Federal Judge Rules US No-fly List Violates Constitution 276
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.
Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
When the judge issues an arrest warrant for someone preventing someone boarding an airplane due to being on a no fly list, I'll believe it will make a difference.
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference it will make, though, isn't that they'll get to fly. At best, they'll get to contest their presence on the list. And at that point, the government will pull out the same argument that it uses for those it has labelled sexual offenders, and which (barely) has already passed SCOTUS scrutiny: Presence on a list "is not punishment", and is within the "interests" of the government. It may lead to a situation where any law that says you can't fly comes down. However, if the airlines choose (and they will suddenly so choose) to not let those on the list fly, that's not the government's problem or responsibility. You know, same as it isn't if presence on a list causes someone to have to move because they're too close to a park or a school, or to die subject to vigilante violence. Your problem. Not theirs. So no flying. But hey, they'll get to spend a bunch in court to find that out. It's good for the economy when the lawyers buy new toys, you know.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
well you see, they're enemy combatants, they don't have constitutional rights. that's the whole thing about constitutional rights. we decide if you have them. that's why we're the government.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
How is a PUBLIC list of PUBLICLY TRIED AND CONVICTED sexual offenders the same as a SECRET list of people who MAY OR MAY not have done anything wrong the same? Isn't one is a list of public facts while the other is a secret list of accusations.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Who requests an arrest warrant?
Do judges just sit around reading the news, becoming outraged periodically, and issue arrest warrants?
I'm really curious how this process works.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When the judge issues an arrest warrant for someone preventing someone boarding an airplane due to being on a no fly list, I'll believe it will make a difference.
Actually it will be respected when a judge requires the government to either explain why a person is on the list or take his name off. The government has been claiming that the reasons must be kept secret for reasons of national security and that this does not violate the "due process of law" requirement of the constitution because the persons on the list are not being deprived of "life or liberty".
The judge has just ruled at these persons are being "deprived of liberty" and that the appeal process does no
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I dislike this sort of ruling, that appears bold but is nothing of the sort.
The judge didn't order something to happen. Instead the ruling just reads like a statement of fact. "These poor people are being deprived of their rights".
Every shrugs and carries on. A proper ruling would put someone on the hook for implementing a change. One more person stopped from flying without knowing they're on the list and the A.G. goes to prison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Informative)
The judge's ruling will be challenged & until/unless it wins every appeal (all the way to the supreme court in all probability), the ruling changes nothing.
Sooo, until the ruling is definitively confirmed, nothing changes.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Any change to the law has to start with a lower court ruling somewhere.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all, but almost.
This kind of law does need to go through the lower courts though.
There is a pretty small window of opportunity to challenge these kind of laws though. They already have secret courts where evidence does not need to be shown to the defendant. And I'm guessing that the government will fight any effort on the part of the person on the no-fly list to see the evidence against them.
The notion that evidence in a trial such as this could be classified is abhorrent. It violates everything underpinning our legal system.
I don't understand completely how this all has gone so far so fast. Just 15 years ago, this all would have been unthinkable.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
APK, that night at the Indiana toll road rest stop was a mistake for both of us. Let's face it. I was drunk, and you were needy and we just let it get out of hand.
As much as I enjoyed stretching you out over that grimy sink, it just can't happen again, no matter how much you want it.
Better we cut it off now before it destroys us. As much as I am flattered by your continued attention (some would say, "stalking"), I'm not willing to go through the pain of another round of antibiotics and lice treatments..
Re:Awesome! (Score:4)
However this ruling gives people who are on the no-fly list to sue to be taken off of it, as well as sue for damages (actual and punitive). It is even possible to win a judgement here before the supreme court gives a ruling, though appeals would be held up.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically speaking, the game they were playing was not putting people on the nofly list but putting people's names on the no fly list. So it was not a particular individual that was banned from flying but a particular name that was banned from flying and if you happened to share that name you were also banned. So it makes that list a legal loop hole because no particular individual was banned but also far worse because many people were banned for no legal reason at all. Remember this no biometric data that is usually and normally used to identify people was ever used, no finger prints, no DNA and no photo. So it was all theatre and punitive punishment targeting particular individuals for largely political reasons and designed to be ramped up over time to create non-citizens or citizens without rights, basically all those persons considered to be enemies of the 1% as substantiated by it costing a lot of money to get your name off the list.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it's just a few steps from changing everything.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The last time this came up in a big way, no one here could point to anything suggesting that flight is a necessary part of modern life, to the point that it is a constitutional right.
