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

21–30 of 93 posts

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

#21

Post by pavel_lishin »

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.

"high" doesn't imply only marijuana. I would prefer to not be on the same airplane as someone who's just consumed a large amount of methamphetamines, or LSD, or cocaine.

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

#23

Post by recursive »

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"?

It's not really implied by this. It's one of the rights guaranteed by the constitution.

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

#24

Post by pc86 »

motbob wrote: post #9

The ruling only applies to U.S. citizens. As mentioned in the article, the vast majority of people on the list are non-citizens. EDIT: Or perhaps it does apply to non-citizens when they are on U.S. soil. I'm not sure.

The Constitution applies to anyone within the US, citizen or not.

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

#25

Post by Aqueous »

I do not believe a judge currently has to authorize someone's placement on the No Fly List, which right away raises red flags. So the No Fly List is definitely unconstitutional as it is currently implemented, but I wonder if it would be replaced a constitutional implementation. For instance, if FBI, CIA, or NSA had to clear a probable cause legal hurdle in order to place someone on the list, and if a judge, rather than the TSA, had to approve their placement, then the program might be constitutional. The proceedings might have to be secret, so the no fly list would function like some NSA programs that I know folks here are so fond of (note: sarcasm) - but at least it would involve the judiciary rather than giving the executive branch carte blanche to prohibit anyone it deems suspect from travelling.

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

#26

Post by interurban »

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.

Getting high isn't just limited to smoking marijuana... There are a huge array of substances that could cause safety concerns for passengers on an airplane.

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

#27

Post by tobinfricke »

higherpurpose wrote: post #3

Now if only we'd get a similar ruling for no-warrant "border" searches, where border can mean tens of miles from the actual border.

Apparently it has been asserted that this special border region extends inward 100 miles from borders and coastlines. This swath includes around 2/3 of the US population.

http://rt.com/usa/court-upholds-laptop-border-searches-041/

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone...

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

#28

Post by unreal37 »

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.

I mean it generally, high as in "people who can't control their behavior due to recent drug use". If you know someone who just ingested "a bunch" of LSD, should that person be on an airplane for 8 hours? Can they control their behavior and not be a nuisance to others or difficult for staff to give instructions to?

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

#29

Post by drzaiusapelord »

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…

The funny thing is we just had this trial in 2010 and lost. I suspect 9/11 hysteria is dying down, so now we can have real adult conversations about things like this.

Not to mention ending or deeply cutting the drug war. Or our constant talk of FISA, NSA, etc powers. I really think the conversation that would have been unthinkable in 2001-2005 is finally happening.

Sadly, social progress happens one funeral and a time and as the older generations die off, we'll move towards shifting the pendulum back to sanity. Heck, we may even see Bush and Cheney arrested for war crimes someday. Perhaps I'm too much of an optimist, but living in constant fear and endlessly burning up our dollars fighting terrorism is just not an option, especially when we compete on a global scale with nations with 1/20th our military spending, higher standards of living, and rising economies.

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

#30

Post by [deleted] »

adventured wrote: post #12
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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN