4 ms·

The complaint is absolutely disgusting to read. One (I suspect uncontested) fact alleged in the complaint really stood out to me: > As a result, he was strande

The complaint is absolutely disgusting to read. One (I suspect uncontested) fact alleged in the complaint really stood out to me: > As a result, he was stranded in Lebanon for over a month, during which time the U.S. government confirmed that he had been placed on the No Fly List. Mr. Chebli was then able to obtain a one-time waiver to fly home. If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once? And if they're safe enough to fly on that occasion why are they, upon landing (presumably safely), once again considered unsafe to fly? The No Fly List logic just doesn't quite add up for me...

nashashmi 6y ago
How many other people are stuck in this way abroad?
- tyingq 6y ago
  It's not a terrific workaround, but I suppose you could fly into Canada or Mexico and then ground transport across the border.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Or a boat. I think there might be an issue with these too. It's titled a no-fly list, but I think they have additional restrictions too. I'm not sure if they deny entry based on it too.
    - tyingq 6y ago
      He's a citizen, so denied entry would be pretty curious.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        It's a subset of the larger TSC database. I don't know if they treat citizens on that list differently, or if he's even on the more restrictive part of that list.
        dghlsakjg 6y ago
        There's plenty of federal case law that makes it pretty much a right for citizens to enter the US. "...the right to return to the United States is inherent in American citizenship.” Fikre v. FBI. Which was about this exact issue. They can put you on the no fly list, but if you get to the Border, there is an absolute right for citizens to enter, even without a passport. Of course, the courts might not get around to enforcing your right to enter for a few months or years, and it might cost you a fortune in lawyer fees
        giantg2 6y ago
        But is there any case law if they're in the more restrictive parts of the TCS database? Haven't citizens been held at the boarder for not unlocking their phones, even though they aren't on a list?
        dghlsakjg 6y ago
        Holding someone at the border is not the same as denying them entry from the country sadly. I think its a rather gaping hole in the constitution that has been ruthlessly exploited. Warrantless searches at the border were allowed to be exempt from the 4th amendment since customs agents needed to be able to inspect goods coming in to apply tariffs appropriately and prevent contraband. Snooping through people's personal papers and phones is pretty far outside of that mandate if you ask me. The takeaway is that if you have the time, you are free to tell them that you won't be providing a password. They are free to hold you for a 'reasonable' amount of time (reasonable could mean many hours). And they are also legally allowed to seize your phone and allow you entry to the country.
        giantg2 6y ago
        I thought for at least a while (2004ish) they were actually denying entry unless they could search devices. Maybe they were just confiscating them. It was a long time ago.
  - gandalfian 6y ago
    I wondered that but reading Wikipedia it's more of a no travel thing despite the name. Mexico won't let you through and Canada has its own no entry list that includes the USA one.
  - chefkoch 6y ago
    I'm not sure any reputable airline will fly you anywhere even outside of the US.
    - tyingq 6y ago
      I don't think the system allows you to bump against the US No Fly list if the origin and/or destination isn't the US.
yardie 6y ago
> why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once? Because it was never about him being dangerous. It was about creating a condition where he felt trapped. And if you are a US Citizen stuck in a foreign country international news orgs notice that. Investigations get started. Questions get asked. And this thing that is wildly unconstitutional gets asked about in a public court. But if it's a US Citizen in the US it can be conveniently swept under the rug. The investigations now not so urgent.
csharptwdec19 6y ago
I mean, not trying to be grim about it, but broadly speaking, an airplane landing has a lot less fuel to do damage with.
zentiggr 6y ago
Until you realize it is a political tool, not a binary fly / not fly list. It's not logical, it's political theater. Like the whole TSA, basically.
- lupire 6y ago
  It's not theater. It's a weapon.
  - squarefoot 6y ago
    And at the very least is a way to create new enemies. You know, wars and military expenses need to be motivated somehow.
hctaw 6y ago
It's probably less about logic and more about law, the US government can't refuse entry to US citizens and would rather prevent a court case that inevitably ends in the No-Fly list being ruled unconstitutional.
- avh02 6y ago
  I mean, they're preventing a mode of transportation, not entry (I'm not saying this justifies anything at all). Legally I'm assuming people on the no fly list can still take a boat in to town.
alacombe 6y ago
Did you hear of the concept of "due process" ?
Balgair 6y ago
I gotta ask: why not sail? Does the No-Fly List include all international travel?
justin66 6y ago
> If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once? Extend this logic just a millimeter further and you should understand how awful the no fly list truly is. If we have evidence a person is too dangerous to fly, and we're willing to let everyone know that we know they're dangerous, why wouldn't we just take them into custody and charge them with a crime? Put them in prison, or get them to roll on someone involved in their conspiracy? But of course, there's approximately never any evidence.
- refurb 6y ago
  Maybe people can now understand why putting the Capitol rioters on the list was a horrible idea and people should vote out any politician who suggested it.
  - justin66 6y ago
    > the Capitol rioters Those people are, by the definition you've used, perpetrators of an actual crime. (at least 375 have been charged, as of a few days ago) Not comparable to the traditional victim of the no fly list at all.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Nobody has been convicted of anything but you’ve got no issues be being put on a no-fly list?
      - justin66 6y ago
        People who have been convicted of something, or who are on parole, are by definition not a part of the constitutional argument about the no fly list. The judiciary and the department of corrections can keep them off a plane if that's needed, that's their role, and if a no fly list is needed for that, no problem. Suspected rioters travelling to and from riots, whose arrest is imminent, would appear to be the most sympathetic use of extrajudicial law enforcement action to keep people off a plane via a no fly list. I don't think there's a big problem there. It is a case that has nothing to do with the standard due process arguments against the no fly list. I agree that using the no fly list to prevent anyone who was present as a protestor in DC from flying, regardless of whether they were suspected of having committed a crime, would be excessive. I saw shortly after the riot that the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security suggested TSA and the FBI put protestors identified as having entered the Capitol building on the no fly list. That position, working under the assumption that people who entered the Capitol building during a riot while federal law enforcement was trying to secure it committed a crime and ought to be indicted, doesn't seem crazy.

