# No-Fly List Found Unconstitutional



## CHamilton (Aug 29, 2013)

"Let 'em drive (or take trains)" argument rejected.



> Court Sides With ACLU On Unconstitutionality Of The DHS's No-Fly List
> Some good news has arrived on the Homeland Security front (although the department in charge of securing the Homeland probably wouldn't agree). Last time we visited the infamous "No Fly List," a federal judge (Anna J. Brown) wasn't buying the government's arguments in favor of preserving the list's lack of transparency or redress options. The ACLU, arguing on behalf of 13 list members, pointed out that the system violates citizens' (there are more than 20,000 names on the list) right to due process.
> 
> _As if being on the list and having no way to be removed wasn't enough of a problem, the government made it clear it believed air travel and international travel in any form were luxuries granted by the State. The government's argument was Marie Antoinette-esque in its dismissive simplicity: let them drive cars. _
> ...


----------



## Ryan (Aug 29, 2013)

Makes me proud to be an ACLU member.

What a load of unmitigated bulls&!t.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 29, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Makes me proud to be an ACLU member.



I joined the ACLU when the gutting of The Constitution was going on post 9/11. Its nice to see some dividends.



> What a load of unmitigated bulls&!t.


Careful, or _THEY _will put you on the DO NOT RIDE list! :help: :help: :help:


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 29, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Makes me proud to be an ACLU member.
> ...


Or even worse, the "Do Not AU" list! :giggle:


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 29, 2013)

Does this mean that released prisoners will now be riding airplanes?


----------



## Ryan (Aug 29, 2013)

MikefromCrete said:


> Does this mean that released prisoners will now be riding airplanes?


Well played, sir.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 29, 2013)

In the interest of accuracy, this ruling did not find the No Fly List unconstitutional. It was a step in that direction, but there are still more arguments to be made prior to the judge handing down a final ruling, possibly next month (and probable appeals to the Circuit regardless of the outcome).

From OregonLive (the Oregonian), 8/29/13:



> Putting Americans on the government's no-fly list and giving them no answers why deprives them of their constitutional protections, a federal judge in Portland ruled this week.
> 
> U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown's opinion did not declare the no-fly list unconstitutional, but it came close. She noted in her Wednesday ruling that those on the list are not given any reasons for their inclusion and do not get a hearing that might clear their names.


OregonLive


----------



## railiner (Aug 29, 2013)

This is interesting.....I was on the "no fly list" and I did find out it was because my name (a very common one), matched at least one other person on that list. What it meant for me was that I was not able to do an online check-in, but had to stop at the ticket counter with positive identification in order to obtain a boarding pass. An annoying inconvenience for me. So I went thru their 'Redress' procedure, and after several months, I was able to obtain a 'redress number' which I could add to my reservation, and consequently do an online check-in.

That was a few years back. A short time later, for some reason I no longer had to add the number.

And just this past month, I successfully joined their 'Trusted Traveler' Global program, which actually makes going thru security and passport checks expedited.

So things are improving. As 9-11 memory fades due to time, many people forget why we had to take such drastic measures. Call it 'security theater' if you will, with several embarrassing problems along the way, but all in all, the system has proven effective.

"Eternal Vigilence is the Price of Safety".......


----------



## rrdude (Aug 29, 2013)

I'm still waiting for DHS to prove that their airport screening has actually stopped or caught a bomb from going on board. I mean I guess one could argue that "since no airliner has been hijacked or taken over since we started XYZ, that 'proves' that DHS tactics are working...."

But I am troubled by that kind of "logic"....


----------



## Ryan (Aug 29, 2013)

railiner said:


> the system has proven effective.


Don't confuse correlation with causation.


----------



## railiner (Aug 29, 2013)

rrdude said:


> I'm still waiting for DHS to prove that their airport screening has actually stopped or caught a bomb from going on board. I mean I guess one could argue that "since no airliner has been hijacked or taken over since we started XYZ, that 'proves' that DHS tactics are working...." But I am troubled by that kind of "logic"....





Ryan said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > the system has proven effective.
> ...


Okay then. What do you suppose might occur, if they just turned back the clock to those halcyon days of say, 1958....where you could just show up at an airport with a ticket and board? No security whatsoever. How long do you think it would be before something evil would happen?


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 29, 2013)

Maybe it will be like Amtrak!


----------



## Ryan (Aug 29, 2013)

We'll never know, since authoritarian-loving folks across the land will never let that happen.

I can guarantee that an evildoer isn't going to be able to turn an airplane into a guided missile again. We figured out that the old way of dealing with hijackers (sit back, do what you're told and await release) wasn't going to work anymore 3/4 of the way through September 11th.

But if you're going to claim causation, I anxiously await your evidence.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 29, 2013)

the_traveler said:


> Maybe it will be like Amtrak!


Yep, the lack of security on trains means people on board are getting attacked left and right!
Or something...


----------



## SarahZ (Aug 30, 2013)

MikefromCrete said:


> Does this mean that released prisoners will now be riding airplanes?


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 30, 2013)

railiner said:


> "Eternal Vigilence is the Price of Safety".......


