US Government Fights To Not Explain No-Fly List Selection Process 248
An anonymous reader writes: On August 6, U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga ordered the federal government to "explain why the government places U.S. citizens who haven't been convicted of any violent crimes on its no-fly database." Unsurprisingly, the federal government objected to the order, once more claiming that to divulge their no-fly list criteria would expose state secrets and thus pose a national security threat. When the judge said he would read the material privately, the government insisted that reading the material "would not assist the Court in deciding the pending Motion to Dismiss (PDF) because it is not an appropriate means to test the scope of the assertion of the State Secrets privilege." The federal government has until September 7 to comply with the judge's order unless the judge is swayed by the government's objection.
It'd be nice... (Score:4, Insightful)
If somehow we could avoid letting the worst ideas just kinda slide.
There's not a lick of evidence that no-fly has helped anyone, but we need to insist its policies not face even the slightest judicial review. Asshole libertarians tend identify me as an authoritarian because I state the obvious vis a vis their fundamental beliefs, but this kind of deprivation without due process is still completely nuts.
Re:It'd be nice... (Score:5, Funny)
But, but , but Mr. Obama is Mr. Transparency.
He said so.
Re:It'd be nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, but , but Mr. Obama is Mr. Transparency.
He said so.
One of the things President Obama has done for this country is to show us that whether the Republicans or Democrats are in office, we get a lot of the same policies. Not identical, but most of the foreign policy, national security, surveillance and domestic security policies are the same between the parties. Some choice!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the last time the news media was competent at holding the federal government responsible was under Nixon. Since then, they've only held individuals accountable for their sex lives... because sex sells papers.
Re:It'd be nice... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except they didn't ignore those, else no one would know what you mean when you say "Bush LIED!"
And if lies are bad, what about Obama's serial lying about the ACA?
- If you like your doctor, you can keep him - If you like your plan, you can keep it
He probably said those sound bites HUNDREDS if not thousands of times, and each time he did he KNEW he was lying.
BTW, got the stones to compare what Obama said about ISIS to what David Cameron said? Watch the two speeches and tell us all which one of those two looks and sounds like a deer caught in headlights.
Both of those situations were heavily covered by the press on both sides. The difference, IMHO, is a matter of degree.
The G. W. Bush administration lied about WMD [wikipedia.org] in Iraq, justifying the invasion of Iraq, costing 4,486 U.S. service personnel and more than 100,000 iraqi lives. The hand-picked leader of Iraq further destabilized the region causing thousands, if not tens of thousands, more deaths.
The Obama administration claimed: "If you like your doctor, you can keep him," and "If you like your plan, you can keep it." at the cost of zero lives and some confusion about the new ACA plans.
As I said, a matter of degree. I'll leave a decision about the relative impacts of each as an exercise for the reader.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Balogna. The dullards you're doubtlessly citing use the "increase in rejected FOIA requests" metric that handily sweeps under the rug the proportionally greater increase in answered FOIA requests, because honesty isn't part of the game plan.
Re:It'd be nice... (Score:4, Informative)
President Obama - 79
President George W. Bush - 89
President Bill Clinton - 133
President George H. W. Bush - 143
President Reagan - 27
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... [ucsb.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
This is a metric I had not seen nor considered before. I suppose due consideration is called for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw, I considered, I LOL'd.
Re:due consideration (Score:2)
"Who has had to hard-sell the most bullshit to the people".
Re:It'd be nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Press conferences are not about openness. Traditionally, press conferences are about high level dissemination of propaganda and dysinformation. Like LBJ and the Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin incident; Nixon and the Parot Beak; Bush and Iraq's WMD; and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
President Bill Clinton - 133
half of these is probably about whether or not he slept with that woman... he he...
- Not that I ever cared one bit....
Re:It'd be nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Balogna. The dullards you're doubtlessly citing use the "increase in rejected FOIA requests" metric that handily sweeps under the rug the proportionally greater increase in answered FOIA requests, because honesty isn't part of the game plan.
Why don't you file a FOIA request for Lois Lerner's emails?
Why don't you tell us why the Attorney General has been held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents?
Most. Transparent. Administration. Ever.
Really? You believe that, I've got a great bridge to sell you.
