Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge Rules US No-fly List Violates Constitution
New submitter dmitrygr sends this news from Reuters: The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday. ... "The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society," [U.S. District Judge Anna Brown] wrote in her 65-page ruling (PDF). "Accordingly, on this record the court concludes plaintiff's inclusion on the no-fly list constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel," Brown said.
Now let's hope that the ruling is respected. What are ways by which it couldn't be?
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Finally someone (of note) says what everyone has been thinking (and saying).
Without the ability to challenge, it amounts to totalitarianism.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Thank you Judge Anna Brown. Hopefully this ruling also applies to non-Americans.
Did someone murder all the federal judges and replace them with people who can think?
https://www.aclu.org/national-... I guess being US military personnel associates one with being a lunatic extremest. 4 of those on the list were veterans.
Learn to love Alaska
It's okay having a no fly list but not having a way to appeal being on it is an abomination. The irony is that sometimes actual terrorists are allowed to fly so they don't get tipped off the US is watching them. That's downright brilliant there. If the US is going to ban someone from traveling, they need to admit it and provide an appeals process.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Why did it take over a decade for someone within the government to reach this conclusion?
In 2004 senator Ted Kennedy appeared on the No Fly List. Apparently merely holding hearings on terrorism is reason enough to land on it!
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_fly_list#False_positives.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Yeah... the people that are wrongly put on the list because of similar names really deserve it. They should have had the sense to choose a different name.
There were democrats and liberal members of the press and punditry who showed up on it.
Obviously, all Muslims are lunatics.
Ezekiel 23:20
In 2004 senator Ted Kennedy appeared on the No Fly List. Apparently merely holding hearings on terrorism is reason enough to land on it!
Honest mistake. They thought it was a no-drive list.
It's a decent ruling, but...
Having the right to travel doesn't mean any particular airline
has the obligation to carry me.
And btw, how is it that even having a "no fly list" is legal?
What does that mean, exactly? Are you a criminal or not? If they know that someone wants to blow up or hijack a plane, then go arrest the fuck out of them right now.
Or leave them the hell alone. We are talking about US citizens, right?
I understand that Bin-Laden should have probably been on some "no fly list". Known foreign criminals even. Along with the bipolar manic depressive with a history of making trouble on planes. That's about all that comes to mind.
I also understand putting them on the list temporarily, until that due diligence can be done. But that means that the "appeal", should be automatic, and the end result is that you get cleared, or busted. (or crazy as mentioned above, which is still temporary, in the event that the person can prove treatment and remission)
The ruling doesn't ban the no fly list, it merely requires the government to make a suitable appeal process for those who are on the list. So you may expect the list to still be in use for quite a while. Additionally, Judge Brown is only on the Oregon district. So her ruling only applies to Oregon (however, it will be used as a precedent in other districts). All in all, it's still a very good ruling, but there's still a long ways to go.
alarmist on /. assured my this would never happen, and that we would all be rounded up and tracked!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well, in Ted's case, given he was probably flying in first class AND had enough alcohol on his breath he might have intoxicated the pilots merely by his presence. So it was a safe call for him...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And now, everyone involved in the creation and execution of the no fly list is being arrested and charged, right?
1. A government that stone walled when information was requested.
2. A (majority) population that equates dissent with being "UnAmerican" or Un-patriotic" (Mostly Fox News' fault - A foreign owned media outlet run by a meglomaniac.)
3. The innate slowness of the legal system and the courts.
4. Just the amount of money that is needed.
5. And lastly, a population that has no clue what freedom actually means. (That, I have to blame the fact that our schools are shit. They no longer adequately teach civics and other topics needed for an educated electorate but instead have turned into vocational schools - thanks to corporate lobbying. Having skilled workers is business' problem and expense NOT the taxpayers'. It's just another example of privatizing profits while making losses and expenses public.)
Judge Anna Brown
Think I'm kidding? How about that oh-so-convenient-but-WTF case where a witness to a case concerning the *legality of the No Fly List* was put on the No Fly list while the DOJ lied about the facts about the blocking, delaying her testimony [1].
The corruption in Washington has been festering for at least a dozen years. Forget Skynet - this is the dystopian menace that is going to ruin our world.