In fact, most people pointed to cases where travel was NOT a constitutional right.
So what will change is everyone here will now have a case to point to suggesting that the no-fly list is actually unconstitutional. Actually unconstitutional as opposed to obviously unconstitutional.
So the difference on slashdot is that people w
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Insightful)
With? the constitution does not even address what is "necessary part of modern (or otherwise) life." It addresses a short list of things that the government is allowed to do in carrying out its duties, and a list of what those duties are, and list of inalienable rights that we want to be doubly sure the government doesn't even try to do. Many of the items on that list are far from necessary to survive, although violations are burdensome.
If the constitution is in force and respected, we don't need to prove that we need to fly. The government needs to prove that it has a need to restrict flying, and that it has the authority to do so. Please see, for instance, Amendments 9 and 10.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Informative)
The last time this came up in a big way, no one here could point to anything suggesting that flight is a necessary part of modern life, to the point that it is a constitutional right.
In fact, most people pointed to cases where travel was NOT a constitutional right.
So what will change is everyone here will now have a case to point to suggesting that the no-fly list is actually unconstitutional. Actually unconstitutional as opposed to obviously unconstitutional.
So the difference on slashdot is that people will have a case to point to, but still won't.
What the fuck?
Have you ever read the constitution?
First of all you have it all backwards my retarded son.
The constitution allows the federal government to be granted certain rights by the people to do some very specific things. The federal government is PROHIBITED from doing anything not specifically listed.
I quoteth:
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Please for the love of the spaghetti monster, where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to restrict people's travel liberties without due process? Oh that's right, it ain't there so they don't have it.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Oh and the constitution does not have to list every right that belongs to the people. They belong to the people, listed on a piece of paper or not and are not granted by the government. The government is granted it's rights by the people, not the other way around.
Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So to the parent post and those who modded it up: SuuuUUUuuuck IiiiiiiiT.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to restrict people's travel liberties without due process?
Well they might uh.... you know cross state lines and er... sell something so Interstate Commerce!
The nice thing is of course that they only might need to engage in commerce, not actually do it. Or in fact they might be flying within the state and then commerce with someome who has come in from out of state too. So still interstate commerce!
And in fact even if everyone stays within
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Insightful)
there are many rights taken for granted that arent in the constitution explicitly, but that we expect as a fact of modern life.
freedom of movement is one such fundamental human right.
work, family, whatever the situation, there are many things that may require travel, and may be time senstitive. the ability to travel quickly, which means via air, is the status quo in these situations. to be denied that, is to be denied a basic freedom of movement. yes you can still go by train or car, but these are so much slower, that they effectively become impractical. you become put at a disadvantage, particuarly economically ("you can't fly? no job for you"), emotionally ("tell dad not to die, it'll take me 3 days to get there on the road"), etc.
so while the USC may not explicitly grant a right to fly, the idea of a no fly list fundamentally afects how we can live our lives, and the quality of those lives. as such, there needs to be a very compelling government interest, as a representation of the people will to impose something upon ourselves, in doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
the ruling changes nothing.
That's not really true. Within the region of the United States under the jurisdiction of the Oregon circuit, the order is in full effect and force immediately.
It may be appealed. In that case, the ruling is still in affect during appeal, unless the feds win a stay, which they only win if they are deemed likely to succeed in the appeal.
The feds could pull off something clever however ---- like: instead of appealing the ruling; they can outsource 'no fly list enforcement'
Re: (Score:3)
No, there are layers of Federal judiciary. This ruling came from a District Federal Court, not the SCOTUS.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Funny)
Simple really. The no-fly list is ruled illegal, but will continue on. The feds are welcome to ignore such rulings. The judge in this case, though, will be added to the no-fly list really soon.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
People like to talk about how nasty the government is. But it seems like if theres ever a class of government official you really dont want to piss off-- no matter who you are or how much money you have-- its judges. Judges can make your life real difficult in very short order, and it doesnt really matter if you're the head of Microsoft.
