the Executive Branch it couldn't do something? The Trail of Tears was the result.

      Next time spend two seconds on Google before you start spewing such crap. You're off by a few orders of magnitude. The last time the Judicial branch told the Executive it couldn't do something was most certainly NOT the Trail of Tears. That was almost 200 years ago. Here's one case that was less than six months ago:

      http://executivebranchproject.com/supreme-court-once-again-unanimously-rules-against-the-obama-administration-in-property-rights-case/

    22. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That is not the same law that was overturned. The USSC did not strike down all gun control in DC. They struck down a limited portion of the handgun restrictions.

      You need to go back to high school and learn how to read.

    23. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by Elbart · · Score: 1

      "Lawsuit dismissed, reason: national security. Next, please."

    24. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. You have to be very careful to pushback on such bullshit, otherwise the USA will end up not very different from evil Dictatorships.

      When the Gov appointed thugs get to do arbitrary bad stuff "just because" ("Saddam Says" or some weird interpretation of some law), it starts to get hard to tell the difference.

      Yes "most people minding their own business" and "following the rules" won't get hurt. But that's the same in most Dictatorships too.

      Yeah US citizens have the freedom to call politicians names. But that's no real threat as long as that doesn't stop the people in power from staying in power. And who has the real power in the USA? Obama? He's got term limits. If you wanted long term power in the USA you sure wouldn't be president (plus it's a dangerous job).

    25. Re: Let's see what the judge says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government is the defendant! What had the prosecution done that would qualify as contempt? The defendants should be charged with contempt!

    26. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      I trust you will say hello to him in your high school reading class, perhaps on your way to the reading comprehension class.
      Take note that above his reply is the AC stating "Can you point to a ban on firearms in Washington DC? No, you can't because such a thing never existed".
      Then you choose to vilify him over which one of the many gun laws used to ban ownership/possession/use of firearms was overturned?

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    27. Re:Let's see what the judge says... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I would go beyond that, and make willful obstruction of justice by law enforcement and justice officials a capital offense (or life sentence), regardless of what case it was in. This is something that strikes at the very foundation of the system that is supposed to be "justice for all"; in many ways it's more dangerous than outright treason. Furthermore, it's something done by people with full knowledge of what they are doing and why - it's not an "accidental offense" - so I have absolutely zero sympathy for those involved. Make it really, really, really hurt.

  3. Just drive there by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Funny

    Flying is a privilege, not a right. She can just drive to court.

    It's not like we don't have interstate highways in every state in the union.

    1. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if stupid user or clever troll.

    2. Re:Just drive there by Lucky_Pierre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the jackboot fits, wear it.

      --
      "Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
    3. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really an interstate in Hawaii?

    4. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of hard to cross that big old ocean 'tween the U.S. and Malaysia...

      IN A CAR!!!

    5. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Malaysia is a state.

    6. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but what did she do to have her priviledge revoked?

    7. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice to know that Malaysia is a state in the union. Someone should inform them.

    8. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Driving is a privilege, not a right. You can see where this leads...

    9. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how exactly are you supposed to drive from Malaysia?

    10. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if stupid user or clever troll.

      Why not both?

    11. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, just drive to the court from Malasia.

    12. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Freedom of movement is an important right we have. It's been infringed upon heavily in recent years.
       
        What's next? Free speech zones?... oh.

    13. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving isn't a right either, that's why you need a license.

    14. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And driving is a privilege, requiring a license by the government.

      She can just walk. I hear Hawaii to Washington, DC is a good way to get some brisk exercise.

      And if you happen to live in the capital of Alaska... Well. Juneau is not directly accessible by road.

    15. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      She should have just WALKED to court.. duh!

    16. Re:Just drive there by Huntr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll tell you what's a right: due process. The govt appears to be denying that to a witness in a trial for their own benefit. Let that sink in a sec and decide if the issue here is whether or not she can drive to court.

    17. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving, ALSO a privilege, moron!

    18. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying is in many ways cheaper and easier. If you are on a no fly list, it's not like they just shake your hand and let you go on your way. They likely detained her. Then she was likely not able to make the trial due to distance and time. Hence the flight. I don't know anyone who flies when driving is convenient. Also, maybe she doesn't have a reliable car to drive there. So many rebuttals. The point is that she wasn't aware she was on the no fly list and the govt lawyers lied about it.

    19. Re:Just drive there by qbzzt · · Score: 2

      Yes. "Interstate" means the federal government pays for building and maintaining it. The name is a relic from the time people believed the constitution's commerce clause only applies to interstate commerce.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    20. Re:Just drive there by mythosaz · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_H-1

      Thanks. I'll be Googlin' all week. Tip your server. Stay for the late show, I work blue.

    21. Re:Just drive there by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      Yes; she can hop on her submersible car and drive from MALAYSIA to SAN FRANCISCO.

    22. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying is a privilege, not a right. She can just drive to court.

      It's not like we don't have interstate highways in every state in the union.

      I wasn't aware Malaysia was in the "union"

      It's always helpful to read the pieces before commenting.

    23. Re:Just drive there by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      You can keep your flight plan, you can keep your insurance, you can leave your hat on.
      Trust us.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    24. Re:Just drive there by Mistakill · · Score: 1

      Flying is a privilege, not a right. She can just drive to court.

      It's not like we don't have interstate highways in every state in the union.

      Maybe should could have driven there, or taken a bus/train, except she wasn't informed until she was trying to board the plane... lets say you had a court date in NY and were in Cali... you get told at the ticket counter you cant fly... think you will make it via driving/bus/train? And they lied about it, in court...

    25. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dr. Ibrahim was familiar with Jamaah Islamiyah Malaysia. She said she had heard of it only from reading online newspapers, but that from what she had read, it was an un-Muslim terrorist organization. Later in her deposition, Dr. Ibrahim noted that since returning to Malaysia in 2005, she has become active in Jamaah Islah Malaysia, a non-profit professional networking group for Muslims who have returned to Malaysia after post-secondary schooling in the U.S. and Europe. The two groups have names that could easily be confused by non-Malays, and are sometimes referred to by the same acronym, âoeJIMâ. But both are well-known and readily distinguishable to Malaysians. And the FBI agents who visited her in 2004 didnâ(TM)t ask about âoeJamaah Isla Malaysiaâ, the entirely innocent organization with which Dr. Ibrahim is now involved. This potential confusion is the only hint in the public record to date about any possible explanation, legitimate or not, for FBI âoeSpecial Agentâ Kellyâ(TM)s nomination of Dr. Ibrahim for inclusion on the âoeno-flyâ list.

      Tuttle, Buttle, what's the difference? The Department of Records doesn't make mistakes!

      (Dear NSA: I was going to self-censor, because I know that mentioning terrist organizations reflects poorly on my loyalty score. Let the record show that I'm making a reference to a movie called Brazil, in which... well, let's just say the next time someone streams it over Netflix, you should watch along with them. You'll find a lot that's familiar.)

    26. Re:Just drive there by isorox · · Score: 1

      Kind of hard to cross that big old ocean 'tween the U.S. and Malaysia...

      IN A CAR!!!

      You just have to get a kayak

    27. Re:Just drive there by james_shoemaker · · Score: 1

      hard to drive to SFO from Malaysia.

    28. Re:Just drive there by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      But the feds don't want to pay for bridges on the I5.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    29. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be happy to gift this person a telepresence robot to go to court with (or at least, to let her borrow one). I am sure that many people who sell telepresence rigs would feel the same way.

      Also, the above applies for a ticket to Canada/Mexico and a ride.

    30. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... is a privilege, not a right.

      What laws decide which elite few have this 'privilege'? What laws decide when this 'privilege' is revoked?

      But most of all: Who decided that paying money to sit in an aluminum can with 10 tonnes of fuel was a privilege?

      ... She can just drive to court

      Now, operating a motor vehicle definitely is a privilege. Why is she allowed one transportation privilege but not the other?

    31. Re:Just drive there by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Walking is a privilege, not a right.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    32. Re:Just drive there by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Right, it's like we have Joe Isuzu running the gov now, "Would I lie?".

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    33. Re:Just drive there by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Where's Alaska's?

    34. Re:Just drive there by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Wait for the Bearing Strait to freeze up, and you can make it. It just takes a few weeks (or longer) to make the drice from Malaysia.

    35. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The name is a relic from the time people believed the constitution's commerce clause

      Funny, the project was justified constitutionally as a road for the post office to use. What with roads being explicitly a federal government power.

    36. Re:Just drive there by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      You googled the link that was supplied in the parent of the article you replied to?

    37. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all people have legs. Check your privilege.

    38. Re:Just drive there by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2

      Yes, I got the parody, but the horrible thing is that I've seen the same sentiment for real. A major newspaper editorialized that people who didn't want to go through the TSA porn scanners could just take the bus or the train. The notion that there are places unreachable by bus or train completely escaped them.

    39. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      It's okay, it's already sunk deep enough, there's no chance you'll be hit by that fast moving object high above.

    40. Re:Just drive there by ArbitraryName · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I really have to congratulate you. Reading the long string of replies from idiots who didn't follow the link and/or get the joke is hilarious.

    41. Re:Just drive there by wizkid · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but You still need to kayak across the Pacific. If you don't believe me, trace the route on google maps. Google never lies.

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    42. Re:Just drive there by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is even worse than that. Not just flying and driving are considered a privilege, even the things explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as rights are being treated as privileges. Gun-ownership is the most obvious example — even in the "gun-friendly" locales (like Texas), keeping and bearing requires a license. And even if the Executive branch "shall issue" such licenses, it can also withdraw (or not renew) them — without bothering with the Judiciary.

      Heck, even "performing in costume" requires a license in New York City...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    43. Re:Just drive there by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Interstate Highways A1, A2, A3 and A4. Although they aren't named as such by their signage.

      Hawaii has three. And so does Puerto Rico, even though it's not even a state.

    44. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Ohio, at least, intrastate movement is a constitutional right. All and all, a good thing, but it's caused a bit of wacky case law here and there. (I remember reading one about 'moving bubbles of contact' and balancing a person's right to free movement with a restraining order.)

    45. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was good enough for Jesus...

    46. Re:Just drive there by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know your comment was intended to be funny but I think this is serious issue; one our society and our courts have gotten wrong for a long time now.

      One of our most basic enumerated rights is that of assembly. In order to assemble that requires being able to go to where the assembly is happening. The right to travel ( at least within the jurisdiction of the United States ) is strongly implied by the first Amendment to the Constitution.

      As a practical matter in the modern world flying and even more so driving essential to travel. Having established the right to travel, I think it can and should be argued that flying and driving are in fact not privileges but rights. Rights which cannot and should not be denied anyone but upon conviction of crime.

      Which means that lots of things like vehicle check points, and insurance requirements are on shake legal ground too.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    47. Re:Just drive there by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait for the Bearing Strait to freeze up, and you can make it.

      Hey, it's spelled Bearing Straight!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    48. Re:Just drive there by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Walking is a privilege, not a right.