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Apparently merely holding hearings on terrorism is reason enough to land on it!
It was actually a name mismatch. Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And that is the problem with something that by passes due process. You would get a whole lot less if you followed it then if you dont.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
It gets more fun too
"Immigration officer fired after putting wife on list of terrorists to stop her flying home (31 January 2011)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
"US Has A 'Secret Exception' To Reasonable Suspicion For Putting People On The No Fly List" (Apr 17, 2014)
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
That other list:
"DHS ‘hands off’ list allowed suspects with terror ties into U.S."
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
'Hands off' list? Senator questions whether DHS allowing those with terror ties into US (May 07, 2014)
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Terrorists? You think the only people put on that list is terrorists? It is shown that people are put on that list for a madrid of ordinary thing, or just because you are challenging the government. But keep on thinking that it is only terrorists... We have a saying in this country, innocent until proven guilty, based on the due process under the 4th amendment to the constitution. The no fly list violates that.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I didn't read the entire ruling, but does anyone know if she stayed the ruling pending appeal, or does the ruling take effect immediately?
Because putting people you dont like on a list to prevent them to fly is ANYTHING like bringing weapons on a plane...
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Some airline food I've eaten already falls under that category.
Terrorists? You think the only people put on that list is terrorists?
I think he's under the delusion that the government is full of perfect and benevolent angels who could never make a mistake or do anything immoral. That seems to be a common problem for people who are utterly ignorant of history.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
All of this due process and stuff is down right un-American
However once you combine incompetence with malice, then you have a solid foundation to create a government department.
The trick here is that he was powerful enough to get them to look it up and find out it was a mismatch. You or I (presuming you're not a Senator posting under a pseudonym?) wouldn't get that luxury.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
So a "no fly list" is not OK, but a "death list", (ala Awlaki), is OK?
Or in the case of the woman in the court case that allowed this judicial review, because an intern entering the data from an already approved visa application into the system ticks some boxes that were confusingly worded negative questions, and should have been left unticked.
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world.
What does that have to do with it? Even if it were a mere convenience or luxury, the point of government is to secure the right to liberty. That includes the liberty to enjoy some things that some people might regard as a luxury (a subjective judgment if I ever heard one), so long as I am not doing so at the expense of somebody else's right to life, liberty, or property.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
They'll still do it anyways... the government has a quite long track record of ignoring what courts might decide if that's not something they want to do. And what is the average person going to do about it if they still use it?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Now we have a federal court that says we have a right to travel by whatever means we choose. It is insufficient that there are other means to travel to prevent people from boarding a plane as the government has argued before. Where else might this apply? I could see a right to travel being applied to other cases.
What of a person that wishes to pilot a plane? We've seen people be denied getting flight lessons before because of actions by DHS and/or DOJ.
What of a person that wishes to drive a car? Pushing this a bit further can the government require a license to drive? Could the government be forced to issue a license to drive? People with vision problems would not likely have a case, an issue of being physically capable of controlling the vehicle would be obvious. What of a person that was perhaps found guilty of vehicular manslaughter? Or a long history of drunken driving?
We've seen all kinds of barriers to free travel, the ability to fly is just a small part. We've seen random searches of people walking on public streets for drugs and weapons, "safety" roadblocks where police will go fishing for drunk drivers and busted tail lights, ID checks on city buses, TSA pat downs to **leave** a train, which is just a few off the top of my head.
We've seen our freedom to travel get slowly eroded. The excuse seems to be to make us "safe". I seem to recall a wise man saying something about trading our liberty for the promise of safety.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Add in the constitutional issue that the executive branch is not allowed to interfere with the Congress' travel, so whatever idiot stopped a Congressman from flying should have ended up in jail. The branches aren't allowed to interfere with each other's ability to function, for the fairly obvious reason that otherwise the executive branch could arrest Congressmen to throw votes, could arrest judges who rule against them, etc. The branches need to police themselves - that's why Congress has a Sergeant at Arms.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Wow, it took the judiciary system no more than 13 years to find out, set setting up a secret list of names of people, who are not allowed to do basic things (like flying) , with no due process to challenge legally is against the constitution.
