Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Federal Judge Rules US No-fly List Violates Constitution

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the no-wasp-list-and-no-mosquito-list-remain-unchallenged dept.

Transportation 276

New submitter dmitrygr sends this news from Reuters: The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday. ... "The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society," [U.S. District Judge Anna Brown] wrote in her 65-page ruling (PDF). "Accordingly, on this record the court concludes plaintiff's inclusion on the no-fly list constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel," Brown said.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Awesome! (5, Insightful)

spiritplumber (1944222) | about 3 months ago | (#47310517)

Now let's hope that the ruling is respected. What are ways by which it couldn't be?

Re:Awesome! (4, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 3 months ago | (#47310553)

When the judge issues an arrest warrant for someone preventing someone boarding an airplane due to being on a no fly list, I'll believe it will make a difference.

Re:Awesome! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310919)

The difference it will make, though, isn't that they'll get to fly. At best, they'll get to contest their presence on the list. And at that point, the government will pull out the same argument that it uses for those it has labelled sexual offenders, and which (barely) has already passed SCOTUS scrutiny: Presence on a list "is not punishment", and is within the "interests" of the government. It may lead to a situation where any law that says you can't fly comes down. However, if the airlines choose (and they will suddenly so choose) to not let those on the list fly, that's not the government's problem or responsibility. You know, same as it isn't if presence on a list causes someone to have to move because they're too close to a park or a school, or to die subject to vigilante violence. Your problem. Not theirs. So no flying. But hey, they'll get to spend a bunch in court to find that out. It's good for the economy when the lawyers buy new toys, you know.

Re:Awesome! (4, Insightful)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 4 months ago | (#47311227)

Who requests an arrest warrant?

Do judges just sit around reading the news, becoming outraged periodically, and issue arrest warrants?

I'm really curious how this process works.

Re:Awesome! (5, Informative)

phayes (202222) | about 3 months ago | (#47310563)

The judge's ruling will be challenged & until/unless it wins every appeal (all the way to the supreme court in all probability), the ruling changes nothing.

Sooo, until the ruling is definitively confirmed, nothing changes.

Re:Awesome! (5, Insightful)

Nukenbar (215420) | about 3 months ago | (#47310705)

Any change to the law has to start with a lower court ruling somewhere.

Re:Awesome! (1)

MPAndonee (1765248) | about 3 months ago | (#47310789)

At least it's a start...

Imagine, if there was no dissenting voice anywhere, ever. Then there will be a lot less freedom, maybe a lot less /. as well.

Re:Awesome! (3)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 3 months ago | (#47311003)

However this ruling gives people who are on the no-fly list to sue to be taken off of it, as well as sue for damages (actual and punitive). It is even possible to win a judgement here before the supreme court gives a ruling, though appeals would be held up.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Khashishi (775369) | about 4 months ago | (#47311103)

In other words, it's just a few steps from changing everything.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47311179)

The judge's ruling will be challenged & until/unless it wins every appeal (all the way to the supreme court in all probability), the ruling changes nothing.

Sooo, until the ruling is definitively confirmed, nothing changes.

The headline states 'Federal judge' isn't it at the supreme court already for federal judges to be present?

Re:Awesome! (2)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 4 months ago | (#47311265)

No, there are layers of Federal judiciary. This ruling came from a District Federal Court, not the SCOTUS.

Re:Awesome! (2, Interesting)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 4 months ago | (#47311255)

The last time this came up in a big way, no one here could point to anything suggesting that flight is a necessary part of modern life, to the point that it is a constitutional right.

In fact, most people pointed to cases where travel was NOT a constitutional right.

So what will change is everyone here will now have a case to point to suggesting that the no-fly list is actually unconstitutional. Actually unconstitutional as opposed to obviously unconstitutional.

So the difference on slashdot is that people will have a case to point to, but still won't.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310591)

Now let's hope that the ruling is respected.

