Back to Squawk list
  • 25

Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

Soumis
 
(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. U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, ruling on a lawsuit filed in federal court in Oregon by 13 Muslim Americans who were branded with the no-fly status, ordered the government to come up with new procedures that allow people on the no-fly list to… (www.reuters.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


[This poster has been suspended.]

preacher1
preacher1 7
There needs to be an administrative process for removal rather than having a protracted court battle, but moreso, there needs to be a notification that you have been placed on it, rather than finding out at the gate.
pdxpilot06
pdxpilot06 1
There is a process already in place to have a person removed from the list through the Department of Homeland Security, the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). Based on the program description at http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-trip, a person who was previously on the list in error will receive a redress number which they will need to provide with future airline reservations. It may take some time but it is definitely not a "protracted court battle."
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
After skimming the judge's order, I found:
"
As discussed herein at length, the DHS TRIP process does not
provide a meaningful mechanism for travelers who have been denied
boarding to correct erroneous information in the government's
terrorism databases. A traveler who has not been given any
indication of the information that may be in the record does not
have any way to correct that information. As a result, the DHS
TRIP process "entirely fail[s] to consider an important aspect"
of Congress's instructions with respect to travelers denied
boarding because they are on the No-Fly List.
"
In a rather Kafkaesque turn, DHS will not tell a person who has been denied boarding a flight whether or not they are on a 'no-fly' list, much less the reason for their placement there. It makes it kind of hard to explain why they shouldn't be on such a list.
Does DHS declare that a 'no-fly' list exists?
Dubslow
Dubslow 2
About damn time
yr2012
matt jensen 0
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
If you are interested in what the court actually said, there is a link below from the Oregonian newspaper.

media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/NoFlyOpinion.pdf

Yes, some newspapers still do primary reporting.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 0
For further reading "U.S. District Court in Oregon has ruled that passengers have a constitutional right to fly internationally"
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/justice/no-fly-list-lawsuit/

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty-racial-justice/victory-federal-court-recognizes
Katusha
Khalil Yassine 0
I happen to be an airline pilot in Canada and have traveled to the USA many times up until 2 years ago when I was told I was possibly on the No-Fly-List. Never got confirmation nor denial of me being on the list and my only POSSIBLE crime is I am Muslim and was born in Beirut. I don't know if that is the crime I am guilty of but I have no means of fixing this BS. There needs to be a way to find out the reason and a method to get off this discriminative list.

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

[This comment was deleted.]

sparkie624
sparkie624 -5
This Judge is full of crap... Where in the constitution say that people have the right to fly in a plane... Tough luck and that Judge needs to go back to law school.. Maybe a different one.
preacher1
preacher1 8
Get your name put on that no fly list, without knowing why, and then try to get it off. We may not have the right to fly or do anything else offered by a private company, but we do have the right to know why we would be singled out for that list and a clear path to either protest it or have our name removed without spending half our life savings.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
Preach on Preacherman!!!
usad
usad 0
Amen, Preacher, amen!!!
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 0
Bull. Where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to ride a bus, or a train? What if traveling is part of your job? Would it be realistic to drive back and forth across the country? What if you live in Hawaii, or Alaska?

The Constitution is not there to give you rights you didn't have before. It's not a list of the things you are allowed to do. It's there to limit the government from infringing on the most basic rights.

Besides, the Constitution does say we are all equal under the law, so you can't have some people who are "allowed" to fly, and some who are not (with no reason or explanation). The Constitution also says you have the right to see the evidence against you, and challenge it in court.
NF2G
David Stark 0
The Constitution says you have a right to Due Process of Law, which the DHS implementation of its no-fly list infringes. The case is not about the "right to fly" despite the Justice's comments.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 1
The chicken or the egg? If there was no right to fly, there would be no violation of due process, because there would be no violation of any civil rights, period. The right to fly is definitely significant in this case.

And I did mention due process in my previous comment.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Damn, you just ain't gonna quit are you. You and Sparkie make a good match.
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
IMO, it is a issue of freedom of movement, which in the case before the Court, touches on movement by air. The crux of the case is due process, as you mentioned previously. The judge mentions in her decision at least one instance where travel by sea was interdicted due to the 'no fly list'. The egg, going back as far as the Jurassic came before the avian family split from the other reptiles. Thus the answer is clearly 'the egg came first'.
sparkie624
sparkie624 -3
It doesn't... Those are not rights either...
preacher1
preacher1 5
Well, that's not totally right John Boy. The last line in the 1st amendment says "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". If the gov't insists on maintaining that list, a person should be flagged at point of ticket purchase, rather than all that expense, and only finding out at the Airport.
pdxpilot06
pdxpilot06 1
The person is flagged at the point of purchase although they are not notified. They usually find out when they attempt to check-in online prior to the flight. If they are caught in a false positive situation, they can present valid identification to the airline that differentiates them from the person on the no-fly list. Then they can go on their merry way.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 4
Well, I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution, the one that says:

"Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

And by the way:

"Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
As it says"U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution"... It does not in ANYWAY violate a constitution... The Constitution does NOT give is the Right to fly, it does NOT give us the right to Drive much less DRIVE under DUI... However, we do have the right to bear arms.... the Judge was saying: "U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution" and this is totally incorrect and that is why he should go back to law school... He is a liberal judge making up the rules as he goes... The No Fly list does not prevent them from going from Point A to Point B which voids the statement "Amendment IX". No one is stopping them from their travels.. Is all they are saying is they cannot do it by plane.
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
Just a further note.. Driving is a Privilege, NOT A RIGHT!, Flying is a Privilege, NOT A RIGHT!
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 2
Wrong again.

"A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the
navigable airspace." 49 US Code, Section 40103

It doesn't say in what kind of machine, or in what airline. It simply says everyone has the RIGHT to TRANSIT THROUGH THE NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE ("fly").

Also:

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment."
Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

The government has no business restricting your movements without a real cause, period. If they want to arrest you, they have to have probable cause. If they want to put you in jail, they have to give you a trial and a lawyer.

Your inability to understand the Constitution is troubling.
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
You said it correctly "The right to travel is a part of the liberty", "It doesn't say in what kind of machine, or in what airline." It never said anything about the right to fly on an airline... It says " RIGHT to TRANSIT THROUGH THE NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE" - They have to find another way to fly.. Corporate, GA I do not care...Flying on the airline IS NOT a RIGHT. Read every word, and not what you want it to read.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 1
You can keep repeating it, but it's still going to be false and wrong.

"In yesterday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown wrote, "Although there are perhaps viable alternatives to flying for domestic travel within the continental United States such as traveling by car or train, the Court disagrees with Defendants’ contention that international air travel is a mere convenience in light of the realities of our modern world. Such an argument ignores the numerous reasons an individual may have for wanting or needing to travel overseas quickly such as for the birth of a child, the death of a loved one, a business opportunity, or a religious obligation… the Court concludes on this record that Plaintiffs have a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in traveling internationally by air, which is affected by being placed on the list."
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/federal-court-sides-aclu-no-fly-list-lawsuit
preacher1
preacher1 2
Ya'll gonna pick this thing to death. Give it up. LOL
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 1
There's no picking. There are documented facts, such as federal judges recognizing we have a Constitutional right to fly, and there are misinformed opinions like yours.

What does "give it up" mean? That I should say you are right, when we all know you are wrong? Why would anyone do that?
preacher1
preacher1 1
You're not speaking to Sparkie. It is just that I happen to known him and this argument will never be won. You are saying the judge said flying was a right and he did not disagree with you on that; his technicality is on the airline. Ya'll can take this thing on all nite long; I don't care. LOL
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 0
Except--it's not just a technicality. The government claimed that flying was a "privilege," and the judge clearly disagreed, stating that while there are other forms of travel, flying is a constitutional right. REGARDLESS of the airline, because the issue was not "are we allowed to fly United or Southwest?" The ruling applies to ALL airlines.

I realize he will never recognize it, but he is wrong, and will continue to be wrong. This is not just a difference of opinion, or a misunderstanding. "Flying is a Privilege, NOT A RIGHT!" is 100% wrong, period.

[This poster has been suspended.]

FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Mike - A couple of things I meant to add the 34 Americans murdered on an American vessel in the Mediterranean were government staff from Fort Mead in Maryland and the ship was flying a 14 foot American flag which was mentioned in radio intercepts of the white guys who were attacking, but they continued their attack anyway.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 1
"Airlines are private companies that reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

No. Just because they want you to believe it, it doesn't mean it's true. You can take the airline/business to court, and if the airline/business can't prove to a judge there was a valid reason for denying you service, you win, they lose.

A business' "right" to deny service does not trump basic Constitutional protections, such as racial discrimination.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Ah foot. We can talk constitution and rights all day long. Bottom line is that the Feds are being awfully ham handed with this list. It ain't the airlines keeping them off. The TSA is stopping them at the gate and they have this silly list to go by. It is protected by some flimsy little thing in the security act that got slipped in when Congress wasn't looking or possibly they are doing like the IRS, just because they can and it will take an arm/leg to make them give ground. If there was some personal liability there that the guv wouldn't protect, it might not be near as hard to get your name off of it. And as far as private company withholding service, they can but they best have a uniform policy and apply it unilaterally or they'll have a lawsuit on their hands before they can say spit.

[This poster has been suspended.]

iflyfsx
iflyfsx 1
That's not what I said. If a business/airline wants to deny you service and get away with it (no penalties), they have to be able to provide a valid explanation to a judge.