Re:It'd be nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear sir,
You are quite wrong. There is a mountain of evidence that so called "no-fly" lists have prevent unspeakable acts of terrorism and violence.
It is however important to note that to divulge the details of said evidence will expose state secret and thus constitute a threat to national security.
To explain; in order to protect you, the national citizen we have to keep this secret from you as telling you how we do things can put you at risk. Given that you can now clearly see how you yourself put your own well-being at risk your personal freedoms should in fact be revoked for your protection.
A secret court that we cannot tell you about already ruled in our favor. All your rights are belong to us.
Sincerely,
Your democratically elected and chosen government.
Re:It'd be nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From now on you will all be put on double secret probation...
Re:It'd be nice... (Score:5, Funny)
Whoosh.
Re: (Score:2)
You completely proved Cardoor's point.
Re:It'd be nice... (Score:5, Interesting)
At the very least, there needs to be a place on the TSA website where a person can check to see whether he is on the list. Now that every travel arrangement is non-refundable, we need to know this before we get to the departing airport.
Re:It'd be nice... (Score:4, Informative)
They might with luck, but they're not required to give you a refund, because legally being on the no-fly list falls into the same category as showing up at the cruise terminal in Fort Lauderdale without valid visas for all the places you're going. When that happens, the cruise line just turns you away and keeps your money with a big old Screw You.
Then there are the other non-refundable arrangements you made at the destination. Good luck using the no-fly list as an excuse for your resort stay and river cruise.
maybe we'll finally get a judge with guts (Score:2)
logical response from the bench would be to enjoin the no-fly list.
that means shit-can it, for folks who haven't hung around the courthouse steps
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Show me a libertarian that thinks the government making secret lists of people not allowed to participate in otherwise legal business transactions is a good idea... I'm not sure how libertarianism is the enemy here, it seems that secret government lists removing people's freedoms would be the opposite of libertarianism. Or are you actually trying to argue that a secret government list with zero oversight is a good idea?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem as you describe it is accurate, only it's got nothing to do with 'libertarians', asshole or otherwise.
If you don't see what is has got to do with, next time you' ll be modded troll, just like you try so hard to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sorry, that first sentence was written from the perspective of the TSA, in order to satirize. I could see how you might confuse that as my own opinion. Tonal slip-up. Sorry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm aware of your hostility to being called assholes. That's totally and completely reasonable, unlike your proposed political system.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say that. I meant to imply that their reasons for opposing it would be specious. But since you're the second person to post that they were confused about that, the fault was clearly mine in being a bad communicator.
No-Fly List, TSA, nudeo scanners. it's all theater (Score:5, Insightful)
It's time to start disassembling this expensive fraud. Millions of travelers are inconvenienced by these fraudulent necessities that have been installed since the Patriot Act was passed. That Act will go down in American history as the single, most damaging, threat to liberty in this country. Billions spent, law abiding people treated like criminals without due process. It truly makes me ashamed and angry at DC and the retards that reside there.
Re: (Score:2)
That Act will go down in American history as the single, most damaging, assault on liberty in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't going to go all grammar nazi.... but since it was repeated.
It's not "the single, most damaging, thing", it's "the single most damaging thing".
Agreed. (Score:5, Insightful)
The erosion of our liberties and freedoms under the Patriot Act have been beyond shameful. We backed that up with blunders like GITMO. I am not sure where it ends, but it has played out as if the playbook was right from an Orwell novel.
It would also be nice if we put more effort into being a likeable country rather than spending so much time, effort, money, and political capital keeping our enemies at bay and out allies paid off. If we would stop meddling in everyone else's affairs we might not have so many people and groups trying to attack us in the first place. It would take decades, as we have meddled for quite a while in quite a lot of places. But long term, it would be nice to have the moral high ground again.
Re: (Score:2)
That Act will go down in American history as the single, most damaging, threat to liberty in this country.
Senator McCarthy may have an objection to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Billions spent, law abiding people treated like criminals without due process
And where exactly do you think it's spelled out plainly that the government may not deprive you of liberty without due process of law?
Is there something relevant in 2014 that says this? And by relevant, I mean something that the People are willing to fight to protect?
