People On No-Fly List Can Sue In District Court

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to a new ruling, those put on the No-Fly List can challenge their inclusion in federal court. Previously, they had to go directly to an appellate court, which would deprive them of any chance to subpoena documents or witnesses and make gathering evidence difficult or impossible. Knowing the government, they will get around this by creating a 'No-Sue' list and making it even harder to change your name."

Tried to RTFA...

[meringuoid (568297)]

... but broken link. It looks like some helpful filter somewhere replaced a double hyphen with a dash. Article here [wired.com].

CNN link to someone doing it.

[BitterOldGUy (1330491)]

Airline pilot sues [cnn.com]

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I noticed that he's a retired General. This amuses me, because my father is a retired Navy Commander and his name is on the no fly list. Thanks for spending all that time serving your country, you can't fly!

Although, to be honest it rarely takes more than five minutes to get it sorted out. He just happens to have a very common first and last name. Usually it involves his saying "wtf," and showing his military ID.

Military Privilege: Keeping their Rights

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

So having a common name isn't a problem so long as you've got some special privileges attached to your ID.

I'm glad your father is treated with respect. And that his exception proves the rule that this kind of police state requires you have some lateral connection to the police just to operate as a normal person with your normal rights.

Re:CNN link to someone doing it.

[rtb61 (674572)]

I don't think you understand the whole principle of slipping peoples names on the list and not bothering to differentiate between different people having the same name. Don't show the proper respect, fail to agree with the weasel in chief, join the wrong political party, write comments on forums that challenge the government approved view and you will just have to expect limitations being placed upon you, 'er', not you, your name, 'er', not your name, some bad person who has the same name but that they won't identify for security reasons.

The crazy principle is, by their logic you are not proving who you are, you are proving who you aren't. Now if that other person is such a threat that under no circumstance should they be allowed to board a plane etc. then why aren't they keeping track of their location sufficiently well to know that they are not at your current location attempting to board a plane.

Re:CNN link to someone doing it.

[KevinIsOwn (618900)]

The best part of that article:

Besides the airline pilot, there's the James Robinson who served as U.S. attorney in Detroit, Michigan, and as an assistant attorney general in the Clinton administration; and James Robinson of California, who loves tennis, swimming and flying to the East Coast to see his grandmother.

He's 8.

The third-grader has been on the watch list since he was 5 years old. Asked whether he is a terrorist, he said, "I don't know."

The list clearly works! He doesn't know whether or not he's a terorrist!

Re:

[jonfr (888673)]

This says it all.

"Since airing a story this summer about how Correspondent Drew Griffin began getting told he was on the watch list -- coincidentally after he wrote a series critical of the TSA's Federal Air Marshal Service -- CNN has received dozens of e-mails and iReport submissions from viewers who also have found themselves on the watch list."

Some one in the U.S needs to sue TSA for corruption and illegal activate. Ending up on a terror watch list just for criticizing TSA is nothing but corruption.

Somet

Time To Push Back on the Bastards!

[curmudgeon99 (1040054)]

Finally, the US Courts are getting wise to the abuses we Americans have been subjected to in the name of battling terrorism. In fact, the nanny state has just used the 9-11 stuff as an excuse to do what they've always wanted to do--dig into our personal business. The hallmark of the creation of the US was its Constitution, which explicitly forbids the government from engaging in fishing expeditions. The protection against unreasonable search and seizure was so important they knew about it hundreds of years ago. Finally, someone is pushing back.

Re:Time To Push Back on the Bastards!

[stephanruby (542433)]

Finally, the US Courts are getting wise to the abuses we Americans have been subjected to in the name of battling terrorism.

Hopefully, this will come in time for this commercial pilot, he has 15 days to get off the no-fly-list -- or he's going to lose his job [wired.com].

Re:Time To Push Back on the Bastards!

[stephanruby (542433)]

And may be for this other guy, this guy is a different case -- he's a commercial pilot and he has even been authorized by the TSA to carry a weapon on board -- but his name happens to be the same as someone else who happens to be on the list [cnn.com]. James Robinson, it does suck to be you. I just checked my white pages, and there seems to be only six of you listed. Hey, I wonder how many James Robinson we have that are reading Slashdot at this very moment? Speak up, don't be shy.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm not James Robinson, but my name is generic enough so that it's on the list. So I'm not on the list, but *my name* is.