      That's what she said! (The feminist, about disabled people.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    49. Re:Just drive there by penix1 · · Score: 1

      "Have the Indians fill it in and charge a buck a head to cross... It's a sound business solution!" -- George Carlin

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    50. Re:Just drive there by Kenja · · Score: 2

      Not even a car rented from Kayak Car Rental can cross the ocean.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    51. Re:Just drive there by gVibe · · Score: 1

      Except that the daughter was coming "TO" the U.S. and was prevented from flying. She can't drive from Malaysia to Court...we don't have InterCountry Highways between Malaysia and the U.S.

      --
      Keywords for the NSA overthrow oppressive regime true believers marathon Manhatten the financial district blueprints I
    52. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You googled the link that was supplied in the parent of the article you replied to?

      Gotta make sure the Big G gets enough ad revenue or they'll start feasting on the souls of those without internet access.

    53. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not Zoidberg?

    54. Re:Just drive there by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Funny. We have state roads that individual states maintain. In fact we have some county maintained roads around here that the county built and continues to keep in good shape.

    55. Re:Just drive there by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Breathing is a privilege, not a right.

    56. Re:Just drive there by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I've always found it odd that Hawaii has interstate highways.

    57. Re:Just drive there by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Is that a rhetorical question?

      Is this?

    58. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes; she can hop on her submersible car and drive from MALAYSIA to SAN FRANCISCO.

      She'd still need to clear US Customs (DHS) upon landing her car on the shores of the USA. So she'd be turned away and forced to get back into her submersible car sans gasoline to return to her homeland. Oh wait! She would already be home. But she can't go home.

    59. Re: Just drive there by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      You must be new here

    60. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have interstate highways to Malaysia??

    61. Re:Just drive there by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Maybe Kayak Car Rentals has Aquadas, or Humdingas available for rent.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    62. Re:Just drive there by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You are just not going fast enough when you hit the docks.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    63. Re:Just drive there by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      this is agent 5443117 You have lost over 40 loyalty points in this month and are dangerously close to being selected for reeducation. Be careful or you may enjoy a visit from some friendly adjustment specalists.

      Oh, your milk is going to spoil in 2 days, go buy a new gallon tonight.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    64. Re:Just drive there by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Who pays for the lost time. You travel by plane for speed not cause you like to be suspended in the air in an aluminium death tube. It is about some hours of travel versus same days of travel, plus accommodation plus lost income. So the DHS no fly list is a punishment not a safety feature. The reality is either people who are on a no-fly list should either by under criminal investigation and public prosecution or they should not be on the list.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    65. Re:Just drive there by knarf · · Score: 2

      Nope, it is spelled Bering Strait, named after Vitus Bering, a Danish-born Russian explorer.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    66. Re:Just drive there by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Yes, and a Federal Judge just ruled this way (that air travel is a constitutional right because it's the common means of travel). 9th Circuit, I think, then remanded to the lower court to proceed. Check the recent Democracy Now! segment on this case for details.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    67. Re:Just drive there by tjb6 · · Score: 1

      And make sure you use a Straight Bearing, or you will never get there.
      (sarcasm!)
      (to avoid misinformed criticism!)

    68. Re:Just drive there by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      You could drive a boat.

    69. Re:Just drive there by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      It's actually spelled j-o-k-e, after the thing you didn't get.

    70. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hope this is a joke that blew over my head, as otherwise, it is quite wrong. Google maps didn't even exist in 2001.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps#History

    71. Re:Just drive there by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll tell you what's a right: due process. The govt appears to be denying that to a witness in a trial for their own benefit. Let that sink in a sec and decide if the issue here is whether or not she can drive to court.

      This,

      Driving is not an inalienable or natural right, it's a privilege.

      What the US govt did wrong was interfere with this persons "freedom of movement" as we call it in Australia which allows a citizen free and unfettered movement between all states and territories as well as the right to leave and re-enter the country at any time. The problem here is that:
      1) The no-fly list does not just apply to air travel but also to other forms of travel. She was not simply denied flying, she was denied entry into the United States (as a US citizen as well).
      2) The person in question purchased a legal ticket for travel, had all the required documentation and had committed no crimes or was even accused of committing a crime in either the destination or the origin of the flight.

      This is completely different to holding a drivers license, which is a privilege that people abuse far too often.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    72. Re:Just drive there by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 1

      GP said: (emphasis mine)

      Gun-ownership is the most obvious example â" even in the "gun-friendly" locales (like Texas), keeping and bearing requires a license.

      You blathered:

      You don't need a license to own a gun in Texas. You need a concealed carry permit, if you want to carry your gun, but that's different.

      Yeah. That's different -- the difference between keeping and bearing a gun. As GP said, if you want to keep and bear a firearm, you'll be needing that carry permit.

    73. Re:Just drive there by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Link to segment please? I'm not finding it in a search.

    74. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you thought socialized healthcare was expensive, wait when you see the bill for ensuring every citizen can fly. Oh, its only a right for people who can afford it? Much better! /sarcasm.

    75. Re:Just drive there by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      Actually, "Interstate Highway" is shorthand for "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". It's not just the commerce clause that was used to authorize it, but also the preamble which permits them to "provide for the common defense" -- it was initially a military network, almost entirely planned by General John J. Pershing.

    76. Re:Just drive there by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      *WOOOOOOOOOOSH*

      RTFS. She was travelling from MALAYSIA. Her only other option is a freakin' boat.

    77. Re:Just drive there by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but he didn't say what year... just 9/11..... That could have been September 11, 2011.... ;)

    78. Re:Just drive there by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      That's because they're not interstate highways. They're "Interstate AND DEFENSE" highways. People just skip the "and defense" part because they're lazy. The original Interstate highway system was pretty much entirely planned by the US Army for moving troops and supplies.

    79. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they're 'sort of' Interstate Highways. Two lane, non divided. Basically goes around in a circle in the middle of the state. Uncle Teddy must have got some money from the feds at one point.

    80. Re:Just drive there by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I said "after", not "because of". I didn't know when they dropped their "Easter egg" routes, but I knew it would have been after 9-11. I didn't realize 9-11 pre-dated Google maps itself.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    81. Re:Just drive there by spasm · · Score: 1

      Don't give the bastards ideas!

    82. Re:Just drive there by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      with easy access to Hawaii's interstate highway system

    83. Re:Just drive there by adolf · · Score: 1

      In Ohio, I don't need a permit to own and bear a gun.

      I need a permit to conceal a gun. Open-carry is, and has been, legal here: It's perfectly legal for me to wander around downtown with an old-Western style gunbelt and a couple of revolvers on my hips, as long as they're not concealed.

      (Or an AR-15, or a shotgun, or......)

    84. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O'er the Land of the Slaves, and the Home of TV.

    85. Re:Just drive there by nctritech · · Score: 2

      Check your breathing privilege!

    86. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privilege huh? You really do belong in a Soviet or Chinese style socialist country.

      In America, the Constitution spells out ONLY the things the GOVERNMENT has authority over. All other RIGHTS go to the people. Anything not specifically delegated to the government by the Constitution is therefore our RIGHT. The government does not tell you what to do in the USA.

      Looks like you never questioned that authoritarian garbage you hear in government sponsored indoctrination.

    87. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to see the car that can take an interstate from Hawaii to any other state - or vice versa.

    88. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      driving is a privilege, not a right. she would have missed the trial.

    89. Re:Just drive there by rossz · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The right to travel is a natural right. Sometimes flying is the only feasible way to take the trip, as in this case where she couldn't simply hop in a car and drive across an ocean.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    90. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lest we forget, it is Obama's Homeland Security.

      You liking that Hope and Change whatever thing?

      Hell "Homeland" just sounds creepy and Totalitarian.

    91. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thinking is a privilege, not a right.

      Hey, this is fun if you ignore the implications!

    92. Re:Just drive there by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      The preamble does not grant powers to Congress, those are exclusively found in Article 1 section 8, and any amendments that also say "Congress shall..."

    93. Re:Just drive there by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      You need to watch the movie Brazil. I think it will become true eventually. Bureaucracy begets bureaucracy.

    94. Re:Just drive there by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids says it does.

    95. Re:Just drive there by HiThere · · Score: 1

      FIUC, he said you need a permit to conceal the gun. Presumably wearing it in a holster on your belt wouldn't count as concealing it...though I've heard of instances were if you couldn't see the trigger it was called concealed...so maybe you need a clear plastic holster.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    96. Re:Just drive there by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that's supposed to be "the people or the States". Which might imply that a State would be within their right to require a driver's license, but the feds wouldn't be.

      The U.S. Constitution was intended to limit the powers of the Federal government, not of the State governments. (Except I think that there was a guarantee that all states would have a Republican form of government...though I'd need to look that up to be certain.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    97. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Ohio, at least, intrastate movement is a constitutional right.

      How does that right hold up if I ignore that car behind me with the red/blue flashing lights telling me to stop?

    98. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] even the things explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as rights are being treated as privileges. Gun-ownership is the most obvious example [...]

      I am not a US citizen and have never lived in the US, yet even I know the US Constitution doesn't mention the right to own, keep or bear guns. You are thinking about the Second Amendment which is part of the Bill of Rights.

    99. Re:Just drive there by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      hard to drive to SFO from Malaysia.

      Flight to some destination in either Canada or Mexico, and then getting a rental car, or taking a bus across the border to the U.S. perhaps? Surely the no fly list doesn't prohibit flying to anywhere in the world that is not under the U.S.A's jurisdiction?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    100. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a fan of the masses carrying guns[1] but that "conceal carry" law seems strange and arbitrary. So what if they made a law that you could "bear arms" but only in some even sillier way?

      [1] most can barely keep their cars in their own lanes...

    101. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise she was trying to board a flight from Malaysia to the US? (I appreciate the existence of countries outside the US may come as a surprise)

    102. Re:Just drive there by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Then they ought to be interstate OR defense highways. Since interstate = 0 (always, in Hawaii) and defense = 1, interstate AND defense will evaluate to 0. Therefore it's still odd they are called interstates.

    103. Re:Just drive there by unitron · · Score: 1

      Wait for the Bearing Strait to freeze up, and you can make it.

      Hey, it's spelled Bearing Straight!

      No, actually you'd be driving north for a while and then you'd be bearing right when you draw up level with Alaska.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    104. Re:Just drive there by unitron · · Score: 1

      She was in a wheelchair at the time.

      The mother, that is, not the daughter.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    105. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoooosh!

    106. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom is a privilege, not a right.

    107. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    108. Re:Just drive there by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      The bill of rights is the first ten of our twentysome amendments to the Constitution. They bae indeed part of it, just tacked onto the end.

    109. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you think the right to free speech grants us each a radio station?

    110. Re:Just drive there by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Ok so Hawaii has one... What about Alaska? Oh wait, aside from a few sections of controlled access highway (in Anchorage, Wasilla, and Fairbanks), Alaska is expresswayless. Technically the roads are still funded through the interstate system, but they aren't exactly highways. From Wikipedia:

      Currently, all Interstates in Alaska are unsigned [3] and are not generally referred to by their highway numbers. In fact most Alaskans are unaware of those numbers.

      Most of the lengths of the Interstates in Alaska are not constructed to Interstate Highway standards, but are small, rural, two-lane, undivided highways. Title 23 provides that "Highways on the Interstate System in Alaska and Puerto Rico shall be designed in accordance with such geometric and construction standards as are adequate for current and probable future traffic demands and the needs of the locality of the highway."

      Picture of an Alaskan Interstate: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Glenn_Highway_and_Mount_Drum.jpg/800px-Glenn_Highway_and_Mount_Drum.jpg

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    111. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ever a movie needed a reboot, and I'm not generally for reboots, but technology has gone so far past what they had in that movie.

    112. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying is a right. Driving is a privilege.
      https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty-racial-justice/victory-federal-court-recognizes

    113. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely correct and there is more here that is seriously wrong. If the TSA can do everything but a proctological exam on a person entering a plane for flight why on earth is there a "No Fly List" at all. They are not armed, No bombs, guns, knives or even volatile fluids. I guess they are still armed with explosive gasses like flatulence. This is getting just plain insane.

      This case illustrates the whole seriousness of the spying on people and taking rights in general. It can and obviously is being used extensively for the US Government to control the populace. Now we see it being used to thwart justice. It is also being used to steal intellectual property and much more. This whole system has to be destroyed or it will destroy us.

    114. Re:Just drive there by catfood · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. I give you 49 USC 40103(a)(2)

    115. Re:Just drive there by catfood · · Score: 1

      Rights always have limitations and can be taken away for cause. That doesn't make them the same as mere privileges.

    116. Re:Just drive there by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      At least in US, driving on public roads is a privilege, which you need a license for. But there are other environments where you can drive without a license, use a non-road-legal vehicle etc.

    117. Re:Just drive there by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      They could very well be. It's the "Interstate and defense *network*". The individual highways can be either, so long as the entire network contains both :)

    118. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Travel, regardless of mode is a right and all air travel in this country is heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

    119. Re:Just drive there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving is not an inalienable or natural right, it's a privilege.

      The distinction between "right" and "privilege" is largely meaningless. All "rights" have limits, they are in fact alienable. Since a limit implies being able to take something away, which is what we refer to when we use the term "privilege", the only real distinction between the two is the spelling.

    120. Re:Just drive there by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      The Constitution says it doesn't.

      A court can issue a ruling, but that doesn't make them right.

    121. Re:Just drive there by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      A court can issue a ruling, but that doesn't make them right.

      When it's the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution, yes it does. At least that's what the Constitution says, regarding the Supreme Court:

      The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...

      Also defined a bit more explicitly in Hamilton's Federalist 78:

      The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

  4. IAL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clear substantive and procedural due process violations at work here. Hope she has the ACLU on speed dial!

  5. I'm readying popcorn by MiKom · · Score: 5, Informative

    Judge presiding over this case - William Alsup. The one who threw away Oracle Java APIs lawsuit agains Google.

  6. Ah yes... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Evidence provided by a blog. The most reliable kind.

    I suspect this could be true, but a random blog post really is not "evidence".

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Ah yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The blog was not evidence the DHS document provided by the Malaysian airline was. And it still wasn't fully accepted without her sworn testimony (that SHE COULD NOT GIVE AS SHE COULD NOT FLY TO APPEAR IN COURT.)

      This is the US government basically refusing entry to a US citizen. Sorry but there is no law that allows the US government to refuse a citizen's entry. They do have a right to freely travel within our borders.

    2. Re:Ah yes... by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could dig through the links and actually find the evidence.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Ah yes... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Please provide a reference to your screed.

      There is *NO* other evidence that this event took place *except* the blog post.

      I can write a blog TODAY that says anything I want/

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Ah yes... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

      If you believed in your words, you would not have posted them as Anonymous Coward.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:Ah yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a point in that anybody can write a blog and write whatever they want.

      But on the flipside when mainstream journalism's budgets are slashed year after year and their reporting is more gossip based focusing on catching people in verbal gaffes, where are we going to get this information if not from a random blog?

    6. Re:Ah yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 + 1 = 2

    7. Re:Ah yes... by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Without blogs this kind of event will be completely ignored. It's not like we have a functioning independent press any more, so blogs pick up some of the slack. Although this is an important instance of how the legal system has been rendered non-functional, it's not the kind of stupid mindless drama that passes as "news". The lack of attention is one of the mechanisms that is used to erode basic rights and let the government get away with this crap.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    8. Re:Ah yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believed in your words, you would not have posted them as Anonymous Coward.

      You are lying.

    9. Re:Ah yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, Stasi scum. Go lick some more shit from your supervisor's boots.

  7. I'm SHOCKED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    //queue scene from Casablanca
    I'm SHOCKED! There's gambling going on here!
    //end scene

    Seems the left hand does, or does not know, what the right hand is doing in this case.

    Anyone else getting really tired of the US Gov. in general? Wah wah at least it didn't happen to me... right?

    In all seriousness, I'd like to do something about it, more than write my congressman and senator. But what's left? It's not apathy I'm feeling anymore. It's disgust and resentment.

    Oh. I know. WAIT, WAIT!!! Isolated incident.... /sorry, venting... just had a job interview

    1. Re:I'm SHOCKED! by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Yeah I feel that way.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    2. Re:I'm SHOCKED! by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      Anyone else getting really tired of the US Gov. in general? Wah wah at least it didn't happen to me... right?

      Yes, but I'm even more afraid of the alternatives. As long as the people crying the loudest for its overthrow and/or dismantlement are the last people I want running things, I'm pretty much sticking with it.

      I wonder if this is what it feels like to be an Egyptian. </bitterness>

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  8. three times is enemy action by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too much of this BS going on these days to be merely negligence , ignorance and incompetence.
    Yeah, the NSA would never abuse all that personal data it's hovering up.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:three times is enemy action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coming to the US is a privilege, not a right.

      For a U.S. citizen? Besides, it says she wasn't allowed to fly, not that she wasn't allowed to enter the country.

    2. Re:three times is enemy action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too much of this BS going on these days to be merely negligence , ignorance and incompetence.
      Yeah, the NSA would never abuse all that personal data it's hovering up.

      So go do something about it.

      *sigh* No, I mean something OTHER than cry on an internet forum. That's not going to work against an adversary that legitimately and without joy or emotion reads "crying" as "victory against evil, carry on". No, they're not sitting in a darkened room adorned with Evil Runes(tm) cackling gleefully over every tear you shed and every voice on the internet screaming "that's not faaaaaaaair!". They're sitting with cold, calculated formulas telling them that tears do not threaten their operations (as evidenced by decades of case studies), nor does whining, and they therefore conclude that there is no reason to change course. No joy, no thrill, no sadistic glee, just raw, impersonal numbers and logic.

      So, like I said: Go do something about it. If it matters that much to you, stop being a number and start being a person.

    3. Re:three times is enemy action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So even for US citizens, born in the US traveling to their native country is not a right? Or is that only for non-WASP citizens? WTF?

    4. Re:three times is enemy action by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Coming to the U.S. is a right for an U.S. citizen. And being able to appear in court where you are called as a witness is your duty.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:three times is enemy action by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      WTF? Since when does a US citizen not have a right to come back to the US?!

    6. Re:three times is enemy action by c0d3g33k · · Score: 2

      the NSA would never abuse all that personal data it's hovering up.

      Or Hoovering up, even.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hoover_Company

    7. Re:three times is enemy action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me in the constitution where a citizen is allowed entry into the country.
      Traveling outside the country is a privilege, not a right.

    8. Re:three times is enemy action by korbulon · · Score: 2

      Well with each passing year it's become less and less of a privilege. Unfortunately, this would hardly be a precedent:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#False_positives_and_other_controversial_cases

      And why don't you think a little before you start ranting? Think a bit, then rant.

    9. Re:three times is enemy action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Follow the money,
      and the rest will follow.

    10. Re:three times is enemy action by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative

      U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Zoe vs. Williams (1982).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    11. Re:three times is enemy action by Sique · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it should have been Zobel vs. Williams.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    12. Re:three times is enemy action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or Hoovering up, even.

      This link is also appropriate:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

      Too bad the lesson was forgotten.

    13. Re:three times is enemy action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Show me in the constitution where a citizen is allowed entry into the country.

      No. Show me in the constitution where it says that citizens have no such right. You do know that the constitution is a whitelist of powers that the government has, not a blacklist of powers that it doesn't have, right?

    14. Re:three times is enemy action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* No, I mean something OTHER than cry on an internet forum.

      It starts with enough people crying about it.

    15. Re:three times is enemy action by JakartaDean · · Score: 4, Insightful

      U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Zoe vs. Williams (1982).

      I'll add that, although it is not the law of the USA, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 13(2) is explicit: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    16. Re:three times is enemy action by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since abandoning the un declaration of human rights..... you know, about the same time they deemed it legal to shoot suspects(including americans) with missiles from the sky without extradition attempt.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    17. Re:three times is enemy action by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      "Why is J. Edgar Hoover on your phone?"
      "He's on everybody else's, why shouldn't he be on mine?"

  9. No popcorn yet by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't get out your popcorn just yet. From the article:

    But Judge Alsup noted that the document with the DHS instructions to the airline was not supported by any sworn testimony or evidence of its authenticity. “You have to have a sworn record before I can do something dramatic.” Judge Alsup said he would consider the document if and when Ms. Mustafa Kamal arrives in San Francisco and can testify as to its authenticity.

    Ms. Pipkin said that Ms. Mustafa Kamal was reluctant to spend the money on another airline ticket to San Francisco without some assurance that this time she would be allowed to board her flight.

    “Get her on an airplane and get her here,” Judge Alsup responded. “She’s a U.S. citizen. She doesn’t need a visa. I’m not going to believe that she can’t get on a plane until she tries again. ” And Mr Freeborne, with disingenuous faux-solicitude, claimed that the government is “willing to do whatever we can to facilitate” Ms. Mustafa Kamal’s ability to board a flight to the U.S.

    1. Re:No popcorn yet by jandrese · · Score: 2

      “Get her on an airplane and get her here,” Judge Alsup responded. “She’s a U.S. citizen. She doesn’t need a visa. I’m not going to believe that she can’t get on a plane until she tries again. ”

      Um, isn't this kind of the point of a No-Fly list? It doesn't matter if you are a US Citizen, if you're on the list you don't get to fly. The alternatives are either finding a boat or chartering a private flight I think. I suspect that she will be able to board the plane if she tries again however, I can't imagine the government attorneys are going to let that much egg hit them right in the face.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:No popcorn yet by chris_mahan · · Score: 2

      Did the airline refund her the price of the ticket and all associated transportation costs (hotel, etc?) No? Nice. If she paid for the ticket, and she's on a no-fly list, who reimburses her for the services not rendered?

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    3. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just it. The government is arguing that she ISN'T on the no-fly list and just isn't showing up. If she can actually prove that she IS on the list then they're fucking toast.

    4. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or she could fly to Canada and take a bus...

    5. Re:No popcorn yet by chris_mahan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How can she prove she is on the list when the airlines are instructed not to let the passenger know the reason why the passenger is denied boarding...

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    6. Re:No popcorn yet by Sique · · Score: 1

      Why should the airline? It's not their fault that they weren't able to provide the service.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:No popcorn yet by jfengel · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's saying that he doesn't believe the contention that she is on the no-fly list. The government denies that she's on a no-fly list. The document that claims she was comes from an airline, not from the DHS itself, so it's possible that the reason she was denied boarding comes from further down the line.

      She's reluctant to try again, since the flight isn't cheap (and they didn't refund her money). The airline is blaming DHS, and that's the part I'm not sure how they'd go about proving. They'd need to prove that the order they claim came from the DHS actually came from the DHS. I don't know what channel the message was delivered to them, so I don't know how they'd authenticate it, and the fact that DHS usually operates in secrecy makes it that much harder.

      If I read it correctly, she doesn't have to try again, she simply needs to get Malaysia Airlines to cough up their source for the document they provided. I've got no idea how easy that would be.

    8. Re:No popcorn yet by StinkiePhish · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He has to do this in order to allow the document into evidence. Once it is authenticated and otherwise admissible, he can rely on it for any decision he will make. If he decided to go rogue and not follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, then the government could easily prevail on any appeal. In other words, the judge isn't being difficult to be difficult; he is doing it because he does not want to be overturned.

    9. Re:No popcorn yet by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      I think we all know the answer to that one.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    10. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, they refused her, it is up to the airline to get the money back from the US taxpayers err government.

    11. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you are on the US no fly list you are also banned from flying to Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.

    12. Re:No popcorn yet by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "You have to have a sworn record before I can do something dramatic." Judge Alsup said he would consider the document if and when Ms. Mustafa Kamal arrives in San Francisco and can testify as to its authenticity.

      FTFNFLA:

      A "false positive" occurs when a passenger who is not on the No Fly List has a name that matches or is similar to a name on the list. False positive passengers will not be allowed to board a flight unless they can differentiate themselves from the actual person on the list, usually by presenting ID showing their middle name or date of birth. In some cases, false positive passengers have been denied boarding or have missed flights because they could not easily prove that they were not the person on the No Fly List.

      When an airline ticket is purchased, the reservation system uses software to compare the passenger's name against the No Fly List. If the name matches, or is similar to a name on the No Fly List, a restriction is placed in their reservation that prevents them from being issued a boarding pass until the airline has determined whether or not they are the actual person whose name is on the No Fly List.

      In order for a citizen to comply with the laws it is essential that they be allowed to know the laws that apply to them. A restriction on flying, driving or status as a prisoner under arrest must be public information available to the citizens that such rules affect. The citizens can not protect themselves from secret rules they know nothing about. The system should have notified her at purchase that she was subject to a law which could require her facing additional government scrutiny. Judge Alsup should subpoena the no fly list as of the time Kamal purchased the airline ticket, and fucking check it himself -- He can write a Java range check program, so he can Ctrl+F a partial name match, or even look at the matching algorithm in use and see the evidence for himself.

      IMO, he is right in desiring a sworn testimony of the wronged party before taking action on their behalf -- A higher court may throw out such actions without at least a party claiming damage. However, the government is NOT allowed to withhold evidence. The no-fly list is evidence. They're not allowed to tamper with witnesses either. The list may no longer contain her name, but it very well may have. If the witness can not get on the plane to fly to court then how in the flying fuck can they give their sworn testimony? The court wants the witness, they should pay the fucking air fare -- at least give a voucher redeemable for an equivalent to their mile-high club. The government created the damn problem in the first place, they're the ones who should have a taste of their own invasive inspection medicine.

      In other words: If citizens should be assumed innocent until proven guilty -- The laws themselves should be assumed guilty until proven innocent.

    13. Re:No popcorn yet by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Alsup is simply being careful as he should be. Not being careful opens doors for appeals which he seeks to avoid.

    14. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe she did miss her flight... I come up with all sorts of good excuses usually... traffic, bla bla to see if I can get a free transfer.

    15. Re:No popcorn yet by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Well, sworn testimony can be in the form of an affidavit, right?

      âoeYou have to have a sworn record before I can do something dramatic.â

      Thus signaling he's feels that given evidence he will do something dramatic.

      This case strikes a very personal note for me. My wife is a foreign born naturalized US citizen who studied for her doctorate at an American University. I wish Ms. Kamal luck in getting this resolved in her favor. She's had some issues too, mostly due to the remnants of a US sponsored dictatorship in her home country.

    16. Re:No popcorn yet by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a fucking secret. If they tell her then it's not a secret! This is why we have secret lists, so we can get around the Constitution which inhibits us from doing what we want to do. We can't keep people safe from the bad guys if we have to follow the Constitution.

    17. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the list probably won't contain her name now, they Feds will blame it on the airline, the airline will blame her and she will be out the airfare and maybe for a second airfare if the Feds screw up taking her name off and put it on twice. What ever happened to our country? Sad Sad Sad

    18. Re:No popcorn yet by rahvin112 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's illegal for the airlines to disclose if someone is on the no fly list, let alone why. And depending on the airline DHS might not even tell them why they are denying them. That's the biggest injustice of the whole thing. You can't know if you are on it, you can't challenge being on it and no one in the airline industry is allowed to assist you in any way.

      The judge likely doesn't believe it because he's not aware of how unjust the no-fly lists are and like most American's he's naive enough to believe that the government wouldn't create an unaccountable list of names with no way to challenge inclusion in the list.

    19. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly it is not. The DHS is responsible. Unless the airline is lieing, the DHS would be responsible for refunding the cost of the ticket.

    20. Re:No popcorn yet by Gregory+Arenius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I would like to know is how its legal for the airline to not refund her money. She paid for a ticket to SF, attempted to board the airplane, and was told to fuck off. I'd be on the line with my credit card company getting that charged back in a heartbeat.

    21. Re:No popcorn yet by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      Since the no-fly list identifies you only by name to the airline, the government can quite easily claim that YOU are not on the no-fly list, but it's just a mix up with some OTHER John Smith who totally exists and is a terrorist. Naturally, the details of the other John Smith are classified, so there's no piece of identification that you can possibly produce to prove that you are not they. The lovely part is that you only need to be on the list a short time for the restriction of movement to hamper whatever you were doing that the powers-that-be didn't like, so even if this judge were to take the unprecedented step of revealing the contents of the list, they could produce one from five minutes before or after lacking your name ...

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    22. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, the government is NOT allowed to withhold evidence.

      Unless it is in the interest of "national security". How many trials have been reported on Slashdot now that flopped because they depended on classified evidence?

    23. Re:No popcorn yet by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Fly to Cuba, Cuba to Canada. Not hard.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    24. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. But, neither was it the passenger's fault, the passenger having successfully performed all preparations and actions requested in order to be able to board the flight at the time and place the airline made a contact to fly her from.

      If something outside the airline's (direct) control, such as weather or a mechanical problem, prevents the airline from flying one or more passengers, what does the airline typically do? I believe they do "customer service" and try to reach a result which feels somewhat fair to the customer, even if it's not profitable for the airline on that particular trip.

    25. Re:No popcorn yet by JSG · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that a judge would not know how the no fly list works and the legislation behind it - given that knowing or at least how to research the law is his job?

      Cheers
      Jon

    26. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Witness: I am on the no-fly list and I have a document to prove it.
      Judge: Get on a plane and bring it to me.

      WTF is this jack-hole doing on the bench?

    27. Re:No popcorn yet by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >How can she prove she is on the list when the airlines are instructed not to let the passenger know the reason why the passenger is denied boarding...

      Malaysian Airlines actually provided her a copy of the letter from the DHS.

      The judge, though, said that it's not a sworn statement, so it has no validity. You know, the letter that was used to block her from travelling. That one.

      Fucking unbelievable.

    28. Re:No popcorn yet by ArbitraryName · · Score: 2

      You are barred from US airspace, which might complicate flying to Canada. But you are not barred from Canada. Canada explicitly states it does not use the US no fly list.

    29. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who was selected for a 'random search' at two airports in a row during a transit flight.. it's sure as hell anything but. Second time I told them to take a hike.

    30. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't her fault she wasn't allowed to fly. The airline made an offer, it was accepted, they received consideration, they should have provided the service. They didn't, they should refund the consideration.

    31. Re:No popcorn yet by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      The reason it's not a sworn statement is because it's probably illegal to give her the letter, so the Malaysian Airlines personnel who gave her the letter could face criminal prosecution (and also find out how well the Malaysian government cooperates with the US Department of Justice).

      Like you said, though, effin unreal.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    32. Re:No popcorn yet by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      The No-Fly list does not allow the person on chartered private flights, and it even denies a person from flying overseas into Canada or Mexico. There are even reports that DHS will go further and attempt to block a person from taking a ship into the US as well, US citizen or not.

    33. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got no idea how easy that would be.

      Its impossible in this era of secret courts and gag orders.

    34. Re:No popcorn yet by HiThere · · Score: 1

      However it sounds as if he is also imposing impossible conditions on an innocent party.

      He may be an honest judge, but by this act he is supporting a corrupt system....unless I'm misunderstanding the situation.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    35. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No service - no money. Faults be damned.

    36. Re:No popcorn yet by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      She had a contract for a specific service that the airline failed to provide. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that the airline can't provide the service. If you offer a service and later find you're unable to, at the very least, you owe the customer a refund.

    37. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because printers are expensive and you can make your own letter.

    38. Re:No popcorn yet by erroneus · · Score: 2

      You are. He is actually stacking the odds against the prosecution by challenging (daring really) not to block the witness from appearing. Also, once again, it does the defense and the witness no good if a final decision in their favor is overturned on appeal based on a trvial technicality. Better that the prosecution's case is destroyed with strong evidence of their own misconduct. And to do that, very strong proof must be presented. If she arrives safely and provides testimony, that's good. If she is blocked again, it's still pretty good considering the judge gave explicit orders to allow her to fly. And, if she was smart enough to visit the US embassy with an airline/airport employee to sign an affidavit confirming the authenticity of the no-fly order as well as a statement confirming that the no-fly order was indeed received and honored, better still.

      One major point of this case is to show the DoJ's and by extension the executive's unfair practices.

      There should be little doubt that US executive department activities are harming the US and the world at large. Public exposure is the most important first steps in correcting the problem.

    39. Re:No popcorn yet by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Sadly it is not. The DHS is responsible. Unless the airline is lieing, the DHS would be responsible for refunding the cost of the ticket.

      You clearly don't understand how the no fly list operates. Airlines aren't allowed to tell someone they are rejecting them because they are on the no fly list (god knows how she got them to tell her). As you'd typically turn up at the airport and be turned away without explanation you're not going to get compensated by DHS because you'd never know, or be told, that they had anything to do with it.

      I suppose you could theoretically try and start a lawsuit against the DHS if you got turned away from a flight that the no fly list applies to. However given that the list is secret so as to, supposedly, stop evil people realising the US government knows about them they aren't just going to say "oh you caught us".

    40. Re:No popcorn yet by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Have you read the contract by any chance? Of course you haven't. Do you have any idea what so ever if the contract includes a provision saying that you accept that it is not the airlines responsibility to ensure that the destination country won't reject you? Of course you don't. So you're someone with plenty of willingness to spout opinion and fuck all knowledge to base it on. If only people on here would stop sharing opinions based on nothing more than there uninformed and imagined version of what should happen. 5 minutes research on google could tell you whether people typically get refunds when this happens, then you could post something informative telling the rest of us about it.

