One Strike Against No Fly List; More Scrutiny To Come 213
New submitter MickyTheIdiot writes "The Jurist reports: 'A judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled Wednesday (PDF) that those placed on the U.S. government's no-fly list have 'a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in traveling internationally by air, which is affected by being placed on the No Fly List.' The plaintiffs in the case are 13 U.S. citizens who were denied boarding on flights over U.S. airspace after January 2009.' Judge Anna Brown hasn't ruled on the constitutionality of the No Fly List yet, and has instructed the attorneys involved to present a roadmap for deciding the remaining issues. However, she has acknowledged that the No Fly List is a major burden to those on the list and they have the right to get that status reviewed."
Anyone should be able to fly (Score:5, Interesting)
At the very least, someone on the No-Fly list should be allowed to fly if they pay for a second seat and an armed government agent to sit behind them the whole flight.
It seems like if the increased screening actually worked a no-fly list is rather pointless... I mean that should catch any weapons of power enough to do anything, right? And if you simply don't want them entering the U.S. well that's what customs is for.
Re:Anyone should be able to fly (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but when you're using statistics to pre-judge people, you aren't confident enough to spend a fortune on addressing the risk they represent, but you're more than comfortable blindly squashing their rights.
Re:Anyone should be able to fly (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that it has been proven that the increased screening actually hardly prevents anything at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that it has been proven that the increased screening actually hardly prevents anything at all.
Now why the hell even say this when there is little in the TSA and their fucking ridiculous overreach that would justify their current authority, or even their very existence.
The burden of proof has never really been a burden for any government budget. Ever.
Re:Anyone should be able to fly (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC back in '72 an El Al flight was hijacked. Since that time
no El Al flight has been hijacked. Now what was it they did to pevent
such thing? Hmmmm - OK I remember - armed guards. If you
steal an EL Al flight - they shoot you!
Next what did/does this cure cost in time and money?
Next problem please.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anyone should be able to fly (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always odd to me how some are incapable of using the term 'profiling' without the misplaced prefix of 'racial'.
They engage in profiling. Period.
Profiling comes in many different kinds, shame you are ignoring them.
Example: If you pay cash for a one way ticket an hour before the flight leaves and you are carrying only a carry on bag... regardless of race or nationality, you are going to get a more in-depth look than someone who books 6 weeks in advance with a credit card along with their family and multiple bags.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Example: If you pay cash for a one way ticket an hour before the flight leaves and you are carrying only a carry on bag... regardless of race or nationality, you are going to get a more in-depth look than someone who books 6 weeks in advance with a credit card along with their family and multiple bags.
Yup. Colin Powell likes to tell the story of his first plane trip post-Government was a speaking gig arranged at a moments notice so he bought a last-hour, one-way ticket ... and got pulled aside for Special Screening (not the celebrity kind). I don't know if its sadder that if it had happened to Oprah she'd have claimed it was racial discrimination or that I'm not sure it wasn't that in Colin's case.
True facepalm moment is that the TSA guy doing the extra screening on him actually recognized him and kept
Re: (Score:2)
True facepalm moment is that the TSA guy doing the extra screening on him actually recognized him and kept doing it anyway because a faceless person on a computer had marked Colin's ticket as needing extra checks.
I'm not TSA but I make the 'famous' and/or high ranking people fill out the same required paperwork before I issue them stuff as everybody else.
Personally, I think the high-rankers need to experience the joys of TSA checks some more. Then we might see reform.
And if you think Israel's profiling is anything but 100% racist then you have a looser definition of "race" than the Likud.
Really? The fact that I think they target by religion and sex as well makes me have a loose definition of "race"?
Re: (Score:2)
And if you think Israel's profiling is anything but 100% racist
So they screen 100% of apparent non-Jews, and 0% of apparent Jews? That's one heck of a claim, and doesn't match what I've heard from, well, everyone I know who's been there. Any evidence for that?