I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:Awesome! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310647)

Now let's hope that the ruling is respected. What are ways by which it couldn't be?

Obama will simply order the Supreme Court to overthrow the verdict the same way he ordered them to rule that Obamacare is legal.

Re:Awesome! (1, Troll)

Noxal (816780) | about 3 months ago | (#47310791)

You might want to go back to like 3rd grade civics where you learn about the separate branches of government.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310851)

You might want to open your eyes and look at how the world around you actually works.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47311195)

Seems like he did. You, on the other hand, made a stupid claim you couldn't back up, and when called out on it you tried to cover your embarrassment with a transparent appeal to fashionable teenybopper cynicism.

Re:Awesome! (3)

Immerman (2627577) | about 3 months ago | (#47310901)

Truly. Though with all three branches beholden to the same small group of powerful interests, the benefit of that separation is not nearly so great as it once was. Though it does seem the Judicial branch is at least moderately less beholden than the others.

Re: Awesome! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310963)

The only thing the three branches are beholden to is the People. Everything that is wrong with the government is directly attributable to the People allowing it. Every day we don't start a bloody revolution is one more day for the Evil to dig it's claws in... Twenty years from now you'll wish we had revolted when the getting was good...

Re: Awesome! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47311081)

Sure, you go and show off your guns... your AR-15 isn't going to do much against an Apache which can unleash pure hell that only a few people have even seen.

Instead, how about you turn off the TV, become a delegate, vote, run for office, work for PACs, and do something.

If you want to advocate, toss your hat in the ring, get up there, even if you are not invited to debates, you are a candidate. You might even get the office.

There are a series of boxes to defend freedom: Linux, soap, ballot, jury, and ammo in increasing order. We are nowhere near the last box yet, and people who demand revolution only make it worse for people who want reform without bloodshed.

Re: Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47311299)

Sure, you go and show off your guns... your AR-15 isn't going to do much against an Apache which can unleash pure hell that only a few people have even seen.

Instead, how about you turn off the TV, become a delegate, vote, run for office, work for PACs, and do something.

If you want to advocate, toss your hat in the ring, get up there, even if you are not invited to debates, you are a candidate. You might even get the office.

There are a series of boxes to defend freedom: Linux, soap, ballot, jury, and ammo in increasing order. We are nowhere near the last box yet, and people who demand revolution only make it worse for people who want reform without bloodshed.

Your apaches ain't much good when they get RPG'd by the people, and if it is a strong uprising, the military will help them out, so don't expect that other apaches would stand a chance, either.

Re:Awesome! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310771)

Simple really. The no-fly list is ruled illegal, but will continue on. The feds are welcome to ignore such rulings. The judge in this case, though, will be added to the no-fly list really soon.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310915)

"The judge in this case, though, will be added to the no-fly list really soon."

Of course, he's obviously a terrorist sympathizer...

Re:Awesome! (4, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 months ago | (#47311297)

People like to talk about how nasty the government is. But it seems like if theres ever a class of government official you really dont want to piss off-- no matter who you are or how much money you have-- its judges. Judges can make your life real difficult in very short order, and it doesnt really matter if you're the head of Microsoft.

Adding a judge to a no-fly list as retribution would be the start of a very entertaining saga.

Re:Awesome! (3)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 3 months ago | (#47310797)

Farcical bureaucratic process resulting in the same outcome at more expense in 3....2...1.....

Re:Awesome! (2)

sjames (1099) | about 3 months ago | (#47310867)

They add a system to contest the placement which just happens to take the rest of your life plus 1 day to make a ruling.

They thumb their noses at the court as usual.

They let you contest it so you get off of the no-fly list and on to the double secret lose your luggage, anal probe and audit every year list.

Re:Awesome! (3, Interesting)

lgw (121541) | about 4 months ago | (#47311309)

Thumbing one's nose at federal judges does not end well. It's one thing if it's a politically contentious issue that the judges themselves are divided on, but this is not such a case. If the community of federal judges feels slighted in their authority by some part of the administration, they can get very creative in making their displeasure known.