    41. Re:No popcorn yet by N1AK · · Score: 1

      You're banned from US airspace not US airports specifically. Thus if that Cuba-Canada flight passes into US airspace you won't be allowed on it.

    42. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ii sure is. They should refund the customer, and then collect the money from DHS. If it's a damn secret list the customer has no idea he can't fly before purchasing the ticket, and that is just plain wrong. (Evn if you believe no-flight list is ok)

    43. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the US determining who can fly to other countries?
      Is it some deal they have with the airlines? Or are those countries helping the US enforce their BS?

    44. Re:No popcorn yet by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      I imagine if you are a ticket agent in Malaysia you don't know/give a fuck if the DHS doesn't want you to tell.

    45. Re:No popcorn yet by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      I just read Malaysia Airlines conditions of carriage. No such provision exists.

      In most countries, such a provision would most likely be illegal.

      5 minutes on Google confirms that people do seem to typically get refunds when this happens.

      Anything else I can help you with?

    46. Re:No popcorn yet by Hans+Adler · · Score: 1

      I almost agree. But there is the little detail that she probably doesn't have too many airlines to choose from and this one will likely put her on its own blacklist if she does this.

    47. Re:No popcorn yet by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the airlines have legal fine print that basically states "We can refuse to let you board for any reason we think of and not refund your money at all." If you call the credit card company, they'll refer to this and deny it. Even if you get them to accept it, the airline can let loose their attack lawyers to either ruin your credit score or bog you down in a lawsuit (or both).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    48. Re:No popcorn yet by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      If it has to be a sworn statement that goes to court, why doesn't it have to be a sworn statement that stops her from getting on the plane?

      --
      -
    49. Re:No popcorn yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked for a friend of mine, Lumpy is correct.

    50. Re:No popcorn yet by jrumney · · Score: 1

      From Malaysia to US there are dozens of airlines she could use. If she doesn't mind a coast to coast flight within US, she has the choice of flights via Europe to the East Coast, or via Japan, Taiwan or Korea to the West Coast. The only difficulty would be if she if somewhere remote and needs an extra flight to an international airport, then she probably only has a choice between Malaysian Airlines+subsidiaries, and AirAsia.

    51. Re:No popcorn yet by jrumney · · Score: 1

      This is one area where credit card companies are actually quite good at backing up their customers. She paid for a service, turned up at the airport on time and basically followed all the requirements of the contract on her side. The airline denied her boarding, claiming they were told by a third party that she could not travel on that flight. The credit card company would just refund her and tell the airline to file a court case against her if it thought she owed them money. Malaysian consumer law is weak compared with most Western countries, but not so weak that the airline would be stupid enough to pursue her through the courts.

    52. Re:No popcorn yet by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Precisely what I find ridiculous about the situation. They want to have it both ways.

    53. Re:No popcorn yet by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Normally they require you to either have a return ticket or a long term visa, specifically to cover them in case they are required to bring you straight back. In that case you get no refund if you are refused entry to the destination country, but that is different than the case where you are not allowed on the plane in the first place.

  10. Guys... chill! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Funny

    Flying is a privilege, not a right. She can just drive to court.

    It's not like we don't have interstate highways in every state in the union.

    For those who hadn't noticed, I'm referring to an INTERstate road on an island, while also parodying a government legal rationalization and general ignorance of geography and logic by the US.

    For those who still can't figure it out... yes, it's humor.

    For those who did figure it out... check out all the people here who couldn't figure this out!

    1. Re:Guys... chill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Malaysia's not part of the U.S.

    2. Re:Guys... chill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know they're among us. Or is it that we're among them? I'm still not clear on that point.

    3. Re:Guys... chill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humor is funny, so no, that wasn't it.

    4. Re:Guys... chill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your attempt at humor fell flat.

    5. Re:Guys... chill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... For those who still can't figure it out... yes, it's humor.

      OK, I took your words literally and wrote a critical reply, which was down-modded.

      ... also parodying a government legal rationalization ...

      Obviously a lot of people didn't know the bureaucratic excuse; making your cross-reference of dubious relevance. I certainly didn't expect an interstate highway that connected to the ocean.

    6. Re:Guys... chill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not very humorous. Your jokes shouldn't leave the bulk of the audience behind. Maybe you should write your humor on a sandwich board and walk around explaining it.

    7. Re:Guys... chill! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well now that's not funny!

  11. Rule of Law by Phoenix666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We have all learned to our chagrin that this is what has become of the rule of law in our day and age. There is no law, there are no rules. The Constitution no longer applies. There is only rule by fiat. That's a very shaky basis for a society. It will not end well for those promulgating this state of affairs. There are hundreds of millions more of us than there are of them, and we are heavily armed and educated. Everything we need to track down and hang the 1%.

    Chew and digest.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Rule of Law by fru1tcake · · Score: 1

      The revolution will not be...pretty.

      --
      It's not a bug, it's a lepidopter!
    2. Re:Rule of Law by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I'm getting very hungry and I'm ready to start chewing.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    3. Re:Rule of Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The saddest part is that many of the dorks in the NSA and other three-letter abuses of power assuredly do view themselves as "the good guys." Their error is in picking the wrong side in "the balance between liberty and security."

    4. Re:Rule of Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > track down and hang the 1%.

      I've been to six hardware stores.
      They tell me I'm on the No-Hanging-Rope list.

      Sorry.

    5. Re:Rule of Law by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This sort of lawlessness and unaccountability is precisely what Michael Cannon testified to congress about. He asserted that what this leads to no one wants to think about. But that by following this path to its conclusion can end no other way as in all of human history, no one has succeeded in that sort of domination and abuse..

      If you asked me if this was possible 20 years ago, I would have said "Yes, and they have already done it. We have some freedoms, but no real control. We're happy and comfortable slaves by and large." And it was true. There was a middle class and we had ways and means to improve our lives if we really wanted to. Not that we had any hope of being a 1%er or anyone particiarly powerful, but we could all potentially live a good life with reasonable comfort, safety and the ability for the persuit of happiness.

      These days, the greed of wanting more and/or the ambition of the 1%ers trying to squeeze more people into their circles or whatever the hell has gone wrong, they have gone off the rails and exceeded the limits which have brought their evil into the light while people aren't distracted by TV and shopping and sports and celebrities. Instead, people are suffering while things are getting worse and they are already looking for people to blame. Bad way to treat your slaves 1%ers. You were supposed to keep us happy and unaware. You failed.

    6. Re:Rule of Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we are heavily armed and educated

      No. You're lightly armed, and most are poorly educated. Also, when you overthrow them, the cycle will repeat.

    7. Re:Rule of Law by knarf · · Score: 0

      we are heavily armed and educated. Everything we need to track down and hang the 1%.

      Whoa there, with talk like that you'll soon find yourself on the business end of a pair of 'FBI special investigators'. I don't know what is more threatening to them in your call to action but I suspect the 'heavily educated' bit makes 'm chomp at the bit for adding your name to an alphabet soup of watch lists. No more fairground rides for subversive you!

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    8. Re:Rule of Law by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The revolution will not be...pretty.

      "The peasants are revolting"
      "They've always been revolting prince, but now they're rebelling."

      No, it won't be pretty if it happens. But hopefully it will be quick. There's nothing civil about a civil war.

      That the writing is on the wall and the empire lives on borrowed time seems less unthinkable every day. We can hope that the government and people can align peacefully, but I think the odds are starting to get somewhat low on that.
      If a revolution is to happen, it may come quicker than we think - it took merely five years from the economic downturn until the Russian Revolution of 1905.

    9. Re:Rule of Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everything we need to track down and hang the 1%.

      Chew and digest.

      To which 1% are you referring? The richest 1%? If you're making more than about $33,000USD per year, YOU are part of the 1% that you feel should hang. If you were talking about the people in government who create oppressive policy, you'd be talking about just over 3,000,000 people. We don't even have that many people in the entire military.

      So when you talk about "The 1%", are you really calling for the summary execution of ~ 3,000,000 US citizens (or ~ 71,000,000 people worldwide)? Do you have any relatives named Adolph, Joseph, Heinrich, Hermann, or Rudolph?

      I'm guessing you also posted your rant from a trendy Macbook, sitting in a Starbucks sipping your latte before you go to your next Liberal Arts final in your BMW, both paid for by your parents.

    10. Re:Rule of Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And meanwhile, our rulers who trade in secrets and favors laugh at how we blame the bourgeois who are rich in mere money.

    11. Re:Rule of Law by slothman32 · · Score: 1

      OK tell me when the shootin' and killin' is going to occur and I will be there at your side.
      Well after you personally shoot to kill at someone.

      I am not holding my breath.

      Otherwise those are just words you are saying and no actions.
      The millions of people aren't going to fight.

      --
      Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
  12. Moral of story: Big government too powerful by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As if we needed yet another reminder, this shows us in all sorts of ways how bad big government really is. Either they abused the list to keep a witness out, or they really COULDN'T tell she was on the list which means the list is an utter unmanageable clusterfuck.

    Either way this is the result when government is allowed to grow too large and too powerful, abuse and mismanagement grow exponentially. Remember this come any election, always vote for the guy that wants to give you less, not more.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. Fuck you asshole! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flying is a privilege, not a right.

    Fuck you and die asshole!

    Fuck you.

    just ... fuck you.

    1. Re:Fuck you asshole! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you

    2. Re:Fuck you asshole! by amiga3D · · Score: 1, Funny

      Fuck me! I mean....Fuck you!

  14. No one watches the watchers by korbulon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What are laws but the playthings of the rich and powerful to be used and discarded at will? They're like a blanket in a blizzard: designed to keep you warm, but when the storm strikes, utterly useless.

    1. Re:No one watches the watchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rich and powerful are such because the masses act as though the rich and powerful are necessary. In a country that is run by corporate power, every purchase from the corporations supports their power. The rich get richer not because they are rich and powerful, but because the poor buy their stuff and work for them: whether out of habit or through belief that the rich deserve to have the power to tell the poor what to buy and where to work. Meanwhile, ignorance is blissful in the somnambulant wastelands of suburbia: until it isn't fun anymore. Let them eat high fructose corn syrup and play Assassin's Creed.

  15. Just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    until a "reactionary" Replublican Administration gets the White House.

    The things they will do will make Obama look like the practice squad.

    1. Re:Just wait... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It doesn't usually quite work like that. The way it usually works is:

      (to start at an arbitrary point)
      1: The Democrats are in and infurating people.
      2: The Republicans get in, and pass laws giving the executive more power. The Democrats get into a tizzy about how unjust they are, so the Republicans hesitate to use them.
      3: The Democrats get in, and use the powers granted them by the prior administration.
      4: Go to 1.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  16. 2 years ago ... by micahraleigh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... I would have called this a fringe conspiracy theory.

    Now I call it the new normal.

    1. Re:2 years ago ... by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      Mr Snowden did illegal things, but he is a hero, honestly, which could be illustrated no more clearly than your post.

