Slashdot Mirror


Government Secrecy Spurs $4 Million Lawsuit Over Simple 'No Fly' List Error

An anonymous reader writes "After a seven-year lawsuit costing nearly $4 million, a judge has concluded that Rahinah Ibrahim's student visa was revoked because an FBI agent checked the wrong box on a form. That simple human error resulted in the detention of Rahinah Ibrahim, the revocation of her student visa years later and interruption of her PhD studies. The Bush and later Obama administrations obstructed the lawsuit repeatedly, invoking classified evidence, sensitive national security information and the state secrets privilege to prevent disclosure of how suspects are placed on the 'no-fly' list. The dispute eventually involved statements of support from James Clapper, Eric Holder and several other DOJ and TSA officials in favor of the government's case. The defendant was not allowed to enter the United States even to attend her own lawsuit trial and in a separate incident, her daughter, a U.S. citizen, was denied entry to witness the trial as well. The case exemplifies how government secrecy can unintentionally transform otherwise easily corrected errors into a multi-year legal and bureaucratic nightmare and waste millions of taxpayer dollars in doing so."

239 comments

  1. Um... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The case exemplifies how government secrecy can unintentionally transform otherwise easily corrected errors into a multi-year legal and bureaucratic nightmare and waste millions of taxpayer dollars in doing so."

    Who said it was unintentional?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hanlon's Razor:
      "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

    2. Re:Um... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can't we split the difference and attribute it to malicious stupidity?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said it was malice? The only thing MightyMartian said was that it was intentional. That does not necessarily translate into malice.

    4. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More importantly, where's cold fjord and Dave Schroeder to tell us how this $4 million in tax dollars were spent to save precious American lives?

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

      Who said it was unintentional?

      The anti-worker groupthink did.

      From TFS, it was an FBI agent who made the mistake. And what is an FBI agent? An employee. If that employee was acting intentionally, that means somebody in management (government, Congress, etc) ordered him to do so. That's simply unacceptable. Management is never wrong. When bad things happen, it's always the employee's fault.

      If we had robots doing the work like drones working for the military, this wouldn't have happened!

    6. Re:Um... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      He said it was intentional, that in no way makes it any more intelligent.

    7. Re:Um... by idontgno · · Score: 2

      To paraphrase whomever put words in the mouth of Stalin, "Stupidity has a malice all its own."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    8. Re:Um... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can't we split the difference and attribute it to malicious stupidity?

      Well if we are piling on, why not pernicious malicious stupidity?
      After all, this went on through multiple administrations...
      Isn't it nice to see that both parties can agree on some things?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    9. Re:Um... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2

      Intentionally kicking someone out of a country they are legally entitled to be in is quite malicious.

    10. Re:Um... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      The third option is it was intentional and defensible. This court case has found that it was indefensible, so we dismiss that, leaving intentional malice vs. unintentional consequences.

      I am not aware of a fourth option.

    11. Re:Um... by marcello_dl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everything can be explained by stupidity, including this post.

      Back to topic: "Brazil" called, it wants its plot back.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    12. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially since her daughter is a US citizen.

    13. Re:Um... by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It takes a great amount of insanity to keep blaming the same repeated actions as "stupidity."

      George Gordon Byron
      “Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.”

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    14. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Buggerbum's excuse:
      "if caught doing something malicious, quote Hanlon's Razor. If the jury is composed of slashtards you're home and dry. "

    15. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The case exemplifies how government secrecy can unintentionally transform otherwise easily corrected errors into a multi-year legal and bureaucratic nightmare and waste millions of taxpayer dollars in doing so."

      Who said it was unintentional?

      The error was unintentional, and the response had nothing to do with national security. It had entirely to do with power. The bureaucracy cannot risk admitting that it had made a mistake, or the basis for its power comes under scrutiny.
      For the government, ruining someone's life and wasting millions of dollars is a small price to pay to avoid the risk of being embarrassed.

    16. Re:Um... by avandesande · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or invoke Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    17. Re:Um... by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why not pernicious ass covering.

      They didn't like her, so they just snuck her onto the no-fly list, and now that the shit has hit the fan they are going with a slip of the pencil.

      That's their story and they are stuck with it.

      And it may prove the undoing of the No Fly List. After all, this proves once again how ridiculously stupid the whole concept is, especially when there is no way to challenge it.

      Just change it to a extra-special-search list, and let people fly but check them carefully. After all if they have no weapons in their shoes or underwear, and there are not more than 2 of them on any given flight, what's the problem? There are hundreds of people on the list for no reason what so ever.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    18. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More importantly, where's cold fjord and Dave Schroeder to tell us how this $4 million in tax dollars were spent to save precious American lives?

      Where are they to tell us yet again that we're not turning into a police state?

      Abuse of National Security with no appeal as CYA is one of the hallmarks of such institutions.

    19. Re:Um... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Someone somewhere made an error. The Government (TM) *never* makes mistakes. $4,000,000 to bend reality to make it true is a small price to pay for government infalibility.

    20. Re:Um... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 2

      The weird part is ppl with ties to terror orgs have no trouble getting in.

      Its a serious WTF moment.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    21. Re:Um... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 4, Interesting
      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    22. Re:Um... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, a large conspiracy to get one women is far more likely then someone checked the wrong box.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who said it was unintentional?

      Why not pernicious ass covering.

      They didn't like her, so they just snuck her onto the no-fly list, and now that the shit has hit the fan they are going with a slip of the pencil.

      Well, the whole point of the thing was that she wasn't deliberately being targeted. There was no reason she got targeted, no hint that anybody didn't like her.

      If you've ever worked in a bureaucracy, yeah, sometimes there's a screw up. Filling out forms is tedious. Screw-ups happen. The thing is, if you're Homeland Security, you can slap a "it's all top secret" onto your screw-ups instead of admitting it and saying "sorry."

    24. Re:Um... by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't take a large conspiracy. Just one pissed off agent who disliked her.

      The conspiracy comes after, trying to cover your ass.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    25. Re:Um... by khasim · · Score: 2

      Just change it to a extra-special-search list, and let people fly but check them carefully.

      Probably not going to happen.

      Politicians are, usually, very risk averse. They do not want to be THE ONE to push for a change that results in another terrorist taking over an airplane. Even if the likelihood of that is practically non-existent.

      They don't care who's on the list or even if the list is valid as long as:
      1. They (and their families/friends) are not on the list.
      2. They are not directly responsible for being "weak" on anything.

    26. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just change it to a extra-special-search list, and let people fly but check them carefully. After all if they have no weapons in their shoes or underwear, and there are not more than 2 of them on any given flight, what's the problem? There are hundreds of people on the list for no reason what so ever.

      Yes, that's exactly what we need for a government to have... another "legal" excuse to profile, pretext and illegally search anyone we don't like. ...sigh...

    27. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about "they're all fuck wits, so fuck em'"

    28. Re:Um... by icebike · · Score: 1

      They are doing that anyway.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    29. Re:Um... by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Informative

      In support of stupidity I offer this in evidence.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      If a man that powerful in the government takes 3 weeks to get his name off the no fly list you know it's fucked up.

    30. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I intentionally punch you in the face, that act is malicious.

      Now if I was offered one million dollars to do it, the act is still malicious, but it was not done out of malice.

      Note that this in no way defends the actions of our elected officials. I am merely arguing against "intentional implies malice". Nothing more, nothing less.

    31. Re:Um... by dcollins117 · · Score: 2

      More importantly, where's cold fjord and Dave Schroeder to tell us how this $4 million in tax dollars were spent to save precious American lives?

      I'll play devil's advocate if you like.

      That 4 million dollars wasn't "lost". I'm sure whoever was on the receiving end, probably Washington lawyers, are very pleased with the way things played out.

    32. Re:Um... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      $4 million to fix this one, how many simply suffered similar injustice silently and got on with their lives?

    33. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. They (and their families/friends) are not on the list.They are not directly responsible for being "weak" on anything.

      *ahem*

    34. Re:Um... by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

      I've never liked that concept. Especially in situations like this where the person/organization causing the problem is doing everything they possibly can EXCEPT admit stupidity and just correct the error.

      When you do everything you can to hold your ground even when you're in the wrong, then you are malicious.

    35. Re:Um... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      7years and millions of dollars were spent to make sure that box staid checked. That's a good sized conspiracy in my book. It's a stupid, sucky conspiracy created apparently to protect the nationally damaging secret that we hire idiots to important agency roles and other agents will stand behind them for some sort of fellow agent brotherhood, but I'd still say the word conspiracy works. No offense to better conspiracies.
      --
      I like you're sig; I haven't seen beta, but the whining has to be twice as bad.

    36. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a cop out mate. Your whole argument is balls.