More likely this will just go through the normal appeals process, and nothing will change until the SCOTUS eventually gets to the case.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310913)

You are familiar with the number infinity + 1?

Re:Awesome! (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47310927)

Now let's hope that the ruling is respected. What are ways by which it couldn't be?

Stop policing it with government employees. Allow anyone to fly, then give the airlines API access to the list and tell them in a not-so-subtle way that they are responsible for anything that would happen should they allow any of those people on the plane.

Re:Awesome! (1)

nytes (231372) | about 4 months ago | (#47311159)

I predict that they will handle it the same way they handle airport security: Everyone is now on the no-fly list. You can apply to get a travel pass that will allow you to fly within a given window of time. You'll have to show the pass along with your passport to enter the terminal. Eventually, leaving your state or county will also require a pass.

I've been expecting this within the next ten years or so.

"Papers, please."

Re:Awesome! (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 4 months ago | (#47311321)

Let me get that down ... Anna Brown ... ok, the no-fly list is now one entry longer.

Finally (5, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 3 months ago | (#47310521)

Finally someone (of note) says what everyone has been thinking (and saying).

Without the ability to challenge, it amounts to totalitarianism.

Here's the Solution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310529)

Really, the "key" here is to not be a lunatic Islamic, or associated with lunatic Islamics, no secret there.

Never been on the "No Fly List", don't think I have any chance of that...

Re:Here's the Solution (4, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | about 3 months ago | (#47310551)

https://www.aclu.org/national-... [aclu.org] I guess being US military personnel associates one with being a lunatic extremest. 4 of those on the list were veterans.

Re:Here's the Solution (4, Informative)

almitydave (2452422) | about 3 months ago | (#47310589)

Re:Here's the Solution (3, Interesting)

thaylin (555395) | about 3 months ago | (#47310843)

And that is the problem with something that by passes due process. You would get a whole lot less if you followed it then if you dont.

Re:Here's the Solution (4, Informative)

Dorianny (1847922) | about 3 months ago | (#47310583)

In 2004 senator Ted Kennedy appeared on the No Fly List. Apparently merely holding hearings on terrorism is reason enough to land on it!

Re:Here's the Solution (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310631)

In 2004 senator Ted Kennedy appeared on the No Fly List. Apparently merely holding hearings on terrorism is reason enough to land on it!

Honest mistake. They thought it was a no-drive list.

Re:Here's the Solution (3, Funny)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 3 months ago | (#47310723)

Well, in Ted's case, given he was probably flying in first class AND had enough alcohol on his breath he might have intoxicated the pilots merely by his presence. So it was a safe call for him...

Re:Here's the Solution (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47310785)

Apparently merely holding hearings on terrorism is reason enough to land on it!

It was actually a name mismatch. Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.

Re:Here's the Solution (5, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#47311143)

However once you combine incompetence with malice, then you have a solid foundation to create a government department.

Re:Here's the Solution (4, Insightful)

TheGavster (774657) | about 4 months ago | (#47311163)

The trick here is that he was powerful enough to get them to look it up and find out it was a mismatch. You or I (presuming you're not a Senator posting under a pseudonym?) wouldn't get that luxury.

Re:Here's the Solution (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 3 months ago | (#47310595)

Yeah... the people that are wrongly put on the list because of similar names really deserve it. They should have had the sense to choose a different name.

