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 35
    More: Asinine, no-fly list  
•       •       •

10894 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Feb 2014 at 1:20 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-08 11:50:22 PM
6 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-02-09 01:27:20 AM
5 votes:
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 01:30:19 AM
4 votes:

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.
2014-02-08 09:55:39 PM
4 votes:
No fly or extra security?

If she was truely not allowed to fly for ten years for no reason, there should be some recourse.
2014-02-09 02:38:28 AM
3 votes:

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 01:39:42 AM
3 votes:

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 01:37:00 AM
3 votes:

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 01:35:43 AM
3 votes:
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 11:15:05 AM
2 votes:

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 04:22:32 AM
2 votes:
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 01:59:19 AM
2 votes:
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 01:39:21 AM
2 votes:

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 01:31:44 AM
2 votes:
Oh, but the DHS never makes a mistake.
www.oilempire.us
2014-02-09 01:28:31 AM
2 votes:
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 12:14:46 AM
2 votes:
She then discovered she hadn't really wanted to fly anywhere, anyway
2014-02-09 10:48:05 AM
1 votes:
And you clowns want to trust this government with your healthcare?

God you people are stupid.
2014-02-09 10:26:51 AM
1 votes:
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 10:15:38 AM
1 votes:

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 07:36:35 AM
1 votes:

Fubini: [img.fark.net image 650x375]


im41.com
2014-02-09 07:33:37 AM
1 votes:

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 04:52:23 AM
1 votes:

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 04:05:07 AM
1 votes:

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 03:54:00 AM
1 votes:

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 03:11:27 AM
1 votes:
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 02:47:13 AM
1 votes:

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 02:34:45 AM
1 votes:

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 02:12:17 AM
1 votes:
She's been trapped outside of the country in New Zealand or something, IIRC?

Thinking a lawsuit might be in order.
2014-02-09 01:58:12 AM
1 votes:

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


Imam seeing what you did there.
2014-02-09 01:53:26 AM
1 votes:
Yeah, but is it a Muslim clerical error?
2014-02-09 01:50:16 AM
1 votes:

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 01:42:48 AM
1 votes:

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 01:30:27 AM
1 votes:

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 01:29:54 AM
1 votes:

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


27B/6
2014-02-09 01:27:09 AM
1 votes:
paperwork is everything. No, it really is.
2014-02-09 01:26:17 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report