    37. Re:Um... by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      actually the conspiracy begins with the fucking Secret No Fly List.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    38. Re:Um... by Cacadril · · Score: 2

      She probably would have gone on with her life if she had not also later been denied reentry to the USA to complete here doctorate.

      --
      There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
    39. Re:Um... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are ignoring the real reason for the high cost of defending a mistake, the retention of that power to attack others by a simple flick of the pen. That's the reality of what it was all about, for what ever personal reasons the power of political appointees to destroy the lives of other people and the request of the political party apparatus, be that from within the political party or from significant campaign donors. Keep in mind there was the stated intention of extending to all forms of transport and if you think suspending drivers licences was in there as well for the future, you are quite foolish.

      So it was all down to retaining the power at the flick of a pen to effectively destroy a persons life outside of the purview of the courts and they fought tooth and nail to protect it and they still have not given up on it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    40. Re:Um... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Doesn't take a large conspiracy. Just one pissed off agent who disliked her.

      The conspiracy comes after, trying to cover your ass.

      Doesn't even take anything personal.

      Just one jilted agent who doesn't like towel heads.

      But I'm going to subscribe the initial mistake to Hanlons razor. The subsequent cover ups however were entirely based in malice.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    41. Re:Um... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Oh, there is a prescribed, official way to challenge being on the no-fly list.

      You send a letter requesting that you be removed from the no-fly list to the TSA.

      Then wait.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    42. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      National Agency Clause:
      Never attribute to stupidity that which may be explained by greed or malice.

    43. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He disappointed me, for he traded on his name and his staff. He, as a representative of the people, should've taken that as an opportunity to make it a slow but much-publishized fight to show everyone what the common American has to go through while the government thugs are floundering and failing to catch any actual "terrists" at all.

      Instead, it took a foreigner to show you just what a heap of fuckups and den of thuggery you've let your government become.

    44. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it comes to the government, I suggest taking the opposite approach.
      "Never attribute to stupidity that which is better explained by malice."

    45. Re:Um... by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      I think this article has a great bit of information for terrorists everywhere to start using. If all the terrorists start using high profile famous people's names as aliases then all these famous people will be on the no-fly list. Imagine how much trouble that would cause in the US. From the terrorist's point of view they would be using the Homeland Security no-fly list as a weapon against a large group of rich and powerful Americans. From my point of view, it might lead to the list being eliminated.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    46. Re:Um... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      It is also possible to go on with life after having your doctoral studies interrupted... grossly unjust and a good way to build some serious resentment, but if your family has the means to send you to the U.S. for a Ph.D., they are probably well off enough that you don't really have to work to earn the basic necessities of life, either.

    47. Re:Um... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In the late Nineteenth Century, a spy stole some French military secrets. The French Army blamed Dreyfus, partly because he was Jewish and partly because he apparently had a really abrasive personality. There was no evidence, so the French Army had to pledge its honor that Dreyfus was guilty, talking about national security and the safety of France.

      This had a series of knock-on effects. After Dreyfus was imprisoned on Devil's Island, they found the real spy, Esterhazy, and had to get him acquitted on trial, since the Army's honor would be besmirched if Esterhazy were guilty of what Dreyfus was accused of, and they were limited in what they could keep Esterhazy out of. When the Dreyfus Affair reached its climax, it had tremendous political repercussions, as the French Army had been caught absolutely insisting, on its honor, something that was a harmful lie.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    48. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like you're sig; I haven't seen beta, but the whining has to be twice as bad.

      You'll like Beta, lots of pretty pictures and not near as much of that nasty reading. I can tell by your misuse of homophones that you've never read a book that someone didn't force you to. In fact, you're the demographic they hope to capitalize on (Jocks, clebrity worshipers, People Magazine fans; in short, non-nerds who dislike reading and hate learning.

    49. Re:Um... by oursland · · Score: 1

      This argument does not apply to those who are in positions of great executive power. At these levels, it is evident that the person is considered to be cognizant of their duties and responsibilities.

    50. Re:Um... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Your right, I accept you're correction. I hope I didn't trigger you're obsessive compulsive disorder.

      However, I find it strange that your taking note of such an error, because you're first sentence is a fragment in which you use the word 'near' in place of the word 'nearly'. You're second sentence ends with a preposition, and then you're third sentence is an inexcusable mess, with a spelling error ('clebrity') and misused semi-colon. Worst of all, in a crowd of nerds, you opened a parenthesis and didn't close it! To prevent widespread chaos, and you're inevitable lynching let me fix that:
      )

      Anyway, if your needing a ride down to the place where they take away nerd cards for grammar errors, I'm going that way anyway. It won't be all bad, maybe we can try to pick up some chicks afterward; I hear that's what non-nerds do.

    51. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She did go on with her life.
      In this particular case, the direction she went in going on included filing a suit to find out whether she was on the no-fly list, and if so why.

  2. This is outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd really like to kick these people in the nuts but I don't want to end up in gitmo.

    1. Re:This is outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If our forefathers didn't have the stones to kick the Queen in the nuts, we'd all be speaking English right now. Be a real patriot, son, and kick away.

    2. Re:This is outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the same forefathers who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts only 10 years after the Constitution was ratified?

    3. Re:This is outrageous by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      The worst tyrants are the formerly oppressed.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:This is outrageous by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Was King George the Third a her?

    5. Re:This is outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worst tyrants are the formerly oppressed.

      Agreed.

      Put another way, the future tyrants are the currently oppressed.

  3. MUST BE STOPPED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kind of abuse must be stopped. The constitutional protections our forefathers put into place were meant to stop these exact types of abuses of the people. The longer this goes on, the more we become injured to the abuses, the harder it will be to redress.

    1. Re:MUST BE STOPPED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how lawsuits can be "obstructed". If the governement is unwilling to cooperate with the court, then the court should side with Rahinah Ibrahim 100%. Case closed.

    2. Re:MUST BE STOPPED by Desler · · Score: 1

      Care to explain the Alien and Sedition acts passed in 1798, then?

    3. Re:MUST BE STOPPED by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Care to suggest a *method* for stopping this kind of abuse?

      We are clearly headed into an era of coupe d'etats, as the government is acting in ways that remove all belief in it's justice, so there will be small interest among the citizenry if one gang of theives and murderers ousts another. But a way to reform the government before this occurs is not obvious.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:MUST BE STOPPED by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      You cannot expect any government to judge itself in the same manner as the Sheeple.

      As Orwell said "Some are more equal than others"....

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    5. Re:MUST BE STOPPED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to suggest a *method* for stopping this kind of abuse?

      We are clearly headed into an era of coupe d'etats, as the government is acting in ways that remove all belief in it's justice, so there will be small interest among the citizenry if one gang of theives and murderers ousts another. But a way to reform the government before this occurs is not obvious.

      The tool needed is the 9th Amendment, which was cleverly put into the Bill of Rights by James Madison to deal with the Anti-Federalist argument that any Bill of Rights would necessarily be incomplete. The argument went that future governments would inevitably end up infringing rights that were left out of the list, and hence giving government the level of power specified by the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution was a bad idea.

      The existence of the 9th Amendment, within the Bill of Rights and hence the highest law of the land, allows for the assertion of rights, on an as needed basis, by members of the people. The US Bill of Rights is thus an "open-ended" document. The principal that the people are the final authority in what rights they have is reinforced by the 10th Amendment by providing for unspecified "rights reserved to the people": the only place in the Bill of Rights where a principle is so important it is stated TWICE.

      Thus, when the government claims national security prevents admission of evidence to a case, the people can assert, "No it doesn't, a right we are reasonably asserting as arising under the 9th Amendment says otherwise.". At that point the government either gives in, corrects any matters that need to be corrected as a result of government misconduct, AND compensates those involved for their time and for the stress of being subject to illegal government action.

      If any entity of government could infringe rights arising under the 9th Amendment, they would no longer be retained by the people - a contradiction. As such, rights arising under the 9th Amendment supersede the authority of government at all levels, including judicial precedent by all courts. A government of the lawyer, by the lawyer, and for the lawyer is not the same thing as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and as such, neither the legal profession in general, nor judges in particular, can determine that a right is NOT retained by the people. If there is a dispute regarding whether or not a right is reasonably asserted as being "retained by the people", let a jury make the decision, right at the beginning of the case before any unnecessary time is wasted.

      Certainly the rights to not be subject to excessive government or to excessive bureaucracy, are rights retained by the people, as part of a more general right to not have one's time wasted by government. The government that governs best, governs least. Hence, the government actions in this case (and all abuses of the "Don't Fly" list or similar lists in any area of law) are clearly illegal conduct, and possibly criminal.

