U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown, Portland OR, ruled on remand, that the No Fly List was unconstitutional.
Originally, Brown, back in 2012 said she could not rule on the case due to federal laws, but that ruling was overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. So her current ruling comes with an already built in higher court review.
In her ruling, Brown said:
Since much of what is used for placement is classified, the government should provide people on the list the nature and extent of the classified information, the type of threat they pose to national security, and the ways in which they can respond to the charges.
The process does not provide a meaningful mechanism for travelers who have been denied boarding to correct erroneous information in the government's terrorism databases.
Reuters also reports that The decision hands a major victory to the 13 plaintiffs -- four of them veterans of the U.S. military -- who deny they have links to terrorism and say they only learned of their no-fly status when they arrived at an airport and were blocked from boarding a flight.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought suit against the policy in 2010, argues that secrecy surrounding the list and lack of any reasonable opportunity for plaintiffs to fight their placement on it violates their clients' constitutional rights to due process.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @10:51AM
I'm never flying again! You ruined the country, you maniacs who voted for 16 years of Bush+Obama. You made enemies of a entire generation of Americans, enemies for life! Damn you all to hell, American idiot voters.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:34AM
It's easy enough to avoid flying to that little corner of the world.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Thursday June 26 2014, @04:37PM
...unless you live there :-(
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday June 26 2014, @04:47PM
Only a small minority of people live there.
Two options
1) Go back to your country of citizenship
2) If that country is America, it's your own fault
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Thursday June 26 2014, @07:14PM
It's my fault for being born there? It's proven more difficult than I would like to leave. Particularly I am having difficulty selecting a destination due to how hard it is to get realistic information to compare. So far Iceland sounds like a great place to end up, but their economy isn't so good right now - if I had connections I might be able to make it work, but coming in cold sounds like a good way to fail immigration filters (or live very spartan and unhappy); they don't let just anybody in, as Edward Snowden found out the hard way during his airport-limbo crisis.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:06AM
This ruling will be short lived. I can already predict the appeal:
Your honor, we can't tell them why they are on the list because it's classified. If they knew why they were on the list they would know what we know. They would then be able to discern how we discovered the truth about these individuals who are treats to all American's safety. Furthermore, they would know how to address their grievances in order to be removed from this list of terrorists, which will result in their being able to board a plane and attack America in a far too familiar way. The safety of the American public far outweighs the rights these terrorists claim to deserve.
Oh, and one more thing ... think of the children.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mechanicjay on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:17AM
This is encouraging. I can't help but hope that in 50 years we'll look back on the current era of "OMG THE TERRORISTS!" as a justification for everything, the same way we look back on McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Between this and some of the other pending cases against various TLAs, it gives me hope that we're not completely screwed as a country. I have maintained that we're no too far gone to fix the current system using the mechanisms in the system (law suits, voting, etc), just that it might takes some time to unravel the knot that the Bush and Obama administrations have made
Now, if we could start to fix some of the ridiculous practices of big Ag and the FDA, I might dare to start having a positive outlook on the future of the US.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:49AM
LOL sure, frivolous lawsuits and popularity contest voting are gonna fix everything. And don't forget to give the gays their rights. Like 'bama on facebook and support our troops, yo!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mechanicjay on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:31PM
Sorry, I can't help but feed the troll here.
I'm very interested to hear your justification for classifying civil liberties law suits as frivolous. I think they are the least frivolous and most important cases that the courts hear.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Leebert on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:52PM
Fortunately, I have more than enough cynicism to spare, so I shall lend you some:
We might look back on it like we currently do McCarthyism. But we'll be too busy worrying about the NEXT "OMG THE $SOMETHING!"* to recognize the parallels and will, once again, convince ourselves that, no really, this time it's different and the threat is REAL.
(Score: 2) by mechanicjay on Wednesday June 25 2014, @02:34PM
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 1) by jbruchon on Thursday June 26 2014, @11:01AM
No, it's only the stupid people that got us here in the first place that'll be doing that. Those of us who actually think about what's going on instead of digesting the 24/7 news cycle induced panics will shake our heads and watch as hordes of complete emotional moron crusaders wreck the place yet again.