Adding a judge to a no-fly list as retribution would be the start of a very entertaining saga.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Interesting)
The judge in this case, though, will be added to the no-fly list really soon.
Not likely. A federal judge walking around in public has extra powers, by virtue of being a peace officer; not only does a federal judge have the power to quickly write up an order requiring that they be allowed to board the plane, and the ability to issue immediate punitive legal actions for non-compliance, but these judges also have the power to make warrantless arrests under various conditions and are legally allowed to carry sidearms and other law enforcement tools with them, even onboard.
In short: the TSA is not likely to even joke about messing with federal judges.
Who do you think they are, the IRS? :)
Re:Awesome! (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
They add a system to contest the placement which just happens to take the rest of your life plus 1 day to make a ruling.
They thumb their noses at the court as usual.
They let you contest it so you get off of the no-fly list and on to the double secret lose your luggage, anal probe and audit every year list.
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Interesting)
Thumbing one's nose at federal judges does not end well. It's one thing if it's a politically contentious issue that the judges themselves are divided on, but this is not such a case. If the community of federal judges feels slighted in their authority by some part of the administration, they can get very creative in making their displeasure known.
More likely this will just go through the normal appeals process, and nothing will change until the SCOTUS eventually gets to the case.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now let's hope that the ruling is respected. What are ways by which it couldn't be?
Stop policing it with government employees. Allow anyone to fly, then give the airlines API access to the list and tell them in a not-so-subtle way that they are responsible for anything that would happen should they allow any of those people on the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me get that down ... Anna Brown ... ok, the no-fly list is now one entry longer.
Re:Awesome! (Score:4)
Truly. Though with all three branches beholden to the same small group of powerful interests, the benefit of that separation is not nearly so great as it once was. Though it does seem the Judicial branch is at least moderately less beholden than the others.
Re: Awesome! (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing the three branches are beholden to is the People. Everything that is wrong with the government is directly attributable to the People allowing it. Every day we don't start a bloody revolution is one more day for the Evil to dig it's claws in... Twenty years from now you'll wish we had revolted when the getting was good...
Re: (Score:2)
Every day we don't start a bloody revolution is one more day for the Evil to dig it's claws in
What are you doing beyond whining? No one is gonna fight and die for an armchair general like you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the Apache isn't going to do much when it can't fly because people with AR-15s have eliminated fuel, ammo, and maintenance depots and/or the means to resupply them, not to mention the non-trivial number of servicemen who walk away from their posts when the order is given to fire upon their countrymen.
Re: (Score:2)
Though it does seem the Judicial branch is at least moderately less beholden than the others.
They're not only moderately less beholden. It would be a major ethical scandal worthy of impeachment, for a Justice to be caught discussing their cases/rulings with politicians, lobbyists, or other representatives outside the court: there is an absolute requirement of unbiased objective interpretation of the law exclusively according to the principles of the law.
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally someone (of note) says what everyone has been thinking (and saying).
Without the ability to challenge, it amounts to totalitarianism.
Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:2)
Thank you Judge Anna Brown. Hopefully this ruling also applies to non-Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Informative)
I would feel safer if the freedom to travel was specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, personally... wonder historically why it wasn't.
More or less, it actually was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
The rationale for the no-fly list not violating those rights is "well they can still walk and swim"; we're just saying they can't fly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The rationale for the no-fly list not violating those rights is "well they can still walk and swim"; we're just saying they can't fly.
Similar arguments were used to justify the TSA and free speech zones, if I remember right. Why not just suspend people's rights in the entire country? They can go elsewhere if they don't like it! This logic makes sense to authoritarians...
Re: (Score:2)
Some people have actually been detained in other countries after taking a boat to arrive, because they were on the US no-fly list. In practice, this list is being used as a catch-all "this person is a terrorist suspect" list in many places around the world.
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the Bill of Rights, as written, is not a list of rights granted but, rather, a list of prohibitions on the new government.
There was a huge debate about listing any rights because it was thought that no list could be complete. The preamble to the Bill of Rights identifies why it exists:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Notice the important statement, "...further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."
