Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Judge Rules US No-fly List Violates Constitution

Posted by Soulskill on from the no-wasp-list-and-no-mosquito-list-remain-unchallenged dept.

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.

6 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Awesome! by spiritplumber · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now let's hope that the ruling is respected. What are ways by which it couldn't be?

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    1. Re:Awesome! by Nukenbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Any change to the law has to start with a lower court ruling somewhere.

  2. Finally by Blue+Stone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As somebody once said: the no-fly list is a list of people that are too dangerous to be allowed to fly, but not sufficiently dangerous to bring in and actually charge with some sort of crime.

    In what universe does this even make any sort of sense? You think I associate with terrorists? Charge me. Don't pussy foot around and pretend that I'm some sort of quasi-danger but not important enough to bring up on charges. Either I'm a danger to society and should be arrested, or I'm not (and should be allowed to go wherever I want, using whatever means of travel I want, within the boundaries of the law.)

  4. Re:That took long enough by fnj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You want to know what I think is an abomination? Yeah, I know, nobody wants to know that, but I'm going to say it anyway. The requirement that one must have "standing" in order to challenge a law in court. That is BULLSHIT. Challenging laws should be EASY. Making them should be hard.

  5. Re:Here's the Solution by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    However once you combine incompetence with malice, then you have a solid foundation to create a government department.