There is a major decision out of Oregon where U.S. District Judge Anna Brown has ruled that the government’s no-fly list is unconstitutional since there is no meaningful way to contest inclusion of the list barring you from commercial flights. Brown issued a 65 page ruling with the holding that the “inclusion on the no-fly list constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel.” It is a refreshing opinion from the federal courts which tend to be highly deferential to the government in this area.
Central to the decision is Brown’s recognition that “international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society.” We have all heard horror stories of how people are mistakenly placed on this list and how they find themselves in an endless bureaucratic process to correct such mistakes. The sheer stupidity of many of these mistakes has been shocking with government officials barring people with similarly sounding names to terrorists like Bin Laden or the cavalier addition of names despite the huge cost to the individuals. The list is a CYA moment for many officials who want to be more safe than sorry, but those unfairly placed on the list find themselves in a governmental nightmare of red tape and delay.
In this case, the the 13 plaintiffs insisted that they have no links to terrorism and only learned of their no-fly status when they arrived at an airport. Four of them are military veterans.
The decision is well-written and well-researched and worth reading. It finally imposes a modest obligation on the government to act in a reasonable fashion.
Source: NPR
When I fly, I have no issue with the pilot asking me anything he wants being that I’ve already put my life in his hands.
Finally another good decision to bring back a smidgeon of lost civil liberties.
Randyjet must be the wisest person on the planet with his powers of discernment. Either that or he is the most deluded person on the planet about his “alleged” powers.
Then there’s the El Al Airlines way
El Al hasn’t had a terrorist incident on one of its planes for many decades.
True. El Al’s security measures indeed are highly effective. Instead of examining shoes and toothpaste tubes, El Al agents — all trained psychologists — quietly interview each passenger at length,
watching for telltale signs that all might not be well.
Years ago, when I flew El Al from JFK to Tel Aviv, a pretty young Israeli sat me down in a cubicle and politely asked me about my business in Israel, where I was staying,
with whom I was traveling, and so on. She kept her eyes on mine during the entire interview — “interrogation” is too harsh a word for the deceptively soft questions she asked — and presumably
watched my body language for unconscious but revealing twitches of guilt and evasiveness.
I agree with the decision, mainly because if you are placed on the list in error, there is almost no way to correct the mistake. It’s not like the interest is classified; you find out at the airport.
But I agree with randyjet that if a pilot feels uncomfortable about a certain passenger, he should have the discretion to deny the flight. And that is true of any race, ethnicity, or creed.
I believe there should be a no-fly list, but it needs to be accurate, transparent, and there needs to be a remedy for correcting mistakes.
We got so carried away about PC after 9/11, patting down little old ladies in wheelchairs and letting all Middle Easterners go through. If Canadians became terrorists, then they would get the most scrutiny. I like how they do it in Israel. The military takes care of airport security, and they are trained to detect suspicious behavior in many ways. If a blond woman acts as a mule, they’ll catch her. If a Palestinian suicide bomber tries to get through, they’ll catch him.
They’re not worried about offending anyone. They’re just concerned with saving lives.
I know I would trust the military far more than TSA. Has there been a single test of security that TSA has passed? Every time they test TSA, they’ve missed bombs and firearms. It’s a joke.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/tsa-screener-confession-102912.html#.U6rlWRafspE
Karen, While I agree that the Israelis do an excellent job screening, they also do abuse the system as well for political reasons. A pilot friend of mine who I flew with at Ameriflight is now a captain at United. He is a US citizen now, but he came from an Arab Israeli family who still live in Israel. When he returns to Israel, every time he is harassed and detained for at least six to eight hours before they will let him enter and grilled the whole time. This is when he is in full United Airlines uniform and all kinds of ID badges. He stated the point is to discourage him from returning since it sends the wrong message to his fellows that they CAN be something more than mere laborers. He does not have enough seniority fly there as a captain yet, but when he does, that kind of thing will stop since crew members MUST be given special access.
Secret lists and secret courts. We can’t be the “Land of the Free” if they exist.
In Riley v California the Supreme Court held today that: “The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.”
Steve Fleischer wrote “if you have Cap. Bligh tendencies”
James Knauer wrote “A pilot is neither king nor lord”
A pilot is the legal master of the aircraft, just as a ship’s captain is the legal master of his ship. He has the right to deny admission to drunks and other people who could cause trouble. He is responsible for his passengers, crew, aircraft, and people / property on the ground, probably in that order.