Re: (Score:3)
"kept doing it anyway"
When I was in the military they were always more thorough with the top brass because that was who would write a report on how thorough they were. If they waved their friendly driver through he would not be writing a report on that.
Re: (Score:2)
There already do this. If you buy your ticket 2 days or less before the flight and are not in the airline's frequent flyer club, you are subject to extra screening. And I'm pretty sure you cannot buy a ticket at the airport with cash anymore (at least not without also showing a valid CC and 50 forms of ID).
Re: (Score:3)
I am often returning the same day (one hour flights), I often travel without luggage and this is common enough (i.e. lots of business travellers return the same day) that it does not get any extra interest from security. I do not think that the security guy even knows if I have a return or one way ticket, I am just the next guy in the queue. I do not think they even know whether I have any checked in luggage. They just fondle me and give me the same shit as the next guy who may have booked 6 weeks in adv
Re: (Score:3)
We could save a lot of money and efficiency if we just dispensed with human rights. Think of the labour savings in the days of slavery! /nostalgia
Also I find it amusing that you consider the US PC.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It prevents freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, a well-thought-out rebuttal. Now you can attempt to prove his statement wrong while we argue about what the word "hardly" means in the context that it was used.
Re: (Score:2)
I can make the argument on Geekoid's behalf. The TSA is an organ of government power over people. Government power over people is always good. Therefore, the more the TSA does the better, and the more power they have, the better. Therefore any screening which is more intrusive into our lives (and thus represents more government power) is good. QED.
Every one of his posts basically says the same thing. Does the government even have official astroturfers? It sure seems like they do.
Re: (Score:2)
This is most likely not about airline safety, as you pretty well identified. There is exactly zero increase in security if a person is not allowed to travel by plane.
So what is the reason? That's the thing I don't get. You don't increase safety (the alleged benefit). You don't line anyone's pockets (the usual benefit). Why do it?
Re: (Score:3)
It does line someone's pockets. Maintaining and enforcing a no-fly list costs money. Follow the money.
or what about a full body cavity search? (Score:2)
or what about useing the Israeli airport security system?
International? What about Hawaii? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ferry (Score:4)
You can board the ferry at Bellingham, washington and get off at Alaska without ever going through Canadian customs.
You can't drive to Hawaii that I know of but you can take a cruise there from the mainland.
Not sure what your real point was though.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the administration decides that the no fly list applies to cruises also. My point is that the administration's claim that driving is an alternative method of transportation which people on the no-fly list can use is not even valid for interstate travel, let alone international travel.
Re:International? What about Hawaii? (Score:5, Insightful)
These problems were discussed in detail in the Opinion and Order.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_holder_opinion_and_order.pdf [aclu.org]
Many of these Plaintiffs cannot travel overseas by any way other than air because such journeys by boat or by land would be cost-prohibitive, would be time-consuming to a degree that Plaintiffs could not take the necessary time off from work, or would put Plaintiffs at risk of interrogation and detention by foreign authorities. In addition, some Plaintiffs are not physically well enough to endure such infeasible modes of travel.
Amayan Latif: Latif is a United States Marine Corps veteran and lives in Stone Mountain, Georgia, with his wife and children. Between November 2008 and April 2010 Latif and his family were living in Egypt. In April 2010 Latif and his family attempted to return to the United States. Latif was not allowed to board the first leg of their flight from Cairo to Madrid. One month later Latif was questioned by FBI agents and told he was on the No Fly List. Because he was unable to board a flight to the United States, Latif’s United States veteran disability benefits were reduced from $899.00 per month to zero because he could not attend the scheduled evaluations required to continue his benefits. In August 2010 Latif returned home after the United States government granted him a “one-time waiver” to fly to the United States. Because he cannot fly, Latif is unable to travel from the United States to Egypt to resume studies or to Saudi Arabia to perform a hajj, a religious pilgrimage and Islamic obligation.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't agree more. It's interesting (almost questionable) that our government allows itself to get so caught up in $theLastTerroristAct and preventing it, when they should know good and well that the next terrorist attack will be different than the last. There isn't any way to lock down any society in a way that will not allow a terrorist to enter, but still provide a reasonable lifestyle for those that do live there. The result as of now is that if you want to fly, you might be a terrorist. If you nee
Re:Anyone should be able to fly (Score:4)
Please tell me that you keep using the word charged when you mean convicted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Please tell me that you keep using the word charged when you mean convicted.
