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 121
    More: Asinine, no-fly list  
•       •       •

10910 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Feb 2014 at 1:20 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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/
 
2014-02-09 04:22:32 AM  
Paperwork is everything. Government fark ups happen. Goverment fark ups happen sometimes because governments have hysterically introduced "national security" "measures" at the demand of the people who benefit from these.

What's good is that we quite often find out about them through a good process, sometimes too late but eventually. I am astonished that there was a free admission that there were no WMD's in Iraq. I knew they were going to find those things even if they had to put them there themselves right beforehand, but I turned out to be wrong and a huge and immensely costly error was revealed and admitted. Not apologised for of course.

TFA is a smaller example of the same thing. In the end there is the right outcome and the problem is kinda solved as the error is at least admitted.

There are many more things are covered up but then that's where the Snowdens or Wikileaks come into play. They too are flawed and in part wrong, but they won't be completely wrong until governments do better jobs of coming clean themselves.
 
2014-02-09 04:32:32 AM  

gwowen: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x486]


Came for this.  Left satisfied.
 
2014-02-09 04:45:54 AM  

Bucky Katt: 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.


She got a check with some number of zeroes at the end.. That's why the judge didn't rule on her being denied transit to Hawaii; The DHS already paid her, hoping they'd win the standing motion on the other portion of her suit.
 
2014-02-09 04:49:39 AM  
She was associated with the radical Muslim cleric, Al Error. Almost as bad as Al Qaeda.

And she wants us to let her fly? bin there, done that.
 
2014-02-09 04:52:23 AM  

Jument: 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.


This might answer your question:  We do have the right of transit, or travel.  As Justice Brennan (quoting previous Justices also in his opinion) delivered the opinion of the Court in Shapiro v. Thompson SCOTUS, 1969  394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600:
  "This Court  long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement."  ...   "The constitutional right to travel from one state to another • • • occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal union.  It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.  • • • [The] right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution.  The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.  In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."  • • • If a law has "no other purpose • • • than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional." (Bold emphasis is fugeeface's)
  So, in Shapiro alone, Justice Brennan quoted from a number of previous SCOTUS decisions the constitutional right of interstate transit within the United States to add weight to the issue at hand.  Chief Justice warren, Justice Black, and Justice Harlan dissented for the minority in this case.

/fark you TSA
 
2014-02-09 05:01:29 AM  
The Constitution , absent interpretation by the courts, is an abstract document.
It says nothing whatsoever, excepting one single thing - what the courts say it says.
It's a really dangerous thing to forget.
 
2014-02-09 05:19:14 AM  
I suspect the clerical error was hers. She chose the wrong clerics.
 
2014-02-09 07:07:28 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-09 07:11:11 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.


There is no constitutional right to fly. However an argument could be made that the determination should be made by the private airlines themselves and the government banning you from flying is a violation of your rights. If the airlines say they will be happy to sell you a ticket the government has no right to step In between two private parties making a business transaction
 
2014-02-09 07:16:39 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.


The theory that it's not a right because it's not listed in the constitution is HORSESHIAT as well.
 
2014-02-09 07:33:37 AM  

Claiming it was a "clerical error" is nothing compared to the government went full-Kafka on her daughter, to try and prevent her from testifying in the trial. It's not often you hear judges say things like this, in response to the .gov lawyers using the currently-popular catch-221:

That's ridiculous. Are you saying that if the president makes a speech, TSA can retroactively make it a secret what he said? It cannot be the law that something that is publicly known later becomes hidden...

[..]

Trials are important. Trials are supposed to be public.

I want to categorically reject one thing: If information is publicly available in some other way, the government does not have the right to retroactively clamp it down and remove it from the public record. Even if it could have been protected as SSI within the government, if the plaintiff obtains this information independently, the government can't clamp that down.
(emphasis mine)

The court papers and coverage in the above links are rather depressing - who knew that the usual idiocy we see with the INS, TSA, border security, etc, was the better end of the departments, while other parts are just making crap up as they go... O.O

1 the catch-22, where you can't sue because you have no standing, and you can't get the evidence that would show you have standing because we retroactively declared it a "classified".
 