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
A certain judge will be placed on the no-fly list on Sept 6.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We've got a crapload of roads and bridges that need to be redone, and the deficit is shrinking at a staggering rate. The government has been able to borrow money at a NEGATIVE effective APR since for about six years, but has been blocked from doing so.
I say we give the 60 billion to infrastructure, which will employ a lot more than a quarter of a million people in the long run. Instead, we rely on an
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the old, If this secret would be revlealed then the populace would rise up, idea.
Of course most people won't care. I don't. I know what they are doing and why. I wouldn't do things exactly as they are, but I'm not that upset over what they are doing to activley try and change anything.
Wait what? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that is precisely what letting the judge read the criteria would do.
I suspect that the real problem is that the criteria used for being added to the No-Fly list are overbroad and arbitrary. The secret here is that the No-Fly list is a farce.
Worse. (Score:3)
"The secret here is that the No-Fly list is a farce."
It is worse than a farce, as it has become a weapon to illegally coerce cooperation among certain ethnic and religious groups. Turn state's evidence, or you might end up on the list and not be able to ever visit your family member's again. How can we as a "freedom loving American's" tolerate any citizen being strong-armed like this?! Being inaccurate at times would be forgiven by most (especially if there was a plausible challenge and review path), bu
THIS (Score:5, Insightful)
is one of the many reasons why I think there really is no discernible difference between Republicans and Democrats. Two sides of the same d2. I kinda fooled myself into thinking the Dems would be different after 8 years of W. But we just see more of the same. Same abuse of powers, same sense of entitlement and executive privilege, same (or expanded) levels of invasive surveillance, same police-state mentality.
The federal government has become an insatiable monstrosity of bureaucratic machinery that would have defied even the imagination of Kafka, demanding accountability and transparency from all (achieving such ends at gunpoint or through a wiretap), while offering none itself.
The great insight of the founding fathers was recognizing a need for checks and balances, and creating a theoretical system to prevent excesses of the executive (or the other branches). The problem with this nice idea is that in the real world powerful people tend to curry favor among themselves, where Supreme Court justices go on duck hunting trips with the Vice President and suchlike: the branches of government are just three sides of the same d3.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The federal government has become an insatiable monstrosity of bureaucratic machinery that would have defied even the imagination of Kafka, demanding accountability and transparency from all (achieving such ends at gunpoint or through a wiretap), while offering none itself.
I propose the term "monstrosarchy"
Far more concerned about the terrorist watch list (Score:3)
When this topic came up a few weeks ago here on Slashdot, I did a bit of research and found out that the "no fly list" would be better named the "no entry list", as the people are not allowed to enter or leave the country on a plane - they can fly within the country if they wish. It is a list of a few hundred citizens and a few thousand foreign nationals not allowed to fly into or out of the country. The Terrorist Watch List, on the other hand, has MILLIONS of people listed, mostly US citizens.
I'm far more concerned about the government watching millions of it's own people, treating them potential terrorists, than I am about them listing a few thousand foreign actors who aren't allowed to enter the US.
Consdiring their past... (Score:5, Informative)
She sued, and called her mother as a witness. Her mother was then put on the list and not allowed back in. The US denied doing this, but the airline said that was why she was not allowed to board.
Eventually they discovered that the original reason the daughter was put on the no fly list was that someone interviewing her had checked the wrong box on a form.
She won her law suit, and the US had to remove her from the list. This was after years of having her education interrupted.
Basically, the no fly list is a poorly managed piece of crap that they are ashamed to admit they usually have no idea why anyone is on the list.
Re: (Score:2)
http://papersplease.org/wp/201... [papersplease.org]
Also, Alstrup did not rule that she had to be removed from the list. The ruling only meant that they had to inform her whether she was still on the list and correct the clerical error from all databases which originally put her on the list. Nothing stops the government from putting her back on the list for other reasons. It also provided her with the ability to apply for a waiver for her visa denial.
See:
http://www.w [wired.com]
I don't think it's hard to guess (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Does the subject wear a turban? If yes, add to list. If no, continue.
