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

31–40 of 93 posts

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

#31

Post by cheald »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #29
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 tim…

I don't think it's just "9/11 hysteria dying down" - post-Snowden, people are a lot more willing to accept that our government is abusive towards its own people, and thus it's harder to just wave off questions of the no-fly list with "well they're just doing what's good for us".

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

#32

Post by dragonwriter »

pc86 wrote: post #24
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.

More accurately, the U.S. Constitution applies to the US government, not to the people it interacts with. Some of its rules are preconditioned on dealings with certain classes of people, however, so citizenship is sometimes relevant to Constitutional considerations.

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

#33

Post by Nanzikambe »

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…

Hows about children? Seeing as they legally they can't accept any amount of responsibility - can we ban them too?

I mean toddlers have to count as either high or insane and probably would try crash the plane if they weren't restrained. Plus imagine how peaceful flights would be ..

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

#34

Post by vertex-four »

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'll point out that someone who is high on marijuana could be a potential hazard during an incident, although may be less likely to cause one themselves.

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

#35

Post by the_watcher »

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…

>> Being blocked from air travel is indeed a violation of liberty.

Very much depends on how permissive your definition of liberty is. Not trying to be pedantic, this is actually a pretty big issue in constitutional law. It does seem to be a violation of due process, at the very least. An aggressive attorney may even allege a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in skirting the rebuttal of "there is a way to challenge it by appealing directly to the court," as well as the cases where citizens only discovered their inclusion by arriving at the airport.

This is a pretty important case in terms of defining the scope of federal agency's power (can agencies create regulations that burden various classes of people differently without providing notice or a way to contest your inclusion simply?) that could ripple out to non-law enforcement and homeland security agencies.

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

#36

Post by swalsh »

middleclick wrote: post #6

"The 13 plaintiffs - four of them veterans of the U.S. military - deny they have links to terrorism and say they only learned of their no-fly status when they arrived at an airport and were blocked from boarding a flight." This truly fits the definition of a Kafkaesque system -- you are put on a list and you are denied justice and never told what your crime is. Great work by the ACLU.

Only made worse by the fact that they gave a few of what is for most people the most productive years of their lives to defend it.

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

#37

Post by unreal37 »

Crito wrote: post #20
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…

People guilty of crimes should be tried and prosecuted. Judges should impose the sentence, and for serious crimes that probably includes a jail sentence which is the ultimate restriction of movement. If that also includes restricting their international movements as part of their sentence, fine. But simply having been at one time convicted of a crime should not automatically banned from air travel.

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

#38

Post by adventured »

Nanzikambe wrote: post #33
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…

Hows about children? Seeing as they legally they can't accept any amount of responsibility - can we ban them too? I mean toddlers have to count as either high or insane and probably would try crash the plane if they weren't restrained. Plus imagine how peaceful flights would be ..

Children don't have to accept legal responsibility, parents do that for them in most instances. So your point is nullified.

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

#39

Post by maxerickson »

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.

That happened in the 1970s:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/266/case.htm...

Then the ability to simply stop vehicles near the border was curtailed (the ruling still allows a stop given specific information):

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/

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

#40

Post by forgottenpass »

INTPnerd wrote: post #22

"Brown wrote in her 65-page ruling." 65 pages! They need some good programmers to help them refactor that to be shorter, more expressive, more readable, and changeable using the DRY principal and such.

using the DRY principal and such

Repeating yourself is actually very important in court opinions. It shows that the court has considered all the case materials, claims, and legal precedent to clearly spell out what all of that means and how they factor into the findings of law.

They're very readable to people trained in the art, or the moderately-engaged passersby. Additionally, courts typically write with narrow margins and/or heavy line spacing.

Post reply on HN