2014-02-09 07:33:39 AM  
Well, I'm fed up with the whole constitution arguments, when the woman in the story is not even American.  Do I think the rules should be different for non-US folks and US folks when it comes to flying, yes.  It really sucks to go through a clerical error that bad, but at least it was admitted and fixed.  They could've completed the lie and left her out of the country.  Legally, she got lucky someone showed some honor by fixing it.
 
2014-02-09 07:44:06 AM  

lack of warmth: Well, I'm fed up with the whole constitution arguments, when the woman in the story is not even American.  Do I think the rules should be different for non-US folks and US folks when it comes to flying, yes.  It really sucks to go through a clerical error that bad, but at least it was admitted and fixed.  They could've completed the lie and left her out of the country.  Legally, she got lucky someone showed some honor by fixing it.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

What the fark happened to this country?
 
2014-02-09 08:06:18 AM  

lack of warmth: Legally, she got lucky someone showed some honor by fixing it.


Morally, she got lucky it didn't come down to you showing yours.
 
2014-02-09 08:09:07 AM  
I feel her pain, in a minor way.

I've never been on the no-fly list, but I'm sure as hell on the no-online-checkin, no-automated-checkin-machines and we-need-to-take-your-passport-away-and -stare-at-it-for-a-while lists.

Thanks so much to the US government and that asshat with my name that got himself sent to Gitmo. Awesome work.
 
2014-02-09 08:17:52 AM  

AngryDragon: lack of warmth: Well, I'm fed up with the whole constitution arguments, when the woman in the story is not even American.  Do I think the rules should be different for non-US folks and US folks when it comes to flying, yes.  It really sucks to go through a clerical error that bad, but at least it was admitted and fixed.  They could've completed the lie and left her out of the country.  Legally, she got lucky someone showed some honor by fixing it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

What the fark happened to this country?


Ronald Reagan.
 
2014-02-09 08:47:29 AM  

jjorsett: 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.


TFA isn't completely clear but it sounds like they continued to fight it even after it came about that the woman was added to the list by mistake.

You'd think as soon as the agent came in to testify and went "oh shiat, I misread the instructions" that the governments lawyers would quickly concede the case... It looks like the judge had to step in instead.
 
2014-02-09 08:48:16 AM  
Came for the Brazil references.  Leaving satisfied.  Thanks, guys!
 
2014-02-09 08:49:44 AM  

AngryDragon: lack of warmth: Well, I'm fed up with the whole constitution arguments, when the woman in the story is not even American.  Do I think the rules should be different for non-US folks and US folks when it comes to flying, yes.  It really sucks to go through a clerical error that bad, but at least it was admitted and fixed.  They could've completed the lie and left her out of the country.  Legally, she got lucky someone showed some honor by fixing it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

What the fark happened to this country?


Well, let's see. First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it.
 
2014-02-09 08:58:34 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 do have constitutional rights in airports, but just as the doctor implies, they are not protected by the SCOTUS because of [reason].
 
2014-02-09 09:02:49 AM  

lack of warmth: Well, I'm fed up with the whole constitution arguments, when the woman in the story is not even American.  Do I think the rules should be different for non-US folks and US folks when it comes to flying, yes.  It really sucks to go through a clerical error that bad, but at least it was admitted and fixed.  They could've completed the lie and left her out of the country.  Legally, she got lucky someone showed some honor by fixing it.


I feel like I should be linking to an Onion article here.
 
2014-02-09 09:04:26 AM  

Deathfrogg: AngryDragon: What the fark happened to this country?

Ronald Reagan.


Earlier.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including three fifths of all other Persons."

That this abomination could have made it into your constitution at all - that it was even proposed - shows clearly that nothing has happened to your country. It's always been there. Sometimes out in the open, sometimes hidden just below the surface... waiting.
 
2014-02-09 09:07:45 AM  

MooseUpNorth: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including three fifths of all other Persons."


I've just noticed the quote's missing a bit, thanks to wikipedia's schizophrenic copy/paste functionality around links. It should read:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
 
2014-02-09 09:11:37 AM  

MooseUpNorth:
Earlier.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including three fifths of all other Persons."

