SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a little-noticed filing before an Oregon federal judge, the US Justice Department and the FBI conceded that stopping US and other citizens from traveling on airplanes is a matter of "predictive assessments about potential threats."
It is believed to be the government's most direct acknowledgement to date that people are not allowed to fly because of what the government believes they might do and not what they have already done.
Last Friday, the ACLU told the court that the administration's predictive assessments pose an "extremely high risk of error".
Marc Sageman, a former CIA counterterrorism analyst and current academic researcher of terrorism, submitted a brief for the ACLU arguing that the government's predictive model underpinning the blacklist inclusion was not responsibly rigorous. Without a "scientifically validated process", Sageman asserted, the government's judgements about who does and does not pose a terrorist threat to aviation "amount to little more than the 'guesses' or 'hunches' that do not meet the standard for reasonable suspicion.
These official revelations confirm Bruce Schneier's criticism of more than a decade past where he called the no-fly list "a list of suspected terrorists so dangerous that we can't ever let them fly, yet so innocent that we can't arrest them - even under the draconian provisions of the Patriot Act."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 17 2015, @06:15AM
It has taken us more than 13 years to arrive at the point that government has to justify their stupid no-fly lists. Note that the regulations are not yet overturned, we are only at the point where hearings are being conducted.
THIS is why we must jealously guard our freedoms. It takes only a couple days of debate, and a few pen strokes in Washington to deprive millions of people of their liberties. It takes years, even decades, to reverse an unjust rule or regulation. Laws are never easy to overturn. If Washington is permitted to pass arbitrary and foolish laws like this, freedom could become a vague, dim memory in the US. Or, with some appropriate Newspeak, not even a memory.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @06:18AM
Tell us more about how you voted for Bush and Obama.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 17 2015, @06:31AM
You tell us more about who YOU voted for. First, though, are you a US citizen? Do you vote? Or, are you one of the mouthy millions who have never voted, never served, never done anything for the nation aside from paying taxes under duress?
I doubt very much that you even know who I voted for. It wouldn't be hard to determine who I've voted for, since I've openly announced my voting record since 1974. If you go to the effort of searching for all the posts I've ever made on the internet, you can reconstruct my voting record easily enough. But, no, you haven't done that, have you? You're just running at the mouth here.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @06:41AM
How nice that you think that you are so very important that anyone would waste their time looking for your voting record, you egotistical bastard.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 17 2015, @06:51AM
The Marines wouldn't accept me, because I was able to put both of my parent's names on the application for enlistment. Stop projecting, alright?
(On most forums, this post would lead to some good natured inter-service banter, but here, I suppose I'll be modded troll for calling Marines bastards. http://www.badassoftheweek.com/daly.html [badassoftheweek.com] ROFLMAO!!)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @07:07AM
I vote for good third party candidates or no one at all. I'm not going to vote for the corrupt scumbags the two parties put forth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 17 2015, @07:52PM
Be prepared to be criticized by 95% of the populous as throwing away your vote or having "no right to complain". I have been doing as you say for decades and when people find out they treat me like a traitor.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday August 17 2015, @08:27PM
Unfortunately, that should have been "Bush *or* Obama". And in both cases it's not clear that the alternative would have been any better.
I usually vote third party, but I do acknowledge that this is generally someone just as insane as the major candidates, they are merely both unlikely to get elected, and also would be unable to get anything through congress if they were elected. The ideal situation would be for all laws to have sunset provisions, and for the president to be unacceptable to congress. Then only actually important bills would get through, i.e. bills considered as important by people with widely diverging views.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Monday August 17 2015, @06:21AM
Further this situation cries out for a major change in how we handle legal cases, where people couldn't even challenge the no fly list in court, because all those judges who put their hand on a bible and swore to uphold the Constitution just knuckled under.
The Treason of the Judiciary is probably the worst treason you could contemplate.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Monday August 17 2015, @02:45PM
That is a serious issue. The Supreme court is way too fond of cowering away from an issue on the thin pretext of standing. They love to claim that you have no standing to challenge a law you are subject to unless/until you are actually on trial for violating it. The fact is that every citizen is subject to the law and so ethically has standing to challenge it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Monday August 17 2015, @06:33AM
And what better way to guard something than place it in a safe or jail and throw away the key?
(grin... a very large one) [soylentnews.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by gidds on Tuesday August 18 2015, @01:45PM
Perhaps ha ha, only serious [catb.org] (or just HHOS) would express your meaning more clearly than the much-abused grin?
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 18 2015, @10:27PM
Nope. Because, by nature, I'm a special unique snowflake which feels the compulsion to be bitter at first and humorous later; the latter may be missing sometimes.
<small>(grin)</small>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday August 17 2015, @07:34AM
Start with an easy law to repeal...the Patriot Act.
Once that's out of the way, go for the impossible...go for repealing the copyright act back to 28 + 28.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday August 17 2015, @09:23PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves