Go Back   FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Sign in using an external account

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 12, 12, 8:18 am   #1
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ATL Lost Luggage
Programs: Kryptonium Kettle, Hoping to reach TSADD (TSA Disparaging Diamond) this year; PC plat,former MR Plat
Posts: 2,318
Court Reinstates Professor Rahinah Ibrahim's lawsuit over No-Fly List

Some good news from the San Francisco Appeal:
A Malaysian professor who claims she was mistakenly placed on the government's no-fly list and arrested at San Francisco International Airport in 2005 has won the right from a U.S. appeals court to go ahead with a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday that Rahinah Ibrahim, who holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University, had enough of a connection with the United States to allow her to sue in an American court.
Source:
San Francisco Appeal:
Court Clears Way For Lawsuit After Woman Arrested At SFO Over "No-Fly" Status

February 9, 2012 12:55 AM


There is some additional information in this SF Chronicle article:

San Francisco Chronicle:
Ex-Stanford student's no-fly lawsuit reinstated

Thursday, February 9, 2012


A short quote:
Ibrahim, a mother of four in her mid-40s, eventually earned her doctorate from Stanford and is now a university professor in Malaysia. She settled claims against San Francisco police and others involved in her arrest for $225,000 in 2009 but is still suing over the watch list.
__________________
Every X-Ray you undergo incrementally increases your odds of a malignancy. TSA Glossed Over Cancer Concerns
RatherBeOnATrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 12, 11:25 am   #2
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by RatherBeOnATrain View Post
Some good news from the San Francisco Appeal:
A Malaysian professor who claims she was mistakenly placed on the government's no-fly list and arrested at San Francisco International Airport in 2005 has won the right from a U.S. appeals court to go ahead with a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday that Rahinah Ibrahim, who holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University, had enough of a connection with the United States to allow her to sue in an American court.
Source:
San Francisco Appeal:
Court Clears Way For Lawsuit After Woman Arrested At SFO Over "No-Fly" Status

February 9, 2012 12:55 AM


There is some additional information in this SF Chronicle article:

San Francisco Chronicle:
Ex-Stanford student's no-fly lawsuit reinstated

Thursday, February 9, 2012


A short quote:
Ibrahim, a mother of four in her mid-40s, eventually earned her doctorate from Stanford and is now a university professor in Malaysia. She settled claims against San Francisco police and others involved in her arrest for $225,000 in 2009 but is still suing over the watch list.
looks like the 9th circuit thinks there is a due process problem with the no fly list...
nachtnebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 12, 6:19 pm   #3
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: MIA
Programs: PC Plat/Amb
Posts: 1,152
Why is this list being checked after the plane takes off?

If she is too much of a threat to fly into the U.S., shouldn't she have been stopped beforehand?
We Will Never Forget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 12, 3:02 am   #4
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget View Post
Why is this list being checked after the plane takes off?

If she is too much of a threat to fly into the U.S., shouldn't she have been stopped beforehand?
There you go again-assuming that logic is involved in any of this. Bad boy!
Darkumbra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 12, 10:25 am   #5
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,317
The ruling is on shaky ground (it is a standing issue only on appeal, not an NFL issue which the court already dealt with); I predict it will be reversed en banc or by the Supreme Court. It might at be clarified to give the correct reason she has standing, but that depends on whether she is still on the NFL.

The NFL case to watch is Latif. It is in the 9th Circuit right now and will most likely be reversed and remanded back to the District Court to consider the challenges to the NFL in the first instance as to the each plaintiff, and as to the TRIP process (i.e. is TRIP 'due process'); the Distrcit Judge completely ignored Ibrahim I the first time around and dismissed the case.

If you want good info on the state of the law on the NFL, read Ibrahim I from the 9th Circuit.

Last edited by Ari; Feb 13, 12 at 10:32 am.
Ari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 12, 11:04 am   #6
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing
Posts: 72,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget View Post
Why is this list being checked after the plane takes off?
Finalization of the complete passenger manifest occurs so close to take-off in various instances that it's a safe assumption to presume that some "catches" will occur after take-off. More so when some have (routinely valid) multiple ID travel documents -- some with "variations" in names and/or other data -- or other factors result in being flagged only when post-take-off batch processing takes place (and it takes place for a variety of purposes even after a flight has taken off).

Also, some people on the NFL who reside well beyond the Americas do sometimes manage to arrive in the US by avoiding the airspace of the US (and some of our surrender monkey allies) and using surface transport means for part of the journey.

Such situations just provide more fuel for rational people to burn up the US aviation blacklists. ID checks of passengers -- which is the backbone of the flimsy passenger blacklists -- are a wasteful dog and pony show in an environment where WEI interdiction is as ridiculously poor as is the case.

Why are there even these lists? ID isn't security.
__________________
Like TSA, DL SkyMiles management treats airline customers as if they are the enemy or sheep to be fleeced and it shows.

Last edited by GUWonder; Feb 13, 12 at 11:10 am.
GUWonder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 13, 10:05 am   #7
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ATL Lost Luggage
Programs: Kryptonium Kettle, Hoping to reach TSADD (TSA Disparaging Diamond) this year; PC plat,former MR Plat
Posts: 2,318
Wired.com: Trial Opens in Case Challenging Scholar’s Placement on TSA Watchlist

David Kravets has an update:

Wired.com:
Trial Opens in Case Challenging Scholar’s Placement on TSA Watchlist

December 2, 2013


A short quote:
Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO — In 2005, Rahinah Ibrahim, a visiting scholar at Stanford University, was handcuffed, detained and interrogated for two hours at San Francisco International Airport, after being told she was on a U.S. government watchlist.