That this abomination could have made it into your constitution at all - that it was even proposed - shows clearly that nothing has happened to your country. It's always been there. Sometimes out in the open, sometimes hidden just below the surface... waiting.


It fascinates me how people like the TeaBagginistas who argue about the Constitution never seem to know exactly how little it actually says about the things they complain the most about. Hell, Chartered Corporations were required to have an act of Congress to get their charters approved, and those charters were only allowed for an extremely limited purpose. In the 1880s, the law was changed to permit States to charter Corporations, and the limitation for purpose was removed entirely. If the W.VA State legislature had any balls at all, they would revoke the Charters of both the Chemical company and the Water Company and put the State government in charge of the cleanup and charge "Freedom" industries or it's parent company for every penny of the cost. They do have the legal right, and its arguable that they have the responsibility do do exactly this.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-09 09:14:24 AM  
If she was truely not allowed to fly for ten years for no reason, there should be some recourse.

She already reached a settlement over the consequences of the no-fly order. She still couldn't get a visa because she was an alleged terrorist.

I'll quote my post in the redlit thread:

The judge's order requires the government to track down and correct every government database that may have been contaminated by the original error. They don't have the software to do that. That means agencies not even involved in this case could have to get involved. But it's a judicial order so they can't say "too much work." The order also notes the possibility that the government was confused by the similar names of a terrorist organization and a professional organization.

A. The government shall search and trace all of its terrorist watchlists and records, including the TSDB, TIDE, KSTF, CLASS, TECS, IBIS, TUSCAN, TACTICS, and the no-fly and selectee lists, for entries identifying Dr. Ibrahim. The government shall remove all references to the mistaken designations by Agent Kelley in 2004 and/or add a correction in the same paragraph that said designations were erroneous and should not be relied upon for any purpose. Declarations signed under oath by appropriate government officials shall be filed no later than NOON ON APRIL 15, 2014. The declarations shall certify that the government has searched, cleansed, and/or corrected in the same paragraph all entries identifying Dr. Ibrahim and the mistaken 2004 designations. Each declaration shall specifically detail the steps and actions taken with respect to each watchlist.
 
2014-02-09 09:15:30 AM  
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

What the fark happened to this country?


Y'know, if that wasn't enough to free his slaves, I kinda doubt it would get you off the no-fly list.
 
2014-02-09 09:15:40 AM  

Deathfrogg: They do have the legal right, and its arguable that they have the responsibility do do exactly this.


And it might send Fox News and the Teahadists into the collective aneurysm they've been flirting with since the President's been near.
 
2014-02-09 09:26:25 AM  

MooseUpNorth: Deathfrogg: AngryDragon: What the fark happened to this country?

Ronald Reagan.

Earlier.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including three fifths of all other Persons."

That this abomination could have made it into your constitution at all - that it was even proposed - shows clearly that nothing has happened to your country. It's always been there. Sometimes out in the open, sometimes hidden just below the surface... waiting.


Agreed.  However the Constitution is not the Declaration.  One is principles, the other a negotiated framework.  Jefferson, slave owner himself,  tried to set the stage for elimination of slavery at the outset by including this passage:

"...he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold,] ... "

It was stricken by the continental congress in order to declare unified rebellion.  In the Constitution, it was required for ratification or there would have been no nation.  Understanding why the 3/5 compromise was included in the Constitution is far more important than just being outraged that it is there.  Context is very important.  That we have corrected it speaks more to our national character.

At least it used to.
 
m00
2014-02-09 09:26:38 AM  
Why are so many people on this thread supporting a terrorist who was on the no-fly list?
 
2014-02-09 09:33:55 AM  
 
2014-02-09 09:54:59 AM  

germ78: Oh, but the DHS never makes a mistake.


Came for the "Brazil" reference.

Leaving satisfied.
 
2014-02-09 09:58:24 AM  
She's so pissed off, she'll probably blow up the first plane she flies on.
 
2014-02-09 10:00:31 AM  

boinkingbill: 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".


You just made me laugh so hard, hot coffee came out my nose.

Well done, Sir!
 
