US No-Fly List Uses 'Predictive Judgement' Instead of Hard Evidence

HughPickens.com writes: The Guardian reports that in a little-noticed filing before an Oregon federal judge, the US Justice Department and the FBI conceded that stopping U.S. and other citizens from traveling on airplanes is a matter of "predictive assessments about potential threats." "By its very nature, identifying individuals who 'may be a threat to civil aviation or national security' is a predictive judgment intended to prevent future acts of terrorism in an uncertain context," Justice Department officials Benjamin C Mizer and Anthony J Coppolino told the court. It is believed to be the government's most direct acknowledgment to date that people are not allowed to fly because of what the government believes they might do and not what they have already done. The ACLU has asked Judge Anna Brown to conduct her own review of the error rate in the government's predictions modeling – a process the ACLU likens to the "pre-crime" of Philip K Dick's science fiction. "It has been nearly five years since plaintiffs on the no-fly list filed this case seeking a fair process by which to clear their names and regain a right that most other Americans take for granted," say ACLU lawyers.

The Obama administration is seeking to block the release of further information about how the predictions are made, as damaging to national security. "If the Government were required to provide full notice of its reasons for placing an individual on the No Fly List and to turn over all evidence (both incriminating and exculpatory) supporting the No Fly determination, the No Fly redress process would place highly sensitive national security information directly in the hands of terrorist organizations and other adversaries," says the assistant director of the FBI's counterterrorism division, Michael Steinbach.

Comments

Right to travel...?

[serviscope_minor]

Tell me Mr Anderson, what good is a phone call if you can't speak?

Sure, feel free to walk to whereever you want to go.

They just don't want to get sued

[rossdee]

for racial /religious profiling

Re:They just don't want to get sued

[StikyPad]

If inconveniencing a few million people is worth saving a few hundred lives, then inconveniencing a few hundred million people is worth saving tens of thousands of lives, yes?

So let's ban driving.

Shall we continue, or can we agree that line of reasoning would lead to all sorts of unintended consequences?

"National security," needs to be reserved for existential threats. Terrorism is not, and has never been, an existential threat, and it should be treated proportionally, as a crime.

Nice Nazi regime you got there

[Anonymous Coward]

"Land of the free", indeed... I'm quite amazed how you Americans put up with all that.

Secret Laws and Rules are the Threat to Security

[Nyder]

Secret Laws and Rules do not create national security, they are the threat to national security. The problem is, without a clear set of rules, it's a law that is open to abuse towards whomever those who are in charge don't like. Secret laws & courts are what shows you that instead of caring about protecting it's citizen, the government is using it to further their own ends.

We can NOT have freedom when we have secret laws & courts.

So dangerous they can't fly but

[Bob the Super Hamste]

So let me get this straight these people are so dangerous that they can't fly yet aren't dangerous enough to be brought in for questioning, gotten off the streets for the safety of the general public, and are likely not under direct surveillance? I am a bit confused here.

And before someone mods this troll that was sarcasm. I also happen to believe that if the administration were to reveal their "State Secrets" it would be something like the emperor has no cloths.