|
ifmaz -> RE: Using lists (12/10/2015 7:51:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/02/201324165957645514.html
...
In numerous cases individuals have claimed to be banned from travelling after refusing to become informants against their own community. Ibrahim "Abe" Mashal, was told by FBI agents that his name would be removed from the No-Fly list if he would agree to go undercover and spy on other Muslims, while Mohammed Tanvir was coerced with threats and blackmail to become an informant spying on the South Asian community in New York. After refusing, Tanvir was placed on the No-Fly list, an act which his lawyer said was direct retaliation for his refusal to inform.
...
As articulated by ACLU attorney Nusrat Choudhury, "It doesn't make anyone safer for innocent people not to be allowed to fly." Effectively granting government the ability to opaquely subject citizens to de facto banishment while abroad protects no one, but rather represents a troubling and potentially consequential deterioration of constitutionally protected rights in the post-9/11 era.
quote:
ORIGINAL: http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/rights-are-bundled-not-a-la-carte/5328
...
Second, bear in mind that the “no-fly list” is not the result of due process. It’s a mostly unreviewable, often arbitrary, sometimes-incompetently-amassed list of people suspected of a wide variety of conduct, or people with the same names as others suspected of bad conduct. It’s based on questionable science like ”predictive assessments,” is highly susceptible to bad-faith classification of peaceful protestors as dangerous, and it’s near-impossible to get off of it. In short, if it’s used to deny any protected right, it’s a nightmare.
...
Your right to private property can be limited by eminent domain, Ms. Badger continues – perhaps thinking of a different bitterly divided Court allowing the state to confiscate private homes for the good of crony private developers, only to see them abandoned to slow decay when said cronies decamp. In arguing that limits on Second Amendment rights are reasonable, Ms. Badger has neatly illustrated how limiting rights you don’t like may later be used to limit rights you do like.
...
quote:
ORIGINAL: http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2015/12/07/42000/
...
Fundamentally the list is pre-crime profiling. Not even based on science. And it’s also done very very poorly. People get on the list by mistake, because they’re related to someone who is on it, or because they visited the wrong country in the wrong year.
It’s a secret list that people haven’t been entitled to know they are on, how they got on, or to confront the evidence relied upon to put them on it. Legally there is very little recourse, and when challenged the government claims ‘state secrets.’
What we actually need are robust due process protections for the No Fly List. People wind up on the list arbitrarily, by mistake, and without significant evidence.
...
You can get on the list just by being related to someone (guilt by association) suspected of terrorist involvement. Or just traveling to the wrong country at the wrong time. An army veteran and civilian military contractor was placed on the list for having visited Yemen in 2009. Or because someone at the FBI checked the wrong box on a form by mistake, or failed to check a box by mistake. (Update: Or in retaliation for refusing to become an FBI informant.) We don’t even know much more about what goes into these determinations because the government has claimed their secret sauce is a ‘state secret’.
...
Remember that the San Bernadino shooters weren’t on the No Fly List (here’s a photo of them entering the US last year, hat tip Greg R.).
...
quote:
ORIGINAL: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
...
There’s another important aspect to the government’s case at this stage. The government has emphasized that it is making predictive judgments that people like our clients — who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime — might nevertheless pose a threat. That’s a perilous thing for it to do. As we’ve told the court based on evidence from experts, these kinds of predictions guarantee a high risk of error. If the government is going to predict that Americans pose a threat and blacklist them, that’s even more reason for the fundamental safeguards we seek.
...
When the ACLU and the NRA agree something is a bad idea, rest assured it's a fucking bad idea.
|
|
|
|