2. Can you pronounce the subject's name? If no, add to list, if yes, continue.
3. Has subject slept with your significant other or ex? If yes, add to list, if no, continue.
4. Flip a coin. If heads, add to list, if tails, continue.
5. Do you want the subject on the list? If yes, add to list, if no, arrest subject for loitering and go to lunch.
Good old Fed Gov't.. (Score:2)
It's because they don't really have one (Score:3)
I would bet serious money that the No Fly List results from inputs from a variety of different agencies applying different and inconsistent rules, or in some cases maybe no rules at all.
Look for the redacted letters :p (Score:2)
and thus pose a national security threat
...and thus expose a national security threat
FTFTFF (Fixed That for the Fucking Fascists)
We already know how they do it. (Score:5, Funny)
In a sub-basement of the Nebraska Avenue Complex, the headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security, sit a couple of men staring at a computer screen and talking to each other in heavily accented English. The screen fades to white for a fraction of a second as it refreshes, the image changing from a young white woman to a man of Middle Eastern descent - a dentist in Seattle, but these men would never think to look that up. One of the men, brown-haired with an average build, his arms and legs containing a bit of muscle from his time at what he proudly refers to as "Fort Buttfuck, Texas" but his slight gut telling the real story of years spent "analyzing" various persons of interest and inhaling massive lunches purchased on the government's dime turns to his friend, a slightly shorter man from a small town in Oklahoma who is missing one of his front teeth. Unlike his friend, he's purely lean, having spent a good chunk of his taxpayer-funded salary on an expensive gym in Maryland - one that's popular with some of the senators when they come down to Washington to do business.
"Hey Earl," the first man says, "You reckon this guy's a terrorist?" he asks, pronouncing "terrorist" as "turrorist".
"I dunno, Clete, I reckon he might be," the second man replies. "Think we should ask the NSA for some intel?"
Clete thinks for a moment. "Reckon we 'oughta. I'll make the call."
Clete reaches to his left, past a hill of Taco Bell wrappers, and picks up a single throwing dart from a beer can he'd cut in half one day when business had been slower. Just to the the right of the screen (but far enough away that the screen won't be hit, because Earl caught hell from their supervisor after he put a dart through the last screen) with a clear line of sight to Clete's chair, a dartboard hangs from a nail in the wall. A printed-out sign (Comic Sans, of course) above it reads "NSA". An identical dartboard, with an identical sign, hangs on the left of the screen for Earl's use.
With a deep inhale, Clete tenses his arm, letting it go as he exhales. The dart sails across the room and embeds itself in the wall half an inch from the rim of the dartboard. Clete could've sworn he had better aim than this - after five years of experience, he was pretty good at darts - but one look at Mt. Bud (Earl's pet name for the pile of empty beer cans they tossed into a corner for the janitors to clean up. Clete had always reckoned that they were illegals, but they picked up the beer cans well enough.) told him he'd probably had one or two too many. "Fuckin' shit!" Clete cried in anger. Earl was beating him by 10 points now, which meant Clete would be paying for the drinks after work. "Yeah Earl, reckon he's a turrorist."
Earl dutifully pulls out a small remote control, one that has only two buttons - the red button and the green button. Green means go, red means No-Fly list. He presses the red button, and a large red circle with a cross through it, the standard "NO" sign, appears over the face on the screen. There's a whirring from the back of the room as the computer prints out the paperwork to add the dentist from Seattle, who had never had any terrorist affiliations in his life, to the No-Fly list, complete with an automated version of Clete's hastily-scrawled signature at the bottom, with Earl's underneath as a witness. The image on screen changes to another photo, this one of a teenager. Earl takes a long pull from his beer. He's got this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Jail them for contempt (Score:5, Interesting)
It's long past time that federal judges start jailing these bureaucrats for contempt for not answering simple questions about the no-fly list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are these "accountability" and "rule of law" things you speak of?
Re: (Score:2)
The federal judiciary has no enforcement powers those fall under the executive. Many state's have marshals that report to the courts and can enforce their orders.
Re: (Score:2)
It's long past time that federal judges start jailing these bureaucrats for contempt for not answering simple questions about the no-fly list.