People charged with a crime often have a their movements restricted as a condition of their bail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anyone should be able to fly (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, people charged with a crime often have their movements restricted as a condition of bail, a fact which has nothing to do with the TSA's idiotic no-fly list. See people who are charged with a crime and who have had their movements restricted have had the benefits of a little thing called due process of law [wikipedia.org] and the fifth amendment to the Constitution [wikipedia.org]. See, if you've been charged with a crime and have had your movements restricted that means that you've been arrested, charged in a court of law, allowed to have counsel to represent you. You can also appeal the judgment that restricts your movements, confront the witnesses against you and you have the right to subpoena witnesses to testify in your favor. You have none of this with the TSA. The TSA restricts your liberty to travel without telling you why they've done so or what evidence they used to make this determination and gives you no opportunity to defend yourself. The TSA no-fly list is essentially nothing more than the imposition of Soviet style internal passports that has nothing to do with protecting citizens and everything to do with restricting their movements.
Re: (Score:3)
He probably means charged. Often when someone is charged with a serious crime (felony) they are limited from traveling too far away without the courts permission. I think what he was alluding to was that if you are charged with a crime in an open court (not some secrete court that no one of ordinary means ever knows about until someone leaks information), he sees a case to limit your ability to travel. Outside of that (or a conviction i presume because it is the conclusion of being charged), no limits shoul
Re: (Score:2)
I mean that should catch any weapons of power enough to do anything, right? And if you simply don't want them entering the U.S. well that's what customs is for.
The counter-argument would be that the No-Fly list is part of the 'increased screening'.
How is that part of 'increased screening'? If you're on the list, you cannot fly with any amount of screening.
In a free society if one is free to travel then mode of transportation is irrelevant. If they have been charged with committing a crime that warrants limiting their travel, then maybe they shouldn't be free to travel at all, the 'air' part seems irrelevant. If they haven't be charged with a crime in a open court of law then there is nothing to discuss and they are free to travel however they choose.
The problem is, most of the people on the list haven't been charged or convicted of anything. They just happen to have a name that sort of, kind of, somewhat resembles the name of someone who the authorities think might, possibly, conceivably be a terrorist. If there were a suspected terrorist named John Smith, then every single person with the name John Smith would be put on the list.
Re: (Score:3)
If only you had stopped right there.
Re: (Score:2)
You have the anti-gun crowd freaking out at the thought of a gun in the US. Kids are getting suspended and expelled from school for pointing fingers like they were gun and in one case, eating toast or a pop tart in a way that the food ended up looking like a gun before it could be finished being eaten. Armed guards on Airplanes probably freaks them out even more then the concept of someone blowing a hole in the side of the plane or hijacking it and crashing into a skyscraper. I don't think it is about it be
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they pay?
I'm just saying there should be some way they can fly, even if entire unreasonable, rather than no way at all.
Re:Anyone should be able to fly (Score:4, Informative)
The US does, you just don't know s/he is there. They call them "Federal Air Marshals". They've been around for a long time too (since 1969). Though i should also say that there isn't a guarantee you have one. You can't know for sure.
Re: (Score:3)
If there is a right to legal review and a court on seeing the evidence, agrees with the no fly order then fine
I don't see why that is fine. Either someone is planning something actionable for which they can be arrested, or else they should be allowed to fly.
