People On No-Fly List Can Sue In District Court 241
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... (Score:5, Informative)
CNN link to someone doing it. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I know several people on the list, and all of them have relatively common names.
From what I can tell, the feds are blacklisting names, but not bothering to consider the fact that listing only the names fails to catch people using pseudonyms to buy tickets.
Plus registering names which are beyond common for people of various ethnic groups is going to have many, many duplicates.
Re:CNN link to someone doing it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Military Privilege: Keeping their Rights (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:CNN link to someone doing it. (Score:5, Funny)
The list clearly works! He doesn't know whether or not he's a terorrist!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Time To Push Back on the Bastards! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Time To Push Back on the Bastards! (Score:5, Informative)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Slashdot being slashdot, the correct way to ask that question is with a poll:
My name is:
1) James Robinson
2) CowboyNeal
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
[stands up] I'm James Robinson [youtube.com]!
Terrorism? This stuff is cake compared to before (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
If the good guy wins, it's only ever temporary.
Re: (Score:2)
If the good guy wins, it's only ever temporary.
Actually, I think they are happy for the "good guy" to win just once in a while. It gives them something to point to with a used car salesman grin and say, "See? The system works!" while the other several thousand of innocents continue to get screwed.
Re:Terrorism? This stuff is cake compared to befor (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Let's see...
Idiot
backspace
Idio
backspace
Idi
backspace
Id
Idol
IdIdol?
I think you need to learn how to use that "joke" a little better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how's that working out for you?
Re:Terrorism? This stuff is cake compared to befor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Suing the property gets around the shell corporations that are set up so that essentially nobody owns the property.
The suer still has to have a case and the judge still has to agree.
Re: (Score:2)
The protection against unreasonable search and seizure was so important they knew about it hundreds of years ago.
Open up a history book. Our rights are periodically being trampled on throughout the lifespan of the US. This is nothing new.
A Big Problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A Big Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Big Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that The People in the Bill of Rights is the same group of people in each amendment? We can't go and say that, in one amendment, The People mean everyone, but in another amendment, it only means people trained by the state, licensed, and equipped with state of the art printing presses? What are you smooking?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid that's just a perception problem on your part. Grab the NRA's America's First Freedom magazine sometime. I'm sure you'll find something about 1st amendment issues in it. They've been really big in coming out against McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform the past few years.
The NRA and ACLU have teamed up on some 1st amendment court cases too. Heck, I'm a card carrying member of both orgs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, why do you suppose the government forces you to fill out a 4473 [wikipedia.org] anytime you'd like to purchase a gun?
What's this feeling I'm having? (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
And who said there are no good comedians in the US?
dance off (Score:5, Funny)
Re:dance off (Score:4, Funny)
Wow. That's like a story, all about how your life got flip-turned upside down....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My father abbreviated his name from Joseph to Joe, which is what he goes by, when he booked a flight to Europe. Everything was fine until we tried to come back in to the United States. At passport control he was escorted to a separate room where he couldn't take cell phone calls - but could call people from a tapped phone.
He waited in line there for over 2 hours to explain that Joe is the same name as Joseph.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Totally Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Yes, it is a total joke of bureaucratic stupidity.
But then, look at the person at the top of this government and ask yourself if it isn't the best he could have come up with.
Personally, I'm surprised it's in alphabetical order.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there's your problem. The Ibrahim is a Muslim involved in construction. Osama bin Laden is a Muslim involved in construction. Therefore Ibrahim is Osama bin laden. Perfect government logic.
Re: (Score:2)
What use is it? (Score:2)
As all we've heard our complaints about wrongly identified people, Has this wonderful "no fly list" ever had a successful outcome in preventing a real suspect from boarding a plane i.e. a terrorist dumb enough to use his own name and passport?
Really, just one little success case will convince me it's useful...
Just one... anybody... ?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure it works. No terrorist attacks on planes in the U.S. since they started using it....so it must work!
Re:What use is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Remind me to show you how to keep elephants away...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pfft, I already bought a rock that does that.
Re:What use is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, they definitely thwarted Cat Steven's [go.com] nefarious plans, whatever they might have been.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Downhill from Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's Downhill from Here (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I giggle wildly at that. It is all interdependent. The folks in the top of the Chinese gov got there with the existing US gov. They want the US to stay roughly the same. The Russian gas firms are interested in soaking there customers for as much as they can. That we are resource hungry and will pay alot for
Re: (Score:2)
And you only realized that now!?
Everyon's on the "no sue list" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Non Rhetorical/Non Sarcastic Questions (Score:2)
If the No Fly List is bad and we scrap it, what then should we do to thwart future hijackings?
How do we go from security theatre to security?
- Aside from strategic efforts like... trying to make them hate us less, how do you guys recommend that we protect ourselves from the next attack on the tactical level? If some group has decided to crash a plane into the Hoover Dam, how do we prevent it? Or do we say "Life is hard, wear a cup. Our liberties are more important"?