Your mistake is assuming that the judges are interested in rule of law and justice, rather than perpetuation of the power of the State, and by extension their cushy jobs, pensions, and really nice cars and houses. When the first excuses the latter, you'll find synchronicity, but not by the converse. Otherwise a simple constitutional challenge would not be thrown out
Give 10 Judges Q Clearance (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all such a joke and epitomizes the cat and mouse game that the executive office likes to play. Any idiot can see that the clear solution is to give all supreme court justices and several federal appeals court justices in each district Q clearances to review any top secret information pertinent to the cases that they are hearing. This would allow for proper judicial review rather than trample on the constitution's system of checks and balances. Further, ALL state senators should be given Q clearances also, so that they can properly perform legislative action. When you consider the number of people working at FBI, CIA, national labs, etc, adding 50 judges and 100 senators doesn't make much difference. If people were serious about democracy, this would have happened years ago.
Asking How People Are Put On the No-Fly List (Score:2)
Who would make the government comply? (Score:3)
Vietnam Thought of the Day (Score:2)
We have to fuck with the villagers in order to save them.
Sweatpants (Score:2)
Sweatpants. That's how you get put on the no-fly list.
Motions to dismiss almost never succeed anyway (Score:2)
So the government is basically conceding for this to fail.
Can the executive branch be held in contempt? (Score:2)
What would happen if the executive branch (which is supposed to enforce the law) simply refused to comply with a judicial order? Can someone be held in contempt? Who would take on the role of enforcing the judicial order (in terms of compelling the action or executing punishment)?
You think Obama controls the beaurocracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
If so, you're idiots. Show me where he asked for the resignation of everyone appointed by Bush and Cheney.
And tell me that there aren't folks who work for the government who wouldn't like to hurt him.
As a couple of datapoints, 10-12 years ago, in the mainstream press, were two stories, not many months apart: first, Dem. Congressman David Thomas was prevented from flying, because his name was on the no-fly list, and it took *him* two weeks to get it off.
How many folks do *you* know named David Thomas... or i
Re:Loose Lips Sinik Ships (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, which is why the judge is asking to be allowed to review the material for constitutionality in private.
If a US judge(reminder, appointed for life) wanted to hurt our nation, they'd have better tools at their disposal than leaking some bureaucratic legalese.
Re:Loose Lips Sinik Ships (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, which is why the judge is asking to be allowed to review the material for constitutionality in private.
Is there any possible way that a 'No Fly List' could be constitutional?
Re:Loose Lips Sinik Ships (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sad to report that my opinion on the matter(no) doesn't matter nearly as much as a federal judge's, as far as actionability is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any possible way that a 'No Fly List' could be constitutional?
Do American citizens have a constitutional right to fly?
Re:Loose Lips Sinik Ships (Score:5, Informative)
yes. sort of.
first, there is the right to freely travel inside your country.
second, there is the implied right to earn an income. today, its getting to the point where travel via air is required by many jobs.
third, there is nothing in the C to allow denying you the right to travel.
this has never been about C stuff; but that does not stop the 'culture of fear' politicians who have found a new friend in keeping people under their control.
Re:Loose Lips Sinik Ships (Score:5, Interesting)
Sort of, yes.
Re:Loose Lips Sinik Ships (Score:5, Insightful)
Do American citizens have a constitutional right to fly?
That isn't remotely a relevant or even intelligent qustion. What you should've asked is: Does the Federal Government have the Constitutional authority to prevent - without a trial of their peers - American citizens from travelling freely. The answer is, of course, a no-fucking-brainer.
Re:Loose Lips Sink Ships (Score:3)
The Federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to prevent people from getting high. That's why why it took a constitutional amendment to enact alcohol prohibition. Yet, they do it now through very loose interpretations of the Commerce Clause, and the empowerment of regulatory agencies. I don't think they'll have any problem finding constitutional loopholes in a highly regulated industry, such as the transportation industry, because it operates across state lines, (not to mention internatio
Re: (Score:2)
Do American citizens have a constitutional right to fly?
Does the federal government have a Constitutional power to stop me?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are there mistakes made? Of course. Unfortunately the process is administered by human beings who are flawed vessels at best.
Which is exactly why we have that dusty old Constitution thingy, an artifact the Security State not just ignores but openly flaunts.
Re: (Score:3)
Are there mistakes made? Of course. Unfortunately the process is administered by human beings who are flawed vessels at best.
Which is exactly why we have that dusty old Constitution thingy, an artifact the Security State not just ignores but openly flouts.