Today, eight years later, the 48-year-old Malaysian academic and mother of four became the first person to take the U.S. to trial after being included in America’s database of suspected terrorists. At issue: whether someone wrongly watchlisted has a right to formally clear their name in court — and whether the government even has to admit that it placed someone on the list to begin with.

The first-of-its-kind trial could have serious implications for the government’s vast secret watchlist system, which contains 875,000 names, according to the most recent figures released this year by the U.S. National Counter-Terrorism Center.
__________________
Every X-Ray you undergo incrementally increases your odds of a malignancy. TSA Glossed Over Cancer Concerns
RatherBeOnATrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 13, 7:57 pm   #8
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,421
Thank goodness for the 9th circuit. I have high hopes for this case. Although this is ridiculous:
Quote:
One hurdle in the trial, which is expected to last two weeks, is that the government so far is refusing to defend itself. “The government cannot respond to any of Professor Ibrahim’s claims,” said Deputy U.S. Attorney Lily Farel.

The Obama administration maintains that the basic question of whether Ibrahim is on a watchlist or not is a “state secret,” and is hence privileged and confidential, even in a civil lawsuit against the government. The federal judge presiding over the lawsuit has sided with federal prosecutors so far.
I guess it makes sense that the case in still under the judge who dismissed it and was overturned, it's just unfortunate.
janetdoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 13, 8:02 pm   #9
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: AA, QF, DL, SPG, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 54,919
No defense? Find for the Plaintiff! Life without parole for current and former "leaders" of TSA/DHS. Defendants are personally fined $500,000 each, to be given to the victim.

Naphole, Pissant, Kippie, and Skeletor: You are remanded to federal custody and will serve your sentences at SuperMax in Florence, CO. You are the scummiest defendants this Court has even seen.

Next case!
__________________
You cannot uphold American ideology with un-American actions. It's time for Change.
Spiff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 13, 5:32 am   #10
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FKB
Programs: Skymiles - FO
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
The ruling is on shaky ground (it is a standing issue only on appeal, not an NFL issue which the court already dealt with); I predict it will be reversed en banc or by the Supreme Court. It might at be clarified to give the correct reason she has standing, but that depends on whether she is still on the NFL.

The NFL case to watch is Latif. It is in the 9th Circuit right now and will most likely be reversed and remanded back to the District Court to consider the challenges to the NFL in the first instance as to the each plaintiff, and as to the TRIP process (i.e. is TRIP 'due process'); the Distrcit Judge completely ignored Ibrahim I the first time around and dismissed the case.

If you want good info on the state of the law on the NFL, read Ibrahim I from the 9th Circuit.
I agree that Latif is a case to watch. (Indeed it was reversed and remanded to the trail court) It appears to be much further along now. That court has already partially completed its evaluation of the NFL procedure under the Mathews test. Here is a link to the discussion...

I've just started reading the Ibrahim documents, and I'm already perplexed. The plaintiff's trial brief is so heavily redacted I'm not entirely sure what relief she is seeking. I wouldn't be surprised if the government's brief in response is redacted in its entirety.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also think that Latif is making a facial attack on the NFL, while Ibrahim is only attacking its application to her.
RedSnapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 13, 8:04 am   #11
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
It has become apparent that there are no depths to which DHS will not sink.

DHS stalls no-fly list trial by putting witness on no-fly list

Quote:
On the first day of trial, the judge learned that the plaintiff's daughter, scheduled to testify, was delayed because she had been denied boarding of her flight because she was put a Department of Homeland Security no-fly list. DHS staff deny this. The government's lawyers told the judge that the daughter is lying. The airline provided documentation of the DHS no-fly order.
Caradoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 13, 8:11 am   #12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a twisty little maze of airline seats, all alike...
Programs: CO & NW forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 25,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caradoc View Post
It has become apparent that there are no depths to which DHS will not sink.

DHS stalls no-fly list trial by putting witness on no-fly list
So on the one hand the government won;t discuss the NFL and whether someone is or is not on it and on the other they assure the court that the missing witness is not on it. Ww.
__________________
May the four winds blow you safely home ✈ ✈ ✈ ✈ ✈ ✈ ✈ ✈ ✈
I support meaningless jingoistic clichés Frequent Flyer Giving
Xyzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 13, 10:37 am   #13
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xyzzy View Post
So on the one hand the government won;t discuss the NFL and whether someone is or is not on it and on the other they assure the court that the missing witness is not on it. Ww.
Yep. And the judge doesn't sound happy about it.

Quote:
...he made clear that, “I am disturbed by this…. We’ll hear from her [Ms. Mustafa Kamal] when she gets here. If it turns out that the DHS has sabotaged a witness, that will go against the government’s case. I want a witness from Homeland Security who can testify to what has happened. You find a witness and get them here.”
Caradoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 13, 2:58 pm   #14
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 9,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caradoc View Post
It has become apparent that there are no depths to which DHS will not sink.

DHS stalls no-fly list trial by putting witness on no-fly list
If a lawyer is shown to be dishonest in communications to a judge should there not be severe sanctions?
Boggie Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 13, 3:42 pm   #15
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
If a lawyer is shown to be dishonest in communications to a judge should there not be severe sanctions?
To call the lawyer "dishonest" assumes that the lawyer knows the truth and is deliberately denying it. Given the bureaucratic monstrosity that DHS is, I could find it plausible that the lawyers were told by higher-ups that it wasn't DHS's fault the witness couldn't board a plane, while some lower-level DHS employee actually performed the action that led to the witness being denied boarding.

Hanlon's Law: never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
jkhuggins is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:41 pm.