How long will it take the legal system to find out that other every day government actions (electronic device searches on the border, GPS tags on cars, drone killings, collection of communication metadata of every citizen, operating prisons on a military base in Cuba) are doing exactly the same thing: Mostly secret (because otherwise the voters would not agree to) mass violations of the spirit of the constitution (but not directly named in it, because the technology was not there at the time it was written).
The very sad thing about all of this is, that it does not matter if the president or congress is republican or democrat. It does not change.
We all knew it was unconstitutional on its face. Nobody doubted that.
Now that we have some trivial judicial agreement, it's time to start arresting those who violated the civil rights of American Citizens. There are going to be a lot of TSA thugs in every state penitentiary.
We should also prosecute the perjury be every person who ever took an oath the US Constitution who worked to enforce the no fly list. There are going to be a lot of National Guard thugs spending the rest of their lives in the Leavenworth Correctional Barracks.
However once you combine incompetence with malice, then you have a solid foundation to create a government department.
No, you need a huge budget and lack of oversight as well.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
...seems pretty open-and-shut to me.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Yes, this ruling will be challenged, and will probably make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is a critical first step. Although the process may appear slow, sooner or later, every law has to stand up to one simple test: "Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
The US government does behaive like a dictatorship on many occasions. It's easy. Either you have evidence, in which case charge them. Or you don't. I see little difference in a dodgy country that controls it's citizens at will and the US. Next they'll be locking people away for years without even a trial. And make them wear ugly orange suits....... oh.... hang-on......
However once you combine incompetence with malice, then you have a solid foundation to create a government department.
Or Sony.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Then I suggest they set up a second list where particular individuals would be listed as "can actually fly despite name on no-fly".
So if a Todd Smith has his name put on no-fly list for some reasons, an other Todd Smith would be able to ask thorough check and have his identification put on the do-fly so he would no longer be banned from flying.
When was the last time the federal government - let alone the independent organs of state security - paid attention to the rulings of mere judges? Even the US Marshal service now ignore them (Stingray).
The Endless War on Terrorism was deliberately created to short-circuit all other rights.
There is no winning; the grand experiment of freedom and representational democracy is over.
The no fly list has been in effect for many years. Why did it take so long for a judge to call foul on the Gov. for such rediculous rules? This should have happened within the first year!
And that is called a redress number
However once you combine incompetence with malice, then you have a solid foundation to create a government department.
Which is how you end up with the DMV..... ;)
In Senator Kennedy's case I truly doubt that it was malice. Putting someone with that high of profile on the list serves only to draw attention to it. I actually retain enough faith in the Government (some would say naivety) to think that the No Fly List, TSA, et. al are run with good intentions. Whatever malice exists there is mostly bureaucratic ass covering, not a broader conspiracy.
In the final analysis it's our own damned fault for valuing security over liberty. Try having a conversation with the average voter about the actual odds of dying in a terrorist attack. It escapes most of them. They don't want to think. They just want to be safe. TSA would be shut down tomorrow if a large enough majority demanded it. Hasn't happened yet, has it?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes, they exist, but the big problem is that you don't know about it 'til the first time you try to fly ... and then you have to jump through major hoops (if you're even allowed to board).
The first clue is that the airlines won't let you check in online -- if that happens, make sure you give yourself a couple of hours at the airport, rather than thinking you'll just breeze through security.
Then you can go through explaining that no, the 3 year old you're traveling with is not whoever it is that they're watching. (oh, you laugh, but it happened to my neighbors)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.
That, gentle poster, is the mission of the Department of State Security.
Some airline food I've eaten already falls under that category.
What airline did you fly, in what class, and when, that they served you food? I'm genuinely curious.
I don't see apk's name on that either but it points t apk running off the troll midget PopeRatzo who can't answer a simple question.
They're a little torn on the corners and wrinkled around the edge there, but we ran 'em through the washer to get rid of the stains.
We're keeping the rest for a little longer. Habius Corpus and stuff like that. You don't really need 'em anyways, right? Not with the useful Second Amendment.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Second Amendment. I kill me.
Still thinking there is law.
ignorant hypocrites.
