
“No-fly” trial: Closing arguments - revelation
http://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/07/no-fly-trial-day-5-part-1-closing-arguments/
======
achille
Judge Alsup is incredible! You may remember he's the judge that learned to
code during the Oracle v. Google trial

> [http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57445082-94/judge-
> william-a...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57445082-94/judge-william-
> alsup-master-of-the-court-and-java/)

~~~
Natsu
I seem to remember that he didn't exactly start from zero, but had some idea
prior to that and simply learned more about Java. Just sayin', because I think
it makes it even better.

~~~
Crito
He has a B.S. in mathematics too. I imagine that was useful as well.

------
modeless
"I apologize again to the press and the members of the public for having to
ask you to leave…. I don’t believe that the SSI [Sensitive Security
Information] is really that sensitive, and I believe that it’s a mistaken
public policy to exclude you, but for the time being I have no choice."

Judge Alsup for president!

~~~
gcb0
Is there other situations where a judge judgment is not taken into account in
his tribunal?

I know nothing of usa law..

~~~
cheald
The judge is bound by law and procedure during a court case - they can't just
say "make this so" and it is so.

Judge Alsup will have authority to rule on the outcome of this case, and his
judgment will stand (pending appeal), but he doesn't have the ability to say
"The SSI rule is dumb, we're going to ignore it."

~~~
gcb0
yes, but he is the ultimate interpretation of the law. if the law states
"secret of states must be out of records" the judge is the one who decides if
something is a secret of state or not, right? or can i just say that this
chocolate cake recipe should be treated as so and everyone have to comply?

~~~
cheald
Only when that bit of the law is up for judicial review. This case isn't about
what does and doesn't constitute SSI, and while the judge may have decided
what to admit or not admit as SSI, he would have done so according to the
existing rules, and would be bound by those rules to protect that information
under the rules that govern the presentation of SSI in court.

------
memracom
Wow, a new attack vector for terrorists. Wreak havoc by setting up terror
groups using names that are confusingly similar to important organizations.
This way, they could deny a lot of scientists and researchers to travel to the
USA and therefore these people would have to develop their innovations in
foreign countries that still have common sense like Malaysia and Japan and
China and Russia.

~~~
kzrdude
So what you are saying is that all it takes to be a terrorist is to choose the
right kind of name for your chess club..

------
wfunction
I haven't been following the news on this particular story (shame on me). Is
there something that can put this story into context for me? It was
fascinating to read but hard to understand without knowing the story.

~~~
pkteison
A foreign Stanford student was denied boarding, presumably due to the no fly
list. Conjecture is that the root cause is confusion between a terrorist
organization "Jemaah Islamiyah Malaysia" and a professional organization
"Jamaah Islah Malaysia".

Inability to fly to return to Stanford/Silicon Valley has obviously caused a
lot of complications and trouble for her, which can be interpreted as monetary
damages, and she has filed suit for compensation, and also to be removed from
the no fly list.

A few days ago, the government appears to have prevented her daughter (a U.S.
citizen) from flying to America to testify about it. The government claimed in
court that they did not prevent her daughter from flying to America with the
no fly list, but apparently the airline provided the daughter with a copy of
the no fly order. Generally, the airline is instructed not to provide said
orders to the traveller, so the traveller has no way to know why they aren't
allowed to fly.

This sort of lawsuit is difficult to make - the government has argued it
should be dismissed because she can't prove the problem is that she is on the
no fly list.

~~~
TallGuyShort
I don't see what the government expects. They go out of their way to keep
things secret, like with FISA courts and the gag orders on the no-fly list,
and then they say "she can't prove it was us" as a defense. Hello? Rule of
law?

~~~
Crito
That is exactly what the government expects. It is a catch-22 _(you can 't
know that you are on the list (through official channels anyway) unless you
sue them into confirming it, and you can't sue them unless you can prove that
you are on the list. A seemingly insurmountable circular dependency.)_, and it
is by design.

