If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Woman who has been fighting to get off the "No Fly List' since 2004 has found out why she was on the list; "Clerical Error"   (reason.com) divider line 124
    More: Asinine, no-fly list  
•       •       •

10900 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Feb 2014 at 1:20 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-08 09:55:39 PM
No fly or extra security?

If she was truely not allowed to fly for ten years for no reason, there should be some recourse.
 
2014-02-08 11:50:22 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-08 11:54:20 PM
I heard a bunch of kids got molested for the same reason.
 
2014-02-09 12:14:46 AM
She then discovered she hadn't really wanted to fly anywhere, anyway
 
2014-02-09 01:26:05 AM
Sporting a Brazilian?
 
2014-02-09 01:26:17 AM
Officially change your name to Christine Pelosi, same as Nancy Pelosi's daughter. Either it'll slip thru unnoticed and you can fly again or Nancy Pelosi will start getting an earful from her kid and check into it. Either way, things will happen.
 
2014-02-09 01:27:09 AM
paperwork is everything. No, it really is.
 
2014-02-09 01:27:20 AM
Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.
 
2014-02-09 01:27:57 AM
Time to stahp this nonsense.
 
2014-02-09 01:28:31 AM
Yes, well, Homeland Security and all such.

The important thing we all remember is that the TSA has kept us safe from terrorists for over a decade, and errors like these are just part of the human experience.  As are people being placed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and never brought to trial because of the possibility they may go free as a result.  Praise be to the son of the assistant of Saint Reagan!

On the other hand, clerical errors made by people employed by private insurance companies that result in hardship for people trying to sign up for Obamacare is proof positive that Barry Sorrytoro 0bummer must be impeached immediately on charges of gross incompetence.

Right?

/yes I'm drunk and bored
 
2014-02-09 01:29:54 AM

Confabulat: paperwork is everything. No, it really is.


27B/6
 
2014-02-09 01:30:19 AM

DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.


If I recall correctly it's one of those lovely national security Catch-22s where you can't challenge your placement on the list without proving that you're on the list and they won't let you see the list in order to do that.
 
2014-02-09 01:30:27 AM

DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.


Did you get your GED from SkinnyHead's School of Law? It's got nothing to do with constitutionality--you don't have constitutional rights in an airport, and haven't had them since longer than I've been alive.
 
2014-02-09 01:31:44 AM
Oh, but the DHS never makes a mistake.
www.oilempire.us
 
2014-02-09 01:31:50 AM

Ishidan: Yes, well, Homeland Security and all such.

The important thing we all remember is that the TSA has kept us safe from terrorists for over a decade, and errors like these are just part of the human experience.  As are people being placed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and never brought to trial because of the possibility they may go free as a result.  Praise be to the son of the assistant of Saint Reagan!

On the other hand, clerical errors made by people employed by private insurance companies that result in hardship for people trying to sign up for Obamacare is proof positive that Barry Sorrytoro 0bummer must be impeached immediately on charges of gross incompetence.

Right?

/yes I'm drunk and bored


Good Troll, surprised to see this stuff out this early in a thread
 
2014-02-09 01:35:43 AM
What's stunning here is that the government blindly defended its actions without having checked into why she was placed on the no-fly list in the first place. It took a deposition of the FBI agent before these idiots discovered that it was an accident. Keep this in mind the next time a police agency declares officers acted "in policy" when it investigates why they shot somebody: whatever a government employee does is likely to be deemed justified regardless of how egregious it is. Admitting malice or error might wake people up to the fact that it's fallible, and we can't have that.
 
2014-02-09 01:37:00 AM

jedihirsch: Ishidan: Yes, well, Homeland Security and all such.

The important thing we all remember is that the TSA has kept us safe from terrorists for over a decade, and errors like these are just part of the human experience.  As are people being placed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and never brought to trial because of the possibility they may go free as a result.  Praise be to the son of the assistant of Saint Reagan!

On the other hand, clerical errors made by people employed by private insurance companies that result in hardship for people trying to sign up for Obamacare is proof positive that Barry Sorrytoro 0bummer must be impeached immediately on charges of gross incompetence.

Right?

/yes I'm drunk and bored

Good Troll, surprised to see this stuff out this early in a thread


Obvious sarcasm is not trolling.
 
2014-02-09 01:39:21 AM

Kygz: No fly or extra security?

If she was truely not allowed to fly for ten years for no reason, there should be some recourse.


A check with plenty of zeros at the end should do.
 
2014-02-09 01:39:42 AM

Gyrfalcon: Did you get your GED from SkinnyHead's School of Law? It's got nothing to do with constitutionality--you don't have constitutional rights in an airport, and haven't had them since longer than I've been alive.