This means that I cannot use online check in. I also cannot use a self check-in kiosk. Every time I fly, I have to speak to someone, who then has to look me up and make phone calls to print my boarding pass.

Do you know how they differentiate me from the other people with my name? By my birthday. So if I shared the same name and birthday with someone else, I'd be detained nearly every time

Re:

[antdude (79039)]

[stands up] I'm James Robinson [youtube.com]!

Terrorism? This stuff is cake compared to before

[Shivetya (243324)]

Sorry, but the no-fly list is nothing compared to the forfeiture laws that were passed in the 80s where it has become the norm to sue the property instead of the person owning it in order to circumvent the Constitution and laws protecting person and property.

People act as if anti-terrorism laws infringing on our rights is something new cooked up by Bush and Co. but the fact is we have had a steady erosion of our rights ever since the the New Deal getting far worse with Nixon's War on Drugs which has been perpetuated by each following administration. Hell Clinton went so far as to make it a Cabinet position.

The government has show increasing disregard for the rights of people and when the law proved to be insurmountable they invented new means of accomplishing the same (look up asset forfeiture) Sometimes the good guy wins ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700 [wikipedia.org] ) but the fact that there are judges who think otherwise is scary.

Re:Terrorism? This stuff is cake compared to befor

[Akita24 (1080779)]

Waaaa, waaaaa, the govenment, waaaaa. Suck it up. TheGovernment, at least so far, was put there by you, me, and the asshole sitting next to you who wouldn't know a real issue from the drivel he was told to care about by Fox, CNN or his f'ing priest. Maybe if half as many of the proles who vote for American Idiot^h^h^hIdol would quit crying about TheGovernment and go f'ing vote for something that actually matters, we wouldn't be in this hole. Next time you want to whine about TheGovernment, I suggest you look in the mirror and/or at the asshole sitting in the cube next to you at work. This mess is collectively Our fault.

Re:Terrorism? This stuff is cake compared to befor

[kadehje (107385)]

The no-fly list is also nothing compared to the rest of what the Bush administration had pushed through with the help of a Congress that either supports him or too spineless to stand up to him.

I don't know of people that were held indefinitely overseas without access to counsel or even a description of what they've been charged with as a result of alleged drug dealing. The Reagan and Clinton administration actually appeared to respect the anti-domestic spying laws passed in the wake of Nixon's abuses; now on top of spying laws that appear to be unconstitutional on their face, Bush's people are stepping beyond the modest limits set by their own laws.

Bush may not have opened the action, but he's certainly raised the stakes with the PATRIOT Act, his watered-down FISA law, and signing statements effectively saying he's not going to obey certain sections of laws that show up on his desk. It's not like he could have vetoed those laws and asked Congress to draft versions that Bush approved -- oh wait, he could have.

Now we've got the Nixon-era racketeering laws (not specifically drug-related, though he was certainly opposed to illicit drugs), the asset forfeiture you mentioned, the extremely harsh and internally inconsistent drug laws, and now a return of domestic spying and indefinite detention. The last, which before Bush hadn't been seen in earnest since WWII, is an especially troubling development. Now it's conceivable to spend the rest of your life in a military camp without trial if you're judged to be an enemy combatant.

Invasion of privacy and property are bad, but infringing on someone's physical freedom is much, much worse. And unfortunately, I agree that many judges don't even seem to care what the Constitution says; it wouldn't shock me at all if despite the 13th Amendment some federal court decided slavery was once again legal.

Just because his predecessors infringed liberties doesn't give G. W. Bush or his successors the right to do so. And I would argue that our current president has been the most aggressive in history, with Nixon a close second.

We now have "wars" against terrorism, drugs, child pornography, drunk driving, and probably some other domestic causes; in addition to two actual wars and possibly two more on the horizon (Iran and Georgia). Why can't some general come out and say that if you spend all your time and money starting wars, you won't win any of them? I guess our recent commanders-in-chief don't seem to grasp that concept.

