SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
The “no-fly” list has many problems. Pretty much any fed can “nominate” someone for the list. Pretty much everyone on the list has almost zero chance of getting off it other than by filing a lawsuit. And even though the government has been forced by court decisions to offer a venue for challenges, the federal government is still under no obligation to tell people why they’ve been placed on the list, much less promise to never put them back on it again.
When people have been removed (almost exclusively following lawsuits), they’re simply told they’ve been removed. The only way to find out if they’ve been reinstated is to buy a ticket to ride only to have it denied after they’ve already spent their money and arrived at the airport.
Then there’s the cross-pollination of federal law enforcement databases, which turns people on the “no fly” list into suspected terrorists, even if there’s nothing in the database that supports this implication or any cop’s corresponding inference.
As unjust as this all is, at least there are some limits. Well, maybe one. And maybe one that only applies to this specific incident. But, there’s at least one limit and it’s spelled out by this decision [PDF] handed down by the Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court. And that limitation is this: you can’t stop someone from driving just because they’re not allowed to board a plane. (h/t FourthAmendment.com)
Here’s how this all went down in Georgia, leading to this federal lawsuit:
First, they ignored direct instructions telling the officers not to detain the driver. Then they kept him detained for 91 minutes which, if nothing else, definitely violates the Supreme Court’s Rodriguez decision — the one that says officers cannot prolong traffic stops without the reasonable suspicion to do so.
The State Police officers didn’t have any of that. All they had was a “no fly” hit that came coupled with instructions stating that his mere presence on this list did not justify further detention. And none of that justified the warrantless search of his truck.
And, according to the allegations in the lawsuit, the only reason Meshal was on the FBI’s “no fly” list was because he had refused to become an FBI snitch.
Not exactly an improbable allegation! The FBI has been known to do this. A lot. Even if it feels it can’t justify a “no fly” list nomination, agents feel more than comfortable threatening people with deportation or further disruption of their travel plans. That a state officer would feel comfortable detaining someone in contravention of direct instructions otherwise makes it clear anyone the government merely wants to pretend is a terrorist is justification enough for any further violation of their rights.
At the district court level, all involved officers (Janufka, Oglesby, and Wright) were denied qualified immunity for this prolonged, suspicionless detention of Meshal, as well as for the completely unjustified search of his vehicle. They appealed. And the 11th Circuit says, too bad. Maybe don’t violate rights if you don’t like being sued.
The court first cites the Rodriguez decision in response to the officers’ arguments that the stop was not “unreasonably” prolonged. It also addresses their claim that detaining Meshal was necessary, even though the original stop was (allegedly) for him following another driver too closely.
As for the claim that it was the FBI’s fault the detention took 90 minutes due to officers waiting for a return call from the agency (after ignoring the agency’s direct instructions not to detain the driver), the court is even less sympathetic. An extended stop can’t be justified just because officers chose to involve an outside agency.
Driving the point home, the Appeals Court says all of this is stuff officers should know — so clearly established they can’t plausibly claim they weren’t “on notice” that detaining someone on a no fly list (much less searching his truck) for driving isn’t acceptable under the US Constitution.
The lawsuit will continue. And rights that were always present have been reaffirmed, something that’s going to help plenty of people who have been placed on the FBI’s “no fly” list (as this lawsuit alleges) for purely vindictive reasons. I would expect the state of Georgia to settle soon, rather than just wait around for more precedent curbing officer misconduct to be solidified.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @11:23AM (30 children)
Don't worry! It'll be coming quickly enough if people make the wrong voting decision next month!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by snakeplissken on Sunday October 06 2024, @01:33PM (29 children)
The bizarre thing is, that from across the pond I can't tell which side of the political divide that comment puts you! :)
snake
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @01:45PM
Maybe these headlines will help you decide.
