
No-fly list takes legal hit - andrewfong
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_24911422/u-s-government-loses-challenge-no-fly-lists
======
srl
I thought the judge's name sounded familiar, so I checked:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Haskell_Alsup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Haskell_Alsup)

Yup. This was the guy who learned Java because he felt he needed to know how
to program to be qualified to make a ruling in Oracle v Google. I usually
dislike criticizing or praising individual judges (unlike politicians, it's
not for the public to pick and choose -- nor should it be), but this one is
really remarkable.

~~~
atmosx
Why not? Why judges are not for the public to pick? This puzzles me a lot
lately, there's no democracy where Judges are picked by the population,
although it's one of the main 3 powers of the state which should be itself
accountable.

~~~
beggi
Seperation of power
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers)),
but even so they are picked indirectly by the public through politicians. As a
european though I am pretty amazed by all the direct voting that is done in US
- you can hardly drive through a town here without running into a plethora of
posters for people campaigning for various offices. You could argue that this
is good democracy but I just can't imagine how voters can make informed
decisions when voting for all these various offices - that is if they even
bother to vote.

~~~
mcv
For many jobs, you need a professional rather than a politician. Judges,
public prosecutors, police chiefs, etc should not be political positions.

~~~
pdwetz
In NY city and state, many judges are elected. However, they are limited to
members of the NY bar (min. 10 years practicing in NY). Primarily wanted to
point out that "professional" and election-based are not mutually exclusive.

Source (PDF):
[http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/become_a_judge.pdf](http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/become_a_judge.pdf)

------
nowarninglabel
As someone who has had to deal with the list, good for this woman for fighting
it. My name (or rather, the name I share with whomever it is the government
was really after) led me to having five years of not being able to check in to
flights after 2001 without going to the counter, giving ID and confirming my
birth date, and waiting for the agent to make a phone call (presumably to
Homeland Security), which would invariably take a solid 15 minutes of waiting,
until I got the all clear and could be checked in, get my tickets, and board
my flight.

Fortunately, sometime in '06 or '07 I received information on how to remove
oneself from the list by filling out a form. I can't recall if I found it
independently or if it was given to me by an airline agent, but a few months
after turning that in I no longer had to deal with the list again.

Perhaps, I should have actually fought against it as well, but in my case it
was always just due to the happenstance of having the same name as someone on
the list.

~~~
jandrewrogers
Same story here. I was often delayed by 45 minutes or more. Basically, I as a
native-born American citizen with no criminal record (and ironically, worked
for the DoD at one time), could not board a plane without the express
permission of the government such that I was delayed while waiting for that
permission. Everyone I was traveling with was allowed to go on, I was stuck
behind. It was a real source of difficulty for me for a few years. At some
point it went out of sight, though I still received special treatment at the
border for a while.

Consequently, I have a pretty negative view of the "no-fly" lists. Anyone
sufficiently dangerous to put on the list is sufficiently dangerous to be
arrested. Anything short of that is an obvious lack of due process.

------
fpgeek
To me the most shocking thing (of many) about this case is the steps DHS took
to prevent the woman's daughter (a US citizen!) from returning to the US to
testify:

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131204/10434025453/dhs-p...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131204/10434025453/dhs-
puts-witness-trial-over-legality-no-fly-list-no-fly-list-making-her-late-her-
testimony.shtml)

------
linuxhansl
> The Obama administration has vigorously contested the case, the first of its
> kind to reach trial, warning that it might reveal top-secret information
> about the anti-terrorism program

How often and how long will we hear this nonsense. The no-fly list has never
caught or deterred a terrorist. We cannot stop the legal process with the
blanket "national security" card.

~~~
jonnybgood
The no-fly list is not about capturing or deterring a terrorist. Or at least
not to deter in the way you may be thinking: blowing up a plane? It's about
keeping an individual from traveling to a location with the intention to cause
violence. For example, a radicalized American traveling to Somalia to join Al-
Shabaab.

~~~
epsylon
Or to prevent annoying witnesses from testifying:
[http://boingboing.net/2013/12/04/dhs-stalls-no-fly-list-
tria...](http://boingboing.net/2013/12/04/dhs-stalls-no-fly-list-trial-b.html)

------
greenyoda
For those who are interested, there's a blog called "Papers, Please!", run by
a group called "The Identity Project", which has been following this trial in
some detail:

[http://papersplease.org](http://papersplease.org)

"The Identity Project explores and defends the fundamental American right to
move freely around our country and to live without constantly having to prove
who we are or why we are here."

~~~
deathanatos
Since the mercurynews article didn't cover it, be sure to read the article
where the plaintiff's daughter, a US citizen, was prevented from entering the
US to testify at the trial.[1]

[1]: [http://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/07/no-fly-trial-
day-5-par...](http://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/07/no-fly-trial-
day-5-part-2-what-happened-to-the-plaintiffs-daughter/)

------
angersock
So, an interesting bit:

" _In a decision for the most part sealed_ , U.S. District Judge William Alsup
disclosed that Rahinah Ibrahim was mistakenly placed on the controversial list
and said that the government must now clear up the mistake."

As I understand it, the vast majority of the US legal system is based on
common law--that is, on using the rulings of previous judges and courts in
order to determine how a new case is handled.

Isn't the idea of sealed decisions and secret courts pretty much striking at
the very core of our entire system of justice?

~~~
steve-howard
> The Obama administration has vigorously contested the case, the first of its
> kind to reach trial, warning that it might reveal top-secret information
> about the anti-terrorism program. As a result, Alsup sealed his ruling until
> April to give the government an opportunity to persuade a federal appeals
> court to keep the order from being released publicly.

Sealed 'til April isn't that unreasonable if we're pretending they're going to
spend those three months revamping their anti-terrorism efforts.

------
tempodox
The DHS should rebrand as the “Department of Humiliation as a Service”. And,
aliens get this service for free, courtesy of the generous US tax payer.

------
avighnay
Once a female security officer in Amsterdam airport made loud, snide remarks
about how I arranged cables and stuff in my laptop bag. That by itself was
very annoying, imagine being called off in front of all people like a criminal
for no fault of theirs!

------
crazytony
Even if I understand (but probably don't agree with) the existence of the list
and the need to keep the contents confidential I don't understand why the
criteria/process used to put a name on the list needs to be confidential other
than they want judges to rule from fear, uncertainty and doubt.

