Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-can-trust-us dept.

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.

42 of 462 comments (clear)

  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

      Papers, Please.

      --
      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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correct, it does not say anything about it.

      So then why do you think the federal government have the right to stop it?

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

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

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

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.)

    6. 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
    7. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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 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)
    2. 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.
  5. 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 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."

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  6. 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!

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

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

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  8. 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 :)
  9. 2 years ago ... by micahraleigh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... I would have called this a fringe conspiracy theory.

    Now I call it the new normal.

  10. 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?
  11. 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/
  12. 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.