"Congress shall make no law..."
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"No soldier shall..."
"...shall not be violated..."
These are all prohibitions on the newly formed government. A compromise was reached that required the inclusion of the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This compromise is why all "retained" rights aren't listed and what allowed any rights to be listed; many who were negotiating the Bill of Rights were rightly fearful that the list would be seen as a "full" list of rights of the people.
The U.S. Constitution, as designed, granted powers from the people to the government. The compromise found within the Bill of Rights essentially listed a number of prohibitions so the new government absolutely knew that they could in no way interfere with this core set of rights.
Unfortunately, we've reached a point where many people believe that the U.S. Constitution confers rights from the government to the citizens rather than it's original purpose of conferring powers to the government from the people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally someone who recognises that the US Constitution is not the 'Law of the Land', rather a framework on what laws may exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
This is precisely correct. Sadly, it didn't work. Primarily, I think because the constitution is toothless: Violate it, and... nothing happens.
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
This. I mean, it was an admirable, if failed, attempt.
In the end our greatest protection was that the constitution was written by men who knew that what they were creating could be used against them, and so they attempted to put limits on it. Those limits were great but, as time went on, many were circumvented over some "crisis" or another; with each excuse piling upon the one before it.
And lets not even talk about the laughable scalability of the system. 300 million people have their interests represented at the highest levels by under 1000? Why to keep representation levels close to what they were in the begining, you would need nearly 90,000 representatives.
Never mind the idea that two big tent parties can, in any meaningful way, represent the spectrum of even reasonable views.... but the system is designed to settle into a stable two party system; and is most easily gamed by two parties that divide up the issues between them.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget the tenth amendment, which even more clearly states that the United States government has no powers except those explicitly listed in the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Funny how those last two amendments get overlooked so often.
Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (Score:4, Informative)
Entries in the no-fly list are sufficiently bare of details that by the law of large numbers, most of the entries probably apply to a US citizen somewhere, even if the entry was added for a specific non-citizen. Hence why there are periodic stories of family vacations stopped by the US Government accusing 3 year olds of terrorist sympathies and soldiers recently returned from duty of being the enemy they were just engaged with.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't swear to it (shame on me, I've let my civics get rusty), but I believe it has historically been accepted to apply to all people on US soil. ("it" rather than "they" because the BoR is simply a name given to the first ten Constitutional amendments, which were ratified en-masse shortly after the Constitution itself was ratified). Hence the existence of Guantanamo bay, a place to keep prisoners without granting them all those annoying rights that they could use to contest their incarceration. Exce
Re: (Score:2)
The Bill of Rights uses the term "person", NOT "citizen".
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you!
It's not the first time I've heard it, but the from an ontological view it's important to declare the rights exist independent of the government in power to enforce or restrict them....
Then I learned that rights always come from a perspective. "Property rights" was a crowd-favorite from the Dred Scott decision.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. Constitution, as designed, granted powers from the people to the government. The compromise found within the Bill of Rights essentially listed a number of prohibitions so the new government absolutely knew that they could in no way interfere with this core set of rights.
Unfortunately, we've reached a point where many people believe that the U.S. Constitution confers rights from the government to the citizens rather than it's original purpose of conferring powers to the government from the people.
And this gets modded up I guess because that's what we'd like it to be. No the Bill or Rights are just that, rights that people have in the US. Nothing, be it person, corporation, government, or church can take these rights away from you. It has NOTHING to do with limiting the powers of the Federal government. This is just a cleverly disguised states rights post, or something. I knew there was something underhanded going on when you snuck that "right to bear arms" in there and forgetting about the mili
Re: (Score:3)
So, your belief is that the Bill of Rights is a list of rights granted to the people by the government? What does the preamble say to you?
The reason I left the "right to bear arms" in there is because of the structure of the sentence that says, "the right of the people...". I could have also listed just the, "shall not be infringed" part and retained the meaning.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain how the U.S. Constitution is constructed from your perspective and how the language used in the Preamble
Re: (Score:2)
Keep preaching this. I have had to explain this over and over again, mainly to wingnuts of both persuasions who like to point out how the Constitution doesn't prohibit their pet laws so they must be okay.