- Also, if investigating potential terro
Re: (Score:2)
If the No Fly List is bad and we scrap it, what then should we do to thwart future hijackings?
Roughly 3000 people in the last 10 years have died because of hijackings. We should look at other causes of death with about the same mortality rate and make sure our response is proportional. 300 people a year is not enough to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Cup, please.
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't get this. Everyone -- but everyone -- will patriotically mouth that you need to be willing to put it all on the line for your freedoms. You have to risk despair and death. You have to have something worth dying for.
But somehow eveyone's come to the crazy conclusion that this necessarily means enrolling in the military. Here's how the average citizen takes the risk that makes democracy precious: He puts up with the po
As Per Reports Written in the 1970s (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the no fly list is good, the thing that we should do to thwart future hijackings has already been done. By ~19 terrorists on four planes in mid September at the turn of the century. That thing was to dispel the notion that it is best to just keep your head down and wait for ransom or rescue.
An other thing that could be done is to obviate worries about collateral damage by phasing out the large planes that
Re: (Score:2)
"If the No Fly List is bad and we scrap it, what then should we do to thwart future hijackings?"
1. Strengthen the cockpit door.
2. Announce at the start of the flight that all hijackers are to be subdued by force.
3. Train the flight attendants in the use of weapons.
4. Arm the flight attendants.
5. 4 may be unnecessary, as these days it is more likely that the passengers themselves will beat the crap out of a hijacker. This is because 9/11 changed the "rules". The rule was that the passengers sat quietly in
Let's change the meme (Score:3, Funny)
Is Corporate USA, goverment puts YOU in a no-fly list...This could never happen in Soviet Russia...
Can sue in a district court ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. There are cases of non-American citizens, not in the US, who can't fly to the country they hold a passport for because their name, or one like it, shows up on a US watch list.
What recourse do these people have?
Cheers
Changing Tactics (Score:2, Interesting)
If, as we surmise, the TSA's brand of 'security theater' is intended to keep the flying public frightened and to 'stay in line', as it were, (because acting out a metaphor is more powerful than most people realize,) then weakening it's effects in this way may simply induce the TSA and its puppetmasters to change their tactics. Another tactic has already been practiced and reported on, as it happens, and I wrote a short story about what might happen if it got out of hand. The story is called "Incident on Con
Weird? (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Chief Justice Roberts (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Stright, you did not get it. (Score:2)
Let me see if I got this stright...
No, no you didn't.
Serious liability (Score:2)
I would offer a question. What happens when someone that is on some kind of watch list or no-fly list or some "suspected terrorist" list is allowed on an airplane?
Do all the passengers get to sue the airline because of increased stress?
If there is some kind of crash - for whatever reason - is the airline clearly responsible until proven otherwise?
I would say that given the legal climate in the US, this would absolutely be the case. You will notice the "flying imams" case was thrown out. I'm waiting for a
Amusing Judgements (Score:2)
Now if you want something amusing....
If a large group of terrorists deliberately and publicly assumed aliases of popular American names... They could just work down the popularity list.
Anyone amused by judging by name yet?
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The U.S. Government has a blanket 'no sue' policy in place stating that the Government cannot be sued without the permission of the Government (that's a nifty netup, no?). Certain topics such as contract dusputes have been approved for suits against the Government but in general a U. S. Citizen can't sue the Government.
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Funny)
And of course, the government would never violate your constitutional rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you have a two year-old on the list, it makes it more stupid.
Um, I think perhaps you should read up some on childhood development, particularly about personality development and maturity.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, because putting children on a list of people who you are afraid might be terrorists is fucking stupid? I don't care how big your box cutter is little Johnny, get back in your seat or you're getting time-out.
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely, children don't generally have the means to sue or to even try to sue. If their parents don't want to go in for the suit, no suit will be happening.
Apart from that there isn't that much of a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
That they can demand to see your ID before you get on a flight is also a violation of your Constitutional rights [papersplease.org], no matter what courts say about it, IMHO.
That guy is a bit far fetched, IMHO. Why is he calling his site "Papers Please" when he was never actually asked for ID during his police encounter? The officer asked for his name and he refused to give it.
No where in that SCOTUS ruling did it say that you have to produce identification if asked. It only stated that you have to identify yourself and give your address if asked. Most states have laws like that on the books already so it was hardly something new.
You might disagree with the concept of being
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Like that actually would stop them. It would may slow them, but it wouldn't stop them from doing it. Heck, they'd do it until called on it and by that time they'd have most of their citizens convinced that this is just the way
Re:Of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
It's not surprising when all three branches were controlled by the same party.
The three branches were designed to oppose each other, not to be in the same hands, if the electorate allows that to happen, well, they get the government they deserve, it seems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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