      Legal professionals are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to recognizing rights retained by the people (and hence the 9th Amendment), as an excessively complex (or worse yet, contradictory) legal system creates an artificial long term demand for the services of legal professionals. The threat of being subject to an abusive and overly complex legal system allows the legal profession to demand "protection" money from the public, acting much like an organized crime organization.

      We can deal with this ethics problem by noting that the right to ethical practice of law is certainly a right retained by the people, and hence legal professionals refusing to recognize this right (or acting accordingly, whatever they may claim) are engaged in unethical practice of law and a violation of their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights. Such oaths being a precondition for engaging in the practice of law, they disqualify themselves from doing so, or from ever holding a position of public trust or r

    6. Re:MUST BE STOPPED by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This relies upon the meaning of the amendment being enforced by court decisions. Sorry, but I'm quite skeptical that this will happen.

      Court decisions have more frequently extended the power of the federal government than limited it. Frequently at the expense of the state governments, but when the right was supposed to reside in "the people or the state", moving it from the states to the feds is a regressive act. (I'll grant you that many states have given them reasons for the move, but that's a separate issue.)

      E.g.: The Warren Court, during the Civil Rights movement, extensively moved power from the states to the feds. They appear to have had the best of intentions, but the long term results are mixed. The result is that instead of having several states with extremely repressive governments, we have a country with a moderately repressive government, and a highly intrusive one. It also helped abate the most extreme racial injustices...though recently we've seen some steps backwards on that ground from the federal level.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  4. This is how it's done: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the state secrets privilege to prevent disclosure of how suspects are placed on the 'no-fly' list.

    Brown skin? - check.

    Muslim sounding name? - check

    Power trippy government grunt? - check.

    No Fly For You!

  5. It happened to her. by what2123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Ah but that will never happen to me" - The Mainstream American Mentality. Source - American, living in U.S. of America.

    1. Re:It happened to her. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      "Ah but that will never happen to me" - The Mainstream American Mentality.

      Source - American, living in U.S. of America.

      Alternate source: the comment section of pretty much every American mainstream media outlet, save Slashdot.

      I like to "joke" that I visit the Yahoo forums just so I can lose faith in humanity.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:It happened to her. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that will never happen to me ...

      Unfortunately, the government can abuse non-citizens, black people and 2% percent of white people while this statement remains true, statistically speaking. Suffering terrorism is even less likely yet people don't worry they're a million times more likely to be assaulted or imprisoned by their own government than injured or killed by violent ideologues.

      The 'war on terror' doesn't allow the government to abuse citizens, such a war allows citizens to choose 'bread and circuses'. When Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty ...", he didn't mean the politicians.

      That brings us to "First they came for the communists ... ". It contains 2 principles: 1) Declaring jews, hispanics, copyright pirates, etc as traitors and saboteurs. 2) Putting sectarian/racist/neo-liberal laws above the principles of liberty, equality and community.

    3. Re:It happened to her. by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      And, the mainstream American would probably be right, too, assuming she is white, Christian, upper class, and not an activist.

    4. Re:It happened to her. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Yes, but a Muslim name, the assumption is sleeper cell terrorist.
      I kid you not, I got some email from my mom, passed on from dubious source trying to scare everyone, about how the "foxes are guarding the hen house" in the Obama administration. What followed was a list of minor government appointees who had Muslim names. Sounds exactly like the 60s with "oh no, there are commies in the government!" hysteria, except replace commie/atheist with terrorist/muslim.

  6. How often does this happen? by erfunath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now imagine how many people get to enjoy this sort of thing on a daily basis, and either don't want to go through the trouble of challenging it or can't afford to.

    1. Re:How often does this happen? by fast+turtle · · Score: 0

      I've been on the "No Fly List" forever as I don't have wings. Do I bother arguing with the government about it? No because they aint the one's who put me on the damn thing. Course as a Turtle, I don't want to fly anyhow even though I have my own crash gear for protection.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
  7. Hubris and Pride by MBC1977 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sometimes I think the biggest weapon against humankind is our inability to admit when we are wrong. An obscene amount of money and time is fucking wasted everyday because we can't man up and admit to being wrong. I understand the need for operational secrecy, but sometimes just saying: "Yeah, I fucked up." Would be a much better approach.

    --
    Regards,

    MBC1977,
    1. Re:Hubris and Pride by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you have secret evidence someone isn't allowed to see or challenge, this is exactly what you'll get.

      Because it become impossible to tell the difference between some malicious person just arbitrarily putting you on the list, and some incompetent idiot who didn't bother checking.

      My guess, the government never bothered checking any facts during this process -- they just said it was secret evidence and that they didn't need to explain themselves.

      And the government has very little interest in having it come to light that their No Fly List is based on sketchy, unsupported evidence, and that it's full of errors which can't be fixed because they're either lazy, incompetent, or acting in a malicious manner. Because then people would know how lousy of a job they're doing.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Hubris and Pride by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      My only thoughts on this are the massive lawsuits that result. "AHA! YOU ADMITTED IT! IT'S TIME TO SUE!"

      Sad, really.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    3. Re:Hubris and Pride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes I think the biggest weapon against humankind is our inability to admit when we are wrong.

      Speak for yourself, and that moron in the White House.

    4. Re:Hubris and Pride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no career in politics.

    5. Re:Hubris and Pride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What other recourse is there?

    6. Re:Hubris and Pride by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      True that: he's at a competitive disadvantage.

    7. Re:Hubris and Pride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess, the government never bothered checking any facts during this process -- they just said it was secret evidence and that they didn't need to explain themselves.

      This - most likely the people involved in the case didn't have access to see the classified information, thus no way to verify it, thus assumed she was guilty of something and therefore were blind to the possibility of a screw-up.

    8. Re:Hubris and Pride by Desler · · Score: 1

      You do realize such lawsuits will only happen if the government lets it, right? You haven't missed the last 30 years of case law regarding this, have you?

    9. Re:Hubris and Pride by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

      That's because we live in a litigious society. That sets you up for a fat settlement payout. Ever wonder why people always say "I regret..." in some statement of admission rather than "I apologize"? That's because the latter is admission of responsibility and the former simply means "I wish it didn't happen" in legalize.

      When Gloria Alred is running around with some bimbo trying to elicit the words "I apologize" that's why (such as she did with one of Tiger Wood's mistresses).

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    10. Re:Hubris and Pride by AdamThor · · Score: 2

      " ...and some incompetent idiot who didn't bother checking."

      Not far into the comments and I've already seen this kind of language applied to whoever committed the original error. And not to bum on you -- it's natural to be irritated at the source of a problem. This kind of attitude, however, is what makes it difficult to retract a mistake. The agent may be good, competent, smart, but errors still happen.

      Error handling is the issue here, not error commission.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    11. Re:Hubris and Pride by fsagx · · Score: 1

      Often an agent will try to fill out a form, hoping that another exceptional agent will catch it. Finally, it goes to court.

    12. Re:Hubris and Pride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a bureaucracy, it's often easier for each person in the chain to say "not my fault and as far as I have bothered checking nobody before me made a mistake" than to investigate the entire chain until finding where the mistake actually happened.

      This holds true for all values of N and N+1 after a point very early on.

    13. Re:Hubris and Pride by swb · · Score: 1

      I sometimes think this is due to the paramilitary, authoritarian nature of law enforcement, with all of its military-style ranks, commands, etc.

      There seems to be something about those kinds of organizations that is always inclined to hide and cover up mistakes than to admit a simple mistake and make amends for it. The organizations seem highly punitive internally, with a low tolerance for errors. They also seem to look at making mistakes or at least admitting to them as somehow undermining their authority, as if their authority only works if they are always right.

      I'd also imagine in a case like the no-fly list there are a lot of top-down orders that the list is always right, and if there are questions, see rule #1.

    14. Re:Hubris and Pride by tacokill · · Score: 1

      We don't have a culture that encourages that behavior. Imagine.....what would have happened if the FBI admitted it fucked up and checked the wrong box?

      I'll tell you what would happen if they said that: all hell would break loose. We'd have claims of racism, we'd have claims of misogyny, we'd have everyone and their cousin claiming to be a similar victim regardless of the merits of the claims.

      The reason people don't say "sorry, I fucked up" is because "sorry" is not an acceptable answer in our society. All it seems to do is admit guilt which is inevitably followed by lawsuits. Why bother with an apology when the end result will be the same? Better to just ignore it until it becomes unignorable and only then will they respond.

      Whether it's govt or "big business" the result is the same. They don't say "sorry, we fucked up" because they damn well know that won't be the last word. They also know, legally, that giving an apology is the equivalent of admitting guilt.

