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

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.

ditto

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.