I suggest SF and JK go to the below link, click on “Read 14 CFR Part 91,” and then click on “§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command”:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
P.S. Political-correctness is not mentioned anywhere.
Related to Jill’s comment:
The following article includes video with Greenwald’s comments about the list of names that is to be released “really, really soon” — its release “is imminent”, Greenwald noted:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/23/shep-smith-glenn-greenwald-fox-news_n_5523275.html
All “lists” and databases need to be carefully examined, and those who are being surveilled, harassed and worse must have the opportunity to see and challenge “the evidence” against them.
Good for this judge — she did the right thing. Now, others need to follow suit.
A good decision. Now let’s get rid of TSA sexual assaults.
“Fortunately, the guy was white and did as requested.”
This is practically verbatim what this poster said a few months ago on this exact topic. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. A pilot is neither king nor lord, nor does it grant him this sort of sweeping powers to segregate people by race when it comes to (what appear to be completely made up) threats against his “airplane.”
A judge has told you N-O. But white privilege appears to be also a cause for deafness.
I see that James has not improved his logic over time. Since the guy WAS WHITE, he had NO white privilege. Sure did not do him any good with me, did it? My point was that if he were a minority, he could have raised holy hell about being “profiled”, which would have been untrue in FACT. Since I was personally involved in the Civil Rights movement back in 63-65, it sure as hell is an outright lie as regards myself personally. I have done a damn sight more than most blowhards in this field. I hope that all watched the PBS documentary film about Freedom Summer, though I was too young to go down south, but I sure tried. I remember those days well, and I hope that people make time to watch it when and if it comes back on.
randyjet wrote “When I was flying out of Denver, I read former Prof, Ward Churchill’s screed about 9/11 in which he extols the ‘heroes’ of 9/11 who hijacked the planes and killed over 3000 people”
I agree with something randyjet wrote. Who knew it was possible?
randyjet forgot to mention Churchill’s reference to the “technocratic corps” working in the WTC as “little Eichmanns.”
Churchill eventually relocated to Atlanta, Georgia, but not before the Rocky Mountain News declared that it “turned up no evidence of a single Indian ancestor” in direct contrast to his original claim to be 100% Native American, though his claim got smaller and smaller over the years.
Yet if a university professor ever wrote something not completely supportive of gay marriage and special rights for LGBTs, he would be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
I’d love to bring Churchill to the lawless parts of Afghanistan or Pakistan. When he admitted to the locals that he was unfamiliar with the Koran, he’d finally receive justice.
Two additional things. 1. Greenwald said he will release the types of people the govt. is surveilling which will include terrorist such as people against fracking, civil libertarians and anti-war protesters! Like the no-fly list this has nothing at all to do with terrorism.
Very importantly, the 2010 Obama memo on who he gets to kill includes anyone, anywhere, including in the US, of a US citizen (see ACLU and Greenwald about that). Incidentally, the first attempt to kill an American citizen happened in 2009, before the memo was written.
There is a pattern here!
Jill, I quite agree that the no fly list has been abused for political reasons, rather than legitimate security ones. That has stopped for the most part from what I have seen. This decision makes it even harder to do that, and I welcome it.
As for the President ordering the killing of US citizens as being a new or dangerous thing, you do not know your history. The US has been doing this for decades. The first well known murder was the US journalist who was covering the Greek Civil war after WWII. I don’t know if Truman ordered him murdered, but somebody in DC DID. Then I recommend you see the movie MISSING with Jack Lemmon where a US journalist who was working in Chile at the time of the coup stumbled across the extent of the CIA involvement in the dictatorship and coup. He was arrested, held for awhile, then murdered. The Chileans would NVER on their own done such a thing, and I doubt any lowly ambassador would give the OK. So it had to come from somewhere in DC, either Nixon ordered it, or the head of the CIA. You will notice that ALL of these American victims were NOT engaged in any armed struggle with the US government or its proxies. The folks who were killed were in FACT armed combatants or direct supporters of the same.
One question you must answer, is would it have been legal for FDR to order or have the US Army Air Corps bomb Ezra Pounds villa in Italy during WWII? I think it would have been perfectly legal and right. In fact, I only regret that we did not do that.
“I also ordered the F/A to give him free drinks for the duration of the flight.”
Free drinks? At the very least, a free flight was warranted.
“a woman passenger told a flight attendant that she thought one male passenger was doing something suspicious.”
And that’s all it takes.
What a world.
And too may “good Americans” who are willing to comply.