2014-02-09 10:06:50 AM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: 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.

The theory that it's not a right because it's not listed in the constitution is HORSESHIAT as well.


I'd think Amendments 9 and 10 would've made that clear to everyone by now, but apparently not...
 
2014-02-09 10:07:59 AM  

a_room_with_a_moose: boinkingbill: 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".

You just made me laugh so hard, hot coffee came out my nose.


A third grader explaining to my mother why he swore in school: "I meant to say 'I love you', but instead I said 'biatch'."  True quote.
 
m00
2014-02-09 10:13:20 AM  

OrangeSnapper: Warlordtrooper:
There is no constitutional right to fly.

"Here it is undisputed that inclusion on the No-Fly List completely bans listed persons from boarding commercial flights to or from the United States or over United States air space.  Thus, Plaintiffs have shown their placement on the No-Fly List has in the past and will in the future severely restrict Plaintiffs' ability to travel internationally. Moreover, the realistic implications of being on the No-Fly List are potentially far-reaching. For example, TSC [the Terrorist Screening Center] shares watchlist information with 22 foreign governments and United States Customs and Boarder [sic] Protection makes recommendations to ship captains as to whether a passenger poses a risk to transportation security, which can result in further interference with an individual's ability to travel as evidenced by some Plaintiffs' experiences as they attempted to travel abroad by boat and land and were either turned away or completed their journey only after an extraordinary amount of time, expense, and difficulty. Accordingly, 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."


Once again, if you don't want to land on the no-fly list don't be a terrorist. "clerical error" just means the FBI agent only has like 99% proof. It's like when a criminal is charged by a prosecutor and "let off the hook" by a liberal jury. Doesn't mean he's not guilty, just means the jury didn't do its job and come back with a conviction. Same thing.
 
2014-02-09 10:15:38 AM  

m00: Why are so many people on this thread supporting a terrorist who was on the no-fly list?


m00: Once again, if you don't want to land on the no-fly list don't be a terrorist. "clerical error" just means the FBI agent only has like 99% proof. It's like when a criminal is charged by a prosecutor and "let off the hook" by a liberal jury. Doesn't mean he's not guilty, just means the jury didn't do its job and come back with a conviction. Same thing.


Folks really need to put you on ignore. Not 'cause you're trolling but because you're so damned bad at it. If that's all you can come up with, don't even bother.
 
2014-02-09 10:17:32 AM  

AngryDragon: lack of warmth: Well, I'm fed up with the whole constitution arguments, when the woman in the story is not even American.  Do I think the rules should be different for non-US folks and US folks when it comes to flying, yes.  It really sucks to go through a clerical error that bad, but at least it was admitted and fixed.  They could've completed the lie and left her out of the country.  Legally, she got lucky someone showed some honor by fixing it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

What the fark happened to this country?

Wickard v. Filburn

  (1942)

It may not have kicked things off, but it certainly got them rolling.
 
m00
2014-02-09 10:26:23 AM  

MooseUpNorth: Folks really need to put you on ignore. Not 'cause you're trolling but because you're so damned bad at it. If that's all you can come up with, don't even bother.


People who are too dumb to understand obvious sarcasm probably shouldn't be on fark at all.
 
2014-02-09 10:26:51 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

Of course two things happen: the Blue Wall lines up to protect the brotherhood. Then, once lawyers get involved, the answer is to stonewall until a judge forces you do do the right thing because correcting it means admitting error and admitting error is an admission that you may need to write a cheque.

No, admitting error is absolutely fine. Why? Because you wasted everyone's time for ten f*cking years. The man who filled out the form said it was an error so why is it a problem for everyone on top of him? He should apologize which apparently he did. The people who contributed to the legal inertia need to get fired and have her settlement paid from their salaries.
 
2014-02-09 10:29:58 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.


They claim that because you can't prove you are on it, you weren't affected.
 
2014-02-09 10:36:42 AM  

m00: Why are so many people on this thread supporting a terrorist who was on the no-fly list?


Because that's what your mom asked us to do as a favour after she worked her way through the whole of fark.
 
2014-02-09 10:48:05 AM  
And you clowns want to trust this government with your healthcare?

