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

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Reuters




U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, ruling in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Oregon by 13 Muslim Americans who were branded with the no-fly status, ordered the government to come up with new procedures that allow people on the no-fly list to challenge that designation





The 13 plaintiffs - four of them veterans of the U.S. military - deny they have links to terrorism and say they only learned of their no-fly status when they arrived at an airport and were blocked from boarding a flight.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought suit against the policy in 2010, argues that secrecy surrounding the list and lack of any reasonable opportunity for plaintiffs to fight their placement on it violates their clients' constitutional rights to due process.


I've often worried I would be added to the no-fly list simply for the things I research and post about. I have a work trip with my VP coming up and it has crossed my mind what in the world would I say to her if I was pulled from the line? I hate the feeling I get when I go to the airport and avoid it as much as possible.

But what does this mean, scholars? Will it go away, finally???




posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: raedar

As we should all know by now, laws are easy to impliment but much harder to take away. The ruling is great but what are the chances something in the NDAA or bush's war programs that void this?



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: raedar

This is a big win for individual rights.

Often times, the government will avoid a trial if they know that they're violating the Constitution.

Thats exactly what they did with Dan McCall. They tried to intimidate him into cooperating. When he refused to back down and threatened to sue, they "settled" in order to avoid a trial because they knew what they were doing was illegal/unconstitutional.

They must have thought that they could win this one.

a reply to: raedar


I've often worried I would be added to the no-fly list simply for the things I research and post about. I have a work trip with my VP coming up and it has crossed my mind what in the world would I say to her if I was pulled from the line? I hate the feeling I get when I go to the airport and avoid it as much as possible.

But what does this mean, scholars? Will it go away, finally???

You should be worried, we all should be. Why? Because you dont have to do anything wrong in order to be added to the no fly/terror watch list.

Will it go away? I doubt it. Once they enact something, its very difficult to undo. Not to mention the fact that they have access to unlimited tax payer money which allows them to appeal indefinitely in hopes that they can bankrupt the citizen into submission.

It doesnt sound like the judge ruled against the list itself but against the lack of due process:


U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, ruling on a lawsuit filed in federal court in Oregon by 13 Muslim Americans who were branded with the no-fly status, ordered the government to come up with new procedures that allow people on the no-fly list to challenge that designation.

The no-fly list, established in 2003 in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, bars those on it from flying within the United States or to and from the country. As of last year, it included some 20,000 people...

20,000??? Huh?

Terrorist watch list hits 1 million.

And thats from 2009, its obviously grown since then.

There was one other victory, a major one, but it barely got any mention in the corporate media:

First time ever: judge orders the removal of name from terror/government watch list.

edit on 24-6-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Now if only the government respected the constitution and followed the courts rulings .. instead of using the constitution for toilet paper and breaking laws as it suits them the ruling would mean something...



posted on Jun, 24 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere

This is a big win for individual rights.




Not as big as people might think. Her ruling leaves it up to the government to decide what information can be released. Since the information to place a person on the list comes from "classified" sources, the age old position comes back to the excuse of national security.

This administration specifically has found more ways to violate civil rights via "policy and procedure" than any other administration I have seen. No time table was required, no rules for what a person must get if on the list. Use of administrative subpoenas in order to bypass the 4th amendment.

meh... The midterms are going to be interesting this year. Even more so if the Republicans take the Senate.

The number of officials that need to be impeached and charged is a long one. The number of BS laws need to be repealed is extensive.

To be honest in this case I wished the judge would have went for "legislating from the bench" on this one.





new topics
 
9

log in

join