Re:Here's the Solution (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47310627)

Obviously, all Muslims are lunatics [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Here's the Solution (5, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | about 3 months ago | (#47310933)

It gets more fun too
"Immigration officer fired after putting wife on list of terrorists to stop her flying home (31 January 2011)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
"US Has A 'Secret Exception' To Reasonable Suspicion For Putting People On The No Fly List" (Apr 17, 2014)
https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
That other list:
"DHS ‘hands off’ list allowed suspects with terror ties into U.S."
http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
'Hands off' list? Senator questions whether DHS allowing those with terror ties into US (May 07, 2014)
http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]

Sudden outbreak of common sense (2)

mars-nl (2777323) | about 3 months ago | (#47310535)

Thank you Judge Anna Brown. Hopefully this ruling also applies to non-Americans.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

spiritplumber (1944222) | about 3 months ago | (#47310547)

It does, as the law is written; if they want it not to they'll have to make a new law specifically about that. I would feel safer if the freedom to travel was specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, personally... wonder historically why it wasn't.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (4, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | about 3 months ago | (#47310573)

I would feel safer if the freedom to travel was specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, personally... wonder historically why it wasn't.

More or less, it actually was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]

The rationale for the no-fly list not violating those rights is "well they can still walk and swim"; we're just saying they can't fly.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (3, Interesting)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about 3 months ago | (#47310955)

The rationale for the no-fly list not violating those rights is "well they can still walk and swim"; we're just saying they can't fly.

Similar arguments were used to justify the TSA and free speech zones, if I remember right. Why not just suspend people's rights in the entire country? They can go elsewhere if they don't like it! This logic makes sense to authoritarians...

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#47311175)

Some people have actually been detained in other countries after taking a boat to arrive, because they were on the US no-fly list. In practice, this list is being used as a catch-all "this person is a terrorist suspect" list in many places around the world.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (5, Interesting)

tranquilidad (1994300) | about 3 months ago | (#47310629)

Because the Bill of Rights, as written, is not a list of rights granted but, rather, a list of prohibitions on the new government.

There was a huge debate about listing any rights because it was thought that no list could be complete. The preamble to the Bill of Rights identifies why it exists:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Notice the important statement, "...further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."

"Congress shall make no law..."
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"No soldier shall..."
"...shall not be violated..."

These are all prohibitions on the newly formed government. A compromise was reached that required the inclusion of the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This compromise is why all "retained" rights aren't listed and what allowed any rights to be listed; many who were negotiating the Bill of Rights were rightly fearful that the list would be seen as a "full" list of rights of the people.

The U.S. Constitution, as designed, granted powers from the people to the government. The compromise found within the Bill of Rights essentially listed a number of prohibitions so the new government absolutely knew that they could in no way interfere with this core set of rights.

Unfortunately, we've reached a point where many people believe that the U.S. Constitution confers rights from the government to the citizens rather than it's original purpose of conferring powers to the government from the people.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310681)

Finally someone who recognises that the US Constitution is not the 'Law of the Land', rather a framework on what laws may exist.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

spiritplumber (1944222) | about 3 months ago | (#47310837)

I like the "Constitution as meta-law" concept.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 3 months ago | (#47310865)

It is a part of the group of natural laws of the government. It is THE law of the land in which other laws spring forth from, and determines if they are valid or not.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (3, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 3 months ago | (#47310957)

The compromise found within the Bill of Rights essentially listed a number of prohibitions so the new government absolutely knew that they could in no way interfere with this core set of rights.

This is precisely correct. Sadly, it didn't work. Primarily, I think because the constitution is toothless: Violate it, and... nothing happens.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 3 months ago | (#47310961)

And don't forget the tenth amendment, which even more clearly states that the United States government has no powers except those explicitly listed in the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Funny how those last two amendments get overlooked so often.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

TwoUtes (1075403) | about 4 months ago | (#47311057)

Does the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to non-U.S. people? I would assume not, so a no fly list in the U.S. on foreigner travelers would still hold. True?

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (3, Informative)

TheGavster (774657) | about 4 months ago | (#47311203)

Entries in the no-fly list are sufficiently bare of details that by the law of large numbers, most of the entries probably apply to a US citizen somewhere, even if the entry was added for a specific non-citizen. Hence why there are periodic stories of family vacations stopped by the US Government accusing 3 year olds of terrorist sympathies and soldiers recently returned from duty of being the enemy they were just engaged with.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (2)

Prien715 (251944) | about 4 months ago | (#47311043)

Thank you!