What's this feeling I'm having?

[BitterOldGUy (1330491)]

That notion struck Chief Judge Alex Kozinski as nonsensical....

The appeals court, overturning the lower court, is also allowing Ibrahim to sue Bondanella personally. She alleges that his order to detain her violated her constitutional rights, since the no-fly list is not a list of wanted terrorists, but rather a list of people suspected of being too dangerous to board a plane.

Could it be? No! It can't be!!

Why, I'm starting to have faith in the system again! I better turn off my internet connection, my TV, and cancel my Economist subscription before the feeling goes away!

Let me see if I got this stright...

[SplinterOfChaos (1330441)]

So, you get on this list that says you're such a threat to the nation, we don't want you flying planes, and we do this without permission because this guy's DANGEROUS. Yet, they're so little a threat that a court case can get them off the list.

And who said there are no good comedians in the US?

dance off

[RemoWilliams84 (1348761)]

I was put on the no fly list when I challenged some guy to a dance off and got served.

Re:dance off

[gardyloo (512791)]

Wow. That's like a story, all about how your life got flip-turned upside down....

Re:

[m.ducharme (1082683)]

Oh no, normal Belairs aren't a one-shot thing (though maybe they should be) it's only the reverse belair that is a one-shot.

list easy to circumvent

[MollyB (162595)]

A recent CNN feature story was about 3 American males named James Robinson. Two were professionals, and one was a young boy. The mother of the boy says that she merely changes the form of her son's name (in this case, to J. Pierce Robinson, IIRC) and the family (or the other gentlemen) can fly unhassled.

Totally Pointless

[jmpeax (936370)]

Wow, and to think that the whole thing is totally pointless with regard to its supposed necessity for anti-terrorism purposes because it's actually trivial to get around:

Denise Robinson says she tells the skycaps her son is on the list, tips heavily and is given boarding passes. And booking her son as "J. Pierce Robinson" also has let the family bypass the watch list hassle.

Capt. James Robinson said he has learned that "Jim Robinson" and "J.K. Robinson" are not on the list.

Terrorist's wouldn't even need to use fake names! They'd just need to abbreviate their real ones.

What a sad state of affairs.

Re:Totally Pointless

[gstoddart (321705)]

Terrorist's wouldn't even need to use fake names! They'd just need to abbreviate their real ones.

And, what's more astounding is that it would work.

For all of the braying about how this list would improve safety, if you can just slightly change the way you present your name (and still use the same piece of ID) and get onto a plane, the list of less than useless.

We've already known they can't tell the difference between two "John Smiths", but if they can't even identify the same "John Smith", then this really is a farce.

Unbelievable.

Cheers

Re:

[meringuoid (568297)]

'No, no... it's Osama Ben Laden. Completely different guy. Let him through!'

Re:

[Maxmin (921568)]

Well yes - and by what criteria are these people (their names, really) getting on the list in the first place? If it's a simple name match, no biographical details, no biometric data - what was the point of US-VISIT, the program to collect biometric data from foreign travelers [america.gov] crossing our borders?

According to Stanford's website, Ibrahim was a doctoral candidate in construction engineering [stanford.edu], and her resume [stanford.edu] details her bachelors and masters in architecture. Ibrahim's doctoral thesis was about organizational [stanford.edu]

It's Downhill from Here

[Vengance Daemon (946173)]

Our enemy has become, not the Muslim fundamentalists, but the federal government of the United States. We are spending a lot of time and bandwidth talking about and complaining about their actions. There is kind of a resigned tone to many of the comments that I hear and read. The US government has become sort of not "of the people, by the people, and for the people," but more "against the people." The corruption in congress and the White House is not helping at all.

Re:It's Downhill from Here

[meringuoid (568297)]

Our enemy has become, not the Muslim fundamentalists, but the federal government of the United States.

Muslim fundamentalists have never been an enemy worthy of the name. They're a bunch of hopeless dreamers; we're told they want to establish some terrible Caliphate over the whole world, but so what? While we're wishing, I'd like a Ferrari, and the Amish prefer to be called 'sons of the soil', but it's not going to happen.

The chief threats to the US global hegemony are the Chinese government, the Russian gas firms, the European Central Bank, and peak oil. A bunch of fuckwits in suicide vests shouldn't even be on the radar.

Re:

[dkf (304284)]

The chief threats to the US global hegemony are the Chinese government, the Russian gas firms, the European Central Bank, and peak oil. A bunch of fuckwits in suicide vests shouldn't even be on the radar.

But that's enough about the ECB!

Everyon's on the "no sue list"

[T.E.D. (34228)]

Knowing the government, they will get around this by creating a 'No-Sue' list and making it even harder to change your name."

Clever, but I doubt it. They'll just do what this administration does every time they get sued: They'll claim that they can't provide any information for National Security reasons.

Let's change the meme

[chord.wav (599850)]

Is Corporate USA, goverment puts YOU in a no-fly list...This could never happen in Soviet Russia...

Weird?

[arthurpaliden (939626)]

I am too dangerous to fly but I can still buy an assualt rifle.

Dear Chief Justice Roberts

[russotto (537200)]

And also Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito... oh yeah, and Stevens, wake up, naptime is over.

Let me call your attention to Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3, of the United States Constitution. "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed". Now, what is a bill of attainder? Why, it is a law declaring a person or group of persons guilty of a crime and imposing penalties on them without going through the aggravation of a trial. Sound familiar? With this "no-fly" list, we have a law which allows the executive to declare certain persons "terrorists" and impose upon them the penalty of not being permitted to travel by air.

Justice Scalia, stop flipping through the law books for that old excuse about how preventing people from flying is a measure necessary for public safety and not a punishment; that excuse was old when Justice Stevens was young, and it's crap. Even putting criminals in prison is also a measure necessary for public safety, it remains a punishment.

Justice Ginsburg, forget that nonsense about the contents of the list being determined by the executive and not the legislature. The executive isn't granted any power to declare a "no fly" list by the Constitution, so the only power it has in that area is that delegated by the legislature. The legislature is explicitly denied that power, so it doesn't have it to delegate.

Justice Kennedy, forget that stuff about flying not being a right. For one thing, you're treading close to the Ninth Amendment prohibition against disparaging rights not specifically listed. For another, even if flying isn't a right doesn't mean the executive or the legislature has arbitrary powers concerning it.

Does our constitution work? Such long delays...

[dpbsmith (263124)]

That's not a rhetorical question. I read things like this and on the one hand, I think, "It's OK, I'm not being a boiled frog about this, we still have our fundamental civil liberties, the mills of justice turn slowly but in the end the Constitution is upheld."

Then on the other hand, I think, "maybe the mills of justice can't keep up with the number of wooden shoes the Administration is able to toss into them." When did all the nonsense begin? The secret, no-appeal, the-reason-why-this-is-classified-is-classified lists... and the "oh, you have no right to appeal because you're not actually ON the no-fly list, it's just that you can't fly because your name RESEMBLES a name on the no-fly list, but of course we can't tell you the name that's really ON the no-fly list. The searches for which no warrant is required because they're "random," even though some people get "randomly" searched almost every time they fly and others never get "randomly" searched at all... ...the people held at Guantanamo without charges and without trial for five years, long than many prison sentences...

If the executive branch can abrogate a constitutional right instantly just by issuing an order, and it takes the judicial branch five to ten years to undo it, is the system working?

As I say, it's not a rhetorical question. Maybe that IS good enough.

Re:A Big Problem

[Ihlosi (895663)]

What next, national gun ownership registration lists?

No, no, people are brainwashed enough to think that if they can still have their gun, they're not living in a totalitarian state.

You don't need to take people's guns away if you've already poisoned their minds with your crap.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Under Bill Clinton/Janet Reno (Waco much?), "instant background" gun checks were being kept indefinitely. John Ashcroft (you know, that guy you used to love to hate) had them purged after 7 days. He (and the Bush administration) also viewed the second amendment as an individual right (something the supreme court recently confirmed).

Re:A Big Problem

[poetmatt (793785)]

Really, why does Ashcroft or Bush get any credit for 2nd amendment? I seem to recall a thing called the court system that had to overturn washington specific problems created by people before and supported through (the bush administration). I would give absolutely 0 credit to either of them for that. Once again the Judicial branch had to come to the rescue.

