GUWonder

...... which in part may explain why the biggest leakers of regime dirty tricks most hated by regime apologists today tend to be young generation of "national security" leakers with no wife or children.

Familiar with the notion of the preferred janissaries of the Ottoman Empire regimes? "The other's" children denied family connections and/or groomed to choose Empire/Leader over birth family/nation/patria.

Ari

Of course. Why would they stop? These NFL court cases go on for years before there is even a trial. In the meantime, these FBI SAs can run around putting unconstitutional pressure on certain individuals whom they'd like to groom as informants.

And the stories we do hear are so similar. I wish someone would record one of these interviews to document the offer of informant status in exchange for getting off the list.

N830MH

Do you think stupid enough? You can't blame with TSA & DHS. They lied, cheat, steal, and stupid. TSA is very nasty thing for what they did. Those people is very uncomfortable with TSA. They don't like TSA. You disrespecting with TSA and they are un-American agency. It's time to end the TSA. Now!

You can't be discrimination with TSA. You are worthless!!!

GUWonder

I am betting it's going to happen again and it is just a matter of when and who does it next.

Part of the reason the FBI amongst others holds meetings overseas at US embassies with blacklisted US persons is to reduce the independent/target's own recording opportunities. Disrupting recordings made is also within the technological reach of the NSA, for recording or recording storage devices that are online and/or have online connectivity features.

FliesWay2Much

It's also on U.S. turf and the laws of the host countries do not apply. On the flip side, whether or not they like it, the U.S. Constitution DOES apply at an embassy.

Blogndog

Yes, but the first they do upon entering an embassy is to take away your electronics, so you cannot record or video tape the interview. Has anyone here ever been the subject of an FBI investigation? They will ask to "interview" (read "interrogate with out the presence of counsel") you. If you say "sure, as long as I can record the interview," suddenly they will lose interest in conducting the "interview". What they do is have a stenographer attend, who produces an "official transcript" of the interview, which upon reading you will discover bears little resemblance to what you actually said. Then, a week or so later, they will discover "evidence" that "what you said" (read "what they say you said") is false, and you are you are being charged with "lying to FBI") (by the "FBI" they mean the Federal agents who have been systematically lying to you at every opportunity, something they openly admit to on their own website). But do not fear! Just rat out your friends for them and everything will be forgiven!

GUWonder

It's de facto US turf, but the laws of the host country are applicable yet practically unenforceable for activities taken in the host country by someone credentialed as a diplomat assigned to an embassy. The US Constitution applies to USG employees dealing with US persons abroad too, but the USG gets pretty creative to circumvent the lawful applicability of the US Constitution and de facto invalidate its applicability.

Our government rather recently undermined its own position such that those who are being subject to these kind of USG blacklist-blackmail procedures are marginally more likely to have a slightly better counter-approach strategy if the "interrogation" takes place at a consulate rather than an embassy and is done by non-US law enforcement officials not recognized, by the host government, as assigned to the US embassy in the host country. Either way, the best approach is to not play the game and to lawfully avoid playing the Stasi-like "informant" game however you can, as long as you can, wherever you can. If it means flying to a country elsewhere in the hemisphere and a surface trip to the US, that is better than playing entrapment stooge and bait (à la Stasi-"informant").

halls120

Outside of a traffic stop, anyone who talks to a law enforcement officer without a lawyer present is a fool.

We love it when you do, of course.

GUWonder

Indeed. And even then, still avoid talking even when a lawyer is present and let the lawyer do the talking as much as possible.

eyecue

The "list" predates TSA!

petaluma1

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/p..._rpt_nofly.pdf

halls120

oops!

Blogndog

Now that we have more information it seems that both the history and current status of the NFL and the legal challenge to it are much worse than I previously understood. I had heard that the FBI was using the NFL to attempt to blackmail people into becoming informants; from the ACLU suit We've learned they went much further than that. One guy attempted to travel back to his family in Yemen by ship; he was ticketed for the journey but the captain refused to let him board in Philadelphia because the DHS rang him up and "recommended" that he not accept him as a passenger. Another guy managed to get on a flight to Nuevo Laredo, from where he was going to enter the US by land, but when the plane stopped in Mexico City, he was hauled off the plane by Mexican agents and not permitted to continue, at the behest of the US government. Another was already on a flight to the USA when US authorities ordered the flight to turn around and return to London. Obviously no legitimate security concerns here.

Also troubling is the ruling. Whilst it is welcome news that the NFL has been found to be unconstitutional, the judge has not ordered that the plaintiffs be permitted to fly pending resolution of the issue, only that the government implement new procedures. It is not even clear that these revised "procedures" will need to conform with a proper "due process" requirement, or that the burden of proof will rest with the government, or that the hurdle will be significant, ultimately, the government may get away with a "preponderance of evidence" level of proof. Worse, it is not clear if there will even be proper independent review, or if the judge will accept some slightly more transparent administrative process managed by the FBI themselves.

Al in all, a small step forward, but still plagued with all sorts of concerns.

FliesWay2Much

saizai

That's complicated.