      If society accepted apologies, we'd see a lot more of them. Unfortunately, that's not how our over-litigious world works.

    15. Re:Hubris and Pride by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or we can assume, because they took that job, that a large number of the people who make the decisions are Islamophobic bigots running hot from Fox News. A million people on that no-fly list.

      In the 1940s and 1950s, marxophobia gripped the popular imagination, fed by a national security apparatus that really had nothing else to do. The entire country danced the bigot's tango, investigating "commies" and "fellow travellers", ruining tens of thousands of lives.

      If you have a secret security apparatus, bigots consumed with confirmation bias will do what they always do; imply, smear, ruin people. Now we've given them the golden ticket, the end game of all control freaks: a perfect surveillance system.

      As Terry Pratchett says: "Don't give a monkey the key to the banana plantation."

    16. Re:Hubris and Pride by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Many of the people who were staunch anti-communist flag wavers have shifted and are now the staunch promoters of Islamophobia. The rhetoric is very similiar just with changed names. Ie, rallying against people who are un-American with supposed secret agendas regarding world domination.

    17. Re:Hubris and Pride by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      The agent may be good, competent, smart, but errors still happen.

      Error handling is the issue here, not error commission.

      And what you do in the face of errors.

      And in this case, either the government just assumed they were right and defended it, or they knew damned well they were wrong and hid it.

      And, I'm sorry, but to me the entire rest of the handling of it is a fault of commission. By denying her access to the evidence (which was wrong in the first place) they denied her a way to properly fight the allegations and correct the error.

      So either institutional incompetence, or institutional malice to keep their secret evidence safe and secure even if it's bullshit and has the effect of ruining people's lives.

      As far as I'm concerned, if they weren't blatantly violating people's rights and not giving ample recourse to accusation, they've more or less set themselves up so that even if you aren't a terrorist, it is more convenient to stay the course than to admit error.

      This is precisely why having secret courts, laws, and evidence is, and always has been, a terrible idea. Unless you're building your own police state -- and then it's awesome.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    18. Re:Hubris and Pride by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      While you may have a point about the hysteria about islam in general, what is so "secret" about the jihadis agenda for world domination? They are very open about it. They would like to kill or subjugate all nonbelievers.

      You can be paranoid and yet they can still be out to get you.

    19. Re:Hubris and Pride by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The "secret" here is the belief that all muslims feel this way, not just some few radicals.

    20. Re:Hubris and Pride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But at least they're honest about it. They dont go along and claim to represent freedom, democracy, and equality, when they are doing everything in their power to prove otherwise.

    21. Re:Hubris and Pride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are perfectly capable of admitting when we are wrong. It's more difficult for some than others, but all of us, at some point in our lives, will be able to say, at least once, "sorry about that, my bad".

      But when correcting such a slip-up - or even just admitting to it - would bring to light the corrupt cesspool an office, organization, program or project is truly made of beneath its shiny child-saving packaging, well... That's not a little screw-up. Suddenly some very bad people who've done very, very bad things have their profits or sick fetishes at risk of exposure, and they will use everything they can to keep that from happening. Since very very bad things on an organizational or governmental level make you very influential and well-connected, their individual 'everythings' are suddenly a gargantuan apparatus.

      A clerk at the DMV that misspelled your name will probably fix it if you come back and have your picture taken once again. A congressman whose been pork-barreling billions over decades and funneling a few millions of that on snorting powdered dead homosexual porcupines off the backs of slightly underaged preteens? He'd rather see your entire family crucified than his little funtime interrupted, and has just the means to do so.

    22. Re:Hubris and Pride by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it is those "few" radicals that are acquiring political power and that are determining the direction of their societies. What the majority of muslims believe does not matter if they are silent and let the radicals operate.

    23. Re:Hubris and Pride by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      And you know the jihadis are out to take the world over from what, exactly? Who told you this? Is it possible to convince you that the entire "war" is a fraud, based on laserlike focus on a few nutballs? You have confirmation bias - you have your conclusion ready, and everything is either true or not true, depending on whether it confirms your iron idea that jihadis are trying to take the world over. They are not. The war is every bit of a fraud as the one against commies, the anarchists, the trade unionists, the socialists, the Spaniards, the Philippines, Mexico, Cuba, drugs, copyright crime and every other confirmation-bias "war" we've ever waged. None of them were actual wars, and none were ever a threat to us, especially in the precise sense that they, in fact, issued threats to us. Our "threats" are perceptual and grown in our own minds; rarely are we threatened. We misuse the word to justify our madness.

      The people who are fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan do so because we attacked them. The few who aren't there and actually do attack us with actual bombs aren't trying to advance Islam and impose sharia on us. They are pissed off because of things that we've done - people and nations we've killed when it suited our purpose. Americans willfully refuse to listen to what they are screaming about; we'd rather have jihadis and a worldwide conspiracy to blow up with drones rather than rethink our history and our actions. We're a perfect storm of an violent empire that cannot intellectually grasp the fact that it is, in fact, a violent empire, and so we react insanely.

      I don't know. It is impossible to change a person's mind, and infinitely more difficult to convince a nation that it is slaughtering innocent people while undergoing a gargantuan hallucination.

    24. Re:Hubris and Pride by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      Did we attack anyone in Indonesia? Hmmm, seems there is a large jihadi movement there that does not fit your model. What about the attacks that pre-date our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? There are plenty of people pissed off because of things we have done but there are many highly influential muslims who do want to establish a new Caliphate governed by Sharia law. Your attitude reminds me of Neville Chamberlin in the 1930s.

    25. Re: Hubris and Pride by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Yes. We absolutely used proxies to slaughter "socialists" in Indonesia in 1964? perhaps the bloodiest anti-commie action we ever committed. They dragged union members by the hundreds into a sports stadium and mass-murdered them in one bloody night, as the CIA handlers listened in from the outside. Hell fucking yes.

    26. Re: Hubris and Pride by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      So your contention is an action in 1964 against "socialists" has lead to the current jihadi movement in Indonesia? Are there no lengths you won't go to maintain your political view of the U.S. as an evil empire? While we have and likely will continue to do things that can be argued to be immoral, that does not lead to the conclusion that all islamic militantism is a response to our actions. Believe it or not, the U.S. is really not that important to them. We are not unique in their eyes. We are just another corrupt western society that needs to fall. Without us they would find another whipping boy for their anger.

      I've traveled extensively in islamic countries. I've talked to ordinary moslems and radicals. Many of them are influenced by propaganda that exaggerates, distorts, and outright lies about our actions. But even with all that to be angry about, there is a desire for world domination.

    27. Re:Hubris and Pride by perih60 · · Score: 1

      in my opinion your post is spot on ! even people with nothing to lose will not admit to a mistake . and if certain people hear or see something on TV that ust be true , ie some time ago a celebrety stated that there are no dogs in greace . because it was on tv it became absolutely true , and almost everyone i know refuses to check the veracity of comments . lastly it does not matter if countless people are on the list , innocent or guilty . remenicent of a time when people were blacklisted cos they may be reds ,

      --
      the power of men in charge of words over men in charge of machines surpasses all wondering S WEIL
  8. this is the original case for government secrecy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ie, to prevent screw-ups and Buttle/Tuttles from being found out!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privilege#Supreme_Court_recognition_in_United_States_v._Reynolds

  9. Large damages should be paid by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to Rahinah Ibrahim, not only for the financial loss that this has caused her but the inconvenience, emotional anguish, etc, etc. This should be paid by the individuals who acted to cover this up - not the organisations that they worked for, where the fine would just be added to the national tax bill. The fine must be high enough so that it really hurts all the individuals who contribute to the fine.

    The fine should not be paid by the FBI agent who made the original error, he screwed up (we all do occasionally) and I doubt that he made the mistake maliciously. The fine should be paid by the individuals who were asked to review the case and who conspired to pervert the law of the USA, those who thought it more important to protect a decision by a government department than to see the right thing done. If these individuals are allowed to get away with it then expect this sort of thing to continue.

    1. Re:Large damages should be paid by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fine? Excuse me but we are talking about blatent denials of civil rights. We are talking about a criminal conspiracy to cover up wrongdoing and deny her basic civil right to have her grievance heard.

      Fines do not cover this sort of criminal action, each and every one of them should spend the rest of their lives with a felony conviction, and every one of them should do time for it.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Large damages should be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If senior government officials can commit perjury before congress and get away with it, I see no reason why anything is likely to be done in the case of some foreigner losing her visa.

    3. Re:Large damages should be paid by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What about her daughter who - according to the summary - is both a US citizen AND was denied entry as well. If I leave the country on business, are you saying I have no right to re-enter the country I have citizenship in if the government decides not to allow it? If so, the potential for abuse is incredible.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Large damages should be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And you wonder why the rest of us avoids Us like the plague?