I'm just here to listen to the latest song about butts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:43PM
Or the Brown Scare (fascism) in the 1930s. Or the Anarchists of the 1900s. Or the White Terror (KKK) of the 1870s. There is always a group of social radicals, some of whom will commit violence, that are ready targets for those who would increase the size and strength of government. If you think this is some new thing, it's only because they've glossed over the continuous thread of poorly targeted witch hunts that form the basis of US civil security. Or because you're not a witch.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:08PM
Fifty years? I already look at the "War on Terror" as a modern day "McCarthy days".
Big Ag and the FDA? Huh - now you ARE dreaming big. I just read an article two or three minutes ago - here, try this on for size: http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/06/24/2127255 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by mechanicjay on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:35PM
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 2) by emg on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:49PM
Except McCarthy under-estimated the number of Commies in the US government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @04:12PM
He made up for that by greatly overinflating the importance of that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday June 25 2014, @11:21AM
She did NOT rule the idea of a no-fly list unconstitutional. She ruled the government's policy of providing no meaningful information to those on the list, and no meaningful appeals process, to be what's unconstitutional.
Note what she did NOT rule. She rule say the idea of a "no-fly list" was unconstitutional. She didn't rule that the government should notify anyone on the list in advance. She didn't rule the government couldn't use classified information to put people on the list. She didn't rule that people appealing being placed on the list could see all the information used to place them on the list, so they could directly challenge it. She didn't make any ruling about how long providing the information needed to take. She didn't provide any guidance on what the appeals process would need to look like, how long processing the appeal ought to take, or who would review/rule on the appeal. She didn't provide any precedent for independent judicial review on any appeal (so DHS could put you on the list, and also be the one who hears the appeal).
She ruled the current process was insufficient, but didn't say much about what sufficient was.
What she rules is that the government needs to provide a mechanism to provide on request the NON-classified information used to place a person on the list, if any. To the extent classified information was used, they need to provide information about the "nature and extent" of the information, and the "type" of threat they pose, but are not required to provide any specifics. And they need to provide information ABOUT how they can respond to those allegations.
So, here's where we're at now.
Old process: "You can't fly." "Why?" "Because we said so - neener neener."
New process "You can't fly." "Why?" "We have confidential information that you attended a terrorist training camp." "That's ridiculous! I never attended a terrorist training camp!" "Well, our information says you did. Would you like to offer evidence proving you never attended a terrorist training camp?" "How can I possibly prove a negative here?" "Thanks for your appeal. Your appeal is denied."
(Score: 3) by BsAtHome on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:18PM
So:
- situation now: Guilty until proven innocent with impossibility to provide prove.
- situation to come: Guilty until proven innocent with possibility to provide prove without result.
So, where was that constitution you were talking about?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:24PM
What you say is true, but consider: yesterday there had never been a court ruling on the no-fly list of any kind; Fearless Leader [wikia.com], er, the Administration claimed courts had no jurisdiction over the no-fly list.
The fact that the judge didn't say what was a sufficient process is, in my opinion, brilliant. It's entirely possible that the whole idea of the no-fly list is irreparably flawed and totally incompatible with a free society. If she had come out and said that, though, there would be an immediate appeal by Fearless Leader and some [wikipedia.org] apologist [wikipedia.org] or other [wikipedia.org] would overturn the ruling with some blather about "public interest."
Turnabout is fair play. Here's the scenario I predict:
Judge: "Nope, not good enough."
Fearless Leader: "OK, what is good enough?"
Judge: "That's for me to know and you to find out."
Fearless Leader: "No fair! You didn't tell me what I have to do to make the no-fly list work! Appeal!"
Appeals Judge: "What exactly is wrong with this ruling?"
Fearless Leader: "Umm, I can do anything I want because terrorism?"
Appeals Judge: "That was your original defense. You can't just repeat it. An appeal has to point out what is wrong with the other judge's ruling."
Fearless Leader: "But the American People are in danger!"
Appeals Judge: "That's not an appeal."
Fearless Leader: "Well she didn't tell me how to make the no-fly list work!"