    2. Re:2 years ago ... by cusco · · Score: 1

      You're a bit behind the times. This has been going on for over a decade now.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    3. Re:2 years ago ... by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I don't remember anything in the news two years ago where the govt could see 'what you are thinking'. The IRS thing is another completely new monster.

      I remember either the FBI or CIA had some kind of carnivore program that could rifle through emails and that got canned.

  17. William Alsup for Supreme Court! by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

    He's easily one of the (if not THE) best sitting judge in the country.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
    1. Re:William Alsup for Supreme Court! by NeverWorker1 · · Score: 1

      Which is why he won't ever get there. Sadly, supreme court nominations are more about appealing to one's political base and creating a "legacy" than actually appointing intelligent, insightful jurists.

    2. Re:William Alsup for Supreme Court! by twocows · · Score: 1

      Which is why no president is going to appoint him.

    3. Re:William Alsup for Supreme Court! by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Too true. I would also nominate Richard Posner (even though his politics are somewhat contrary to mine). No idea what Alsup's politics are.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
  18. Very interesting implication by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Imagine this sequence of events:
    1. A perfectly legal subpoena is issued for someone to appear as a witness, while they're a plane's flight away from home.
    2. Put witness on no-fly list.
    3. Cite witness for contempt of court for failing to appear.

    Boom, you now have a tool for the intelligence community, with the help of a friendly (or blackmailed) judge to put anyone away they like, for any reason they like, at least for a little while. And sure, the contempt citation would eventually be reversed on appeal due to the obvious entrapment issue (the government caused the witness to fail to appear due to its own actions), but by then whoever was targeted has already had their life thoroughly screwed up.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Very interesting implication by DRJlaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Imagine this sequence of events:
      1. A perfectly legal subpoena is issued for someone to appear as a witness, while they're a plane's flight away from home.
      2. Put witness on no-fly list.
      3. Cite witness for contempt of court for failing to appear.

      Yeah. No.

      For example: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b) requires that you serve the person with the subpoena. If you wait until they're away from home, you're going to have a much harder time finding them. Not a complete barrier to the scheme, but ask your lawyer friends how much fun it is to track down someone who cannot be found at their nominal residence or place of business. They will have stories. They will not be fun stories.

      Also, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(1) provides that:

      A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanctionâ"which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's feesâ"on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

      That rule doesn't appear to apply here because I understand that this was a party witness, not an opposition or hostile witness who you'd compel to attend using a subpoena. Instead, Judge Alsop is likely to cite "the inherent authority of the Court" (to conduct proceedings and sanction parties who unreasonably interfere with those proceedings). But if you're the government, or a party that fraudulently causes the government to put someone on the no-fly list, that Rule would apply to shennanigans involving any witness that you were compelling to attend.

      Boom, you now have a tool for the intelligence community, with the help of a friendly (or blackmailed) judge to put anyone away they like, for any reason they like, at least for a little while.

      No. Because contempt of court typically requires an intentional act, and typically is used as a threat by that judge to gain compliance. If you were to show up ready to testify, you very likely would not be jailed for contempt merely due to the fact that you've voluntarily showed up. If you can also show that you were actively impeded from showing up, you almost certainly would not be jailed for contempt.

      At worst, you could be arrested where you were stuck, temporarily jailed, and extradited to the state/court that issued the subpoena. Slightly traumatic, but remarkably quick if you don't oppose the proceedings. Better yet, the authorities attempting to extradite you will rather quickly find out that you are on the no-fly list. Unless they're part of the 'grand conspiracy' too, that tends to work against the scheme.

      Of course once you start theorizing as to "friendly (or blackmailed) judge[s]," you can come up with all sorts of whacky crap. Like a Federal judge ignoring the typical requirement that a subpoena cannot demand attendance in less some number of days (related to Rule 45(d) -- try to issue a subpoena requiring attendance the next day and see how enforcable that will be) and the laws of physics somehow preventing you from getting a train ticket, bus ticket, or rental car allowing you to return home within the typical required 'waiting period.'

      Too much Hollywood. Not enough real life. Courts tend to work slowly and methodically. Judges tend not to throw away their careers on petty crap, and with the exception of a very few (Supreme Court types) remain answerable to a host of other judges. Actual long-term jailing for contempt is relatively rare and exceptional. You would do well to focus your conern on your local LEOs and prosecutors, who really can screw up your life with very little cause.

    2. Re:Very interesting implication by cusco · · Score: 2

      Slightly traumatic

      You obviously have never spent any time in jail, and really obviously have never been in a non-US jail. And you've never followed an international extradition proceeding either, have you? Your "remarkably quick" proceeding rarely happens in less then two weeks, and if the arresting country has any issue at all with any recent US policy it can be stretched out for months.

      Slightly traumatic my ass.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    3. Re:Very interesting implication by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      You obviously have never spent any time in jail....

      You obviously have never experienced actual trauma. Grow a pair.

      and really obviously have never been in a non-US jail.

      Please provide an example of an international arrest warrant springing out of a finding of civil contempt.

      And you've never followed an international extradition proceeding either, have you?

      You've apparently never followed a proceeding in which extradition was waived because the person wanted to be delievered to the court. The premise is that the person is precluded from flying back, not that they are trying to avoid answering the subpoena.

      Your "remarkably quick" proceeding rarely happens in less then two weeks...

      Two days is more like it.

      and if the arresting country has any issue at all with any recent US policy it can be stretched out for months.

      You obviously have never attempted to serve a US subpoena internationally. Nevermind providing an example of an international arrest warrant for failing to answer a subpoena, or providing an example of a country refusing to 'extradite' a person who actually wants to respond to the subpoena. You should recall that the person is being prevented from attending by being on the 'no fly list,' not actively seeking to avoid the subpoena. Frankly, I don't care about jail, extradition, or issues with US policy. I buy ferry, bus, and/or train tickets, since those modes of transportation are covered by the list. A perfectly overcomplicated scheme to jail someone thwarted by Gre.yhound and Amtrak. Drat. Back to the drawing board.

  19. This is illegal, no? by rnturn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ``Lawyers for the Department of Justice told the court that she simply missed her plane, but she was able to provide documents from the airline explaining that the Department of Homeland Security was not allowing her to fly.''

    What are they teaching lawyers these days? That it's OK to commit perjury? Who wants to see the lying lawyers spend some time in jail? Raise your hand.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    1. Re:This is illegal, no? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I think you would actually NEED good evidence before that was a reasonable response. Here we just know that SOMEONE is lying, and we have a pretty strong belief that it's someone among the Feds. But belief isn't proof. The paper could be a fake. It could be something cooked up by the airline, or someone who worked there, perhaps because they overbooked the flight.

      Yes, we believe that the Feds are the responsible party. Now prove that the lawyers knew or had reason to know. Even showing that it's probable would be impossible based on public information.

      OTOH, the case should clearly not be allowed to proceed. And it should be ensured that the witness is able to come to the trial. AND the court should purchase the airplane ticket. (I can quite understand the witness not wanting to throw good money after bad.) If, after the trial, it is decided that the witness was barred from the first flight because of being present on the no-fly list, triple the cost of the ticket should be assigned to the lawyers who asserted in court that she was not on that list. If it is decided that the witness lied, triple the cost should be assigned to her. (As a fine. Note that so far she is not under oath, so it can't be perjury.) If it's some other party, the court would need to decide what to do depending on the party. (Interfering with a witness is criminal, and this is clearly that. But they may well be outside the jurisdiction of the court.)

      But the current decision is silly. If she can't come because she's on the no-fly list, then every time she buys a ticket shes just thrown away her money. Of course she isn't going to buy tickets without a reasonable belief that it will do her any good. And the judge asking her to is being unreasonable. She may not have proof (i.e. sworn evidence) that she's on the no-fly list, but she has good reason to believe it. And the judge has seen a part of that "good reason", so he knows that she has good reason to believe it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:This is illegal, no? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      I think the judge's position is that, regardless of the first case, at this point DHS knows she's supposed to be allowed to come and testify. If they continue to keep her on the list and keep her off the plane, there's no question that it's deliberate obstruction of justice and there's no argument DHS can legitimately make that he can't drop the hammer on them for it. The DHS lawyers know it too.

      As for the whole question of the document not being officially "evidence", that's just procedural. She gets on the stand or submits an affidavit testifying that yes that exhibit is in fact the same letter the airline handed her. Her lawyer introduces an affidavit from the airline saying that yes the letter they gave her was in fact the same letter they were given by so-and-so from DHS, and is consistent with other no-fly orders they've received from DHS and they have no reason to believe it's not authentic. If DHS has kept their noses clean since then the judge notes that the witness is on the stand and able to testify, so no harm no foul. If they haven't... the judge can do many things, from merely drawing the inferences most unfavorable to the DHS from the testimony up to referring the DHS officials involved for prosecution for obstruction of justice and witness tampering (and even the DOJ is going to take it seriously when it's a Federal judge referring the matter). DHS doesn't want this to happen, so they're going to make sure it doesn't have to.

    3. Re:This is illegal, no? by Cacadril · · Score: 1

      I wonder if she made some phone call when she realized that she might not be able to get on board. That phone call has a time stamp and a location. There is a good chance that she can prove that she was in the airport area well before the gate closed. There are likely other proofs as well. An American judge probably cannot subpoena phone records in Malaysia, but there are diplomatic channels that can be made to work. Perhaps the USA and Malaysia have agreements about mutual assistance in such cases.

      --
      There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
    4. Re:This is illegal, no? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      And if she buys a second ticket, and she's refused flight again? She probably doesn't have enough money to go on that merry-go-round several times. She's already out the cost of one plane ticket without recompense.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:This is illegal, no? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The glaring part is that the lawyers here did not merely assume that she was late. They have claimed that they know that the government has not denied her via the no-fly list: that they went and checked with the DHS! Unless the letter handed to her by the airline is fake, then either the lawyers were lied to by their client (DHS), or else they are themselves lying.

  20. driving your car on oceans floors - not smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i heard the ocean is wet cars are heavy and you might drown driving a car from malyasia to the usa

    1. Re:driving your car on oceans floors - not smart by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that's just fear mongering by the airline industry.

  21. I am astonished by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Funny

    I really have to congratulate you. Reading the long string of replies from idiots who didn't follow the link and/or get the joke is hilarious.

    It's like I touched the third rail of the internet. I am astonished.

    1. Re:I am astonished by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I really have to congratulate you. Reading the long string of replies from idiots who didn't follow the link and/or get the joke is hilarious.

      It's like I touched the third rail of the internet. I am astonished.

      It is an excellent proof of the underlying issue though... the only reason I didn't find this amusing is because I found it so disturbing... I'm presuming of course that most of the people who responded are US citizens....

      Then again, just to the North you have the Trans Canada highway that starts on Prince Edward Island and ends on Vancouver Island (or the other way around, depending on perspective) -- seems to me that Hawaii, Rhode Island and Alaska could do with a bit of that action too (although the ferry trip from Hawaii to Rhode Island would be a bit of a chore)....

    2. Re:I am astonished by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      seems to me that Hawaii, Rhode Island and Alaska could do with a bit of that action too (although the ferry trip from Hawaii to Rhode Island would be a bit of a chore)...