      Captcha: delayed

    5. Re:Large damages should be paid by profplump · · Score: 2

      Exactly. And we all know that the one thing that defines human beings and their rights is the geographic coordinates of their mother at the time of their birth. If you're unhappy with the situation there's really no one to blame but her -- if she cared about you having rights she would have found some way to get her vagina inside the US border before squeezing you out.

    6. Re:Large damages should be paid by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please cite where in the US constitution it states that only citizens have the right to fair trials or to petition the government for redress of grievance. All people dealing with the US government or within US boarders have those rights.

      These people are not just assholes, they are blatant criminals.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    7. Re:Large damages should be paid by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 3, Funny

      Agree completely. And while we're add it, put 'em on the No-Fly list.

    8. Re:Large damages should be paid by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 1

      +1

      Everyone makes mistakes, but the individuals who did not act in good faith should be held personally accountable.

    9. Re:Large damages should be paid by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Oh? What about her daughter, who wasn't even the person of interest?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:Large damages should be paid by Your.Master · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Non-citizens absolutely have civil rights, especially (but not exclusively) ones who were legally there. She was not just denied entry into the US arbitrarily, she was actually abused while inside the US, and apparently basically deported. You can't just deport people legally in the US with the same impunity you can deny them entry, in part because of, again, civil rights.

    11. Re:Large damages should be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her daughter is citizen of the US and she was also denied entry into the US. This is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to start first, constitutional rights, due process, abuse of power, tampering with a witness, holding children responsible for the real or imaginary crimes of their parents ....

    12. Re:Large damages should be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "If"?
      Oh, it was a rhetorical question?

    13. Re:Large damages should be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The fine should not be paid by the FBI agent who made the original error, he screwed up (we all do occasionally) and I doubt that he made the mistake maliciously.

      From what I've read, it's hard to blame him at all - apparently he had correctly determined she was completely unsuspicious, but was filling out a form where you're supposed to check boxes for each list you *DON'T* want a person put on. Nobody confirmed anything with him until he was called to testify at the trial, at which point he reported it had all been a mistake.

    14. Re:Large damages should be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... really hurts all the individuals who acted to cover this up ...

      Punishing individuals is the jurisdiction of criminal courts. Yes, US civil courts can levy fines but their primary purpose is 1) to give injured parties a voice, and 2) to achieve a result that 'benefits' the legal institutions (executive and judicial) and society.

      ... conspired to pervert the law of the USA ...

      The law allows the government to do whatever they like to whomever they like. The USA even does this in foreign jurisdictions. There is meant to be one limitation on their power: The constitution. Let me know how that is working.

    15. Re:Large damages should be paid by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      not the organisations that they worked for, where the fine would just be added to the national tax bill.

      Ah, the "taxpayers" chestnut. First, costs of judgements are borne by insurance companies, not local taxpayers. Second, if the problem is systemic, the system should pay some of the price, not just individuals (see: LAPD). Third, if taxpayers had a line item on their forms to make reparations for the 20 to 30 million people the U.S. has killed or gotten killed since WWII, maybe the taxpayers would dust off their voting hats and make some changes, and send some politicians to prison.

    16. Re:Large damages should be paid by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      A huge number of Americans in the idea that constitutional rights are only for Americans by birth, and are not applicable to furinners. They don't see your point. A foreigner can be kidnapped from any street in the world, including American streets. They can be quietly imprisoned for life, and all communication cut off to the outside world. That was BEFORE 9/11. Now foreigners are considered something on a spectrum between terrorists and feral dogs. Unless they are rich. Rich foreigners can't be terrorists, even if they are.

    17. Re:Large damages should be paid by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The Bill of Rights in the Constitution applies to everyone in the country, not just citizens. And the US legal system grants legal protection in many areas to non-citizens who are in the country. In other words, she doesn't need rights as a US citizen because she had rights as a US resident.

    18. Re:Large damages should be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I think what the article meant was that the daughter was not allowed back into the country *by plane*

    19. Re:Large damages should be paid by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Note also, that regardless of the case itself, we're talking about a conspiracy to hide abuse of one of the most broad and far reaching powers that are granted to the executive - that of claiming secrecy under the guise of "national security".

      This is such a strong privilege that its abuse should be treated extremely intolerantly by society. I don't mean fines here, I mean lengthy prison terms for people involved - every single one of the assholes that claimed national security to obstruct justice knowing full well that the case does not have anything that is actually relevant to national security. Clapper, Holder - all of them.

    20. Re:Large damages should be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about her daughter who - according to the summary - is both a US citizen AND was denied entry as well.

      She was put on the no-fly list exactly to keep her from appearing as a witness at the trial. That's why the government blatantly lied about this and claimed they had information that she just missed her flight through negligence.

      The judge was handed evidence (copies of the terrorist watchlist notification that the airline was likely not supposed to hand out but still did) of that and noted that the government just chose to lie to his face about their obstruction of justice.

      That's just what one heard from court reporters: they subsequently declared national security, apprehended the verdict and blackened everything concerning their misconduct.

      If I leave the country on business, are you saying I have no right to re-enter the country I have citizenship in if the government decides not to allow it? If so, the potential for abuse is incredible.

      We are not talking about "potential" here. That was fully executed criminal abuse.

    21. Re:Large damages should be paid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did not "get away" with it. They get paid for it. Holder committed perjury before congress, and congress demanded an investigation. The government gave Holder the task to investigate himself, he "investigated" himself as part of his day job and look and behold, no consequences.

      Clapper lies repeatedly with premeditation to congress, then declares that this proves how much the U.S. is endangered by terrorists and that he needs more money for more lies, and he gets it.

      The largest organized crime syndicate ever is running the U.S. government, and the kind of protection money they extract from the citizens and pour into their blackmail business (namely the NSA) is staggering.

      The tactic is a tried and true one: "your grandmother is a nice woman. Wouldn't it be a shame if anything happened to her?".

  10. They were justified... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    “...Under this policy, the Department of Justice will defend an assertion of the state secrets privilege in litigation, and seek dismissal of a claim on that basis, only when necessary to protect against the risk of significant harm to national security,...”

    They did the right thing. They were protecting against the risk of significant harm to (the reputation of) national security i.e. they'd look like a bunch of incompetent cock-smokers if it ever came out.

    1. Re:They were justified... by suutar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not sure I agree that constitutes harm. They already looked like a bunch of incompetent cock-smokers.

  11. Sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..an accident is just an accident.

    1. Re:Sometimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The persecution of the person harmed by the accident wasn't an accident.

  12. Was her name Buttle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or Tuttle?

  13. Dear U.S.A. Citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will you get around to calling to heel your democratically elected government of your fine republic and shining example of world-class leadership in liberty and civic rights?

    It really is no wonder the other 95% of the world's population is getting a little fed up with your country. It's time for you to step up and so something. Like your founding fathers expected you to.

    1. Re:Dear U.S.A. Citizens by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

      Oh fucking please. Try that shit in Mexico or 90% of the nations of the world. Suing them for not letting you into the country for _any_ reason they want? Good luck with that.

    2. Re:Dear U.S.A. Citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Let's use Mexico as our bar.

    3. Re:Dear U.S.A. Citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Let's use Mexico as our standard.

    4. Re:Dear U.S.A. Citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And forget just how it got to be such a mess there. Like just who it was again that started a veritable "war on drugs".

      More to the point, claiming you're the bestest evar then as soon as someone calls you on it and tells you to live up to the accolades you keep on awarding yourself, pointing to some place that shirly must have it worse... is disingenious at best.

      But hey, if that's the example the USA wants to set to the world, eh.

    5. Re:Dear U.S.A. Citizens by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      90%? So how would that go for the countries in western europe, and most of the Commonwealth? The USA isn't in the top 10% any more. Depending on the metric, they aren't even in the top 50%.

    6. Re:Dear U.S.A. Citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, that's the great thing about being us - we don't _give a fuck_. People who think geopolitics is a popularity contest amuse me.

    7. Re:Dear U.S.A. Citizens by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Go back to Iran-Contra and move forward to operation fast and furious, and operation gunwalker.

      Look up barry seal and what happened to him, and slowly you start to understand what is going on.

      Watch the online film "The clinton chronicles" and realize that the phone number in dead barry seals
      truck was bush sr.

      All in all both sides are in it very deep, and this also explains why Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan
      by US troops. He threatened to talk, and they burned his clothes and his diary.

      When General Wesley Clark was asked if he thought he was murdered, he said it was possible.

      Tillman had openly stated he planned to talk to Noam Chomsky, and not long after that he was dead.