About time (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:About time (Score:5, Interesting)
It's okay having a no fly list but not having a way to appeal being on it is an abomination.
So close, but so so far away. Let me help you: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
The definition of due process is beyond the scope of a /. post, but at a minimum it would require the right to be confronted with the evidence against you and a review by a judge and/or jury of your peers. Some bureaucrat in the national security apparatus adding your name to a list does not rise to the level of due process under any definition.
Oh, and guess what? The list is totally pointless anyway. Suspected terrorists from other countries could already be denied entry into the United States by the simple exercise of refusing to grant them a visa. Last time I checked you can't board an aircraft to the United States without valid travel documents and the appropriate visas.
Re: (Score:3)
Agree it is pointless and stupid, but ...
What about the many people on the list who are US citizens already residing in the US? They don't NEED visas. The list really does provide a framework to infringe, utterly without due process, the rights of people including US citizens. There is absolutely nothing preventing whoeve
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
The no-fly list. the TSA checking everyone before they board the plane to make sure they are not carrying means to do harm.
Pick one. One or the other is STUPID. It is pointless to have both.
Hold on to your seats (Score:2)
It's a decent ruling, but...
Having the right to travel doesn't mean any particular airline
has the obligation to carry me.
Re:Hold on to your seats (Score:4, Informative)
Since they are supported by your tax dollars, why not?
http://www.narprail.org/resour... [narprail.org]
Nice (Score:3)
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)
Re:Nice (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.)
Doesn't really say much (Score:5, Informative)
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.
but, but (Score:2)
alarmist on /. assured my this would never happen, and that we would all be rounded up and tracked!
Prediction: New addition to the No Fly List (Score:5, Interesting)
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... [techdirt.com]
Why does she hate our freedom? (Score:2)
Death List (Score:2)
So a "no fly list" is not OK, but a "death list", (ala Awlaki), is OK?
What's wrong with luxury? (Score:3)
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.
So what? (Score:3)
No Punishment Without Crime (Score:3)
...seems pretty open-and-shut to me.
So? (Score:3)
Re:Here's the Solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here's the Solution (Score:5, Informative)
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_fly_list#False_positives [wikipedia.org].
Re:Here's the Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here's the Solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here's the Solution (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Here's the Solution (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here's the Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
However once you combine incompetence with malice, then you have a solid foundation to create a government department.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Here's the Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Here's the Solution (Score:5, Informative)
"Immigration officer fired after putting wife on list of terrorists to stop her flying home (31 January 2011)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
"US Has A 'Secret Exception' To Reasonable Suspicion For Putting People On The No Fly List" (Apr 17, 2014)
https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
That other list:
"DHS ‘hands off’ list allowed suspects with terror ties into U.S."
http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
'Hands off' list? Senator questions whether DHS allowing those with terror ties into US (May 07, 2014)
http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When this gets to SCOTUS I am sure Scalia will find some twisted logic to say the list is AOK.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you read a bit about US history, you'll see that these things take time, but eventually (a couple of decades) things usually get fixed.
Let's hope that's true for the No Fly List, Obamacare, NSA spying, and a lot of the other b.s. Republican and Democratic presidents have pushed through.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear! As totalitarian countries go, the US is slow to act...oh wait, perhaps if this ruling isn't challenged, ends up having some impact, and surveillance is ameliorated, the US won't carry the "totalitarian" adjective any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a step in the right direction at least.
Re:That took long enough (Score:5, Informative)
It took this long before a judge was actually allowed to make a ruling on it.
In order for a judge to make a ruling, there has to be a court case first, the judges aren't allowed to initiate action on their own. In order for someone to bring a case against the list, they first have to prove that the list affects them (this is why the ACLU couldn't do anything on their own, because they themselves weren't on the list). The problem is that the list is completely secret, so there is no way of knowing someone is on the list until they actually try to fly somewhere and get stopped.
It's taken this long for someone to be officially stopped who had both the resources and the desire to challenge the list in court.
Re:That took long enough (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Our schools are instruments of BRAINWASHING and of relentlessly stamping out the embers of thirst to know what, why, and how.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)