God you people are stupid.
 
2014-02-09 11:15:05 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.


Amendment IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You are a free person... Just because there is no mention of air travel specifically in the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to strip you of your natural right of freedom of movement without due process of law, and to engage in commerce between you and other entity, in this case an airline.

Why do people like you so willingly and eagerly surrender your liberty to those that could care less about you?
 
2014-02-09 11:20:19 AM  

SithLord: And you clowns want to trust this government with your healthcare?

God you people are stupid.


Government full of idiots, or huge corporations out to increase shareholders profits without accountability to the individuals; six of one, farked either way to most of us.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-09 11:25:55 AM  

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

27B/6


"Dear poster,
That is not at all amusing.
Sincerely,
DZ-015"
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-09 11:28:09 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.


(larf)
 
2014-02-09 11:29:22 AM  

a_room_with_a_moose: germ78: Oh, but the DHS never makes a mistake.

Came for the "Brazil" reference.

Leaving satisfied.


Same here.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-09 11:36:55 AM  

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: AngryDragon: lack of warmth: Well, I'm fed up with the whole constitution arguments, when the woman in the story is not even American.  Do I think the rules should be different for non-US folks and US folks when it comes to flying, yes.  It really sucks to go through a clerical error that bad, but at least it was admitted and fixed.  They could've completed the lie and left her out of the country.  Legally, she got lucky someone showed some honor by fixing it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

What the fark happened to this country?

Well, let's see. First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it.


media.cinemasquid.com


/rest in peace Mr.Stucker
 
2014-02-09 11:45:25 AM  

MooseUpNorth: MooseUpNorth: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including three fifths of all other Persons."

I've just noticed the quote's missing a bit, thanks to wikipedia's schizophrenic copy/paste functionality around links. It should read:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."


England did not abolish slavery until 1772 and slave trading until 1807. France abolished slavery in 1794, but they reestablished it in 1803 not to completely outlaw it until 1848. Canada abolished slavery in 1819. Canada didn't have a Constitution until 1867, so it was able to learn from the mistakes of our founding fathers, and has plenty of things in its past, including slavery, to be equally ashamed of.
Get off you high horse Canook
 
2014-02-09 11:59:10 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: 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.


1/10 Needs to try harder.
 
2014-02-09 12:12:28 PM  

Wigglestick2000: Get off you high horse Canook


Heh, 'careful you don't fall off up there.
 
2014-02-09 12:31:34 PM  

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

Thinking a lawsuit might be in order.


You are never "trapped" in New Zealand. Beautiful country (my birthland) but if you want to leave you are always welcome to (often with help from your own embassy). We do not make a habit of keeping people against their will.
 
2014-02-09 12:44:34 PM  

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.


this...   Next sue for damages...
 
2014-02-09 12:50:06 PM  
www.ioffer.com
 
2014-02-09 12:50:19 PM  

jjorsett: 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.


This
 
2014-02-09 01:13:35 PM  

SithLord: And you clowns want to trust this government with your healthcare?

God you people are stupid.


You have the government you deserve.
 
2014-02-09 01:28:42 PM  

lack of warmth: Well, I'm fed up with the whole constitution arguments, when the woman in the story is not even American.  Do I think the rules should be different for non-US folks and US folks when it comes to flying, yes.


The problem is the US strong-arms its "friends" into complying with its rules.  So you can bet getting put on the US bars you from flying in other countries as well (Canada, UK, etc.).

Case in point:   http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-man-says-u-s-wrongly-pu t -him-on-no-fly-list-1.2487874
 
2014-02-09 02:58:54 PM  

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.


Uhhh...unless it's not American territory, that in itself is unconstitutional. If you are on American soil\in American airspace\in American water\probably in space around America given how we've laid claim to it, you have the protection of every single law America has.

/Admittedly, that's not how it  de facto works, but an airport would have to be officially the territory of another nation to  actually lose constitutional protection, and it would also lose all American legal protection and be subject to the laws of the other nation.
 
2014-02-09 03:16:41 PM  

Gothnet: I feel her pain, in a minor way.