      Former LA detective Michael Ruppert admitted the government was involved in drug dealing.

      Most ppl have no idea how bad the situation really is here in the US, and its bipartisan.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  14. OK - I'll be that guy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The lawsuit should be dismissed as she is not a US citizen and entry is a _privilege_ not a right. Sure, it was assholish but what-evuh.

    1. Re:OK - I'll be that guy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No fly lists are unjust, disgusting, and shouldn't be allowed in any case. They put her through trouble that most non-citizens don't have to go through, and for that, she deserves compensation. Don't be "that guy" who defends government thugs.

    2. Re:OK - I'll be that guy. by profplump · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know. The willful obstruction of justice isn't important. And even if it was, we don't have to worry because they'd never do that to a citizen. I know the summary and article note how a US citizen was also denied travel, but I'm sure there was a good reason for that too, that we don't need to understand.

      I'm not sure why we're even talking about this -- it's not like Canadians are human beings in the first place

    3. Re:OK - I'll be that guy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A privilege? You make it sound like a positive thing.

    4. Re:OK - I'll be that guy. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The issue isn't the blocking of her coming in. It was the lies and coverup after, and blocking her daughter, a US citizen, from entering. Mistakes aren't a big deal. Spending $4,000,000 to blame the victim is. Why spend that much monry to harm her? Lying, breaking the law, denying a US citizen entry.

      Oh, and yes, it is "illegal" to deny a non-citizen entry. She had the appropriate papers, and there was no legitimate reason to exclude her. The laws *require* that she be allowed in. If not, then "residency" and "visa" mean nothing.

    5. Re:OK - I'll be that guy. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Said privilege is covered by the rule of law, you know. They can't just arbitrary deny her entry, they have to justify that. Turns out that they didn't have any valid justification so all they could do is scream "national security".

    6. Re:OK - I'll be that guy. by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      We spent $4 trillion on a war that was a lie, $4 million is small change.

      Don't expect the puppets of the plutocrats to give a damn about spending "other ppls money".

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  15. what what what WHAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    her daughter, a U.S. citizen, was denied entry to witness the trial as well.

    I was under the impression that, once one's status is verified and there is no arrest warrant waiting, a United States citizen cannot be denied the right of re-entry.

    Or is this yet another basic right that magically disappears when someone utters the "b b but terrorism" incantation, along with your rights to (among others) privacy and due process? (captcha was, fittingly, "rackets")

    1. Re:what what what WHAT by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Yeah I guess we need to put the UK on the state sponsor of terrorism list.

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/b...

      http://www.theinsider.org/news...

      I am sure the US has done similar, but it just shows that false flags are in their go to playbooks.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  16. No fly list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I once upon a time worked for the agency that does the no fly list. I am sure they are walking around their office saying that the lady is a terrorist and the court just did not understand the information that they had withhold from the court to protect the country. Needless to say these guys have never let truth interfere with their distortion of reality.

    1. Re:No fly list by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called confirmation bias. Once Ibrahim was branded a "bad guy", mere lack of evidence was not enough to get her un-branded.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. And her daughter was placed on no-fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So she couldn't fly into the US to testify on her mother's behalf. There's "screwing up" and there's "piling it on higher and deeper." Which one do you think this falls into.

  18. Have we become our own worst enemy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems to me we have become the very thing we used to criticize about the rest of the world.

    We have become the terrorist, the religious intolerant, the torturer, the nation that spies on its own citizens, the nation with secret courts, the suppressor of voters, and the nation that uses government to quell protesters. When fear is our motivation, the most irrational statements begin to sound reasonable and take on a life of their own and strange combinations of bedfellows develop.

    I imagine that even Bin Laden would be surprised the extent to which a single organized attack could inject its backward thinking into a nation that claimed to be so different than the rest.

    1. Re:Have we become our own worst enemy? by crakbone · · Score: 1

      "I imagine that even Bin Laden would be surprised the extent to which a single organized attack could inject its backward thinking into a nation that claimed to be so different than the rest." That backward thinking was already here. It's been here the whole time. Read about J. Edgar Hoover or Nixon. The list is many. Giving any government, power without control is going to create this.

    2. Re:Have we become our own worst enemy? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But when we do it, it's not bad. At least the nationalist propoganda says.

    3. Re:Have we become our own worst enemy? by mars-nl · · Score: 1

      The United States also have become the country that dropped 13 places on the 2014 World Press Freedom Index and is now on the 46th place. Pretty low for the land of the free.

    4. Re:Have we become our own worst enemy? by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Not sure I agree with "terrorist" - that really isn't our preferred tactic. Terrorism is generally the tactic of the weak, we are more "bullies" than "terrorists".

      Can't really object to the rest though, and you didn't mention that we have the worlds largest prison population, most never having had a trial (plea bargains), or indefinite detention - though I can't phrase those as elegantly as you did.

      Its sad, I remember when we used to claim our freedoms were the best in the world, now it seems that we only try to argue that we are not the worst.

    5. Re:Have we become our own worst enemy? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Orwell and Huxley wrote their books as a warning, but most ppl have not read them.

      The citizens of the US as a whole need to read these works and compare them
      to what is going on and realize those books are being followed almost like a playbook.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    6. Re:Have we become our own worst enemy? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Add this to that list.

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

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  19. What about the kill list? by mveloso · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just imagine how many people are on the "let's kill them with drones" list by mistake.

    That includes the "let's kill the American citizen" list.

    "Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence."
    - someone or another.

    1. Re:What about the kill list? by fsagx · · Score: 2
  20. Don't believe it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think it's more likely this was completely intentional on the Government's part, based on dubious intelligence like "Ibrahim's cell phone was tracked using NSA overseas spying resources to a coffee shop where, one time, the third cousin once removed of someone we suspect might have said something positive about Islam purchased coffee. Therefore, she must be a terrorist sympathizer."

    "Checked the wrong box on a form" screams cop-out to me. Really - the process to ruin someone's life involves just a form with checkboxes?

    1. Re:Don't believe it. by Cacadril · · Score: 2

      "Checked the wrong box on a form" screams cop-out to me.

      Agree

      At one point before the ordeal began, she was questioned in her home by two agents, about her affiliation to a Malaysian association of expatriates. The association had a name that began with the a word that means "association" in Malay. So did another Malaysian organization that the agents were suspicious about.

      --
      There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
  21. I was on that list too... by erp_consultant · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have light skin and a very anglo-sounding name. One day I go to check in for my flight and discover that I can't print my boarding pass. So I go to the ticket counter and after some hushed tone conversations they give me my boarding pass. This happens three weeks in a row and finally I ask someone why I can't print the darn pass at home. It was then I discovered that I'm on the no-fly list.

    Eventually I was able to get something called a "Redress number" and was then able to board planes like everyone else.

    But what pissed me off was that a) I was never told that I was on the no-fly list b) Nobody was able to tell me why I ended up on it in the first place c) I had to clear my name to get off the list.

    In effect I was tried and convicted without even knowing that I was charged with anything. The late Senator Ted Kennedy was famously put on this list as well. Yet another example of blatant government stupidity and waste.

    1. Re:I was on that list too... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      But what pissed me off was that a) I was never told that I was on the no-fly list b) Nobody was able to tell me why I ended up on it in the first place c) I had to clear my name to get off the list.

      The first rule of the no-fly list is you do NOT talk about the no-fly list.

      And the second rule is that since it's secret and arbitrary, you don't have any real recourse -- because as we see in the article, the government will stone-wall you and possibly lie to cover up their own incompetence.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:I was on that list too... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      There were a handful of political enemies who ended up on the no-fly list around the same time. This is when people had no redress options.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:I was on that list too... by Ksevio · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also worrying: If you were on the no fly list, why did they print you a boarding pass? Just because you didn't look like a terrorist?

    4. Re:I was on that list too... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      The late Senator Ted Kennedy was famously put on this list as well.

      Well to be fair more in the house and senate should be put on the list as that would probably do more for protecting national security than just about all other possible actions combined.

      Joking aside it would be nice if those in government got to experience more of this type of abuse of power as then they might actually reign it in and not write laws that they claim will never be abused but always are. I know I am on some list as every time I fly my bags get searched and I end up getting extra screening. Even assuming that they do extra screening to 50% of people and screen 50% of all checked luggage (both would be highly suspect) that would mean I would have a better chance of winning 2 consecutive Powerball jackpots than being searched or having my luggage checked as much as it has.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:I was on that list too... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "a) I was never told that I was on the no-fly list"

      That's the real issue. It should be mandatory people are told unless they are under direct observation.