There's going to be a lot (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of people coming in here, saying "about time" or something similar. What this attitude fails to incorporate is that the judicial system isn't concerned with unjust policies until they actually create injustice. And even then, an actual judge has to be less terrible than those that created the policies in the first place.
It takes a long time, and is a natural component of how checks and balances work in the US. It's not perfect, and sometimes the bad comes from congress faster than it can be addressed, but this is how things are supposed to work.
Re: (Score:3)
No, this is not really how things are supposed to work. Congress is supposed to be relatively slow to action so that the judiciary has time to check and balance. Congress was never intended to be a nearly full-time job....
Re: (Score:3)
What this attitude fails to incorporate is that the judicial system isn't concerned with unjust policies until they actually create injustice.
The first person denied his right to travel without due process has suffered an injustice.
It's not perfect, and sometimes the bad comes from congress faster than it can be addressed, but this is how things are supposed to work.
This isn't how it works. This is how it fails to work. There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever in allowing this sort of injustice to contin
Re: (Score:2)
You are forgetting that how a law is written is not how a law is enforced. They are different branches.
Re: (Score:2)
There's going to be a lot
(from the post's subject line)
Seems like they just forgot to edit their body text to match their subject, or something.
Matter is far from over (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article:
Judge Anna Brown has not concluded whether the government's use of the no-fly list violated the plaintiffss constitutional rights to due process, stating in her opinion that, "the court is not yet able to resolve on the current record whether the judicial-review process is a sufficient, post-deprivation process under the United States Constitution." Brown has given both parties till September 9 to file a joint status report setting out their recommendation as to the most effective process to ensure that the court may come to a conclusion on the remaining issues
So there are still some big issues to resolve, before the practically inevitable appeals begin.
There will be some tough issues to work through since no doubt some of the evidence in individual cases is classified. Still, there should be some sort of process to have information in one's favor considered. Both sides have a point.
Come on, you jackbooted apologists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell us, misleadingly [wikipedia.org], how the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the right to travel, and then sleazily recast this into the context of coercion of private corporations. You've done it a hundred times before, so get to it.
Re:Come on, you jackbooted apologists... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But the 9th amendment also doesn't support the opposite conclusion.
The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers. If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.
-- McCulloch v. Maryland - 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
In short, Congress has the power to enact laws not specifically listed in the constitution. The 9th amendment says the people retain rights not specifically listed in the bill of rights. The process when non-enumerated laws clash with non-enumerated rights isn't exactly clear, sometimes the Supreme Court has "found" a right and a few times Congress has amended the constitution to specifically enumerate a few more like the 13th amendment. In
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the Tenth Amendment [usconstitution.net], which explicitly prohibits Congress from enacting laws that are not constitutionally within its purview .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
when you decide the constitution is a "living document" up for reinterpretation, then there are NO rights at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to your banker when they try to collect on your debts and you demand that they re-interpret your loan agreement in ways that are more favorable to you.
"Sure it says that payment is due by the 10th of the month... but it didn't specify which month, clearly it is a month of my choosing and you hitting me with late fees is just improper!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to waste my time having the wrong argument, over a flawed analogy. Have a nice evening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct... if the contract has a built in mechanism for changes to be made.
I control a trust which owns a number of items. That trust has just such statements, so does the US Constitution... and at last check the President or Supreme Court are not authorized by it to make unilateral changes at their whim as neither own or control it... and yet that is what we have to day.
Re: (Score:2)
When you decide to use an ad-hominem attack rather than contibute usefully to the debate, then you have demostrated your own worth in this conversation.
Yea, except he didn't do that - previous AC pointed out that if the Constitution allowed for itself to have it's meaning changed at a whim, there wouldn't be any point in the document existing to begin with.
And he's right about that; the founders made the Amendment process 1.5 bitches for a damn good reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no right to *operate* a motor vehicle on public roads. I'd argue there is a right to be conveyed by one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Come on, you jackbooted apologists... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a Right to keep and bear arms, but not any arms you want.
