No-fly list lawsuit should proceed in federal court in Portland, appeals panel rules
Jun 24, 2014, 7:15 pm
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Also waaaay too many statements that the FBI offered to remove them from the list if they agreed to become an informant to be coincidence. Also, so many offers of 'one-time waivers'. The FBI obviously doesn't believe them too dangerous to fly, but they are using the No-Fly List to coerce them. How shameful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...b57_story.html
Jun 24, 2014, 7:39 pm
#17
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Treasure Coast, FL
Programs: DL Diamond, Marriott LT Plat, HH Diamond, Avis Preferred Plus, National Executive
Posts: 4,578
Jun 24, 2014, 8:10 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
They are presently studying their appeal options. It's not over yet.
Jun 24, 2014, 8:16 pm
#19
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,954
They should be arrested and perhaps allowed to bond out while the appeal is in play. When the appeal is denied, they should begin trial and then ultimately a very long stretch in prison. For someone Pissant's age, that should be life.
Jun 24, 2014, 10:29 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,335
You lied, cheat, steal and stupid.
Good riddance to TSA!!!
Jun 24, 2014, 10:50 pm
#21
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,741
Not by a long shot. I suspect these people will still be on the NFL for many years to come and I suspect that the government will continue to play games and threaten and coerce people and put people on the NFL while this plays out.
Jun 25, 2014, 6:51 am
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CHA, MAN;
Programs: Delta DM 1 MM; Hz PC
Posts: 11,169
It is interesting that the "no-fly list" makes a mockery of the TSA.
What the list says to me is that the FBI believes that people on the no-fly list are so clever that the current system of passenger and baggage screening can't be trusted to stop them from committing terrorist acts and keep airline travel safe. Thus these people must be barred from all airline travel whatsoever.
What the list says to me is that the FBI believes that people on the no-fly list are so clever that the current system of passenger and baggage screening can't be trusted to stop them from committing terrorist acts and keep airline travel safe. Thus these people must be barred from all airline travel whatsoever.
Jun 25, 2014, 7:53 am
#23
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 51
What it is you think they should be arrested for, precisely? You have called for arrests at least three times so you obviously think you're on to something?
Jun 25, 2014, 9:40 am
#24
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,954
Violating people's civil rights by illegally denying them passage by commercial airplane. Extortion. Denial of due process.
Jun 25, 2014, 10:48 am
#25
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 288
Jun 25, 2014, 10:54 am
#26
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LGA, JFK
Posts: 1,018
Besides violating the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the TSA of DHS also violated a law passed by Congress, according to this court. 49 U.S.C. 44903 provides:
49 U.S.C. 44903 Air transportation security
...
(j) Short-term assessment and deployment of emerging security technologies and procedures
...
(2) Computer-assisted passenger prescreening system
...
(C) Advanced airline passenger prescreening
...
(ii) Assumption of function. Not later than 180 days after completion of testing under clause (i), the Assistant Secretary, or the designee of the Assistant Secretary, shall begin to assume the performance of the passenger prescreening function of comparing passenger information to the automatic selectee and no fly lists and utilize all appropriate records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the Federal Government in performing that function.
(iii) Requirements. In assuming performance of the function under clause (ii), the Assistant Secretary shall --
(I) establish a procedure to enable airline passengers, who are delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight because the advanced passenger screening system determined that they might pose a security threat, to appeal such determination and correct information contained in the system;
...
(G) Appeal procedures.
(i) In general. The Assistant Secretary shall establish a timely and fair process for individuals identified as a threat under one or more of subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) to appeal to the Transportation Security Administration the determination and correct any erroneous information.
...
The court indicated that "the DHS TRIP process" violates the above section, but to be safe, "concluded [that] the DHS TRIP process violates Plaintiffs' rights to procedural due process under the United States Constitution," without directly holding that 49 USC 44903 was violated. This way, Congress can not simply overrule the ruling by amending 49 USC 44903. Good work, judge.
49 U.S.C. 44903 Air transportation security
...
(j) Short-term assessment and deployment of emerging security technologies and procedures
...
(2) Computer-assisted passenger prescreening system
...
(C) Advanced airline passenger prescreening
...
(ii) Assumption of function. Not later than 180 days after completion of testing under clause (i), the Assistant Secretary, or the designee of the Assistant Secretary, shall begin to assume the performance of the passenger prescreening function of comparing passenger information to the automatic selectee and no fly lists and utilize all appropriate records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the Federal Government in performing that function.
(iii) Requirements. In assuming performance of the function under clause (ii), the Assistant Secretary shall --
(I) establish a procedure to enable airline passengers, who are delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight because the advanced passenger screening system determined that they might pose a security threat, to appeal such determination and correct information contained in the system;
...
(G) Appeal procedures.
(i) In general. The Assistant Secretary shall establish a timely and fair process for individuals identified as a threat under one or more of subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) to appeal to the Transportation Security Administration the determination and correct any erroneous information.
...
The court indicated that "the DHS TRIP process" violates the above section, but to be safe, "concluded [that] the DHS TRIP process violates Plaintiffs' rights to procedural due process under the United States Constitution," without directly holding that 49 USC 44903 was violated. This way, Congress can not simply overrule the ruling by amending 49 USC 44903. Good work, judge.
Jun 25, 2014, 11:04 am
#27
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,741
You are skirting the rules, IMHO, in saying this. You aren't advocating violence, but this is also unacceptable.
We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not vigilantes. Just because TSA ignores the law doesn't mean the appropriate sanctions should be outside the law.
I don't like groin chops either, but this is not an acceptable response. It just lowers you to the level of the law-breaking TSOs and their AWOL or complicit enabling managers.
Jun 25, 2014, 11:23 am
#28
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 288
No.
You are skirting the rules, IMHO, in saying this. You aren't advocating violence, but this is also unacceptable.
We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not vigilantes. Just because TSA ignores the law doesn't mean the appropriate sanctions should be outside the law.
I don't like groin chops either, but this is not an acceptable response. It just lowers you to the level of the law-breaking TSOs and their AWOL or complicit enabling managers.
You are skirting the rules, IMHO, in saying this. You aren't advocating violence, but this is also unacceptable.
We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not vigilantes. Just because TSA ignores the law doesn't mean the appropriate sanctions should be outside the law.
I don't like groin chops either, but this is not an acceptable response. It just lowers you to the level of the law-breaking TSOs and their AWOL or complicit enabling managers.
Jun 25, 2014, 1:48 pm
#29
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Pretty much. But that bit is old news; the ACLU took that on in an amended complaint in April:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...b57_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...b57_story.html
I have little to no doubt about the following: when it comes to most people who have been hit by these kind of US blacklists and offered a USG "deal" to get around the blacklist hits, approaching the ACLU is more the exception than the norm. Most victims of this sort are probably too scared or otherwise poorly positioned to challenge the government in an open venue on such matters.
Jun 25, 2014, 2:20 pm
#30
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,741
The government is still using the blacklists in much the same way as alleged in the "old news'" items.
I have little to no doubt about the following: when it comes to most people who have been hit by these kind of US blacklists and offered a USG "deal" to get around the blacklist hits, approaching the ACLU is more the exception than the norm. Most victims of this sort are probably too scared or otherwise poorly positioned to challenge the government in an open venue on such matters.
I have little to no doubt about the following: when it comes to most people who have been hit by these kind of US blacklists and offered a USG "deal" to get around the blacklist hits, approaching the ACLU is more the exception than the norm. Most victims of this sort are probably too scared or otherwise poorly positioned to challenge the government in an open venue on such matters.