------
majke
I was not aware the USA has so many information about every single travel.
According to this [1] they record everything.

\- amtrack

\- trains in the EU (including sit numbers)

\- bus travel in the EU

\- plane travel in the EU on a carrier that doesn't fly to the US

\- hotel reservations

\- pedestrian border crossing

Everything.

[1] [http://hasbrouck.org/articles/Hasbrouck-
Cato-2APR2013.pdf](http://hasbrouck.org/articles/Hasbrouck-Cato-2APR2013.pdf)

------
lylebarrere
I found the points about Robert Oppenheimer and Nelson Mandela being on
terrorism watch lists to make a particularly good argument for their potential
flaws.

It makes the need for good Judicial Oversight readily apparent.

------
FiloSottile
> a visa is not an entry permit, but merely "permission to approach the border
> or port of entry and ask to be let in

Oh God.

~~~
crazygringo
That's standard policy for every country I know of. That's just how visas
work.

When you get to passport control in pretty much any country, they evaluate
anything that might be suspicious, look at your passport stamps, ask you for
explanations, interview you further... and have complete control to send you
back to wherever you came from, and not let you in.

~~~
waqf
It's standard policy, but it was introduced in an age when checking people
against a database before they even get on the plane (as the US and many other
countries now also do) was not a feasible option.

These days we should be able to pre-clear people accurately enough that
passport control at destination should be a formality.

(Also, my country for one does not hassle _their own returning citizens_ at
immigration the way the US likes to.)

~~~
crazygringo
Well, in 99% of cases I think it _is_ a formality -- I've never been turned
away from a border before, nor do I know anyone personally who it's happened
to. So I don't know what you mean by pre-clearing, or what you want it to
gain.

If you're looking for a 100% assurance that, as a foreigner, if you get on the
plane, you get let in the country, that's never going to happen, for security
reasons. There will always be only some things that only passport control will
catch.

I mean, a country's borders are the last chance to turn someone away, so it
makes sense that that's where a certain level of scrutiny will apply. And the
only people a country is going to trust to do that, is its own passport
control workers. That's just a reality.

And as far hassling returning citizens... as an American, I would be horrified
if I encounter trouble returning to the US, just tremendously pissed off.

But I can also understand that, with the US probably being the most popular
country in the world to want to sneak into, people might be trying to fake
their way into the US as supposed citizens, and that determining citizenship
and identity at immigration might not always be as straightforward as it
might. (But I still think it's horrifying to have to go through computers,
phones, text-messages, etc... - I'm not defending that at tall!!)

------
RexRollman
Kafka would have been proud of the government's arguements in this trial.

~~~
warfangle
Kafka, esq.

------
StavrosK
Is there any way for this trial to set a precedent that will lead to the
travel situation improving? Because secret no fly orders, secret trials and
government saying "yeah don't worry about it, we're policing ourselves, we
don't need no judiciary branch" is, well... Reminiscent of other things.

------
midas007
How hard was it for Moxie and friends to get clear of their watchlist status?

~~~
e12e
Is Moxie now clear?

------
coldcode
We sure seem to live in a fucking police state. I sure hope the judge doesn't
get a secret visit in the middle of the night. Denying a US citizen to return
to the US, or potentially stripping them of their citizenship despite being
born on US soil (read the second part) should scare and/or piss everyone in
the US off. If the government decides it has the power to cancel our
citizenship at will and this is somehow upheld, we are all screwed.

------
doughj3
Poor choice of font-size- 11px, really?

~~~
kalleboo
Most browsers have a minimum font size option, I recommend you try it out.

~~~
mjolk
Don't fall back on "well, the browser should prevent bad choices from
authors/designers."

~~~
saosebastiao
When it comes to design, there is no such thing as universally bad or
universally good.

~~~
mjolk
Too small to read is a pretty safe bet for the "not good" category. In fact,
there's entire standards around what should guide your design process[1].

[1]
[http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility](http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility)