https://thepostmillennial.com/hillary-clinton-calls-for-more-censorship-of-americans-on-social-media-or-we-lose-total-control [thepostmillennial.com]
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/bidens-ministry-of-truth/ [nationalreview.com]
https://www.outkick.com/analysis/robert-f-kennedy-calls-out-democrat-party-censorship [outkick.com]
(Score: 3, Troll) by Whoever on Sunday October 06 2024, @02:11PM (7 children)
Let me help you with that:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-plan-cops-violent-american-death-squads-1235123895/ [rollingstone.com]
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-maga-fascist-violence/ [thenation.com]
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/29/trump-violent-day-policing-crime-00181619 [politico.com]
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/donald-trump-police-should-violently-assault-americans-for-one-hour [vanityfair.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @03:04PM (6 children)
How about don't?
The dude could literally joke "What's with all these illegal immigrants, they're flooding across the border like rats from a sinking ship" and the media would carry water for the Democrats by trumpeting "Trump says illegal immigrants are rats and...uh...wants to drown them at sea using a sinking ship"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sgleysti on Sunday October 06 2024, @03:18PM
When Trump says that kind of stuff, I don't think he's joking. Making a big fuss about immigration is pretty central to his messaging.
That said, yeah, the language is a fairly hyperbolic simile. Media reporting on such statements should interpret it as such.
I do think he deliberately misrepresents the situation with immigration and that his rhetoric is needlessly causing harm to a lot of people.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:18PM (4 children)
(Score: 4, Touché) by Whoever on Monday October 07 2024, @01:03AM (3 children)
Just a reminder that he still hasn't shown his taxes. Remember that he promised to do that back in 2016?
Apologists will continue to carry water for Trump.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday October 07 2024, @02:27AM (1 child)
There are other tax returns that would be much more interesting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/10/22/how-the-bidens-earned-167-million-after-leaving-the-white-house/ [forbes.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Informative) by weirsbaski on Monday October 07 2024, @09:08AM
Just so it's clear, the article is that Bidens earned 16-point-7 million, not 167 million, over 3 years. And it was after he left office, and came from speaking-engagements and book deals where those dollar amounts are not unheard-of for former high-level politicians.
Let's compare that to the 45th president, who earned over 550 million (not 55-point-0, it's $550 million) while actively being president.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2024/08/05/how-donald-trump-earned-550-million-in-the-white-house/ [forbes.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Monday October 07 2024, @02:30AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @06:02PM (17 children)
> I can't tell which side of the political divide...
Makes sense. There really isn't much daylight between the two major parties in the U.S. They both serve the same masters.
Unanimous support for the genocidal terrorist, racist, Jewish-supremacist, Israeli state-- There isn't a single Republican in national office who has publicly opposed the genocide, and you can count on a single hand's fingers, the number of Democrats in national office who publicly opposed the genocide. Two of those Democrats, in national office, were recently forced out by Israeli interference in our elections. Democrats and Republicans act as foreign agents of Israel regardless of it being harmful to the United States (both due to the direct bribes^H^H^H campaign contributions, and due the (entirely rational) fear that Israel will fund their opponent to replace them). The Biden-Harris administration _enabled_ the current genocide including going around congress to transfer weapons from US military bases to the Israelis without Congressional approval (reminiscent of Reagan going around lack of congressional authorization to provide weapons to his far-right Central American death squad militias). Trump has pledged to provide even greater support for the Israeli genocidal attacks on the indigenous Palestinian population (not sure how this is even possible-- Biden-Harris have not held back anything).
Both parties are also beholding to the wealthy and corporations that provide the funds to get them "elected" especially after the current corrupt, far-right, Catholic*, highly partisan majority on the supreme court declared "money is speech, claiming that restricting the wealthy from influencing elections with money would be restricting the free speech rights of the wealthy" (Citizens United v Federal Election Commission) and followed that one up by legalizing bribery (Snyder v United States). George (Baby) Bush said, "I will represent the rich." Hillary Clinton said (to a room of wealthy donors), "[she has] both a public and a private position [on finance reform]” and, that these wealthy donors need not worry that she will act against their interests, regardless of what she tells the plebs. Romney, "I don't care about the poor." Obama's health insurance law is nearly identical to the plan proposed by a member of the far-right Heritage Foundation (the same Heritage Foundation behind project 2025) and also nearly identical to the health insurance law Republican Romney had earlier signed into law in Massachusetts which was also inspired by the Heritage Foundation member's proposal etc. Obama's, Romney's and the Heritage Foundation member's plans all preserved and enhanced the ability of rent-seeking private insurers to enrich themselves while providing no benefit.
