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writes "After a seven-year lawsuit costing nearly $4 million, a judge has concluded that Rahinah Ibrahim's student visa was revoked because an FBI agent checked the wrong box on a form.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."

62 of 239 comments (clear)

  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 Charliemopps · · Score: 2

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

    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. Re:Um... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2

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

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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"
    13. Re:Um... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 4, Interesting
      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    14. 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."

    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.
    21. 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
  2. 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 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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!
    3. 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."
    4. 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."

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

  5. 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 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.

    5. 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"
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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 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?

    2. 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=-
  11. 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: 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.

  12. 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."
  13. 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
  14. Re:Sometimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

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

  15. 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.

  16. 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 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?).

    2. 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!
  17. 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.

  18. 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.