You have a Right to travel, but not by any mode you want. For example, there is no Right to drive a motor vehicle in the US, nor is there a Right to fly on an airplane.
Says who? A lot of gun owners have t-shirts and stickers which say things like "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" Maybe you don't like guns. Doesn't really matter because what the Constitution says is what it says. I would ask the same thing of just about everything else. It's true that the government says it has the right to restrict arms, and it's true that the government says it has the right to restrict driving a car or flying on a plane, and I would ask just exactly what besides complacency gives them the right to do any of that?
The Constitution, and this is very important so read slowly, does not grant any rights at all. Barack Obama caught hell from people who don't understand the law or the English language during his first campaign when he very correclty used the phrase "negative rights" in describing the Constitution. The Constitution states that rights are inherent in being a person, period. It points out some rights, mostly by way of those specific things having been the cause for much abuse during colonial days, but it also says specifically the following: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (Ninth Amendment).
In other words, just because the Constitution doesn't specifically say you have a right to fly doesn't mean you don't. Same with driving. Government doesn't get to grant you those rights because government under this constitution can't grant any rights at all. It can only restrict some, subject to what the Constitution says it can (hence the 'negative rights' stuff). I get that regulators, cops, and other such busybodies have conned everybody into believing the opposite, but what we've really got going on here is a fundamental forgetting of who we are as a people and what our founding documents actually mean.
Never, ever for one minute believe otherwise. Try to convince others of the same. What we've got here is authoritarianism run amok and it's way past time that we un-run it.
Re: (Score:2)
If we're going to limit amendments then we should do it with other amendments. Not through interpretation.
If it's too hard to pass an amendment to do that then it's obvious that it's wrong.
Re:Come on, you jackbooted apologists... (Score:4)
For example, there is no Right to drive a motor vehicle in the US, nor is there a Right to fly on an airplane.
Really? That's weird. I could swear that 49 U.S.C. section 40103 says that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
Keep and bear arms (Score:3)
I don't know; 'shall not be infringed' is a rather strong standard to me.
Oxford [oxforddictionaries.com]: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
For example I think the closing of the NFA registry is unconstitutional, though given that 'due process of law' is a reason to remove rights from criminals, I'm okay with background checks.
Re:Come on, you jackbooted apologists... (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to forget that the Constitution grants powers from the people to the government, not the other way around. Too frequently people wrongly assume that the only rights people have are those expressly reserved for the people by the Constitution.
If a power is not mentioned in the Constitution the government does not have that power. It remains with the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure you agree with GP.
Re:Come on, you jackbooted apologists... (Score:4, Funny)
The power to fly, at the time of the Constitution, belonged only to a small minority of the people: witches. If the founders had been asked whether they wished to extend the power to fly to everyone, what should their answer have been? "Sure, let's all be witches"?
Or would they have affirmed the right of witches to be left alone in the sky without interference? Would they have seen that as the prohibited establishment of a state-supported religion?
Note to the "agencies": I accept piecework mocking the sincere concerns of my fellow citizens for their freedoms, thereby helping diminish their resistance to your superb safe-keeping of our insecurities.
Re: (Score:2)
Or would they have affirmed the right of witches to be left alone in the sky without interference? Would they have seen that as the prohibited establishment of a state-supported religion?
The witches would have been seen as the free exercise of religion, unless they were receiving a government contract or endorsement of their flying-around-advancing-behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
Even a pretty anarchic libertarian is going to think that the Interstate Commerce clause, has some kind of non-abused non-perverted legitimate meaning, where The People really did intend to grant some sort of power over something. No?
How broadly those words were meant, is something worth fighting about, sure. But if someone buys a ticket to use a commercial airplane, where the airplane crosse
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the Fed's have the right to regulate interstate commerce and the airlines in particular. But I don't believe they have a right to regulate the customers of the airlines without a damn good reason and a process to challenge those listings. The airline passenger isn't engaging in interstate commerce, the airline is.