      This is new. One time I failed a background check, but they couldn't tell me why. It was stupid.
      It turned out there was a warrant issued for me a DECADE earlier in a different state. They could give men any information.
      After thinking about it, I called the county in Colorado where I had gotten a ticket a decade earlier, and they either didn't mark that I had paid. Through sheer luck I had the checks the bank had return ed to me.* I wa ale to take care of it.

      The damnable thing is I wasn't exactly hard to track down. I was stationed in Wyoming for a year after the warrant went out. They could have sent me a letter.

      *It used to be the norm that process checks were returned to the check writer.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:I was on that list too... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      He said, replying to someone who took recourse to get off the list.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:I was on that list too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teddy needed to be on the no drive list.

      jr

    8. Re:I was on that list too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your own fault for accessing a subversive libertarian rat's nest like slashdot..

    9. Re:I was on that list too... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      After I showed them a photo ID that seemed to be sufficient to let me on the plane.

    10. Re:I was on that list too... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      * rim shot *

    11. Re:I was on that list too... by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      Why not? It's about as smart as forcing people to dispose of "potentially dangerous" liquids in a barrel right before the TSA checks. If they're "potentially dangerous," shouldn't they be disposed of properly? Isn't anyone worried about the contents of the barrel reaching "critical mass"?

    12. Re:I was on that list too... by swm · · Score: 1

      The late Senator Ted Kennedy was famously put on this list as well.

      They wouldn't let him board a flight from Boston to Washington, so he was stuck in Boston for a few days until someone removed his name. Then he flew to Washington.

      I was very disappointed by this. I was hoping that he would stay camped out at Logan airport, and pledge not to fly until the government created a procedure for people who aren't United States senators to get their names off of the list.

    13. Re:I was on that list too... by Lothsahn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because the "redress list" is for people who have a name which matches a suspected or known terrorist on the "no fly" list. In other words, (s)he wasn't on the "no fly" list, but (s)he was unfortunate enough to have the same name as someone who is. Since the "no fly" list is keyed by names and not an actual unique identifier, you can be "on" the list even though you're not.

      This is much different than Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim, who was actually on the no fly list. While other Rahinah Ibrahim's would have been able to (and possibly would need to) get a redress number, she would be unable to obtain one.

      http://www.tsa.gov/stakeholder...

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    14. Re:I was on that list too... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Another surprise though. Let's say *hypothetically* that there was a very good reason to have you on the no-fly list. And yet you were able three weeks in a row to fly anyway merely by going up to the ticket counter. Were the people whispering in hushed tones actually saying "he looks white enough to me"? It's always been called the no-fly list, never the "no-fly unless you show ID at the counter" list.

    15. Re:I was on that list too... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The guns in a theatrical play are fake props that can't hurt anyone. Likewise, the liquids in a security theater are just props.

    16. Re:I was on that list too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, it didn't take you 7 years and $4 million dollars to get off the list?
      What are you complaining about? :)
      You are not on the No Fly list, because you wouldn't be
      able to fly. Like 8 yr old Mikey Hicks, you are probably on a second or third tier
      flight list which requires extra screening, but you can still fly:
      NY Times:Meet Mikey, 8: U.S. Has Him on Watch List

    17. Re:I was on that list too... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      Yeah I kind of wondered that myself. What if I had been dark skinned or spoke with a Middle Eastern accent? Would I have had such an easy time? Perhaps not.

    18. Re:I was on that list too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had light skin and an anglo-sounding name. If he had had dark skin and an Arab name, he'd have stayed on the ground.

    19. Re:I was on that list too... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't let him board a flight from Boston to Washington,

      In direct violation of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  22. What will this do for US academia by johanw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More and more bright foreign students will choose a country with a friendlier climate to study. Let the US continue like this and remember how THEY got their leadership position in research: all those scientists who fled from Europe before, during and just after WW2. If the US becomes a country people don't want to travel to they can do the same for themselves when Germany did when it threw all Jewish scientists out.

    1. Re:What will this do for US academia by rainer_d · · Score: 2
      Except, these days they go to Switzerland, which is close enough to Germany, pays their PhDs better and has much less bureaucracy (and a lot more common sense).

      A lot of people still want to go to the US (the US is also *much* bigger, the being able to absorb a much larger number of talented people), make no mistake, but as you point out: the inertia of such a development is basically unstoppable, once it has started.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    2. Re:What will this do for US academia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big Deal... there are enough "smart" _patriotic_ American scientists to fill the gap. It will be a while yet before the U.S. implodes, it is inevitable if they/you continue on the current path.

      The thing is it takes a lot for the residence of the country to flee en mass. Nothing short of war, not even a facist or a shadow facist (like the U.S. is sliding to) regime. I'm talking en mass here, as in the majority of the sheeple who are too caught up with putting bread on the table to give a crap about whats outside their misery bubble.

    3. Re:What will this do for US academia by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      I don't think your parent was talking about fleeing in mass but rather a slow decline.

    4. Re:What will this do for US academia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except, these days they go to Switzerland, which is close enough to Germany, pays their PhDs better and has much less bureaucracy (and a lot more common sense).

      And yet it seems Switzerland is quite hostile to immigrants. A few years back this poster was made by one of Switzerland's largest political parties. And recently Switzerland decided to limit immigration from EU.

  23. Re:Just 1 Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goodbye to the ##altslashdot crowd, and thanks for all the fish...

    Maybe now the rest of us who do not see Beta as the end of the world, but rather as an honest attempt to bring Slashdot into the mobile touchscreen 21st century, can enjoy our articles in peace...

  24. Virgin Mary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bit off topic...

    I know I am supposed to be affraid of muslims (and I am in general) but doesn't she look like the Virgin Mary in that mugshot? I am Catholic and I grew up with pictures and images of the Virgin Mary all around me (particularly when visiting my grandparents). Every time I see a muslim woman with this particular style of headscarf it always makes me think of the Virgin Mary. Not sure if other Catholics feel the same way....

    I mean... I'd still lock her up in a freaking dungeon and throw away the key if she poses a threat to our country (despite the fact that she looks like the Virgin Mary).

    1. Re:Virgin Mary by Cacadril · · Score: 1
      My grandma's sister was a nun in Spain and dressed just like that.

      When I was a child, most women used to cover their hair in much of Europe. Sometimes headscarves were worn in a way that resembled some of the Hijabs.

      --
      There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
  25. Brazil by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

    when I saw this, I thought it was a fantasy film, not a fucking documentary of American civilisation.

  26. In Soviet USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lawsuits will destroy you

  27. Re:Let's use Mexico as our bar. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, Margaritas for everyone!

  28. Sigh.. by geekoid · · Score: 2

    Bush, and Obama* where correct in there assertions. Why? becasue their decisions where based on bad data created by someone at the FBI.

    *Some one under them, probably. Remember no president run the day to day affairs of the DoJ. It just isn't possible.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Sigh.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush, and Obama* where correct in there ...

      I am sure they were correct somewhere in there, but everywhere?

      You have to be correct every step of the way, otherwise you get 1==0 or similar absurdities.

  29. It *can* happen to anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a US citizen (and hold a Global Entry pass, and participate in "Trusted Traveler" program - anything for the fed :) ). However, I know that no matter what, this could happen to me. My response - *stay the fuck under the radar*. Sad commentary on the state of our formerly great Union, but that's the best I am willing to do. It's not worth losing years of life tilting at windmills of government machinery. They will always win, or at least outlast you.
    Note that I am even posting this as an "anon" :)

    1. Re:It *can* happen to anyone by HannethCom · · Score: 1

      Don't worry,

      They only have the metadata of this post with your IP address. The metadata probably includes the full http header chunk, which includes your whole post. Also probably the metadata of where that IP address was mapped to at the time of the post. Nothing wrong with that right?

      That's okay, Mein Fuhrer... I mean our Prime Minister doesn't have CSEC illegally tracking the metadata here in Canada. Oh wait, thats right, they are!

      --
      Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
    2. Re:It *can* happen to anyone by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      And this is a huge worry. I post under my real name, but I worry that I may find my (absolutely necessary in my line of work) right to travel revoked. This is the "fear" tactic. I don't know whether my constitutionally protected expression of opinions may result in negative consequences. Fear motivates me and others to remain silent.

      My guess is that the government has no interest in stopping people from whining her and on other forums but I don't know .

    3. Re:It *can* happen to anyone by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      You think your Anon, but you are not.

      http://www.extremetech.com/com...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  30. Maybe blame Bush too, at least a little? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    What puzzles me is the fervor with which the article repeats the word "Obama", even where they have to rather stretch grammatical rules to work it in ("high-ranking President Barack Obama administration officials spent years covering it up." Nice to know which President Obama: the high-ranking one, not the low-ranking President Obama.).