nashashmi 6y ago

How many other people are stuck in this way abroad?

tyingq 6y ago
It's not a terrific workaround, but I suppose you could fly into Canada or Mexico and then ground transport across the border.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Or a boat. I think there might be an issue with these too. It's titled a no-fly list, but I think they have additional restrictions too. I'm not sure if they deny entry based on it too.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    He's a citizen, so denied entry would be pretty curious.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      It's a subset of the larger TSC database. I don't know if they treat citizens on that list differently, or if he's even on the more restrictive part of that list.
      - dghlsakjg 6y ago
        There's plenty of federal case law that makes it pretty much a right for citizens to enter the US. "...the right to return to the United States is inherent in American citizenship.” Fikre v. FBI. Which was about this exact issue. They can put you on the no fly list, but if you get to the Border, there is an absolute right for citizens to enter, even without a passport. Of course, the courts might not get around to enforcing your right to enter for a few months or years, and it might cost you a fortune in lawyer fees
        giantg2 6y ago
        But is there any case law if they're in the more restrictive parts of the TCS database? Haven't citizens been held at the boarder for not unlocking their phones, even though they aren't on a list?
        dghlsakjg 6y ago
        Holding someone at the border is not the same as denying them entry from the country sadly. I think its a rather gaping hole in the constitution that has been ruthlessly exploited. Warrantless searches at the border were allowed to be exempt from the 4th amendment since customs agents needed to be able to inspect goods coming in to apply tariffs appropriately and prevent contraband. Snooping through people's personal papers and phones is pretty far outside of that mandate if you ask me. The takeaway is that if you have the time, you are free to tell them that you won't be providing a password. They are free to hold you for a 'reasonable' amount of time (reasonable could mean many hours). And they are also legally allowed to seize your phone and allow you entry to the country.
        giantg2 6y ago
        I thought for at least a while (2004ish) they were actually denying entry unless they could search devices. Maybe they were just confiscating them. It was a long time ago.
- gandalfian 6y ago
  I wondered that but reading Wikipedia it's more of a no travel thing despite the name. Mexico won't let you through and Canada has its own no entry list that includes the USA one.
- chefkoch 6y ago
  I'm not sure any reputable airline will fly you anywhere even outside of the US.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    I don't think the system allows you to bump against the US No Fly list if the origin and/or destination isn't the US.