What law school did you fail out of? There are reduced 4th Amendment protections at airports. But your other rights, such as the rights to due process, are still applicable. https://www.aclu.org/national-security/federal-court-sides-aclu-no-fl y -list-lawsuit
 
2014-02-09 01:41:21 AM

Kygz: No fly or extra security?

If she was truely not allowed to fly for ten years for no reason, there should be some recourse.


Freedom isn't free.
 
2014-02-09 01:42:48 AM

DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.


There is no constitutional right to airplanes.
 
2014-02-09 01:43:32 AM

Talondel: Gyrfalcon: Did you get your GED from SkinnyHead's School of Law? It's got nothing to do with constitutionality--you don't have constitutional rights in an airport, and haven't had them since longer than I've been alive.

What law school did you fail out of? There are reduced 4th Amendment protections at airports. But your other rights, such as the rights to due process, are still applicable. https://www.aclu.org/national-security/federal-court-sides-aclu-no-fl y -list-lawsuit


Hush, I'm making fun of a troll.
 
2014-02-09 01:44:12 AM

fusillade762: DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.

If I recall correctly it's one of those lovely national security Catch-22s where you can't challenge your placement on the list without proving that you're on the list and they won't let you see the list in order to do that.


That's some catch.

/I am the bombadire.
 
2014-02-09 01:47:44 AM

Gyrfalcon: Talondel: Gyrfalcon: Did you get your GED from SkinnyHead's School of Law? It's got nothing to do with constitutionality--you don't have constitutional rights in an airport, and haven't had them since longer than I've been alive.

What law school did you fail out of? There are reduced 4th Amendment protections at airports. But your other rights, such as the rights to due process, are still applicable. https://www.aclu.org/national-security/federal-court-sides-aclu-no-fl y -list-lawsuit

Hush, I'm making fun of a troll.


I got meta-trolled.
 
2014-02-09 01:50:03 AM
Ah, the blessings of being the spawn of two people with classified ratings. Too bad I can't afford first class, I'm too tall for peasant seating.
 
2014-02-09 01:50:16 AM

Begoggle: jedihirsch: Ishidan: Yes, well, Homeland Security and all such.

The important thing we all remember is that the TSA has kept us safe from terrorists for over a decade, and errors like these are just part of the human experience.  As are people being placed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and never brought to trial because of the possibility they may go free as a result.  Praise be to the son of the assistant of Saint Reagan!

On the other hand, clerical errors made by people employed by private insurance companies that result in hardship for people trying to sign up for Obamacare is proof positive that Barry Sorrytoro 0bummer must be impeached immediately on charges of gross incompetence.

Right?

/yes I'm drunk and bored

Good Troll, surprised to see this stuff out this early in a thread

Obvious AND FUNNY sarcasm is not trolling.

 
2014-02-09 01:53:26 AM
Yeah, but is it a Muslim clerical error?
 
2014-02-09 01:58:12 AM

Solid State Vittles: Yeah, but is it a Muslim clerical error?


Imam seeing what you did there.
 
2014-02-09 01:58:52 AM
"No woman no fly"
 
2014-02-09 01:59:19 AM
Obviously someone who is not politcally connected enough to get this inconvenience dealt with faster.

/"Clerical errors" never seem to happen to anyone related to a senator
 
2014-02-09 02:12:17 AM
She's been trapped outside of the country in New Zealand or something, IIRC?

Thinking a lawsuit might be in order.
 
2014-02-09 02:20:08 AM

StoPPeRmobile: fusillade762: DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.

If I recall correctly it's one of those lovely national security Catch-22s where you can't challenge your placement on the list without proving that you're on the list and they won't let you see the list in order to do that.

That's some catch.

/I am the bombadire.


In deir need of spell-check. ;^)

and an 'r'
it's bombardier, btw
 
2014-02-09 02:27:27 AM

Solid State Vittles: Yeah, but is it a Muslim clerical error?


Money is all that matters. So, did anyone make a prophet?
 
2014-02-09 02:34:45 AM

StoPPeRmobile: DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.

There is no constitutional right to airplanes.


There is a constitutional right to due process.
 
2014-02-09 02:38:28 AM

StoPPeRmobile: DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.

There is no constitutional right to airplanes.


The theory that you lose constitutional rights every time something that existed in 1789 goes away is asinine.

You have a right to travel, airplanes are what we travel with now, and the need to travel those speeds and distances exists because business and personal requirements have evolved based on the ability and expectation that air travel exists.
 