    This started in 2004, five years before Obama took office in 2009. So I'd say that they ought to give Bush a bit of the blame; at least, say, for the first five years spent covering it up.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Maybe blame Bush too, at least a little? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that while this started in 2005 (when she was denied entry), the Obama administration has been in charge since the court case was filed. His administartion is the one that kept saying 'for national security reasons..." we can not disclose why this female architectual professor is on our watch list, just that our country is safer by keeping her out. And this goes for her US born (and US citizen daughter).

    2. Re:Maybe blame Bush too, at least a little? by laie_techie · · Score: 2

      What puzzles me is the fervor with which the article repeats the word "Obama", even where they have to rather stretch grammatical rules to work it in ("high-ranking President Barack Obama administration officials spent years covering it up." Nice to know which President Obama: the high-ranking one, not the low-ranking President Obama.).

      This started in 2004, five years before Obama took office in 2009. So I'd say that they ought to give Bush a bit of the blame; at least, say, for the first five years spent covering it up.

      Um, it's saying high-ranking officials in the Obama administration, not that President Obama is high-ranking. This was a faux-pas regardless of the political party involved (is the FBI linked to a particular party?).

    3. Re:Maybe blame Bush too, at least a little? by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      They're onto something, there. This country would be so much safer if we kicked everybody out. Stands to reason, right?

    4. Re:Maybe blame Bush too, at least a little? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah. But Obama was specifically elected on a platform of overturning the abuses of the "EVULLL" Bu$hitler administration.

      So, which is more evil? That which openly proclaims its evil and laughs about it, or that which claims to be good but is actually more evil than its predecessor?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Maybe blame Bush too, at least a little? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's what people hoped, but all he promised was change. Perhaps he delivered.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Maybe blame Bush too, at least a little? by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      /agree

      But this tends to be the result of people needed alpha leaders and looking for a singular scapegoat. It wouldn't have been any better if they had picked anyone else, it is simply away to avoid reasoning.

  31. Re:Um... - Ehrmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hanlon was a fool in this regard (if he did say it that way that is).

    Its too easy for malicious people to claim stupidity when they are in fact executing something nefarious.

    Take for example a simple pick-pocket "mistakingly" bumping into you, using the diversion to lift whatever valuables you have on you.

    Or, as someone else said: "For every problem there is a simple solution: neat, plausible and wrong".

  32. Compensation?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of a slap on the wrist. Give her $10 million compensation for inconvenience and smack them in the face. This should never happen whether malicious or not.

  33. Tit, meet Tat by shiftless · · Score: 0

    That 4 million dollars wasn't "lost". I'm sure whoever was on the receiving end, probably Washington lawyers, are very pleased with the way things played out.

    I'll see your lame excuse and raise you a broken window fallacy.

    1. Re:Tit, meet Tat by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The "broken window" fallacy is applied to the belief that creating make-work jobs helps the economy (although it can, in certain conditions). GP was claiming that the window was broken/lawsuit dragged on to the benefit of certain crony glaziers/lawyers, which is not the same thing.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  34. This could fix Obamacare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If suspected terrorists were ineligible for health insurance through Obamacare, the Government wouldn't be able to divulge who does or doesn't have insurance nor why, it would all be classified. ACA fixed.

    1. Re:This could fix Obamacare by Cacadril · · Score: 1

      Neat!

      --
      There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
  35. Re:Just 1 Anonymous Coward by laie_techie · · Score: 1

    Goodbye to the ##altslashdot crowd, and thanks for all the fish...

    Maybe now the rest of us who do not see Beta as the end of the world, but rather as an honest attempt to bring Slashdot into the mobile touchscreen 21st century, can enjoy our articles in peace...

    Perhaps Dice could be smart about who's on a mobile device or tablet instead of forcing one interface on all platforms? That's the biggest complaint against Unity and Windows 8. A laptop or desktop with keyboard and mouse is vastly different from a mobile device or tablet with limited screen real estate and touch screen input.

  36. Nonsense. by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    Bush, and Obama* where correct in there assertions. Why? becasue their decisions where based on bad data created by someone at the FBI.

    Someone at the FBI didn't create and expand that lawless national "security" state nor did that someone repeatedly try to quash the lawsuit by invoking "state secrets". That would be the responsibility of one George Walker Bush and one Barack Hussein Obama. The buck stops at just one place, and that place isn't the desk of some flunky at the FBI.

    1. Re:Nonsense. by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      LOL, they were just following orders man !

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    2. Re:Nonsense. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Non sequitur.

  37. It is a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not a bug.

  38. Double negatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On No-Fly List? Yes [ ] No [ ]

    What could possibly go wrong?

  39. unintentionally transform ??? by hduff · · Score: 1

    There was nothing unintentional about the government's actions.

    --
    Don't like beta? Keep protesting until they listen and change.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  40. Just to cover up a mistake? by khym · · Score: 1

    I wonder if all this really just about covering up simple human error, or the govt went to all this effort because it wanted to keep the no-fly list unchallengable.

    --
    Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  41. These same stupid morons are now in charge of your by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if you think what they did to this lady was bad, just remember that these same stupid morons are now in charge of your health care...

  42. Who paid for the defendant? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Who paid for the defendant? Fighting in a 4 million USD suit against the US government is not trivial game.

  43. Kafkaesque by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    Marked by a senseless, disorienting, often menacing complexity.
    en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kafkaesque

    Usage: At one point, Judge Alsup dismissed the case. A federal appeals court reinstated it in 2012, more than a year after Alsup tossed it. A month before Ibrahim’s trial, the judge said he learned the Kafkaesque truth. “I feel that I have been had by the government,” he said in a November pretrial conference. http://www.wired.com/threatlev...

    1. Re:Kafkaesque by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      We've all been had by the government, just most ppl do not realize it yet.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  44. Buttle, Tuttle -- let's call the whole thing *on* by real+gumby · · Score: 1

    Once again the government acts like they're supposed to copy Terry Gilliam.

  45. Gotta use the full name by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Um, it's saying high-ranking officials in the Obama administration, not that President Obama is high-ranking.

    That's what he intended to say, yes. And if they'd phrased it the way you suggest ("officials in the Obama administration") it could have been clear. But they wanted to load in adjectives.

    This was a faux-pas regardless of the political party involved (is the FBI linked to a particular party?).

    Yes, I'd say. But the writer wanted to make it crystal clear by making sure he put in in Obama's full name and title-- not "Obama administration," but the "President Barack Obama administration."

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  46. Denial no matter what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can confirm that there are no, and never were, any swamp-gasses photographed within this region. The swamp-gas-like reflections of venus in the morning sun seen photographed in these here pictures are actually an optical illusion created by photographing high altitude inflatable barometric and precipitation-measuring equipment systems used by local airfields to better protect your children from the new prototype circularly-symmetrical extra-atmospheric invasion combat platforms used by advanced Rigelian assault forces, which occasionally appear like bubbling wetland emissions under the right camera conditions..

  47. Disagree by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I imagine that even Bin Laden would be surprised the extent to which a single organized attack could inject its backward thinking into a nation that claimed to be so different than the rest.

    Nope. He knew US governmental officials would respond exactly how they did. He had personal experience with CIA higher-ups breaking the laws for the expedience of attacking the Soviets in Afghanistan. Absolute power. That's the reason we're still running Bin Laden's playbook.

  48. Isn't it past time by fredrated · · Score: 1

    to start shooting these people to death?

  49. The summary is missing the best (or worst) part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government put the daughter, a U.S. citizen, intentionally on the no-fly list without notice to keep her from appearing as a witness as the trial, and then lied to the judge about it, claiming that they did no such thing and that they were informed that the daughter negligently had missed her flight.

    The judge was later handed evidence about the lies of the government here, including the "terrorist watchlist" records sent to the airline (which they probably were not supposed to copy and hand to the defendant, but then somebody maybe considered fairness more important than covering bullies' asses).

    Then everything in the judgment pertaining to the daughter's harrassment and the government fabrication around it was declared a matter of "national security" and the judgment was redacted, with everything regarding this charade getting blacked out.

    If anybody ever had any doubt that the U.S. is a despotic tyranny without working oversight and justice, particularly every time that the "national security" mantra is invoked in the best tradition of Hermann Göring, that should be pretty convincing.

  50. Brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story sounds like the classic movie Brazil where a fly falls into a typewriter and results in the arrest of an innocent man.

  51. Queen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which Queen? The one married to King George III of Great Britain and Ireland? or Vicky? or Lizzy?

    Or are you referring to RuPaul?

  52. more twits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess we can add, "James Clapper, Eric Holder and several other DOJ and TSA officials" to the global twit list if they are not there already. This incident makes pretty obvious the fact we are dealing with a totalitarian government.