Muslim Americans challenge "no fly" list in appeals court

[IDemo]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Lawyers for 15 Muslims in the United States barred from boarding commercial flights because they were on the U.S. "no-fly" list will on Friday ask a federal appeals court to reinstate their constitutional challenge of the anti-terrorism measure.

The plaintiffs, who are U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents, said they learned they were on the list when prohibited, without advance warning, from boarding a commercial airliner, and were later denied any means of petitioning the government to be removed from the roster.

"The government has created this secret list, and the people on the list have no way of defending themselves," said Nusrat Choudhury, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who is representing the group, which filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government in June 2010.

The "no-fly" list, established in 2003 and administered by the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, includes some 20,000 people identified by the agency as known to have or reasonably suspected of having ties to terrorism. About 500 of them are U.S. citizens, according to an agency spokesman.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/11/us-usa-security-muslims-suit-idUSBRE84A0NA20120511

[zbdent]

1. Why can't they do it the old fashioned way?

become fabulously wealthy and just pass through with no harassment ...

[Nye Bevan]

2. If a "no fly list", without any way to challenge or appeal, is constitutional,

would a "no drive" list also be constitutional?

[Posteritatis]

8. "But but but that's difference because but but it just is!" (nt)

[RC]

3. They are in good company

Ted Kennedy was on the No Fly List.

[ZombieHorde]

4. Good. I don't like the list. nt

[slackmaster]

5. The no-fly list is a sad remnant of the Bush-era attacks on civil rights

Anyone who thinks it should still exist, let alone be used to restrict peoples' freedom, is a dirty rotten poopy head.

[gratuitous]

6. Oh fer heaven's sakes!

Just deal with it, cancha? It's not like there's a constitutional right to fly in an airplane or anything. Besides, if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about, so the fact that you people are on this list in the first place means you've almost certainly done something wrong. It stands to reason. And we don't have to tell you why or let you challenge this decision, because we know what's best, and answering a lot of fool questions from a bunch of miscreants just isn't a wise use of government resources. Count your blessings that you haven't been marked for summary execution and quit whining. It's perfectly legal, because we passed a law saying so. The courts have already ceded any authority to review these iron-clad laws (and you thought the laws of the Medes and the Persians were tough), because up yours.

Now, let's have an end to this nonsense.

[chester13]

7. How about reversing that shoe?

I would be willing to give pretty good odds that if you were the one banned from flying for no visible reason, and told you couldn't appeal because the reason was classified, you would be raising a bit of a fuss yourself. There are places you may want to go that you can NOT drive to, and no train or bus goes there, so how are you supposed to get there? Or, even better, suppose you were barred from using toll roads or bridges or tunnels because someone thought you might be related to someone who wanted to destroy these things. Again, you are not told why you can't use these public facilities, just that you have to find a different way to get where you want to go, if such a thing exists.

[Nye Bevan]

9. I think you missed the point (nt)

[gratuitous]

14. Sarcasm is indeed a tricky tool

I prolly should leave it to the professionals.

[IDemo]

15. It was plainly sarcasm

I'm not sure why that's such an unrecognizable thing to many on the inter-tubes.

[cosmicone]

10. DHS has a TRIP program

where people denied boarding erroneously can get a "redress number" and with that number, they are allowed to fly.

If these plaintiffs didn't get a redress number, they must be guilty of something related to terrorism.

There is no perfection possible in determining who is and who isn't a terrorist and this system certainly needs improvement.

[Nye Bevan]

11. "must be guilty of something..."

And what process, exactly, determines this "guilt"? I don't think any of us knows. A secret process, with no right to appeal.

[cosmicone]

13. Yes, I agree with you.

I don't like that part either. I was only saying that a redress process was available for anyone unjustifiably on the no fly list.

[Solly Mack]

12. K&R