Re: (Score:2)
How broadly those words were meant, is something worth fighting about, sure. But if someone buys a ticket to use a commercial airplane, where the airplane crosses state lines it's not totally crazy that the federal government has the power to regulate that commerce. Maybe it's wrong (probably not, though), but it's not on-the-face-of-it totally stupid, is it?
Yes, yes it is. It's stupid because I'm not engaging in interstate commerce when I buy a ticket. I buy a ticket so that I can get on a plane. I don't have to pay again when I get off the plane. There may be taxes accrued when I get off a plane; I would argue that any such taxes are unconstitutional, as they are basically taxes on commerce with another state. Further, they represent a restriction of travel, which is not constitutionally granted. We're talking about moving people and their personal effects, n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
squiggleslash, allow me to introduce you to Nathan Poe [rationalwiki.org].
Ah, I see you've already met.
Conviction without a Trial. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government decides that someone is a threat such that they shouldn't be allowed to fly, then they should be arrested and tried for whatever crimes they're accused of.
If they haven't committed a crime and are simply guilty by association, then they are being punished without a trial. Not being able to fly is a very strong punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
what does the no fly list actually enforce? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does the no-fly list make it illegal for the person on the list to fly, or illegal for a common carrier to carry them, or some other thing like they can't enter the controlled space at the airport? I could do the research but maybe someone who knows can explain it much better than the legalese in the law, and I'm not even sure if the relevant laws aren't in that crazy "secret law" category that seems to show up when the TSA is mentioned.
One part that is concerning to me, beyond the constitutional issues, is that even if one accepts that it is necessary for safety to have a list of people who should be subjected to additional scrutiny prior to flight, that suspect person can't be cleared as "safe to fly" with essentially unlimited invasive screening by the TSA. Which means either (a) the security measures are easily bypassed even when a person is targeted for extreme scrutiny or (b) the no fly list actually serves a policing or political function, that is, to locate / harass / intimidate / prevent the free travel of / etc. of people who manage to make it on the list. I'm guessing it is the latter, which is depressing, but not surprising. Abuse of power seems to be an unavoidable part of giving people power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which means either (a) the security measures are easily bypassed even when a person is targeted for extreme scrutiny or (b) the no fly list actually serves a policing or political function, that is, to locate / harass / intimidate / prevent the free travel of / etc. of people who manage to make it on the list. I'm guessing it is the latter, which is depressing, but not surprising. Abuse of power seems to be an unavoidable part of giving people power.
Actually it's both. The screening methods don't work very well and only have the apparent effectiveness they do because no one (competent) is actually trying to destroy/hijack commercial airplanes.
The whole system is basicly Lisa' tiger-repelling rock.
The "no fly" list has always been asinine (Score:2)
At worst, being on the list should mean you're subject to a full search of your luggage and person to make sure you're not carrying explosives or weapons. Not that you can't fly at all.
Re: (Score:2)
At worst, being on the list should mean you're subject to a full search of your luggage and person to make sure you're not carrying explosives or weapons. Not that you can't fly at all.
Maybe, but then if something does go wrong who gets the legal liability? The Airline. So, even if the government cleared someone to fly, the Airline cannot be forced to board you. What Airline is willing to take that risk? In fact, there have been a number of people that Airlines have deemed "suspicious" that they have removed from flights even after they cleared security. Pretty much all of them have been later cleared and flown on other flights with no problems.
Airlines are private companies (Score:2)
Can't the airlines reject anybody on the no-fly list since the airlines are a private corporation? They're not violating any discrimination laws. How is this any different from a restaurant that "Reserves the right to refuse service"?
If Delta won't fly people on the do not fly list, go find an airline that will fly them.
Re: (Score:2)
The airlines reject people on the list because no corporation is going to fight the government over something like the no-fly list. It doesn't impact their bottom line in any significant way and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't forced to check and reject people for being on it by law.
