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.
You are no longer free to move about the country.
If the jackboot fits, wear it.
"Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
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
Driving is a privilege, not a right. You can see where this leads...
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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
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."
... I would have called this a fringe conspiracy theory.
Now I call it the new normal.
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.
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?
"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.
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
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
Alsup is simply being careful as he should be. Not being careful opens doors for appeals which he seeks to avoid.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
>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.
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.
FUCK YOU.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.