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, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:09PM (11 children)
Well, Democrats have been playing lawfare against Trump since before he was sworn in, in 2016. It's time some of those Dems answered for their malfeasance.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 3, Touché) by Whoever on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:19PM (5 children)
That's your response? It's pathetic.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:28PM (4 children)
You're right, the lawfare between Trump and the Dem party is pathetic. You do remember that Dems were exploring impeachment possibilities before Trump was sworn in? You remember the 'resistance'? It has all been so pathetic. Yes, I want to see the other side punished for malfeasance in office, as well as malfeasance in reporting. That "Russia, Russia, Russia" hoax was pushed by virtually everyone in the media, as well as the D party, while the Biden scandals were smothered and censored. Malfeasance all around. Democrats started the lawfare campaign, and I truly hope that Trump ends it.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @10:11PM (3 children)
I don't remember them, but I do know of a lot of impeachable things he did that he wasn't brought up for. I'm not talking about things like trying to impeach him because his son has dick pics on his laptop, I'm talking about treasonous activities like meeting with Putin and refusing any aides or translators to be present, then coming out and throwing your intelligence community under the bus and siding with Putin on issues. Or outing foreign informants to Putin to show Putin what kind of cool information he gets to know. Taking a picture of an image from a classified satellite and uploading it to Twitter, just so you can dunk on Iran (such a great reason to expose your classified capabilities, to "own" Iran on Twitter). How about those trademarks his daughter (oh, sorry Presidential Advisor) get awarded, like right before Trump announcing he wants to ease sanctions on the Chinese, or how about all those friendly favors for the Saudi prince, who then gives Trump's son-in-law (oh, sorry, Presidential Advisor who is so compromised that he can't get a security clearance) two billion dollars for his "investment firm"? And I won't even bring up details on the 200+ TS//SCI papers he stole and spilled, unless you can't appreciate the importance of SCI. That alone, he should be in jail for the rest of his life (especially according to the EO he authored), and is such a sad fact that anyone would even consider voting for him. We really need people who believe in America and not this traitor.
The man did a treasonous act about once a month. But yeah, sure, 'them Dems being all political.' 'Both sides' bullshit and all that.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 06 2024, @10:40PM (2 children)
You're pissing into the wind about classified documents. I'd have to look up some details, but both Bill Clinton and Obama were challenged on the use of classified documents. The decisions was, the President can declassify a document on a whim, there is no one with standing to challenge him. Biden took home documents as well, not to mention Hillary Clinton, who was never even president.
You may have a case on the Saudi prince - but if so, we apply the same standards to Biden and his family, and Trump and his family. Instead, all I see is partisan sniping. Apply the standards, burn whoever violated them, and let the chips fall where they may. You don't get to protect Biden Inc while prosecuting Trump Inc.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @11:46PM (1 child)
But neither Joe Biden nor any member of his family are running for *any* political office. Trump is running for US President.
If Biden or Trump committed crimes, then prove it in court and let them be punished for those crimes. You know, like the rule of law says they should be.
So only only one incredibly compromised and allegedly traitorous individual is running for President at the moment.
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer not to vote for an elderly traitor who spits on the Constitution, the rule of law, and our way of life. Will you do so? If so, why do you hate America so much that you'd vote for a traitorous blowhard?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @05:12PM
Biden is the US president! That makes him fair game. The no fly law, the entire patriot act, with all its corrupt punitive enforcement is a totally bipartisan thing. There is nobody on the ballot that intends to correct the injustice. What we are voting for is demeanor. One is pleasant, the other is definitely not. Everything else is just chum.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @06:52PM (4 children)
Lefty here-- e.g., won't vote for corrupt, right-wing Democrat/Republican(s).
Agreed that Democrats have been going after Trump in a political manner. Similar to Republicans going after Clinton, in a political manner, for lying about a blow job. Jan 6, however, was a legitimate court case but if it had been done for more than political points, many Republican politicians, Republican political operatives, and members of the Trump administration would be sitting behind bars today (evidence of their complicity and intention of a coup is in the public record).
There isn't a former/current Democrat or Republican president that shouldn't be rotting in jail for their crimes. Real crimes. E.g., Biden enabling a genocide, Trump attempting a coup, Obama ordering the summary execution of an American citizen, Bush W., illegal wars of aggression / torture, Reagan and Clinton illegal wars of aggression and sponsoring terrorists, even Carter, the least criminal / corrupt president in the last half century, ordered a military mission where aircraft were disguised as humanitarian aide agency aircraft-- against international law, and along with Obama's fake polio vaccination ruse led to the deaths of real humanitarian aide workers.
*Note, I only gave a single example for each president. Every US president is guilty of multiple crimes that would result in, at minimum, a very long prison sentence if committed by an individual. If we counted executions/assassinations- drone strikes, seal team strikes, etc., as the murders they are, Bush "W" and Obama, Reagan, Nixon would be facing many thousands of death sentences each. No, the hundreds of wedding parties and funerals Obama/Bush hit with drone strikes killing/maiming half the attendees were not "terrorists"-- and re-defining any male over 14yrs old as a "combatant" isn't valid nor does it cover the women and young children Bush W and Obama murdered in these intentional massacres of civilians. Nixon secretly (hidden from US oversight/public by faking that the missions were in Vietnam) bombing villages in Cambodia solely to demonstrate to the Vietnamese that he was a mad man capable of mass murder-- the man should have met his end by firing squad or at the end of a rope.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @07:35PM (3 children)
I can agree with you on at least one point. Clinton's blowjob was not impeachable. Republicans were morons for going that route. Clinton gave good reason to be impeached, but not for a blowjob.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @11:55PM
What might those reasons have been? I don't recall any *real* charges being brought against him, and if there had been, Ken Starr [wikipedia.org] would have nailed Clinton to the wall -- he was not impartial in the least.
So please, do tell what "good reason" there was other than lying about his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky -- which wasn't a good reason for impeachment in the first place.
We're waiting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @01:13AM
I liked the cigar part and then tried it myself!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 09 2024, @05:24PM
Clinton's lying about it under oath was a felony. Would be impeachable in my book.