Boggie Dog

Have to start somewhere to unravel the rope. All lawyers for the government in this csse should be questioned.

SeriouslyLost

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.

GaryD

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.

SeriouslyLost

I think you might want to look into what witness tampering is.

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.

studentff

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.

Caradoc

That's easy. They don't have a conscience. You see the same thing with many government agencies - notably those that wear badges.

Boggie Dog

I would question if the lawyers discussed it among themselves. Who knew what and when? Deposed the whole lot of them. (either meaning)

GaryD

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".

jkhuggins

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.

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?

Caradoc

That would mean that they're delusional enough to actually believe that that SPOTniks, the Name Game, the No-Fly List, the Magic Paper Strips, the confiscation of toys and cupcakes, and sticking their grubby hands in people's pants "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.

Loren Pechtel

I would think they would have to assert attorney-client privilege about any such questions.

Boggie Dog

Only those named as defendants in the case.

halls120

Two years ago I got into an argument with a good friend of mine who is still on active duty in the military, using much the same argument you lay out above. What I got in return was an adamant "we aren't violating the Constitution, and even if we are, it's for the greater good." That same attitude permeates the NSA, the CIA, certain Hill staff, and others inside the Beltway who are in positions to be blamed if there is another large scale terrorist attack in the US.

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.

Schmurrr

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.

Schmurrr

I agree. I don't understand it either. I know there have been studies about the tendency of large organizations to be amoral, but I don't buy it as an excuse. The leadership of such an organization is responsible for its culture, and I don't see how the USG can claim ignorance of so many very real and very significant problems with how it operates.

The USG acting to prevent the daughter from traveling to the trial is an abuse of government authority.