They can deny you service, but only with cause.

[This poster has been suspended.]

iflyfsx
iflyfsx 1
Again, they need a valid reason. If you can show they are discriminating against you in any number of illegal ways, you can take them to court. When you open a business, you still have to obey the law, which includes serving the public without prejudice or discrimination, not just the people you like.

[This poster has been suspended.]

joelwiley
joel wiley 1
I believe that airlines fall into the 'common carrier' category, and as such are treated differently than your local tavern.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 1
It's not. Look it up. Consult with an attorney.
NF2G
David Stark 1
Airlines receive subsidies from public (read "taxes) money. Therefore, their "rights" as businesses are somewhat abridged.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 1
Hi Mike,
Until recently white guys with red hair were placing bombs, many of which killed and maimed innocent people, all over the UK. In one directly aviation related incident about 16 years ago, white guys with red hair positioned a mortar aimed at an EGLL/LHR runway in a nearby culvert. We gave those white guys with red hair a lot of support because their crimes were "political". A white guy living in Miami put bombs on a civilian DC-8 out of TBPB/BGI for MKJP/KIN, killing all 73 souls aboard, including a sports delegation from Guyana. We still refuse to extradite him because his crime was "political". A white Middle Eastern country deliberately destroyed 14 civilian airliners, partially owned by the US Government (taxpayers) and insured by the British on the ground at OLBA/BEY in order to "teach terrorists a lesson". The previous year that country also deliberately murdered 34 Americans in an unprovoked attack on a US flagged vessel (AGTR-5,) in peacetime, on open seas. We supported that country then, even providing most of the munitions used in those attacks, and continue to support them today. Non-muslim white guys are as complicit in acts which could be classified as terrorism as are non-white "muslims". Some white guys are muslim. A lot of non-white innocent people have been killed by white guys, many of whom were not muslim and some of whom had red hair. And by the way, back in the 1960s a manual written by white guys in Langley VA detailed how to make a bomb out of a pressure cooker as the manual said the detonating wires could be led through the pressure relief valve, so even the bomb used in Boston recently may have been designed by a white crew-cut guy, who may have had red hair, in Langley. (Such a bomb was also shown decades ago, built and used by a white woman, on the Barney Miller television show).
Frank
preacher1
preacher1 1
I will leave argument on terrorists between you and Mike but the incident at Beruit in 68, while carried out by Israel, was in retaliation for an attack on an El Al flight a couple days earlier by the PLO, so we really didn't have a bunch of red headed white guys that caused the problem.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
Amazing how the terrorists that bombed Cubana live free almost 38 years later, freedom guaranteed by the US government!!!

[This poster has been suspended.]

NF2G
David Stark 2
Islam is not a race, it is a religion. If you are going to paint with a broad brush, at least know what color you are using.
tcmarks
Tim Marks -1
Federal judge is not in command of an aircraft and responsible for the lives of hundreds of passengers. Just like the captain of a ship at sea, a pilot should have the final say about whom is inside the aircraft when it leaves the ground and not some unknowing judge who mis-interprets the Constitution - or bastardizes it for his or the current government adminisrtations own agenda purposes.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 1
The captain DOES have the final say, and can kick anyone out of his/her airplane.

This case has NOTHING to do with that. This case is about a government agency operating outside the law, putting people in black lists with no explanation and no meaningful way to challenge it.

Also, being paranoid and delusional about "safety" does not give anyone the "right" to violate someone else's rights. It just means you have a mental illness.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Just as a business owner does though, he better have a reason, because it will come back around thru the company, which ultimately will have to defend his decision. It was not always like that until we got all this enlightened law. Used to be common sense applied before it died and was buried a few years ago.
iflyfsx
iflyfsx 1
Without legal protections, there would be rampant discrimination. It shouldn't be that way, but that's how people are.
JerrySteinberg
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Judge: No-Fly List Violates Constitutional Right to Travel

A federal judge held that the redress procedures for the U.S. government’s no-fly list are unconstitutional and that the list itself deprived 13 people of their constitutional right to travel.

In 2010, 13 people, including four military veterans, challenged the government concerning their placement on the list. In her 65-page opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown wrote that current procedures provide inadequate means for appeal...

http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2014/06/judge-no-fly-list-violates-constitutional-right-to-travel/

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!
Ce site web utilise des cookies. En utilisant et en naviguant davantage sur ce site, vous acceptez cela.
Rejeter
Saviez-vous que le suivi des vols FlightAware est soutenu par la publicité ?
Vous pouvez nous aider à garder FlightAware gratuit en autorisant les annonces de FlightAware.com. Nous travaillons dur pour que notre publicité reste pertinente et discrète afin de créer une expérience formidable. Il est facile et rapide de mettre les annonces en liste blanche sur FlightAware ou d’examiner nos comptes premium.
Rejeter