Reagan (along with Thatcher in the UK) were the first to really push neoliberalism. Bill Clinton's two terms were basically Reagan's 3rd and 4th terms accomplishing parts of Reagan's neoliberal agenda that Reagan had been unable to do himself, like signing into law NAFTA which gutted American manufacturing, deregulation of retail banking by signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which directly led to the 2008 financial crisis, etc.
On all but a few "culture war" issues, the two major parities, in the US, have essentially the same policies (i.e., whatever policies they are payed to have). But, it is in their interests and the interests of their wealthy masters, that the plebs do not notice this. Hence, all the culture war BS from both parties and the corporate media.
*Catholic church leadership in the US is far-right. The US Catholic Bishops even tried to remove the current pope as too left due to, among other things, his support of liberation theology. But, the entire far-right majority on the court being conservative Catholics is more behind their attacks on bodily autonomy of women than their legalizing corruption to ensure moneyed interests' continued control over US politics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @10:38PM
I would mod you up, but the Israelis are not committing genocide. In these modern times the word has become worthlessly diluted by people who got bad service at a restaurant. Today's events simply don't compare to the horros of the past.
But you are right, republicans and democrats are a single power sharing structure designed to corral the narrative. They still have 98% of the vote. Whaddya gonna do?
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday October 07 2024, @01:19AM (15 children)
If there's a genocide going on then why aren't the victims concerned enough about the genocide to do something about it? I gather you're speaking of Gazans as the alleged subjects of the genocide. On October 7 of last year, instead of defending themselves from genocide, they deliberately escalated their conflict with Israel and committed a variety of heinous acts - that would conveniently justify a genocide.
And there doesn't seem to be much point to complaining about refusal to oppose imaginary genocides.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday October 07 2024, @02:57AM (14 children)
I was having this conversation with someone over the weekend. In my view, Israel isn't actively committing Genocide (they are not going out of their way to kill all Palestinians), but are simply indifferent to civilian casualties that happen in their quest to destroy Hamas. Although both positions are terrible, there is a difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @08:24AM (2 children)
The pager bombs were more than two years in the planning and execution. Makes you wonder how much of the rest of it was planned that far in advance.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 07 2024, @01:22PM
The October 7 attacks were planned pretty far in advance too. One did a far better job of not targeting civilians than the other.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 09 2024, @08:32PM
It sounds like the pagers were acquired fairly recent? Perhaps Israeli intelligence planned to put bombs in the pagers years ago, but the point at which they would have committed to bombs would have been more recent - after Hezbollah restarted their attacks on Israel in support for Hamas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 07 2024, @01:26PM (10 children)
What's the evidence for that? I suggest that clever efforts like the pager bombs demonstrate otherwise.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday October 07 2024, @10:20PM (9 children)
The fact that the IDF haven't changed their tactics in Gaza despite a very high civilian body count.
Agreed that was a good way to target enemies while minimizing civilian casualties, but that operation targeted Hezbollah in Lebanon, not Hamas in Gaza. The IDF may care more about avoiding civilians in Lebanon than Gaza, maybe not - time will tell.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 08 2024, @12:52AM (8 children)
How can they change their tactics in a way that still defeats Hamas? Sounds like the key problem is simply that Hamas deliberately hides in civilian areas - via shields, lack of military uniforms and markings, military use of civilian infrastructure, etc.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday October 08 2024, @03:02AM (7 children)
I can see that we're about to go around in circles, as you have changed topics (from goals to methodology).