There. FTFY.
You may think I'm being a grammar nazi here, but words actually have meanings and the word you used gave your statement the exact opposite meaning, judging from the context.
Flaunt [google.com] (v): display (something) ostentatiously, especially in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance.
Flout [google.com] (v): openly disregard (a rule, law or convention).
So. You can take this as an attack on you or you can use this information to enhance your communication skills. Or both. Either way, carry on and h
Re:Loose Lips Sinik Ships (Score:5, Informative)
For the safety of the country there are certain things that need to remain secret. Some complain our government doesn't do enough to protect us. Others see the boogeyman behind everything the government does. Criteria for no-fly list? I imagine there is an element of secrecy there and it would largely depend on intelligence generated through a number of sources. Are there mistakes made? Of course. Unfortunately the process is administered by human beings who are flawed vessels at best.
In a republic, the people must be able to hold their representatives accountable and ensure they are working in the country's best interests and obeying the law. Secret policies like the one governing the members of the no-fly list work against people wanting to know what their government is doing and why. It is not a matter of whether we are protected or not. It is a matter of transparency in a government by, of and for the people. That's not to say that the policy governing the no-fly list should be published in the New York Times. But if the government can hide behind the state secrets privilege to bar people from finding out why they are on the list and how they might get off it, they are denying those people their right to redress of grievances.
It is true that some things must be kept secret. But part of the issue here is that in order to be trusted with secrets, you must be that; trusted. Members of the intelligence and national security apparatus have been found lying to Congress, the judiciary and the public on numerous occasions. When they say we must simply trust them that they are doing the right thing, any thinking person should be skeptical. They have blown their credibility and have lost the trust of the people they are supposed to be protecting. That's not a good thing.
It should be noted that in the seminal case that established the state secrets privilege, United States v. Reynolds, the government used the national security argument to hide negligence. In the very first case that they used that argument, they used it to cover something up (lax maintenance that led to the downing of an aircraft). So it has been a dubious privilege from the start. Given their track record since, there is no reason to trust that the government is being honest in their invoking the privilege now. They may indeed be on the up-and-up. But that needs to be independently verified, and that should be the job of the court.
Re:Loose Lips Sinik Ships (Score:4, Informative)
It should be noted that in the seminal case that established the state secrets privilege, United States v. Reynolds, the government used the national security argument to hide negligence.
That original claim to privilege was retested in the early 2000s once those "secret" documents had been declassified and *still* the court found that the government had *not* abused its state secrets privilege. It may be your opinion that the government tried to hide negligence, but that's not the accepted opinion and not the one reached by many trained scholars (judges, lawyers) actually practicing in the field on a daily basis. So perhaps you should remove the tin foil hat covering your eyes every once in a while and consider that there may be more to some things than you might first think.
Now, that said, I'm no big government promoter. Far from it. You can read some of my prior comments for examples. What I don't want are for people to discredit the entire concept of major government reform by making such broad statements without addressing the (potentially legitimate) counter arguments. Taken in context, those original claims to state secret privileges seem relevant to me in this particular case.
Re: (Score:3)
It should be noted that in the seminal case that established the state secrets privilege, United States v. Reynolds, the government used the national security argument to hide negligence.
That original claim to privilege was retested in the early 2000s once those "secret" documents had been declassified and *still* the court found that the government had *not* abused its state secrets privilege. It may be your opinion that the government tried to hide negligence, but that's not the accepted opinion and not the one reached by many trained scholars (judges, lawyers) actually practicing in the field on a daily basis. So perhaps you should remove the tin foil hat covering your eyes every once in a while and consider that there may be more to some things than you might first think.
Now, that said, I'm no big government promoter. Far from it. You can read some of my prior comments for examples. What I don't want are for people to discredit the entire concept of major government reform by making such broad statements without addressing the (potentially legitimate) counter arguments. Taken in context, those original claims to state secret privileges seem relevant to me in this particular case.
From Wikipedia: "The radio program This American Life reported in 2009, that, contrary to claims made in the case, the accident report contained no information on the secret equipment on the plane except to note that secret equipment was present, a fact which had been reported in the press at the time. The program interviewed the daughter of one of the crash victims who described the government's claims in the case as fraudulent."
The court may have found that the government did not abuse its privilege, but
Re: (Score:3)
http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re:Loose Lips Sinik Ships (Score:4, Insightful)
You assume it actually works. There's no evidence it's actually stopped any terrorist attack. Further, even if it did, it's still on dubious legal grounds - the government is effectively harming people by restricting their ability to travel, and is doing so without any accountability. No independent judge, no trial, no legal representation, not even the most basic right to see the evidence against them. It's the type of unaccountable secret legal process you'd expect to see in North Korea - given a bit of a PR makeover and introduced to the US.
Re:Loose Lips Sinik Ships (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The government is not refusing to divulge the specific reasons and evidence that led to a particular person being added to the list(which quite plausibly might reveal specific informants, bugged computers, etc. and would likely merit an in camera review or something). They are refusing to divulge the general criteria and possible methods by which anyone could end up on the list. It's the difference between "Tell me exactly who ratted out Big Vinnie" and "What constitutes 'Racketeering' for the purposes of the US criminal code". One is a potential operational risk. The other is 'rule of law'.
2. The 'no fly list' is a bullshit twilight category without obvious protective value. Apparently there are people (and lots of them) so dangerous that they cannot be allowed on a passenger aircraft, even with some sort of enhanced screening; but so safe that apparently no other measures need be taken. It's a combination of state harassment(not being able to fly is a pretty big deal if you travel much) and absurd magical thinking. Too dangerous to fly; but safe enough to do basically anything else? Seriously? Why would that category even exist? Hijacking an airplane with a pointy object shouldn't work anymore(if we finished upgrading the doors), and anyone who can get bombs, firearms, or toxins doesn't need a plane to cause trouble.
The refusal to even outline how you fall into such a category, or why such a category exists, is a profound mockery of the notion of rule of law. No, not every specific detail of how every piece of evidence is gathered can be safely revealed; but that isn't the story here.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of sarcasm, but maybe the government should double down on the no-fly list to attempt to obtain evidence that it is effective.
First, they need to report the number of people denied the ability to travel due to the no-fly list.
Then, they need to start detaining and comprehensively searching anyone denied the ability to fly due to the no-fly list. This allows for the collection of ACTUAL evidence that the list is effective at stopping potential criminal activity on a flight. Anyone found with weapons o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the safety of the country there are certain things that need to remain secret.
So as Americans, we're all relying on what amounts to security through obscurity? That's reassuring...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The criteria themselves should not be secret. The details of what actions meet the criteria might be. Of course, once a person is dead, there's likely no reason to keep that person's details secret. So they should disclose the way that the guy who was fighting against us in Iraq got on the no-fly list. Wait, what? He wasn't on the list? Seriously? Then what the f*** good is it?
Re: Loose Lips Sinik Ships (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, how does boot taste?
Like freedom, of course. What are you, new here?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Look, no matter how totalitarian we actually are, we will always pretend this is true. "America is the specialist most freest place in the universe" is an idea beaten into children's heads without qualification throughout early and middle childhood. It's my pet theory that this is the mechanism by which we get so many libertarians.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, no matter how totalitarian we actually are, we will always pretend this is true. "America is the specialist most freest place in the universe" is an idea beaten into children's heads without qualification throughout early and middle childhood. It's my pet theory that this is the mechanism by which we get so many libertarians.
That just makes it all the more disillusioning when you figure out that it's bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, you just keep tossing out random completely off-topic straw-man attacks against Libertarians... And in a context where they would agree with you completely.
Libertarians hate big-government, and in general consider the patriot act nothing short of an abomination. Bringing up your personal demons at every opportunity really doesn't look any better than the morons who blame Obama for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's set aside the kinda inane charge of a strawman, since I haven't outlined any sort of libertarian position, and jump straight to the mess of "why bring them up at all?"
The answer is that their agreement, while politically convenient to the policy position I'd want, is based off of fundamentally different reasons I'd find specious, and I'd prefer to clarify the source of my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Or else they'll get a new deadline.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
End every punishment doled out by the government without a trial by jury.
Hey, but 93% of prosecutions end in plea bargains; we could not have nearly so many codified crimes and extensive prison systems if every person received a trial by a jury of his peers!
You monster - those prison guards have families to feed!