Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#11

Post by unreal37 »

XorNot wrote: post #4

About time. There's no human being on Earth so dangerous they can't be safely put on an airplane.

I might question that statement. Being a passenger on an airplane requires you to accept a certain amount of responsibility. A person unable to behave properly and/or refrain from harming others in some way (angry, drunk, high, insane, actively trying to crash the airplane, physically abusive, having a communicable disease, etc) should probably be banned from air travel until their behavior and/or ability to harm others can be controlled.

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#12

Post by adventured »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #2

>> individuals listed under the policy may ultimately petition a U.S. appeals court directly for relief Why isn't it the other way around? Shouldn't they have to prove to a judge that there is reasonable suspicion you are or have been engaged in terrorism before they can interfere in your affairs?

You're absolutely correct. They should have to provide evidence proving legitimate concerns about the person in question, preferably to a civilian judicial court that is public, and each person has to be manually confirmed to be a danger and then put on the list.

Then there should be a transparent, straight-forward way to challenge it.

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#13

Post by chadgeidel »

jevinskie wrote: post #10
unreal37 wrote: post #7

This seems like the right decision to me. Being blocked from air travel is indeed a violation of liberty. I think the U.S. government has a right to keep a list of suspicious persons, watch and monitor them, block them from visiting the United States, but there should be a way to appeal your inclusion on that list especially if you are a U.S. legal resident or citizen. You can't just remain on that list forever, unab…

Does this ruling imply some sort of "right to travel"?

I always assumed the right was implicit. (Potentially ignorant US citizen here)

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#14

Post by ISL »

jevinskie wrote: post #10
unreal37 wrote: post #7

This seems like the right decision to me. Being blocked from air travel is indeed a violation of liberty. I think the U.S. government has a right to keep a list of suspicious persons, watch and monitor them, block them from visiting the United States, but there should be a way to appeal your inclusion on that list especially if you are a U.S. legal resident or citizen. You can't just remain on that list forever, unab…

Does this ruling imply some sort of "right to travel"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite...

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#15

Post by reustle »

unreal37 wrote: post #11
XorNot wrote: post #4

About time. There's no human being on Earth so dangerous they can't be safely put on an airplane.

I might question that statement. Being a passenger on an airplane requires you to accept a certain amount of responsibility. A person unable to behave properly and/or refrain from harming others in some way (angry, drunk, high, insane, actively trying to crash the airplane, physically abusive, having a communicable disease, etc) should probably be banned from air travel until their behavior and/or ability to harm oth…

I have never smoked in my life, and I don't plan to, but did you just put people that are high in the same bucket as drunks and insane people? They are very different types of people.

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#16

Post by [deleted] »

jevinskie wrote: post #10
unreal37 wrote: post #7

This seems like the right decision to me. Being blocked from air travel is indeed a violation of liberty. I think the U.S. government has a right to keep a list of suspicious persons, watch and monitor them, block them from visiting the United States, but there should be a way to appeal your inclusion on that list especially if you are a U.S. legal resident or citizen. You can't just remain on that list forever, unab…

Does this ruling imply some sort of "right to travel"?

[deleted]

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#17

Post by unreal37 »

jevinskie wrote: post #10
unreal37 wrote: post #7

This seems like the right decision to me. Being blocked from air travel is indeed a violation of liberty. I think the U.S. government has a right to keep a list of suspicious persons, watch and monitor them, block them from visiting the United States, but there should be a way to appeal your inclusion on that list especially if you are a U.S. legal resident or citizen. You can't just remain on that list forever, unab…

Does this ruling imply some sort of "right to travel"?

From the article it seems like the judge has said that the right to freedom includes the ability to travel out of the country or across country. It's just not reasonable to require some segment of the population (500-20,000 people) to take a boat to go to Europe, with no trial or ability to appeal. Movement is restricted.

It doesn't seem like a right on it's own, so much as included in the existing right to "liberty". My 2 cents.

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#18

Post by [deleted] »

jevinskie wrote: post #10
unreal37 wrote: post #7

This seems like the right decision to me. Being blocked from air travel is indeed a violation of liberty. I think the U.S. government has a right to keep a list of suspicious persons, watch and monitor them, block them from visiting the United States, but there should be a way to appeal your inclusion on that list especially if you are a U.S. legal resident or citizen. You can't just remain on that list forever, unab…

Does this ruling imply some sort of "right to travel"?

[deleted]

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#19

Post by nickpapa »

reustle wrote: post #15
unreal37 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might question that statement. Being a passenger on an airplane requires you to accept a certain amount of responsibility. A person unable to behave properly and/or refrain from harming others in some way (angry, drunk, high, insane, actively trying to crash the airplane, physically abusive, having a communicable disease, etc) should probably be banned from air travel until their behavior and/or ability to harm oth…

I have never smoked in my life, and I don't plan to, but did you just put people that are high in the same bucket as drunks and insane people? They are very different types of people.

Marijuana isn't the only drug that gets you high. He was using "high" in the sense of other, more harmful drugs that completely distort your reality and can cause you to become violent. Remember the bath salt incidents a while back?

Re: Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

#20

Post by Crito »

XorNot wrote: post #4

About time. There's no human being on Earth so dangerous they can't be safely put on an airplane.

I think your statement requires a slight modification: There's no human being on Earth who is not guilty of any crime that is so dangerous that they cannot be safely put on an airplane.

By all means, keep the convicted Son of Sam's of this world off my airplane. But somebody that the state finds themselves unable to convict of anything? Give me a break. Either the state can prove that they are dangerous and need to prosecute them, or they need to leave them alone.

Post reply on HN