Don't believe me? Look at who is on it (if you can) who *isn't* Muslim.
For example, with Bush & Cheney in power about 10-12 years ago, it took Congressman David Thomas about two weeks to get off the list. Come on, how many people do you know named David Thomas?
And shortly after that, they tried to stop someone else from flying... and for some odd reason, the TSA backed off *really* fast, and let Sen. Ted Kennedy on his flight....
mark
And meanwhile, every time I fly El-Al I get screened by a profiler who asks me innocuous questions. And then I board without as much drama as the TSA usually offers others, and relax knowing I am safe.
Examples of questions I was asked last week:
"Why are you flying to Israel today?"
"Where will you be staying?"
"Do you speak Hebrew? Where did you learn it?"
Asking this stuff is supposedly somehow a violation of "rights" so US based airlines can't do it... but the feds can maintain secret no fly lists that are almost impossible to get off, even after you can easily prove a mistake was made (i.e. a gubmint agent admits to making a mistake): https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140206/22585526126/court-says-fbi-agents-wrong-checkmark-put-woman-no-fly-list-barred-her-us-10-years.shtml
First: If the judge has no discretion, what is the judge's purpose? If the jury (or the plea bargain) is the only deciding factor, then any clerk could apply the legislated punishment(s.)
Second: If a judge explicitly says your plea bargain or actual conviction does not rise to any level where it should ruin the accused's life, furthermore in some cases declines to even compromise the accused with a conviction by asserting adjudication withheld, and years later, the accused is still forced onto a sexual offender's list by law, without any further action by a judge or jury or any wrongdoing... your position is: This is ok?
Because that's precisely what we're talking about. No judge ever looked at specific cases and said "oh, I see risk here", it's just a rote action without any form of judicial process whatsoever. That's what SCOTUS said was ok. SCOTUS' reasoning, as the AC described for you above, is precisely that "registration does not constitute punishment [is not punitive]" and from there, fully informed of the numerous and significant punitive consequences of such a listing, the majority of 5 proceed as if any consequences the public sector metes out are completely irrelevant and essentially say "go ahead, fuck those people, and yes, doing so retroactively is fine."
To be fair, the SCOTUS decision we're talking about here (see reference below) was 6:3, with some very good and obviously correct dissents from the three non-concurring justices (Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer), but at 6:3, your life is just as destroyed as it is at 9:0.
The upshot of this is that yes, the government can put you on a list; all it has to do is state that the intent is non-punitive. That's the issue that's going to undermine any attempt to declare a person's listing on a no-fly list improper in any way. Government wants you on there? You're on there. End of story.
But here's the thing: If you decide it's ok to totally fuck without resort to due process a whole class of people YOU don't like, you can be pretty sure that eventually, someone will deem you in a class that THEY don't like, and the fucking will be similarly cheery, though the wailing, from your perspective, will seem oh-so-justified.
A hand-wave in Pastor Niemoller's direction is appropriate at this juncture.
Ref: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=538&invol=84
Everybody knew it was illegal when it was first implemented.
The massive harm it's done to people is still not going to be addressed.
Nobody has been, or will ever be held accountable for the impact on people, the economy, and the assault on liberty.
It happened here and nobody that had any authority to do anything about it really gave a shit.
And we kept electing the assholes anyway.
That's not the limit of the list. You don't have to be convicted. There does not have to have been a trial. There does not have to ever exist a judge's order. You can be placed on the sex offender's list without any judicial action at all. Retroactively, too, meaning that punishment for whatever you were accused of doing, didn't include such listing when you were accused (again, you don't have to have been convicted), but later on, they can (and do) pop you right on there in the most blatant ex post facto manner you can possibly imagine. All you get is a letter or phone call from the sheriff, and bingo, you're now a member of America's most disenfranchised class. It is also worth noting that most laws that allow for this do not allow for those affected by the law to hold those lawmakers or anyone acting to enforce those laws responsible for harm caused.