Perhaps it's easier for me to instead ask your view. Which of the following is closest to your viewpoint?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 08 2024, @04:26AM (6 children)
You explicitly spoke of methodology, "but are simply indifferent to civilian casualties that happen in their quest to destroy Hamas" - the alleged indifference is a methodology not a goal issue, so now we speak of methodology.
And true indifference to civilian casualties would have resulted in more of them than we have seen so far. This sort of one-side siege doesn't last long when the superior force goes all out: for example, the Mongolian conquest of the Nizaris in the mid 1250s or putting down the Paris Commune in 1871.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday October 08 2024, @05:47AM (5 children)
Yeah, I didn't think you'd be able to choose 1, 2 or 3 either.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday October 08 2024, @09:15AM (1 child)
But you are not surprised either, I bet .....
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 08 2024, @12:32PM
I certainly am not over here. Which of the three choices will you pick? 1. a ridiculous assertion, 2. my favored answer, or 3. a second ridiculous assertion? This was merely a variant of a leading question.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 08 2024, @01:33PM (2 children)
I could choose, but there wouldn't be a point to it. 1 and 3 are ridiculous. There's no genocide (and we both acknowledged that already) so we already know 1 isn't the answer. And it's quite clear that Israel isn't choked up with guilt - nor much of a reason for them to be so. That leaves your favored answer 2 as the only relatively serious option, and we already know I didn't choose that one.
My take is that Israel wages war with some effort to reduce civilian casualties. Probably not enough for your satisfaction and perhaps not enough to avoid war crimes. But nobody else offers a serious solution to the ongoing murder problem of Hamas.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday October 08 2024, @10:24PM (1 child)
Thank you. I'll interpret that as something like "Option 2.5" (somewhere between 2 and 3).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 09 2024, @11:45AM
What was the point to that exercise?
My take on this is that Hamas had no illusions about what Israel would do after the October 7 attack. In fact, the heinous character of the attack was probably intended to provoke Israel's full-out siege response we see now. Maybe the Hamas leadership thought Hamas would eventually win, or maybe they thought they'd be able to exit stage left with a lot of money. But they certainly would have their propaganda game ready.
So when Hamas pulls an October 7 and the genocide narrative emerges before the bodies have a chance to cool, that's propaganda noise. My take is let's give Israel a few years to sort this out.
(Score: 2) by Sourcery42 on Monday October 07 2024, @06:30PM (1 child)
As a USAian, you just can't fucking tell anymore, and it isn't worth trying to figure it out.
Discussions are dominated by two childish extremes who only see things in black and white, refuse to acknowledge any gray, and follow a distinctly fascist "our way or the highway"/"with us or against us" tack. It may not be fascism by the European book, but it is close enough. I estimate those groups only constitute 5 - 20% of the population, but there can be no meaningful dialog with them. They're so convinced their philosophical opposites are cartoonishly evil that it would be comical, if it weren't just plain sad. The mouthiest parts of the left and right have horseshoed around so far, that both camps are like opposite sides of the same bad penny, clamoring for power and control. The rest of the middle mostly just wish they'd shut the fuck up.
I long for the days of 10 - 15 years ago when it felt like there was a strong dissatisfaction and more general alignment across the political spectrum that things were going very, very poorly in the USA. I'm talking about things like the post 9/11 surveillance state, the drift towards authoritarianism, and the growing wealth divide. People were pissed off at the leadership of the government in general, not just at what "the other side" was doing. It felt like it could be time for a real modern Bull Moose to emerge. We're due for a Trust Buster to stop big business from sucking the corpse of America dry and enact some reforms, but alas, since 45 both sides of the debate are so angry at one another, that there is zero chance of sweeping political reform. That general dissatisfaction with the government and state of affairs has been wholesale replaced by enmity for "the other side" that has fully entrenched the status quo. You've got to vote for a lizard, so the wrong lizard doesn't get it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08 2024, @04:06AM
No self-respecting, red-blooded, hyphen-using American would refer to themselves as a "USAian.'
Who are you and why are you pretending to be American?