      Prince Edward Island and Vancouver Island are more akin to Manhattan than Hawaii or Alaska. They are served by bridges. Hawaii is 2500 miles from the west coast of the US mainland and Rhode Island is a (non-island) state on the US east coast. There actually is a ferry between Alaska and Washington, primarily for travel without the need of a passport.

    3. Re:I am astonished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no bridges between Vancouver Island and the mainland.

    4. Re:I am astonished by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      I'd make sure to wash my hands after touching Anything on the internet.

    5. Re:I am astonished by Jmc23 · · Score: 2

      Clearly you've never been to Vancouver Island or you just smoked a whole lot of BC Bud while you were there. There is no bridge and even if there was, an ~26km crossing is nothing like the 1k or less bridges connecting manhattan.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    6. Re:I am astonished by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

      No, I've never been to Vancouver. For some reason I thought it was closer and there was a bridge. In any case, comparing it to some place like Hawaii is still crazy.

    7. Re:I am astonished by a_mari_usque_ad_mare · · Score: 1

      You may have been confused by the naming. The city of Vancouver, BC is not on Vancouver island, it is on the mainland. You can see Vancouver island from parts of the city however.

      Alot of things are named Vancouver in that region, including Vancouver, WA, all named for the famous explorer George Vancouver. Understandably it leads to some confusion.

      --
      The map is not the territory.
  22. Is this about Communist China or the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting harder to tell them apart these days.

    1. Re:Is this about Communist China or the US? by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, it will get easier to tell them apart soon enough.......

  23. Dear US Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop being cruel and heartless. Once enough people become angry it can only lead to a future that makes 2013 Detroit make like Disneyland. We need you to show some compassion where and when possible to all people, not just those that contribute to your campaign funds and then give you 10 figure jobs later in life.

    In other words, stop acting like a dick. Pretty please.

  24. 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not a quibble, but a point which is largely disregarded: the issue is not the top 1%, but the top 0.1%. The wealth disparity in the USA is so vast, so nonlinear, that the people in the top 0.1% are in a totally different league than everyone else.

  25. Re:Moral of story: Big government too powerful by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Well you have reached a relatively sharp but small demographic. Let's try to get this on the "consumer media." (I am creating new words which better describe what they are. Mainstream media just doesn't describe them any longer as they are losing their relevance for so many. But they still remain the consumer media as they still control the minds of so many consumers out there.)

  26. Jail time - give prosicutor what he would have ask by MonsterMasher · · Score: 1

    Simple:
    Jail time - give prosecutor what he would have ask for jail time for student.

    Track down at least 5 more people involved in this conspiracy.
    One of 5 must be a very significant political person (read Administration/Senator/etc),
    and 2 of 5 mid-level manager level conspirators, and 1 of 5 a low-level person (IT person or such.)

    Send the message high and low - all will get hurt for this sh-t!

  27. civil "servants" need... by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Works even better when you disbar them, and permanently fire them from govt service and remove their pension...

  28. first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first : information collection then systematic harassment of anyone not like them or paying them off.

  29. Zobel vs. Williams? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    I couldn't find "Zoe vs. Williams" in the 1982 registry. "Zobel vs..." is something about Alaska mineral resource dividends.

    Were you thinking of a different case?

  30. Re:Moral of story: Big government too powerful by Microlith · · Score: 1

    Because Big Corporation is better?

  31. OT: which ending? by slew · · Score: 1

    Q: Which cut of Brazil does the Netflix stream (no I don't have a netflix account)? Hopefully not the atrocious "Love Conquers All" version...

    1. Re:OT: which ending? by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 1

      Q: Which cut of Brazil does the Netflix stream (no I don't have a netflix account)? Hopefully not the atrocious "Love Conquers All" version...

      But the Ministry of Love does conquer all!

  32. Confirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing is confirmed until it has been denied!

  33. Ok - my stupid question of the day ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HOW do I find out if I am on the no fly list PRIOR to attempting to even book a flight?

    IS that even possible?

    OR is it so super top-secret eyes only yada yada yada ...

  34. Welcome to Stasi Amerikkka by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    All your rights are free, but you're not permitted to have either Rights or Freedoms.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  35. What about the innocents? by Xaedalus · · Score: 2

    How many innocents are you willing to kill in the name of your revolution? At what pre-determined point does the blood flow stop? And is there forgiveness for your enemies, and leniency available? Or are you simply going to kill anyone who is the enemy, extend that to any who don't agree with you, and stop only when there's no one left to shoot at?

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    1. Re:What about the innocents? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      How many innocents are you willing to kill in the name of your revolution? At what pre-determined point does the blood flow stop? And is there forgiveness for your enemies, and leniency available? Or are you simply going to kill anyone who is the enemy, extend that to any who don't agree with you, and stop only when there's no one left to shoot at?

      The Constitution outlines your rights. If anybody tries to violate those rights, you may do whatever is necessary to stop them. So, you shoot people who try to take your rights by force.

      Now, you'll probably end up dead, and if it went to court you'd probably lose...but if, for example, a government agent tries to enter your home by force with no warrant, it is legal and moral to defend yourself with violent force if necessary. Otherwise being "free from unreasonable search and seizure" is no longer a right, it is merely a promise.

    2. Re:What about the innocents? by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 2

      I can't speak for any other potential freedom fighter, but I can speak for myself, so here are my answers:

      (a) I will never target innocents, and will always make every reasonable effort to protect them from harm, including enemy reprisals.

      (b) The blood flow stops when one side surrenders or everyone on it is deceased. It will likely be mine. We don't have the numbers to win, only to weaken the enemy and reduce its ability to rob, enslave and murder people, and to buy time for future generations of patriots to learn, prepare, and eventually renew the fight when the time is right. I am reluctant to kill for this or any other goal, but I am willing to die for it if necessary.

      (c) I am willing to parole an enemy combatant once. He gets a nice brand or tat (in a non-prominent location) so he can be easily identified should he surrender again. After that he is detained or semi-permanently deprived of the ability to fight. (If I can do that without killing him I will. Life is precious.) As for the leaders, my belief is that a FEW of the very worst should be tried and punished for their crimes, publicly, according to their own law. After the conflict ends, if we are in a position to grant amnesty to the rest conditioned upon future lawful behavior, I will strongly recommend that we do.

      (d) Anyone who uses force or violence against us or against innocents is a legitimate target, and that absolutely includes those who *knowingly* support, defend, promote, or give aid or encouragement to the enemy; but, as a practical matter, we will likely be focused on immediate threats only. Even in war I presume anyone who isn't shooting at me is innocent until proven guilty, and my goal is not to imprison or kill millions of people; it is to restore a society based on respect for life, liberty, property, and rule of law. And I understand that violence will not accomplish this goal, which is why I will fight only once attacked (or once attack is imminent) and fully realize that it will fall on those who come after me, those who remain after the fighting has ceased, to carry out the true revolution in the hearts and minds of the people.

    3. Re:What about the innocents? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      but if, for example, a government agent tries to enter your home by force with no warrant, it is legal and moral to defend yourself with violent force if necessary.

      Moral, yes. Legal, not anymore. There have been a number of cases where non-uniformed government agents have busted the wrong door (with no warning, much less presenting a warrant etc - and the warrant was for a different location at that, so in practice it was meaningless) and were shot by the owner, and the owner was found guilty of first-degree murder of a police officer as a result. A worse scenario is when the agents fire back and kill the owner, which has also happened (and they were not charged with murder or even manslaughter).

      USA is long since a police state in a sense that getting your door busted by a bunch of uniformed SWAT/FBI/ATF goons who will break your door, shout at you, kill your dog, throw a flashbang grenade at you, break your arm, handcuff and arrest you, and occasionally accidentally shoot you (even if you're complying with every single order!), is a very real possibility that every citizen and resident has to contend with - even if you "haven't done anything wrong" whatsoever. Worse, they will lie about it to the media and in court afterwards. And you will not be able to do anything about it or meaningfully punish them for it by legal means; at best, you can sue the government for monetary damages.

    4. Re:What about the innocents? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Oh it's far worse than that. In some jurisdictions it's illegal to take any action to prevent an officer from entering your home -- even if he's doing so illegally. Even if he's off-duty. Even if he's threatening you. My point was that any such law or action is inherently unconstitutional and therefore is itself illegal. Not that the government agents care.

  36. Quick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hurry up Slashtards, explain how it would be a utopia here in these united states if only the government had unlimited power.

  37. Re:Moral of story: Big government too powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    False dichotomy much?

  38. Dictatorship by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0, Troll

    I've once read an article by a guy who managed to escape a dictatorship

    I escaped from the dictatorship of the CCP, I have experienced dictatorship first hand.

    I do not like what the government of the United States is doing, but in this case, we gotta look WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING

    That plaintiff, Dr. Rahimah Ibrahim, from Malaysia, is a SUPPORTER of a racist and fascist regime of Malaysia.

    She is an avid supporter of UMNO - a RACIST ORGANIZATION which is still practicing APARTHEID in the country that it rules over (Malaysia, in this case).

    UMNO is also an Islamic organization that actively supports GLOBAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM.

    Through the support of UMNO, the jihadists in the southern Thailand and in southern Philippines got their training inside Malaysia.

    It was the Malaysian army which taught those jihadists the bomb making techniques, and taught them how to carry out terrorist attacks.

    For that purpose, UMNO actually set up a secret military base inside the thick jungle in Borneo and many batches of terrorists were trained.

    UMNO not only provide training to those jihadist terrorists but also provide monetary / intelligent support, as well as supply them with weapons and explosives.

    All these have already been very well documented by many parties, including the United Nations.

    In other words, the "victim" in this case isn't as "innocent" as she claims to be.

    She is an active player in an organization which supports the global jihadist movement.

    I do not know why the US government puts her on the no-fly-list, but that Dr. Rahimah Ibrahim certainly isn't an innocent party to begin with.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Dictatorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you have proof that Dr. Rahimah Ibrahim is a member of UMNO? Citation is needed if you have proof.

    2. Re:Dictatorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes little difference. If she's not carrying weapons or actively trying to blow up the plane, she's not a threat. If we start denying entry to everybody who doesn't love us (or look like us) then we're well down to road to where you don't want to go.

    3. Re:Dictatorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I don't give a crap about her. The US Government put her daughter, a US Citizen, on the no fly list as she was about to return the US to be a witness in her mother's trial. When the Government denies US citizens the ability to return to the US without due process and no timely process... that is when they have crossed the line. I am embarrassed of what my generation has done to the basic concepts of rule of law and due process. If there is not one Senator, nor Representative that isn't bothered about this; I strongly suggest that younger generation move out of the country. Game, Set. Match.

    4. Re:Dictatorship by TheLink · · Score: 1

      She is an avid supporter of UMNO - a RACIST ORGANIZATION which is still practicing APARTHEID in the country that it rules over (Malaysia, in this case).

      Citation please?

      She is an active player in an organization which supports the global jihadist movement.

      Plus even if she is an UMNO member you'd have to show she is "an active player".

      Otherwise you could tar all Democrat and Republican members with a similar brush.

      Plus the last I checked the US was still friendly with the leader of UMNO.
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/02/readout-president-s-call-prime-minister-najib-malaysia
        http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/10/11/John-Kerry-US-Secretary-of-State-Najib-Tun-Razak.aspx

      Is Najib on the no-fly list too?

      --
    5. Re:Dictatorship by unitron · · Score: 2

      There's a Rahinah Ibrahim and a Rahimah Ibrahim (well, there's at least one of each).

      Which one are you talking about?

      And is CCP Soviet Socialist Republics?

      And wasn't Malaysia not a part of that?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    6. Re:Dictatorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm. No.

      Malaysia was NOT part of the USSR, CCCP, etc. Time to check a map, if you think that.

    7. Re:Dictatorship by unitron · · Score: 1

      Are you talking to me or the parent poster who talked about escaping the dictatorship of the CCP and then launched into the Malaysia diatribe without me seeing any sign of a connection?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  39. What's next? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    I cannot wait until government puts a congressman on the no fly list to prevent him from voting..

    1. Re:What's next? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Wait no longer. It's already happened at least once. (IIRC he was a Representative from New England, but I can't remember which state. They later took his name off the list and appologized to him.)

      I think it was around 5 years ago now. Possibly longer.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:What's next? by cusco · · Score: 1

      The Shrub administration kept Senator Kennedy on the no-fly list for years because of a minor 1970s IRA terrorist with a similar name. IIRC, it wasn't until several months after the guy in Ireland was shown to be dead that they finally removed the name from the list.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  40. Two words: Larry Ellison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CAPTCHA: 'pupils'

  41. Dear Homeland Security Apparatus: by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FUCK YOU.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Dear Homeland Security Apparatus: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Citizen #673134,

      You don't like flying anyway. Trust us.

  42. Whatsup? by schlachter · · Score: 1

    Alsup! Everything.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  43. That niggling feeling that anyone could be lying by thePowersGang · · Score: 1

    I have a feeling that anyone in this case could be either outright lying, or bending the truth. I can't shake the feeling that if Ms Kamal is bending the truth a little here, things will explode quite badly. BUT if it turns out that there is a conspiracy to block her flight then I hope Judge Alsup tears the DHS a new one over it. Even if nobody is bending the truth, and it's either a case of mistaken identity when checking against the no-fly list, or there's another system failure, someone will be getting in a lot of troble for interfering with this trial (if only because the trial about this system, and the system failed to pass a witness to the trial)

  44. Re:Moral of story: Big government too powerful by volmtech · · Score: 1

    Big Government has morphed into little government and The State. The government is supposed to do the peoples' business. The State has it's own agenda and factions within the State use legitimate government functions to further their aims. And some are just megalomaniacs. Come the revolution I'm going to be on the front lines. Life's going to be hell when the money stops. I'm old and tired, I wont last long without my modern conveniences anyway.

  45. Re:That niggling feeling that anyone could be lyin by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    That niggling feeling that anyone could be lying

    You're simply sensing the Matrix all around you.

    Unfortunately, nobody can be told what the Matrix is.

    Hang on, Dorothy.

    Because Kansas...is going bye-bye.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  46. Mistaken identity? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    It's possible that this is genuine incompetence rather than malice. Mustafa and Kamal are certainly common names in Arabic. Not so sure about Rainan, but I could imagine in those 700,000 names someone does have a similar name.

  47. We are at war with Eastasia by shikaisi · · Score: 1

    We have always been at war with Easta^H^H^H^H^HMalaysia.

    --
    No left turn unstoned.
  48. So it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Secret lists
    Secret evidence
    Secret trials
    Secret detention
    Secret executions

  49. FTFY 'means justify the ends' by Anathem · · Score: 1

    I think part of the problem here is that this kind of 'ends justify the means' behavior has it backwards. With the justice system, it really is about 'the means justify the ends'. If there is no due process, or the due process is impeded by one of the parties involved in the court case, how can we believe that the outcome is what it should have been (with some tolerance for error, of course... =P).

    1. Re:FTFY 'means justify the ends' by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What are the "ends" here, even? Even if you buy in all the evil terrist stuff, it looks like the woman in question is a victim of mistaken identity, not even of herself, but of an organization she belongs two (it's basically a couple of letters away from the local radical Islamist org), yet even after this came up years ago, they still persist in hounding her. It seems that at this point it's basically self-sustaining: they are treating her as a terrorist because at some past point they were treating her as such and she has the corresponding record on her profile, regardless of any evidence of mistake.

  50. That list is ridiculously HUGE by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    FTFS: about 700,000 people on that list.

    That's about one in every 10,000 people on this planet.

    And with every person on the list likely multiple people that share their name (having a similar name to someone on that list is enough to be affected!), possibly even the same name and date of birth, plus the fact that only a minor fraction of the world even has access to planes for economical reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if this list by now affects about one in every 1,000 airplane passengers that want to fly to the US, or within the US, in one way or another. And it's growing, rapidly.

    By far most of these people haven't done anything wrong - save a few they probably have never even been convicted of a crime, in a US court or otherwise. They've just been flagged for primarily political reasons (resentment against the US), and put on that list.

  51. Why don't you guys read the comments on this page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rahinah / Rahimah all don't matter.

    In Malaysia, spelling is not important.

    There is a town just north of Singapore. It was spelled "Johor Baharu" some years ago, then they changed it to "Johor Baru" and then they changed it again to "Johor Bahru".

    Them Malays (which the "Rahinah/Rahimah" creature is one) can never make up their mind how to spell properly.

    Read the comments on this page
    http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=196021:upm-woman-professor-on-us-terror-list-due-to-her-msian-origin-muslim-faith

    Specifically, read the comments their OWN PEOPLE commenting about their OWN COUNTRY, something goes like this: "how come my name is not in the terror list.? You think to strike 1st prize in lottery is as ABC ka.? You think others simply pick your name and simply list you as a terrorist.! You may think you have a sweet cutie pie face but what's within a propaganda brain..... who knows.!
    Look at our useless balless Pinky Lips.! He is so innocently looking and full of sadness in his face.! If I see him on the street begging.! I will take him home as a pet but then again what's inside he is just another motherflucker.!
    Professor Rahinah Ibrahim is a muslim in a No:1 of everything country.! So can her innocent face tell us that she is no terrorist.! Remember
    BTN courses was part of her syllabus .!"

    Regarding the BTN courses which Dr. Rahinah/Rahimah has taught her students, read this page - http://malaysianunplug.blogspot.com/2009/11/biro-tata-negara-btn-courses-taught-to.html

    Malaysia is being run by a fascist regime, fascist with racism / religion thrown in.

    Malaysia is the ONLY country in the world where APARTHEID is not only totally legal, everything in Malaysia is run under RACIST RULES.

    And in Malaysia, you gotta be a BIG SUPPORTER for UMNO in order to land a job as a "professor" in the local university. That "Rahinah/Rahimah" in Malaysia has the honorary title of "Prof. Dr. Rahinah/Rahimah Binti Ibrahim".

    If you want to know the UGLY TRUTH about Malaysia, go ask the Malaysians who are suffering under the racist UMNO rule.

  52. No-Fly Listy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Never automatically attribute to malice what is more easily explained by incompetence."

  53. Unreasonable by Cacadril · · Score: 1

    If an individual inevitably learns that his name, or some similar name, is on a no-fly list when he tries to board the plane, how can the government defend the position that it national security prevents it from telling that individual that his name or some similar name is on the no-fly-list upon request from the individual? I think the ACLU should sue the government and demand that the government be forced to answer such requests on a reasonable schedule. But what legal basis could be used for such a demand, exactly?

    --
    There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
  54. blame human nature by SteveRodgers · · Score: 1

    I tthink people need to realize this is just cause and effect. I don't imagine it was n intentional use of the no fly list but more likely a coincidence. But it is still an example of what happens when the arm of the law is too far reaching. Its not as if the skulls is running government from some secret lair its just human beings who barely interact with their individual ideas on a regular basis. The true mistake of the bush government probably came from the influence of wolfowitz on Cheney and then Cheney to bush. I almost feel bad for president bush. But I'm Canadian... We'll do that

  55. I can tell your tax bracket... by doccus · · Score: 1

    ...by how bad you think things are (or are not). Until the high income earners start to suffer friom this dictatorial system like the rest of us, we'll still get snarky comments about how "great" the freedoms afforded US citizens is...

  56. It wasn't just Arab-Americans by billstewart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My coworker, who was from Pakistan, didn't get interned, but he did get hauled in to show his papers. I think he had a green card at the time; he's a citizen now. But Muslim, so that made him suspicious, even though he's non-political.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  57. Re:Dictatorships by billstewart · · Score: 1

    No, and no "thanks for playing", either. There are no clear lines in a dictatorship, it's whatever The Authorities feel like doing, and while you know that some things are definitely forbidden, like criticizing the dictator, you can never trust that anything else you do is safe.

    Dictatorships have almost all the bad parts of monarchies*, with newer technology, and the leaders don't even have the excuse that some strange woman lying in a pond handed them a sword or that a Divine Being appointed them, so they have to make sure that the population stays afraid to mess with them. Ever.

    By the way, if you want to read an astoundingly good article on Machiavelli, it starts here, at Ex Urbe's blog.

    * Most dictatorships don't have hereditary succession, so the dictator is usually somebody who was competent and/or vicious enough to rise to the top, as opposed to being some random idiot who was lucky or unlucky enough to be the kid of the previous king. (North Korea excepted, along with many years of the Roman Empire..) On the other hand, this means that they know they're only in power as long as they suppress or coopt anybody else who's competent and vicious enough to displace them, so they never get to relax unless they can abscond with a lot of cash and move to the South of France.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  58. Please grow a pair before you post again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you talking to me

    YES, I AM TALKING TO YOU, FAGGOT !

    Why don't you answer what I have posted, about the racist policies in Malaysia ?

    If you do not have any ballz, go back to your momma's tummy and try grow a pair, then you come to talk to us.

    But you fucking Malays are all like that, ball-less faggots !

  59. Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Fringe Season Five,,,

  60. FBI, not Homeland Security. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FBI agents (one of whom would subsequently “nominate” Dr. Ibrahim for the “no-fly” list, for reasons she still doesn’t know)

    So it basically means FBI agents can put anyone on no-fly list without making it public known or even explaining to the victim?

  61. Re:Moral of story: Big government too powerful by LMariachi · · Score: 1

    How about the guy who wants to give you better instead of less?

    (Not that I know who that is, but it's not impossible. "Less" just seems like a lazy facile overarching non-solution.)

  62. So why does she fly to Amerikka? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    the woman's eldest daughter, who was born in the U.S. and is a U.S. citizen, was called as a witness for the trial. Unfortunately, she mysteriously found herself on the no-fly list as well, and wasn't able to board a plane to come to the trial.

    So, fly from Malaysia to [coin-toss] Vancouver, Toronto or Mexico ; travel to nearest convenient US border ; cross there (you're a citizen ; no flying involved) ; travel on to Los Angeles (or another city) by whatever method seems least inconvenient.

    This sort of trick works once and once only. So unless this was an important case, someone somewhere has fucked what could otherwise have been a useful trick.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"