There's also the fact that many acts that are deemed "sexual offenses" are a far cry from, for instance, rape or interacting with actual children in any manner. Doesn't matter any more than the fact that whatever you were accused of and (hopefully went to court for) was decades ago and/or involved only socially and sexually mature individuals possessed of the most enthusiastic and fully informed consent; you go on the same list with the gentle soul who decided his 4-year-old niece was ideal fuck-fodder for a cheese grater. And the public, bless its oh so reasonable soul, is perfectly happy to treat you both exactly the same. That is to say, they spit on your cheeseburgers and key your vehicles, wait to catch you in a dark alley, refuse you employment, housing, the choice to visit a park, the chance to see your kids in school plays, the ability to go to school yourself, they ostracize and bully your children, your spouse... yessir, lynch ALL those people. Right? RIGHT? AMIRIGHT?
I almost forgot: the rate of recidivism, that is, the committing of another sexual offense by persons already convicted of a sexual offense, is very low. The public has it almost universally backwards: I constantly see people incorrectly claiming the exact opposite. I guess it's difficult to comprehend statistics by the light of a torch. The actual risk rarely comes from outside the family or even from those on these lists; it is much more likely to come from within the family, from someone who has everyone's trust and is probably referred to as something like "our saintly uncle Joe." Also, statistically speaking, and for reasons I'm pretty sure you can work out for yourself even while holding that torch at just the right angle to keep your pitchfork warm, the risk is quite high from those who are formally celibate.
Don't let brown people fly.
Actually there was a "T Kennedy" on the list. And the senator's real name is Edward, not Ted, so technically it should not have even matched. A problem is that there may be thousands of people with the same name, but the list wants to restrict just one of them only. So all those other people are forced to bring out more identification to prove that they're not the person on the list, they can never check in for a flight at the curb or from a kiosk. These people can, after a lot of work, obtain a card that they can present at the airport that says they've been cleared. But it's all a major hassle. And that "T Kennedy" is just an alias of a suspected terrorist, imagine if that suspected person used "John Smith", "D Cheney", "Bonno", "B B Ghali", etc.
Many of those names are not added because they are even suspected terrorists. It's so easy to add a name to the list but very hard to remove it again. Some of the names there are just greenpeace activists (not even the violent ones), anti war activists, and so forth. Cat Stevens (the singer, who now calls himself Yusuf Islam) is on the list, which also meant that senator Ted Stevens' wife Catherine was questioned at the airport to be sure she was not the Cat Stevens from the list. Several congress members have been questioned at airports. Nelson Mandela was on the list! But that was cleared up almost immediately when you get the secretary of state panicking. Shah Rukh Khan, the movie actor, was detained for questioning while he was trying to enter the US to present a movie about racial profiling. Someone was detained in the UK after taking a frigging boat (not flying). One person mysteriously on the list was told by the FBI that he could be removed from the list if he'd volunteer to spy at his mosque. It's entirely bizarre, and a writer of fiction would not invent such unbelievable stories.
you give them too little credit. there's absolutely no reason it can't be malicious incompetence :)
What on Earth does that have to do with it? It's perfectly reasonable for the law to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in matters like residence. I'll even grant that it's not unreasonable for it to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in the question of who can vote - although that flies in the face of the professed reason for the US War of Independence; and as someone who lives and pays taxes in a country where I'm not a citizen it sometimes irritates me that I can't be fully involved in politics. But in basic matters of human rights like the right to the presumption of innocence, which is what this is about, nationality should be completely irrelevant.
Uh, most (non-LCC) carriers outside of North America?
Hell, on Qantas in Australia (to take an example I know of, I'm sure there are others), you get fed in all classes, even on short 40 minute flights. Free drinks too, including wine or beer if it's a weekday flight after 5pm.
you do know that Rupert Murdoch is an American Citizen don't you? so that can't really be counted as foreign owned now can it?
and no, we don't want him back, he fits in much better over there than here!
Or in the case of the woman in the court case that allowed this judicial review, because an intern entering the data from an already approved visa application into the system ticks some boxes that were confusingly worded negative questions, and should have been left unticked.
And people say the decline of education in this country, particularly in English, is such a bad thing...
Some high school English teacher somewhere deserves a medal for "socially promoting" the oaf who couldn't understand the words on the screen.
It was as much the fault of the idiot who wrote the form as the oaf who filled it out, as far as I could make out from the reports.