2014-02-09 02:40:47 AM

whither_apophis: "No woman no fly"


Said I remember when we used to sit
In the government lines in Chi-town..
 
2014-02-09 02:47:13 AM

Nem Wan: StoPPeRmobile: DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.

There is no constitutional right to airplanes.

The theory that you lose constitutional rights every time something that existed in 1789 goes away is asinine.

You have a right to travel, airplanes are what we travel with now, and the need to travel those speeds and distances exists because business and personal requirements have evolved based on the ability and expectation that air travel exists.


You have the right to freedom of movement,your 4x8 is more than the space you deserve\

/4x4 will soon be enough
 
2014-02-09 03:10:43 AM
These human errors are simply that, human errors.  I had a friend who wanted to take a flight to Pittsburg.  When he got to the ticket counter he erroneously requested:  "Two pickets to titsburg".

No different from when I was having dinner with my wife when I meant to ask her to "pass me the potatoes" I erroneously said:  "You ruined my farking life".
 
2014-02-09 03:11:27 AM
All this shiat would make perfect sense if you just realize that the point of government is to perpetuate government (as with corporations).

They stonewalled her for a decade because it didn't matter that it was a complete f@34up on their part - she was threatening the legitimacy of their bureaucracy. Which might result in someone being let go for incompetence. Which is the Worst Possible Outcome.
 
2014-02-09 03:22:46 AM
Clerical error? Did someone accidentally type 'Brown' on the line where they were supposed to type 'White'?
 
2014-02-09 03:37:13 AM

Nem Wan: StoPPeRmobile: DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.

There is no constitutional right to airplanes.

The theory that you lose constitutional rights every time something that existed in 1789 goes away is asinine.

You have a right to travel, airplanes are what we travel with now, and the need to travel those speeds and distances exists because business and personal requirements have evolved based on the ability and expectation that air travel exists.


Why do you have a right to travel? I'm asking seriously, because to a point it does seem like freedom to travel is important.
 
2014-02-09 03:39:22 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-09 03:43:49 AM

oldtaku: All this shiat would make perfect sense if you just realize that the point of government is to perpetuate government (as with corporations).

They stonewalled her for a decade because it didn't matter that it was a complete f@34up on their part - she was threatening the legitimacy of their bureaucracy. Which might result in someone being let go for incompetence. Which is the Worst Possible Outcome.


Nobody will be let go. It is practically impossible to get fired from a government job. Even if you become a felon, and spend six months in jail. You will still have your job when you get out. Happened to my brother when he worked for the SS Administration.
 
2014-02-09 03:45:43 AM

starsrift: She's been trapped outside of the country in New Zealand or something, IIRC?

Thinking a lawsuit might be in order.


If this is the same woman that was in the news a while back, she's Malaysian, not American.
 
2014-02-09 03:46:15 AM
Rahinah Ibraham
 
2014-02-09 03:53:09 AM

StoPPeRmobile: DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.

There is no constitutional right to airplanes.



49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

 (a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-


(2)
 A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (
 
2014-02-09 03:54:00 AM

StoPPeRmobile: DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.

There is no constitutional right to airplanes.


There's no constitutional right to a lot of things, yet we hold that infringing on them is a violation of the Constitution- because it infringes on an underlying right that  is protected by the Constitution.
 
2014-02-09 04:01:05 AM

Gyrfalcon: DrPainMD: Has the no-fly list ever been challenged? Cuz there's no way in hell that it's constitutional. Not that that would stop the SC from approving of it.

Did you get your GED from SkinnyHead's School of Law? It's got nothing to do with constitutionality--you don't have constitutional rights in an airport, and haven't had them since longer than I've been alive.


You have constitutional rights everywhere in the country (and abroad, as applies to your interactions with the government). Also, the constitution applies to the government in everything it does.
 
2014-02-09 04:02:52 AM

HotWingAgenda: starsrift: She's been trapped outside of the country in New Zealand or something, IIRC?

Thinking a lawsuit might be in order.

If this is the same woman that was in the news a while back, she's Malaysian, not American.


Well, maybe she can't make the charge in Malaysia...
 
2014-02-09 04:05:07 AM

HotWingAgenda: starsrift: She's been trapped outside of the country in New Zealand or something, IIRC?

Thinking a lawsuit might be in order.

If this is the same woman that was in the news a while back, she's Malaysian, not American.


Ya, that's her. Here's a link for a court ruling last moth that upheld her right to have a trial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/16/rahinah-ibrahim-no-fly-list _n _4612076.html

This one blends Subby's and the one I linked.

http://rt.com/usa/rahinah-ibrahim-human-error-068/
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report