Appeals Judge: "Yeah, that's not her job. Get out of my face."
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Leebert on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:58PM
That's not really how I see it. I'm no lawyer, but I am a professional cynic, so I more expect something along the lines of:
Judge: "Nope, not good enough."
Fearless Leader: "OK, what is good enough?"
Judge: "That's for me to know and you to find out."
Fearless Leader: "OK, fine." *goes and makes minor cosmetic but otherwise meaningless changes*
Plaintiff: "I'd like to fly now."
Fearless Leader: "Sorry, you're on the no-fly list..."
*repeat years of judicial process while rights continue to be trampled*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @01:52PM
Yes, but that's the way the system works. The system is based on the notion that radical changes are destabilizing, so we're better off making small adjustments or compromises than just willy-nilly throwing policy out wholesale. This does make it hard to recover from gross destruction, like PATRIOT, but it also makes it hard to really fuck things up.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:06PM
On the outside chance that you're not being facetious...would that put you in risk assessment or an insurance adjuster or something?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:25PM
Information security, but yes, I do a lot of NIST SP 800-30-based risk assessments. :)
One of my more recent funny lines at work:
Operations Guy: "You're such a cynic."
Me: "No, I'm a realist, but unfortunately it's an easy to confuse the two."
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:03PM
If they gave you specific dates on which you allegedly attended terrorist camps you could try to establish alibis.
...But of course they wouldn't.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @03:20PM
This is the same logic used in civil domestic violence cases.
Plaintiff (female): I feel threatened.
Respondent (male): I never did or said anything to make the plaintiff feel threatened.
Judge (female): Can you prove that you never did or said anything to make the plaintiff feel threatened?
Respondent (male): How can I prove a negative?
Judge (female): I'm going to rule for the plaintiff. You are ordered to stay 100 yards away from the plaintiff's home, vehicle, workplace and person for the next five years.
Respondent (male): But we share an apartment and work at the same place! How can I get my things back? What if she steals them? How can I go to work?
Judge (female): You should have thought of these things before you threatened the plaintiff.
Judge (female): I'm going to have to order you to remain in your seat while the plaintiff leaves the premises; the order is in effect, immediately.
Respondent (male): Don't I have a right to a trial before I am imprisoned?
Judge (female): You're not being imprisoned, it's only your freedom of movement that's being taken away.
...
Needless to say, re-living this reminds me of my brother, Tom Childers, of Fairfax, California - who helped an old girlfriend initiate one of these against me, his brother - and never admitted his role in events - even going so far as to deliberately, maliciously withhold his testimony.
In fact - now that I think of it - EVERYONE did. Many cited my brother's behavior as their primary reason - concluding that he must know something that they did not.
(In retrospect, it seems more likely that Tom was raising his stock in the family, by lowering everyone else's - making a play, as the oldest child, for control of the family's assets. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Tom was trying to eliminate his competition by deliberately sabotaging our relationship, so that he and his wife were predominant in family affairs. But I digress. I only note that things are often more complicated than they seem on the surface.)
And so may I say that I am DELIGHTED to see the rest of the country get treated in the same high-handed way - men AND women. That's what you get for abusing the legal system to pursue vendettas - you destroy the legal system.
Dumb shits.
"You must have done something to deserve it."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 25 2014, @12:33PM
The judge states flying is a right, not a privilege, but maintains the right of the government to take away an individual's right until that person proves they are innocent. That is, someone is claimed to be guilty (not proven by any stretch) until they prove they are innocent, and only if they do so (how many years later? how much money later?) might that right(?) be handed back to them. That's sick. The US should be ashamed. Until there is a cultural change in the US I don't think people will be allowed innocence under the law until proven guilty. :( Whether you are American is irrelevant since this list is shared with 22 other countries.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday June 26 2014, @02:26PM
The first part of that sentence is basically correct from what I've read. The second part is not.
The judge didn't specify new, constitutional regulations. That's not what judges do. That's not her job. All she did -- and all she really CAN do -- is say that the current regulations aren't legal. Yeah, the government can fix those specific flaws and still wind up with something unconstitutional. In which case it eventually goes back to court!