I've never been on the no-fly list, but I'm sure as hell on the no-online-checkin, no-automated-checkin-machines and we-need-to-take-your-passport-away-and -stare-at-it-for-a-while lists.

Thanks so much to the US government and that asshat with my name that got himself sent to Gitmo. Awesome work.


I feel her pain in a minor way too.  Same deal, no automated check in. bags always searched, questioned when entering the country. My take is this list isn't really a no fly list, it's an enemies list, created because immediately after 911 they wanted to round up anyone who might be in the 'fifth column' but they couldn't because there wasn't a list, so they created one for next time.
 
2014-02-09 05:10:53 PM  

gerbilpox: She was associated with the radical Muslim cleric, Al Error. Almost as bad as Al Qaeda.

And she wants us to let her fly? bin there, done that.



That was when she was in america........ but now she's in Malaysia, going to Al Forgiven's mosque. But I doubt if she'll ever step foot in Al Forgotten's mosque on the other side of town. That would take a bridge too far.
 
2014-02-09 05:57:01 PM  

silverjets: lack of warmth: Well, I'm fed up with the whole constitution arguments, when the woman in the story is not even American.  Do I think the rules should be different for non-US folks and US folks when it comes to flying, yes.

The problem is the US strong-arms its "friends" into complying with its rules.  So you can bet getting put on the US bars you from flying in other countries as well (Canada, UK, etc.).

Case in point:   http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-man-says-u-s-wrongly-pu t -him-on-no-fly-list-1.2487874


wtf is wrong with us? seriously. we are so farking screwed.
bunch of wimps

we have a list
but you cant see the list
at what point do we all just stay home because it is too much of a hassle to travel anymore?

tards
 
2014-02-09 06:30:56 PM  

Deathfrogg: Ronald Reagan.


Bullshiat. It's Fox News, CNN and Nancy Grace.
 
2014-02-09 06:34:14 PM  
Was her name Tuttle?
 
2014-02-09 06:44:34 PM  
clerical error?

Damn clerics healing the wrong people...

/dnd moment...
 
2014-02-09 10:13:47 PM  

Deathfrogg: AngryDragon: lack of warmth: Well, I'm fed up with the whole constitution arguments, when the woman in the story is not even American.  Do I think the rules should be different for non-US folks and US folks when it comes to flying, yes.  It really sucks to go through a clerical error that bad, but at least it was admitted and fixed.  They could've completed the lie and left her out of the country.  Legally, she got lucky someone showed some honor by fixing it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

What the fark happened to this country?

Ronald Reagan

Teddy Roosevelt.

FTFY
 
2014-02-10 03:12:06 AM  
I'm surprised I'm not on that list.  It's likely the only shiat list the government has that I'm not on
 
2014-02-10 08:32:47 AM  

jjorsett: 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.


Well, yes. Marxism, like every "superior" society the left adores, has human infallibility as a prerequisite.

/and this is considered a feature, not a bug
//if the human race fails to be perfect, then the system fails gruesomely and horribly, which is a perfectly appropriate punishment for imperfection
///at least to the authoritarian sociopaths that desire to rule the world and remake it in their own likeness
 
2014-02-10 08:41:56 AM  

PsiChick: Uhhh...unless it's not American territory, that in itself is unconstitutional. If you are on American soil\in American airspace\in American water\probably in space around America given how we've laid claim to it, you have the protection of every single law America has.

/Admittedly, that's not how it  de facto works, but an airport would have to be officially the territory of another nation to actually lose constitutional protection, and it would also lose all American legal protection and be subject to the laws of the other nation.


It's not supposed to work that way. There's a reason the US Bill of Rights declares what the government is NOT allowed to do, instead of what it's expressly given the right to do.

/in fact, only one amendment granted the US government an authority, rather than taking authority away
//and that amendment was also the only one that was ever repealed
 
2014-02-10 12:34:51 PM  
Fubini [TotalFark]

img.fark.net


Who has been president for ~7 years now?
 
2014-02-10 12:40:51 PM  
Fubini

blame-bush.jpg

Which party demanded the TSA be a federal agency with no accountability?
 
Displayed 121 of 121 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report