It's not the first time I've heard it, but the from an ontological view it's important to declare the rights exist independent of the government in power to enforce or restrict them....

Then I learned that rights always come from a perspective. "Property rights" was a crowd-favorite from the Dred Scott decision.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 4 months ago | (#47311077)

The U.S. Constitution, as designed, granted powers from the people to the government. The compromise found within the Bill of Rights essentially listed a number of prohibitions so the new government absolutely knew that they could in no way interfere with this core set of rights.

Unfortunately, we've reached a point where many people believe that the U.S. Constitution confers rights from the government to the citizens rather than it's original purpose of conferring powers to the government from the people.

And this gets modded up I guess because that's what we'd like it to be. No the Bill or Rights are just that, rights that people have in the US. Nothing, be it person, corporation, government, or church can take these rights away from you. It has NOTHING to do with limiting the powers of the Federal government. This is just a cleverly disguised states rights post, or something. I knew there was something underhanded going on when you snuck that "right to bear arms" in there and forgetting about the militia bit.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 4 months ago | (#47311389)

Keep preaching this. I have had to explain this over and over again, mainly to wingnuts of both persuasions who like to point out how the Constitution doesn't prohibit their pet laws so they must be okay.

WTF (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310545)

Did someone murder all the federal judges and replace them with people who can think?

Re:WTF (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about 3 months ago | (#47310565)

No, you're just starting to see a judicial backlash. They are starting to realize that this country has a real problem.

Re:WTF (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 3 months ago | (#47310607)

When this gets to SCOTUS I am sure Scalia will find some twisted logic to say the list is AOK.

Re:WTF (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310845)

If you read a bit about US history, you'll see that these things take time, but eventually (a couple of decades) things usually get fixed.

Let's hope that's true for the No Fly List, Obamacare, NSA spying, and a lot of the other b.s. Republican and Democratic presidents have pushed through.

About time (2, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | about 3 months ago | (#47310555)

It's okay having a no fly list but not having a way to appeal being on it is an abomination. The irony is that sometimes actual terrorists are allowed to fly so they don't get tipped off the US is watching them. That's downright brilliant there. If the US is going to ban someone from traveling, they need to admit it and provide an appeals process.

Re:About time (5, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47310741)

It's okay having a no fly list but not having a way to appeal being on it is an abomination.

So close, but so so far away. Let me help you: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

The definition of due process is beyond the scope of a /. post, but at a minimum it would require the right to be confronted with the evidence against you and a review by a judge and/or jury of your peers. Some bureaucrat in the national security apparatus adding your name to a list does not rise to the level of due process under any definition.

Oh, and guess what? The list is totally pointless anyway. Suspected terrorists from other countries could already be denied entry into the United States by the simple exercise of refusing to grant them a visa. Last time I checked you can't board an aircraft to the United States without valid travel documents and the appropriate visas.

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310905)

There are a lot of countries that are a part of the Visa Waiver Program that will allow someone to come over without one.

Re:About time (2)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#47311031)

The list is totally pointless anyway. Suspected terrorists from other countries could already be denied entry into the United States by the simple exercise of refusing to grant them a visa.

Agree it is pointless and stupid, but ...

What about the many people on the list who are US citizens already residing in the US? They don't NEED visas. The list really does provide a framework to infringe, utterly without due process, the rights of people including US citizens. There is absolutely nothing preventing whoever puts people on the list from adding the names of EVERYONE ON THE PLANET whom they can identify.

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310769)

Why is it okay to have a no-fly list? Is there some reason there couldn't be a "carefully check" list? Is it really necessary or moral to deny someone the freedom of movement without even a hint of a chargable crime? Why not simply search them before boarding? IMO; Totalitarianism, that's why.