Anonymous, The FACT is that police cannot be everywhere. In fact as Darren will testify, they have to rely on the citizenry to aid them in policing, whether as witnesses, or informants, or just being helpful on some matters. Unless you subscribe to the no snitch doctrine, I think that most rational people will not only accept this, but should be even eager to do it. So as an airline captain, I most certainly DO want to know if a passenger has a suspicion about a fellow passenger’s actions. Probably 98% of the time it will be unwarranted, but one has to take such views seriously since it may well turn out differently.
When I take people up in a private plane, I ask them to call out anything that they see or have a question about, since the skies are crowded where I fly. I want ALL eyes out to help me avoid other planes. Most of the times, their calls are wrong, or no threat, but I make damn sure to praise them even if it is wrong, because sometime it may well save us. This is simple common sense, and it is too bad you lack it.
I wonder if after this opinion the government will then prevent the passenger from reviewing the evidence against him for “national security” purposes.
randyjet:
Don’t know if you are acting out of “an abundance of caution” or if you have Cap. Bligh tendencies.
Unless you have a remarkably subservient personality, I suspect that you would resent that kind of treatment if you were at the receiving end.
Steve as a matter of FACT I was at the receiving end MANY times since I would jumpseat on Southwest, and since I had a one way ticket, I was always taken aside, while in full uniform and ID badges all over me, and secondarily screened. I took that as a matter of course, and could not complain a lot since I was getting a free ride. In FACT, as a jumpseater, I also was considered a member of the crew, and I would willingly carry out any task that they requested I do.
The one thing I DID resent was the preferential privileges and treatment given to minorities and Muslims who were trying to be provocative. For example, while as an airline captain in full uniform, four picture ID badges, medical certificate, drivers license, pilots license, etc..I was not permitted to have even a nail clipper, yet Sikhs were allowed to have their KNIVES on board. I had to do a strip search, taking off my belt, hat, coat, empty my pockets, and dump all my ID badges on the scanner, cigarette lighters, cigarettes, change, and take my shoes off, even though they were special made to not have any metal in them. While a Sikh could keep their turban on, keep their sandals on, and simply walk through, AND KEEP THEIR KNIVES ON. There were a number of instances that I heard from other pilots where Muslims were deliberately trying to be provocative in their actions, and some resulted in them being arrested. Some did not, but as a result, new rules had to be established for passengers in the cabin to avoid such things in the future.
I agree with Randyjet now that I know that they are not talking about flies that fly on their own two wings. I have seen smart airline pilots who have a practice of standing in the door greeting the First Class Passengers and screening them visually for trouble. It is usually the First Class ones who make trouble although I dont know about the Saudi box cutter guys regarding where they sat.
Barking, I had one instance where a woman passenger told a flight attendant that she thought one male passenger was doing something suspicious. I told the F/A to tell the man that I wanted to see him at the cabin entrance and to bring his carry on luggage. Fortunately, the guy was white and did as requested. I called the TSA and they did a secondary screening of him and his luggage. I explained the situation to him, apologized, and thanked him for his co-operation. I also ordered the F/A to give him free drinks for the duration of the flight. Had the guy been black or another minority or obviously Muslim, I am certain that the cry of profiling would have been raised and we would have had an unhappy situation in which many of the folks here would have taken the side of the passenger and denied the captain’s right to insist that the passenger comply with his orders.
I would suggest no flies in Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. Too many flies spoil the ointment.
While I agree with the decision since it demands some means of redress, I hope that it does not deny a captain’s right to deny boarding in some specific cases according to his/her judgment. As the judge noted, there are too many cases of poor judgment and no means of even minimal factual findings of how the person got on the no fly list.
When I was flying out of Denver, I read former Prof, Ward Churchill’s screed about 9/11 in which he extols the “heroes” of 9/11 who hijacked the planes and killed over 3000 people. After reading that, I informed the TSA, the FAA, and our chief pilot that if I saw Churchill trying to board my aircraft, I would deny him boarding and would do everything in my power to alert other pilots of his presence and to take similar action. While I doubt he would have tried hijacking my flight, as a result of his writings, it is obvious that if my plane was the victim of an attempted or successful hijacking, he would act in concert with and aid the terrorists. Thus I would not allow him on board ever. I think that such written comments are sufficient basis to place him on that no fly list.
Not a peep about this. Yet. Something must be coming. Right?
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/24/egypt-press-crackdown.html
Good.
A change of direction.