Umm, the quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson, actually is "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Replacing 'liberty' with 'safety' is exactly what the fear mongers want us to believe.

Another fellow Virginian patriot - Patrick Henry - said "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Sounds to me like the Founding Fathers felt that liberty was more important than safety.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 30, 2013)

Perhaps my favorite comic ever:






Although this one is up there too:


----------



## jis (Aug 30, 2013)

While I am not enamored of some of the TSA silliness, I am also glad that the "security armchair experts" here are not in charge of security anywhere.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 30, 2013)

jis said:


> While I am not enamored of some of the TSA silliness, I am also glad that the "security armchair experts" here are not in charge of security anywhere.


Amen to that!


----------



## railiner (Aug 30, 2013)

The Davy Crockett said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > "Eternal Vigilence is the Price of Safety".......
> ...


Unfortunately, in the real world of today, there are those that want to deny your "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness"...........

and "Freedom Isn't Free".......


----------



## Ryan (Aug 30, 2013)

Yep, and those people have come up with really awesome things like the super double top sekrit No-Fly List that likely have our Founding Fathers rolling in their graves.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 31, 2013)

rrdude said:


> I'm still waiting for DHS to prove that their airport screening has actually stopped or caught a bomb from going on board. I mean I guess one could argue that "since no airliner has been hijacked or taken over since we started XYZ, that 'proves' that DHS tactics are working...." But I am troubled by that kind of "logic"....


In all fairness, since we're now over a decade out, I'm waiting for someone to more or less call them on their long-standing "we don't discuss successes" line and demand that they, for example, release records over a decade old with limited redaction to demonstrate that something had, in fact, been stopped.

(Of course, if the records come up empty like I suspect a lot of us suspect they will, I'd like to see the officials from that time hauled back in and be called out for lying and/or misleading testimony)

Edit: I don't find the concept of a list akin to the Do Not Fly list that is both transparent and subject to an affordable and reasonably prompt appeal process to be horridly offensive. Let's face it, there _are_ people who should be on such a list...and not just because of terrorism issues, but also because of significant conduct problems.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 31, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Yep, and those people have come up with really awesome things like the super double top sekrit No-Fly List that likely have our Founding Fathers rolling in their graves.


How well did our "founding fathers" deal with slavery and Native Americans? Freedom back then was only for a select segment of the population. However, they sure did have some great slogans that play well today.


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 31, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> In the interest of accuracy, this ruling did not find the No Fly List unconstitutional. It was a step in that direction, but there are still more arguments to be made prior to the judge handing down a final ruling, possibly next month (and probable appeals to the Circuit regardless of the outcome).
> From OregonLive (the Oregonian), 8/29/13:
> 
> 
> ...


That is a very strong finding of fact. It is a suffiicently strong finding of fact that any judge is now *required* to declare the no-fly list as currently operated is unconstitutional.

It's worth noting what's unconstitutional about it: the fact that it's a magic list made up by unknown people with no formal procedure for getting on or off of it. Arbitrary and capricious. *A* no-fly list is probably constitutional, but only one where there's some sort of due process for getting on or off of it.


----------



## the_traveler (Aug 31, 2013)

PRR 60 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, and those people have come up with really awesome things like the super double top sekrit No-Fly List that likely have our Founding Fathers rolling in their graves.
> ...


Agreed! And women (1/2 the population) were essentially non-citizens until they got the right to vote - in the 20th century!


----------



## jis (Aug 31, 2013)

OTOH, irrespective of what the founding father did and irrespective of their RPM rate in their graves, at least to me it seems to be almost self-evident that the concept of secret no-fly lists and secret FISA courts have something entirely wrong with them, and ought to be fixed. They seem to be very hopeless window dressing to make someone with enough imagination feel that all due processes are preserved while the entire purpose of the exercise really is to deny due process to a few selected by a faceless bureaucracy. It is disheartening to see the greatest country in the world cower and tremble in fear of its own shadow it would seem, so much as to give up even trying to preserve what it claims to be its own cherished distinguishing characteristic. It is a truly sad thing and hopefully it will be reversed before the soul of the nation is lost.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 31, 2013)

Yeah, I'm not sure what the point of that diversion was. Yeah, the Founding Fathers didn't get everything right. Society has moved in a positive direction, and the fact that things were screwed up back then shouldn't mean we should just accept things being screwed up today.

I'm exactly with Cliff - you want a no-fly list? That's awesome. Make up a clear set of guidelines for who gets on it, make the list public, and have a path for appeals and adjudication. My problem isn't with the list, its in the way that it's implemented (exactly like the TSA - it *could* be great, but as implemented, it's crap).


----------



## Anderson (Sep 2, 2013)

I don't mind if it's not public (in the sense that it wouldn't be put up online for the whole world to see...given the implications of it right now, being on it could then prejudice employment opportunities, for example), but it should be accessible. For example, I'd say that you could bar media publication/media FOIA requests, but anybody should be able to ask about themselves or a close relation.


----------



## Ryan (Sep 2, 2013)

Valid point. You could probably make an argument that FOIA exemptions 7c or 7f apply.

7c: Compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,

7f: Compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which could reasonably be expected to endanger an individual's life or physical safety;


----------