You'll be extremely hard pressed to find a single airline that would let you fly if you were on the no-fly list. The simple reality is that the list has no business existing.
Re: (Score:2)
No airline is allowed to fly people on the list. It's not a choice by the corporation, it's a rule from the government.
This is a defeat of our security. (Score:2)
At least we can still detain people indefinitely without charging them or a trial, and assassinate american citizens and foreigners using radio controlled missiles, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
We can also still torture them, and spy on them without having to deal with that pesky "probable cause" business.
Travel by air? (Score:2)
No? So, take a boat.
Mohammed (Score:2)
I was wondering how many of them were named Mohammed.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1244 [phdcomics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. It would without doubt compromise National Security if the secret lists were known. I mean, think about it - they would have to justify the names, and risk losing face. That's always a National Security issue.
No, you'll never get me up in one of these again. Cause what goes up, must come down.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I believed I could fly
I believed I could touch the sky
I thought about it every night and day
Just board a plane and fly away
I believed I could soar
Now agents are running through that open door
I believed I could fly
I believed I could fly
I believed I could fly
Re: (Score:2)
at least for distances like from SF to LA.
The TSA wants to set up airport levels of security at train stations as well. It is just a matter of time. Heck, they tried to do that kind of security at bus terminals as well, but the bus companies really threw a fit and bitched to the proper congress critters and got that rule proposal killed and buried.
I'm just waiting for screening checkpoints along interstate highways every 20-50 miles or so. That ought to make life real fun.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Intermodal_Prevention_and_Response_team [wikipedia.org]
"Wants to" is, at this point, a foregone conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just waiting for screening checkpoints along interstate highways every 20-50 miles or so. That ought to make life real fun.
Haven't traveled the highways around the Mexican border recently, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
Where "around" = within 100 miles of any international border (not just the mexican)..
Re:A constitutional right to fly? (Score:4, Insightful)
A right to travel implies that you may also choose your means of transport. Because, well, why stop at planes? Bar them from trains, busses or using their own car. If we now just break their legs they can have all the right to travel they want to, but can't use it.
It's a bit like getting the right to free speech and having your mouth glued shut. You may speak... if you find a way to. What value is in a right you cannot execute because the means to use it are taken from you?
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck driving from LA to Honolulu. Let us know how that works out for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck driving from LA to Honolulu. Let us know how that works out for you.
http://yachtpals.com/files/news/boat-car-aquada.jpg [yachtpals.com]
They see me rollin' they hatin...
Re:A constitutional right to fly? (Score:4, Informative)
The opinion and order explains that in detail.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/latif_v_holder_opinion_and_order.pdf [aclu.org]
1. Right to Travel
Plaintiffs contend the government has deprived them of their protected liberty interest in travel. In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the Supreme Court held “[t]he right to travel is part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Id. at 125.
As noted by the Ninth Circuit, “the [Supreme] Court has consistently treated the right to international travel as a liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” DeNieva v. Reyes, 966 F.2d 480, 485 (9th Cir. 1992)(emphasis added)(citing Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505-08 (1964), and Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U.S. 170, 176 (1978)). In DeNieva the plaintiff brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after her passport was seized by government officials. The Ninth Circuit held the plaintiff had a right under the Fifth Amendment to travel internationally, and that right could not be deprived without a post-deprivation hearing. 966 F.2d. at 485.