Re:About time (3, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#47311053)

Why is it okay to have a no-fly list? Is there some reason there couldn't be a "carefully check" list? Is it really necessary or moral to deny someone the freedom of movement without even a hint of a chargable crime? Why not simply search them before boarding? IMO; Totalitarianism, that's why.

The no-fly list. the TSA checking everyone before they board the plane to make sure they are not carrying means to do harm.

Pick one. One or the other is STUPID. It is pointless to have both.

Re:About time (4, Insightful)

Snotnose (212196) | about 3 months ago | (#47310931)

Hell, not knowing you're on it until denied boarding is an abomination. What ever happened to due process? Oh I forgot, it's the terrorists/children/drugs/$fear_of_the_day

That took long enough (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310561)

Why did it take over a decade for someone within the government to reach this conclusion?

Re:That took long enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310609)

Because freedumb?

Re:That took long enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310969)

Because Terrorjism.

Re:That took long enough (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | about 3 months ago | (#47310623)

Hear, hear! As totalitarian countries go, the US is slow to act...oh wait, perhaps if this ruling isn't challenged, ends up having some impact, and surveillance is ameliorated, the US won't carry the "totalitarian" adjective any longer.

Re:That took long enough (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 3 months ago | (#47310965)

Well, it's a step in the right direction at least.

Re:That took long enough (5, Informative)

sir-gold (949031) | about 3 months ago | (#47310677)

It took this long before a judge was actually allowed to make a ruling on it.

In order for a judge to make a ruling, there has to be a court case first, the judges aren't allowed to initiate action on their own. In order for someone to bring a case against the list, they first have to prove that the list affects them (this is why the ACLU couldn't do anything on their own, because they themselves weren't on the list). The problem is that the list is completely secret, so there is no way of knowing someone is on the list until they actually try to fly somewhere and get stopped.

It's taken this long for someone to be officially stopped who had both the resources and the desire to challenge the list in court.

Re:That took long enough (5, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#47311079)

You want to know what I think is an abomination? Yeah, I know, nobody wants to know that, but I'm going to say it anyway. The requirement that one must have "standing" in order to challenge a law in court. That is BULLSHIT. Challenging laws should be EASY. Making them should be hard.

Ill guess (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310759)

1. A government that stone walled when information was requested.

2. A (majority) population that equates dissent with being "UnAmerican" or Un-patriotic" (Mostly Fox News' fault - A foreign owned media outlet run by a meglomaniac.)

3. The innate slowness of the legal system and the courts.

4. Just the amount of money that is needed.

5. And lastly, a population that has no clue what freedom actually means. (That, I have to blame the fact that our schools are shit. They no longer adequately teach civics and other topics needed for an educated electorate but instead have turned into vocational schools - thanks to corporate lobbying. Having skilled workers is business' problem and expense NOT the taxpayers'. It's just another example of privatizing profits while making losses and expenses public.)

Re:Ill guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310941)

If you'd left out number two I'd agree with you. Just because Fox News pushes for dissent on different topics than you think should be descent-ed (I'm going to assume the second amendment and gun control laws are something you have no issue with based on your comment for example), doesn't mean that they're against it.

Re:Ill guess (1)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#47311099)

our schools are shit

Our schools are instruments of BRAINWASHING and of relentlessly stamping out the embers of thirst to know what, why, and how.

That used was used politically (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310605)

There were democrats and liberal members of the press and punditry who showed up on it.

Hold on to your seats (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 3 months ago | (#47310653)

It's a decent ruling, but...
Having the right to travel doesn't mean any particular airline
has the obligation to carry me.

Re:Hold on to your seats (3, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47310727)

Since they are supported by your tax dollars, why not?

http://www.narprail.org/resour... [narprail.org]

Nice (2)

towermac (752159) | about 3 months ago | (#47310659)

And btw, how is it that even having a "no fly list" is legal?