yardie 6y ago

> why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once? Because it was never about him being dangerous. It was about creating a condition where he felt trapped. And if you are a US Citizen stuck in a foreign country international news orgs notice that. Investigations get started. Questions get asked. And this thing that is wildly unconstitutional gets asked about in a public court. But if it's a US Citizen in the US it can be conveniently swept under the rug. The investigations now not so urgent.

csharptwdec19 6y ago

I mean, not trying to be grim about it, but broadly speaking, an airplane landing has a lot less fuel to do damage with.

zentiggr 6y ago

Until you realize it is a political tool, not a binary fly / not fly list. It's not logical, it's political theater. Like the whole TSA, basically.

lupire 6y ago
It's not theater. It's a weapon.
- squarefoot 6y ago
  And at the very least is a way to create new enemies. You know, wars and military expenses need to be motivated somehow.

hctaw 6y ago

It's probably less about logic and more about law, the US government can't refuse entry to US citizens and would rather prevent a court case that inevitably ends in the No-Fly list being ruled unconstitutional.

avh02 6y ago
I mean, they're preventing a mode of transportation, not entry (I'm not saying this justifies anything at all). Legally I'm assuming people on the no fly list can still take a boat in to town.

alacombe 6y ago

Did you hear of the concept of "due process" ?

Balgair 6y ago

I gotta ask: why not sail? Does the No-Fly List include all international travel?

justin66 6y ago

> If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once? Extend this logic just a millimeter further and you should understand how awful the no fly list truly is. If we have evidence a person is too dangerous to fly, and we're willing to let everyone know that we know they're dangerous, why wouldn't we just take them into custody and charge them with a crime? Put them in prison, or get them to roll on someone involved in their conspiracy? But of course, there's approximately never any evidence.

refurb 6y ago
Maybe people can now understand why putting the Capitol rioters on the list was a horrible idea and people should vote out any politician who suggested it.
- justin66 6y ago
  > the Capitol rioters Those people are, by the definition you've used, perpetrators of an actual crime. (at least 375 have been charged, as of a few days ago) Not comparable to the traditional victim of the no fly list at all.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Nobody has been convicted of anything but you’ve got no issues be being put on a no-fly list?
    - justin66 6y ago
      People who have been convicted of something, or who are on parole, are by definition not a part of the constitutional argument about the no fly list. The judiciary and the department of corrections can keep them off a plane if that's needed, that's their role, and if a no fly list is needed for that, no problem. Suspected rioters travelling to and from riots, whose arrest is imminent, would appear to be the most sympathetic use of extrajudicial law enforcement action to keep people off a plane via a no fly list. I don't think there's a big problem there. It is a case that has nothing to do with the standard due process arguments against the no fly list. I agree that using the no fly list to prevent anyone who was present as a protestor in DC from flying, regardless of whether they were suspected of having committed a crime, would be excessive. I saw shortly after the riot that the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security suggested TSA and the FBI put protestors identified as having entered the Capitol building on the no fly list. That position, working under the assumption that people who entered the Capitol building during a riot while federal law enforcement was trying to secure it committed a crime and ought to be indicted, doesn't seem crazy.