Although Defendants do not dispute the United States Constitution affords procedural due-process protection to an individual’s liberty interest in travel, Defendants rely heavily on Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2006), and Green v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (W.D. Wash. 2005), to support their position that there is not a constitutional right to travel by airplane or to access the most convenient form of travel. In Gilmore the plaintiff challenged the government’s airline passenger identification policy as unconstitutional, alleging the policy violated his right to travel because he could not travel by commercial airline without presenting identification. The Ninth Circuit rejected plaintiff’s argument because “the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.” 435 F.3d at 1136. The court also found the “burden” imposed by the challenged identification policy was not unreasonable. Id. at 1137. The plaintiffs in Green alleged they were innocent passengers without links to terrorist activity, but they had names similar or identical to names on the No Fly List and had been mistakenly identified by airport personnel as the individuals whose names appeared on that list. As a result, the plaintiffs were subjected to enhanced security screening. None of the plaintiffs ever missed a flight or were subjected to heightened screening for more than an hour. 351 F. Supp. 2d at 1122. The court denied the plaintiffs’ procedural due-process claim and held the plaintiffs did not have a right to travel throughout the United States “without any impediments whatsoever.” Id. at 1130.
The Court finds Green and Gilmore are distinguishable from this case for a number of reasons. These cases involve burdens on the right to interstate travel as opposed to international travel. Although there are perhaps viable alternatives to flying for domestic travel within the continental United States such as traveling by car or train, the Court disagrees with Defendants’ contention that international air travel is a mere convenience in light of the realities of our modern world. Such an argument ignores the numerous reasons an individual may have for wanting or needing to travel overseas quickly such as for the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, a business opportunity, or a religious obligation. In Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security the Northern District of California recently rejected an argument similar to the one made by Defendants here:
While the Constitution does not ordinarily guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation
Re:A constitutional right to fly? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no Right to Drive in the US, where driving is a rather a privilege.
In the Articles of Confederation [wikisource.org], the following right is explicitly granted:
"the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce"
-- Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, Article IV, Paragraph 1
This document is still technically a part of the United States Code, although I haven't seen it cited as rationale in a legal argument for preventing the "no fly list". This is also one of the few individual freedoms explicitly mentioned in founding documents that is not a part of the Constitution of 1787. As to if this document still holds legal weight could also be questioned, I suppose, but technically all the Constitution of 1787 did was update this document. It certainly puts such notions of "it is a privilege not a right" legal theories into serious question.
In other words, the right to travel is an explicitly granted constitutional right and not something that can be extrapolated more loosely from things like the 9th Amendment (which I think this quote amply shows something previously thought of as an individual right not to be eliminated by its absence in other legal documents).
You might be able to argue that the internal combustion engine itself is regulated and requires an operator's permit, although that is a real stretch. States simply can't prohibit either entry or exit of other otherwise legal citizens of other states and it can be assumed that includes travel internal to that state too.
Re: (Score:3)
Afraid not. The US Constitution is a full replacement for the Articles of Confederation, and why they opted to do full replacement vs a (long) series of amendments... is a much lengthier discussion.
The Articles of Confederation have as much legal weight today as the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which is the same as the Federalist
Re: (Score:2)
There is also the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" clause in the declaration of independence. For many people long distance travel is required for their jobs, which provide income that allows a "pursuit of happiness". For others the travel itself is part of the pursuit of happiness.
Since air travel is in may instances the only practical way to do long distance travel, preventing someone from traveling by air reduces their right to travel and thereby their right to pursue happiness.
People may wish
Not part of the US Code (Score:3)
This document is still technically a part of the United States Code,
No, the Articles of Confederation are not part of the US Code. They were superseded by the current US Constitution. They are not law in any way shape or form, except perhaps as an occasional interpretive guide to the current constitution when in court cases we try to compare it to the current document to argue that the new language means something different.
Repeat: The Articles of Confederation are not part of the US Code.
(But what woul
Re:A constitutional right to fly? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no Right to Drive in the US, where driving is a rather a privilege.
The privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads, and the right to be a passenger in one are VERY VERY different things.
Similiarly I don't think anyone is especially outraged that the government restricts who can fly a plane. (That would be anyone without a pilots license in good standing, which is most people, including me.) The contentious issue is restricting who can be a passenger in one.
Re: (Score:3)
That's true.
Although, it not really any different to the fact that you don't need a drivers license to operate a bicycle, and most states don't require one even for an electric one provided its sufficiently low power.