'Fight, Not Flight: ACLU Takes on the Federal "No Fly" List in Portland'
LINK
PORTLAND'S FEDERAL COURT has become the battleground for a major lawsuit that will impact civil liberties, national safety, and that ritual every American dreads: airport security. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) faced off against federal lawyers on Friday, January 21, in downtown Portland at the first hearing of its case claiming that the government's "No Fly List" is unconstitutional. On behalf of 10 US citizens and permanent residents, including Portlander Mohamed Sheikh Abdirahman Kariye, the ACLU alleges that the "No Fly List" violates the right of due process because the government does not tell people whether they've been placed on the list, why they're suspect, or provide an adequate way to get someone's name off. ACLU attorney Ben Wizner explained that his team chose to file in Portland in part because it's where Kariye is from, but also because they hope the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers the West Coast) will give the case a fairer shake than other circuits. "This is the most important case to date that asks the court to answer this question: Can the government put someone on a secret list, not tell them that they're on this secret list, not tell them why they're on this secret list, and not give them any process to object to being on the list?" Wizner told reporters from the steps of the federal courthouse on Friday afternoon. |
That's what I find really creepy about the No Fly List.
On behalf of 10 US citizens and permanent residents, including Portlander Mohamed Sheikh Abdirahman Kariye, the ACLU alleges that the "No Fly List" violates the right of due process because the government does not tell people whether they've been placed on the list, why they're suspect, or provide an adequate way to get someone's name off. |
I'm glad they're finally getting to this but I have to say, overall I've been disappointed with the ACLU when it comes to TSA. They've been dropping the ball and while I'm glad EPIC is trying as hard as they can to rake the TSA over the coals, I'd have expected the ACLU to have jumped down the TSA's throats a long time ago.
Are they just overloaded from other cases or is something else going on? |
Originally Posted by celticwhisper
(Post 15788792)
Are they just overloaded from other cases or is something else going on?
Better yet, post your question to their FB wall. I've gotten good responses from companies and organizations via that method of contact. @:-) |
I'd love to know why they haven't defended the 4th amendment better. But I don't want to reactivate my FB account. That's a different can of worms.
|
Originally Posted by celticwhisper
(Post 15788792)
I'm glad they're finally getting to this but I have to say, overall I've been disappointed with the ACLU when it comes to TSA. They've been dropping the ball and while I'm glad EPIC is trying as hard as they can to rake the TSA over the coals, I'd have expected the ACLU to have jumped down the TSA's throats a long time ago.
Are they just overloaded from other cases or is something else going on? This is the second suit that the ACLU filed against the NFL. The ACLU dropped the first NFL suit because the DOJ mooted it by telling the TSA give the guy his job back (the pilot). In the current NFL case (which has been going on for some time now, by the way), the DOJ tried to moot the case by telling the FBI and TSA to get the plaintiffs home. Now the FBI has a procedure to make a one-time exception to fly these unfortunate folks home; you just saw that in the CAIR case involving Kuwait after the Judge hinted that a hearing would be held. The ACLU dropped the Bierfeldt suit because the DOJ mooted the case by telling the TSA to change their SOP. Meanwhile, the ACLU is challenging the wiretapping laws in MD and IL with respect to recording [cops] in public. They are are suing to change the standard CBP uses for searches of electronic media and also to limit extended border detentions. They also have their heels dug in in the George case (arabic flying cards)-- the government's motions in this case are really quite something. I'll add more if I think of them (added George case above already); the ACLU has not been MIA. |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 15792270)
They are overloaded, underfunded and they choose their cases very carefully. These cases are very expensive to litigate and they can't afford losers which would include their three rendition cases so far.
This is the second suit that the ACLU filed against the NFL. The ACLU dropped the first NFL suit because the DOJ mooted it by telling the TSA give the guy his job back (the pilot). In the current NFL case (which has been going on for some time now, by the way), the DOJ tried to moot the case by telling the FBI and TSA to get the plaintiffs home. Now the FBI has a procedure to make a one-time exception to fly these unfortunate folks home; you just saw that in the CAIR case involving Kuwait after the Judge hinted that a hearing would be held. The ACLU dropped the Bierfeldt suit because the DOJ mooted the case by telling the TSA to change their SOP. Meanwhile, the ACLU is challenging the wiretapping laws in MD and IL with respect to recording [cops] in public. They are are suing to change the standard CBP uses for searches of electronic media and also to limit extended border detentions. I'll add more if I think of them; the ACLU has not been MIA. |
9th circuit is on a losing streak, their last 5 rulings in the supreme court have been overruled. If the ACLU wins this in portland they are sure to lose it in DC.
|
Originally Posted by HWGeeks
(Post 15792650)
9th circuit is on a losing streak, their last 5 rulings in the supreme court have been overruled. If the ACLU wins this in portland they are sure to lose it in DC.
|
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 15793269)
While the 9th circuit does have a poor won-loss record in the SC, I would hesitate suggesting the ACLU is "sure" to lose at the SC when it comes to the government maintaining secret lists with no recourse. The "security at all costs" mantra that the fascists among us keep mouthing is starting to lose its impact - even inside the Beltway.
|
Originally Posted by HWGeeks
(Post 15792650)
9th circuit is on a losing streak, their last 5 rulings in the supreme court have been overruled. If the ACLU wins this in portland they are sure to lose it in DC.
However, to put things in perspective, of 114,199 cases terminated in the 9th circuit from 1999 to 2008, 68 were vacated or reversed by the Supreme Court. That's about 0.06% of cases. This seems like a pretty small risk. |
Thanks, Ari. That clears things up a lot. I tend to more closely follow the EFF than I do the ACLU so I get out of touch sometimes. Most appreciated.
|
Originally Posted by LuvAirFrance
(Post 15792065)
I'd love to know why they haven't defended the 4th amendment better. But I don't want to reactivate my FB account.
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 15792270)
They are overloaded, underfunded and they choose their cases very carefully. These cases are very expensive to litigate and they can't afford losers which would include their three rendition cases so far.
*snip summary* |
Originally Posted by essxjay
(Post 15795899)
Thanks very much for the info. You are most helpful. ^
Originally Posted by celticwhisper
(Post 15794669)
Thanks, Ari. That clears things up a lot. I tend to more closely follow the EFF than I do the ACLU so I get out of touch sometimes. Most appreciated.
Originally Posted by nachtnebel
(Post 15792341)
Thanks for the information. I'll probably contribute to them again. I stopped supporting them because they didn't seem terribly interested in the Constitutional issues that I was interested in, seemingly preferring some odd edge cases. I'll look into them again.
|
Originally Posted by HWGeeks
(Post 15792650)
9th circuit is on a losing streak, their last 5 rulings in the supreme court have been overruled. If the ACLU wins this in portland they are sure to lose it in DC.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:10 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.