What does that mean, exactly? Are you a criminal or not? If they know that someone wants to blow up or hijack a plane, then go arrest the fuck out of them right now.
Or leave them the hell alone. We are talking about US citizens, right?

I understand that Bin-Laden should have probably been on some "no fly list". Known foreign criminals even. Along with the bipolar manic depressive with a history of making trouble on planes. That's about all that comes to mind.

I also understand putting them on the list temporarily, until that due diligence can be done. But that means that the "appeal", should be automatic, and the end result is that you get cleared, or busted. (or crazy as mentioned above, which is still temporary, in the event that the person can prove treatment and remission)

Re:Nice (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310729)

As somebody once said: the no-fly list is a list of people that are too dangerous to be allowed to fly, but not sufficiently dangerous to bring in and actually charge with some sort of crime.

In what universe does this even make any sort of sense? You think I associate with terrorists? Charge me. Don't pussy foot around and pretend that I'm some sort of quasi-danger but not important enough to bring up on charges. Either I'm a danger to society and should be arrested, or I'm not (and should be allowed to go wherever I want, using whatever means of travel I want, within the boundaries of the law.)

Doesn't really say much (4, Informative)

jcochran (309950) | about 3 months ago | (#47310709)

The ruling doesn't ban the no fly list, it merely requires the government to make a suitable appeal process for those who are on the list. So you may expect the list to still be in use for quite a while. Additionally, Judge Brown is only on the Oregon district. So her ruling only applies to Oregon (however, it will be used as a precedent in other districts). All in all, it's still a very good ruling, but there's still a long ways to go.

but, but (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47310713)

alarmist on /. assured my this would never happen, and that we would all be rounded up and tracked!

Justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310753)

And now, everyone involved in the creation and execution of the no fly list is being arrested and charged, right?

Prediction: New addition to the No Fly List (5, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | about 3 months ago | (#47310763)

Judge Anna Brown

Think I'm kidding? How about that oh-so-convenient-but-WTF case where a witness to a case concerning the *legality of the No Fly List* was put on the No Fly list while the DOJ lied about the facts about the blocking, delaying her testimony [1].

The corruption in Washington has been festering for at least a dozen years. Forget Skynet - this is the dystopian menace that is going to ruin our world.

[1] https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]

Let's be hospitable to terrorists? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47310873)

Is there anything else we can do for these assholes who are intent on killing every American man, woman and child? Did I forget anyone?

Re:Let's be hospitable to terrorists? (2)

thaylin (555395) | about 3 months ago | (#47310951)

Terrorists? You think the only people put on that list is terrorists? It is shown that people are put on that list for a madrid of ordinary thing, or just because you are challenging the government. But keep on thinking that it is only terrorists... We have a saying in this country, innocent until proven guilty, based on the due process under the 4th amendment to the constitution. The no fly list violates that.

Re:Let's be hospitable to terrorists? (1)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about 4 months ago | (#47311039)

Terrorists? You think the only people put on that list is terrorists?

I think he's under the delusion that the government is full of perfect and benevolent angels who could never make a mistake or do anything immoral. That seems to be a common problem for people who are utterly ignorant of history.

great. now lets remove the ban on (1)

ozduo (2043408) | about 3 months ago | (#47310911)

Taking weapons onto the plane

Re:great. now lets remove the ban on (2)

thaylin (555395) | about 3 months ago | (#47311009)

Because putting people you dont like on a list to prevent them to fly is ANYTHING like bringing weapons on a plane...

Re:great. now lets remove the ban on (1)

ChilyWily (162187) | about 3 months ago | (#47311017)

Some airline food I've eaten already falls under that category.

Did She Stay Her Own Ruling? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 3 months ago | (#47310979)

I didn't read the entire ruling, but does anyone know if she stayed the ruling pending appeal, or does the ruling take effect immediately?

Why does she hate our freedom? (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about 4 months ago | (#47311089)

All of this due process and stuff is down right un-American

fuck off beta (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47311323)

fo beta

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?