Court Reinstates Professor Rahinah Ibrahim's lawsuit over No-Fly List
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
Have to start somewhere to unravel the rope. All lawyers for the government in this csse should be questioned.
#47
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
The lawyer who made the statement and the person who signed off by name on the NF orde-h-h-h-sorry, "suggestion" would be good places to start. Then just work your way up the chain fining, disbarring, and imprisoning as you go.
#48
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 1,018
So, "who put her on the list and why" will hit that brick wall, most likely. Daughter is not a plaintiff in the case; this is just a matter of getting access to a particular witness.
What this judge does have jurisdiction to decide, though, is whether an attorney in his court acted "frivolously," and is thus subject to sanctions, by making a false statement of relevant fact. Yes, let's unravel that rope.
#49
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
USG will deny that daughter is on "the list," at all, by my understanding. The e-mail that was revealed (without authorization, thanks Malaysian Airlines) says "may be denied boarding" IIRC.
So, "who put her on the list and why" will hit that brick wall, most likely. Daughter is not a plaintiff in the case; this is just a matter of getting access to a particular witness.
What this judge does have jurisdiction to decide, though, is whether an attorney in his court acted "frivolously," and is thus subject to sanctions, by making a false statement of relevant fact. Yes, let's unravel that rope.
So, "who put her on the list and why" will hit that brick wall, most likely. Daughter is not a plaintiff in the case; this is just a matter of getting access to a particular witness.
What this judge does have jurisdiction to decide, though, is whether an attorney in his court acted "frivolously," and is thus subject to sanctions, by making a false statement of relevant fact. Yes, let's unravel that rope.
Also, MH is not (& cannot be) bound by the US in terms of handing over documentation sent by another airline after the US govt sends that airline a "request". If the US government has an airline beef then it's with the other airline.
#50
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
It's deeply disturbing that administrations from both parties have created and perpetuated this status quo. It's almost as if they have some sort of sickness. The only cure would be to abolish the blacklist system, criminally charge and imprison for life the architects and senior leadership, and ban everyone involved even tangentially with the blacklist from public service for life.
#51
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
That's easy. They don't have a conscience. You see the same thing with many government agencies - notably those that wear badges.
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
USG will deny that daughter is on "the list," at all, by my understanding. The e-mail that was revealed (without authorization, thanks Malaysian Airlines) says "may be denied boarding" IIRC.
So, "who put her on the list and why" will hit that brick wall, most likely. Daughter is not a plaintiff in the case; this is just a matter of getting access to a particular witness.
What this judge does have jurisdiction to decide, though, is whether an attorney in his court acted "frivolously," and is thus subject to sanctions, by making a false statement of relevant fact. Yes, let's unravel that rope.
So, "who put her on the list and why" will hit that brick wall, most likely. Daughter is not a plaintiff in the case; this is just a matter of getting access to a particular witness.
What this judge does have jurisdiction to decide, though, is whether an attorney in his court acted "frivolously," and is thus subject to sanctions, by making a false statement of relevant fact. Yes, let's unravel that rope.
#53
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 1,018
Why? Do you think someone should be charged with that crime?
Even if so, that was not my point. I was addressing what this judge can do, right away.
It's quite clear that the airlines often do not stand up for their rights, as against the USG. I was just expressing pleasure that MH, for one, did (of course, it would have been better had they allowed daughter to board, if she wished at that point, though). It's not every day we get access to an e-mail to an airline marked "SSI".
Even if so, that was not my point. I was addressing what this judge can do, right away.
Also, MH is not (& cannot be) bound by the US in terms of handing over documentation sent by another airline after the US govt sends that airline a "request". If the US government has an airline beef then it's with the other airline.
#54
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
I can imagine that folks on the USG side of this case say exactly the same thing about the rest of us ... wondering if we have a conscience for opposing the security procedures that they have enacted in order to keep us safe.
In a debate, very little good comes from questioning the integrity of one's opponents. It only serves to take a useful debate over the issues and make it inappropriately personal.
Those who support the government in this case claim patriotic motives. So do those who oppose the government in this case. So can we all join in a chorus of "You're A Grand Old Flag" and then get back to the discussion of the no-fly list?
#55
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
No ... they just operate from a different world view.
I can imagine that folks on the USG side of this case say exactly the same thing about the rest of us ... wondering if we have a conscience for opposing the security procedures that they have enacted in order to keep us safe.
I can imagine that folks on the USG side of this case say exactly the same thing about the rest of us ... wondering if we have a conscience for opposing the security procedures that they have enacted in order to keep us safe.
I don't know about you, but I really could not care less about the opinions of the delusional.
Or the conscienceless.
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
#58
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,597
I'm unable to understand how anyone on the USG side of this case (or involved with NFL enforcement and obfuscation at all) sleeps at night, faces their family, etc. Claiming that a using secret blacklist with no means of redress against a US citizen is acceptable, or otherwise enabling that blacklist, is so fundamentally opposed to everything the Constitution and the founders stood for that I would think any competent 8th grader could tell the difference between right and wrong here.
It's deeply disturbing that administrations from both parties have created and perpetuated this status quo. It's almost as if they have some sort of sickness. The only cure would be to abolish the blacklist system, criminally charge and imprison for life the architects and senior leadership, and ban everyone involved even tangentially with the blacklist from public service for life.
It's deeply disturbing that administrations from both parties have created and perpetuated this status quo. It's almost as if they have some sort of sickness. The only cure would be to abolish the blacklist system, criminally charge and imprison for life the architects and senior leadership, and ban everyone involved even tangentially with the blacklist from public service for life.
Simply put, we have become a nation of sheep that are being led by well-intentioned individuals who are scared of doing the wrong thing, and as a result, the Constitution suffers.
#59
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 729
Yet they refuse to give us any data or studies that might offer justification for what they do. I accept that government officials may have a different opinion than I do or settle on a different solution than I would, but I do not accept them ignoring public input and making effective oversight by the public impossible.
#60
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 729
I'm unable to understand how anyone on the USG side of this case (or involved with NFL enforcement and obfuscation at all) sleeps at night, faces their family, etc. Claiming that a using secret blacklist with no means of redress against a US citizen is acceptable, or otherwise enabling that blacklist, is so fundamentally opposed to everything the Constitution and the founders stood for that I would think any competent 8th grader could tell the difference between right and wrong here....
The USG acting to prevent the daughter from traveling to the trial is an abuse of government authority.
Last edited by Schmurrr; Dec 12, 2013 at 10:15 am Reason: typo