To blame anyone, blame Judge Scalia for being retarded on the issue.

Re:Of course.

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

Gotta love the government being immune to anybody on American soil suing them.

But the government is not immune to being sued. Suing the government is a Constitutional right and a favorite American pastime! Furthermore, any creation of 'No Sue' list as mentioned would be a violation of your Constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of issues.

Re:

[Tophe (853490)]

Yes, and we know how much our government respects our constitutional rights...

Re:Of course.

[wronskyMan (676763)]

The concept of sovereign immunity is common in other governments as well - the original rationale for having it in a democratic society was to force change in government policy through the will of the majority rather than the suit of 1 person/decision of a judge. Later as the bugs in the judicial system were worked out lawsuits were seen as an available check and balance and were therefore introduced to allow the minority to offset the majority if necessary (small-R republican vs. purely democratic).

Re:Of course.

[MrNaz (730548)]

would be a violation of your Constitutional right

And of course, the government would never violate your constitutional rights.

Re:

[phoomp (1098855)]

And a "No Fly" list that is so easily added to that includes children *isn't* a violation of Constitutional rights?

Re:

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"And a "No Fly" list that is so easily added to that includes children *isn't* a violation of Constitutional rights?"

Wait....because they can add children, that makes it worse?? Geez, when did everything become 'about the children'. There is nothing special about them, and society needs to quit catering to them and their parents...This is a "grownups" world, lets start treating it that way again.

Children are simply little people who have yet to reach the age of majority.

The no fly list is screwing with

Re:

[Foobar of Borg (690622)]

Wait....because they can add children, that makes it worse??

When you have a two year-old on the list, it makes it more stupid.

Children are simply little people who have yet to reach the age of majority.

Um, I think perhaps you should read up some on childhood development, particularly about personality development and maturity.

Re:

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

What can a two-year-old possibly do to get them added to the no-fly-list?

Been around any two-year olds recently? There should be blanket (pun intended) restriction forbidding them from flying in anything other than a crate in the baggage compartment.

Re:Of course.

[Shakrai (717556)]

How he's better than a constitutional scholar for running the executive branch.

You mean the Constitutional Scholar that voted for a bill including retroactive telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping?

I think Obama is the best choice out of the five who are running but don't delude yourself into thinking that he has anymore respect for the rule of law than any of the other 43 Presidents we had. He'll expand the power of the Executive Branch just like all the others have.

Hell, it's not really surprising that Presidents would want to expand the power of their own branch. What's surprising/depressing is that the other two branches let them get away with it.

Re:

[gstoddart (321705)]

Anyone wanna bet that people who push back like this will find themselves on a different list accidentally, say a sex offender list, or a criminals sentenced to death row that have escaped list. Accidents happen...

Oh, no. It'll be a much more nefarious list that maintained by an agency which nobody officially acknowledges exists and that they're not legally allowed to tell you about.

It'll be a special list for agitators and other enemies of the state who challenge the authority of the government and disagr

Re:What use is it?

[Stanislav_J (947290)]

Watch yourself. Those who question The List are probably destined to end up on The List.

Understand.....whether or not it works for the stated purpose is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is that ignorant people believe that it works. It's like Homeopathic Government. Rule by Placebo.

And also understand.....all these draconian measures have little or nothing to do, really, with fighting terrorism. That's the "cover story." It's all about control -- control of "We, the people." The people who more and more are considered an utterly irrelevant nuisance to those in power.

Re:

[werfele (611119)]

Has this wonderful "no fly list" ever had a successful outcome in preventing a real suspect from boarding a plane

Well, they definitely thwarted Cat Steven's [go.com] nefarious plans, whatever they might have been.

Re:What use is it?

[geminidomino (614729)]

Remind me to show you how to keep elephants away...

As Per Reports Written in the 1970s

[arthurpaliden (939626)]

Strengthen and lock the flight deck door. If they cannot get into the flight deck they cannot hijack the aircraft. And no the pilots are trained professionals, they will not open the door untill they are on the ground. If the Israelie airline can do it why can't everyone else.