6 ms·

The first time the FBI went to interview him, he should have requested an attorney - whether he had one or not. As soon as you lawyer up (which is totally legal

The first time the FBI went to interview him, he should have requested an attorney - whether he had one or not. As soon as you lawyer up (which is totally legal in his case) the FBI get really itchy about having to deal with lawyers and probably would've moved on to another target. He should have also gone to the media much sooner or threatened to take this public. Yes, it is now, but had he gone to the media sooner, I'm sure the FBI would've backed off a lot sooner. Having a Muslim racially profiled, intimidated and then put on a no-fly list for no reason is not a good look for that agency.

cortesoft 6y ago
> Having a Muslim racially profiled, intimidated and then put on a no-fly list for no reason is not a good look for that agency. We have had a steady stream of stories like this for almost 20 years now. Nothing substantial has changed. I don’t think the FBI is worried about PR around this at this point.
- tyingq 6y ago
  This could be substantially different for them. The guy is a citizen, works for an "All American" type company (Ford), etc. And the ACLU picked up the case.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Even if they win, who will enforce it? The FBI/DOJ are supposed to be the ones investigating color of law and law enforcement misconduct.
    - tyingq 6y ago
      This seems interesting in that area. He can sue individual FBI agents for monetary damages: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/10/supreme-court-says-muslims-placed-on-no-fly-list-can-sue-fbi-agents.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/10/supreme-court-says-muslims-p...
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    Well, the ACLU has already filed lawsuits about citizens on the no fly list and won... 8 years ago. Seems like not much has changed https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-sides-aclu-no-fly-list-lawsuit https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-sides-aclu... So why is this time “substantially different”?
    - tyingq 6y ago
      Oh, yeah...appears Abe Mashal had a pretty good backstory too...also a citizen, and happened to be a former US Marine: https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/im-former-marine-who-was-no-fly-list-4-years-and-i/ https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/discriminatory-p... I hadn't seen his story before, the ones I had seen were residents. Supposedly, there aren't very many citizens on the list: "According to leaked documents published by The Intercept, there were more than 47,000 people on the No Fly List as of August 2013, including 800 Americans." [1] Chebli's story does include the additional wrinkle of the recruitment, harassment, threats, etc, and thus first amendment violation petitions for relief. [1] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/first-government-officially-tells-aclu-clients-their-no-fly-list-status?redirect=national-security/first-government-officially-tells-aclu-clients-their-no-fly-list-status https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/first-government-officia...
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    > The guy is a citizen, works for an "All American" type company (Ford), etc. How is that substantially different? In April 2005, 70000 people were on the list. I bet most fit this description of yours.
    - tyingq 6y ago
      It's secret, so nobody knows for sure, but my guess is that most of the people on the list are not citizens, probably most are not residents either. "According to leaked documents published by The Intercept, there were more than 47,000 people on the No Fly List as of August 2013, including 800 Americans." [1] The recruitment and harassment beforehand is also somewhat unique. [1] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/first-government-officially-tells-aclu-clients-their-no-fly-list-status?redirect=national-security/first-government-officially-tells-aclu-clients-their-no-fly-list-status https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/first-government-officia...
    - dghlsakjg 6y ago
      This makes a good "example case". If you are going to take something to the Supreme Court you want a Plaintiff who looks like a boy-scout to the press. You want to make sure that they can't retroactively dig up a reason for the guy to be on the no-fly list. It needs to be clear that the only reason that he is on that list is that he said "no, thank you" to the FBI
- worik 6y ago
  "20 years now" You mistyped. 200 years
pjc50 6y ago
> Having a Muslim racially profiled, intimidated and then put on a no-fly list for no reason is .. is what the DHS was created for? After 9/11 some Muslims had to be punished for something, regardless of personal guilt, and here we are. There have been worse outcomes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
- 1cvmask 6y ago
  The Clinton administration (with Senator Bidens support) targeted and removed “rights” of the weak and non-whites with the unconstitutional Omnibus Terror Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_o...
  - elihu 6y ago
    According to the wikipedia article you cite, the bill was neither voted on nor passed. > Both bills were never put to a vote, although a significantly altered version of the House bill became law as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
- roget 6y ago
  Anwar al-Awlaki, an Al Qaeda terrorist, was also a CIA agent. It's unfortunate the Ammurican regime murdered his son, but he was the one who chose to work with the terrorists of the US 'government'.
CivBase 6y ago
I thought this too, but it's definitely easier to say in an HN comment than it would be to do in the moment.
giantg2 6y ago
It won't make a difference. How could he go to the media before getting banned? There's not much to go on, especially if he didn't have a recording. The other part is, who will actually listen to that story? My wife was subjected to pretrial restrictions on a charge that the trooper knew was incorrect. I even have evidence supporting it. An investigative journalist pitching it to their editor, but other than that nobody cares. IAD thinks it's fine, the DA thinks it's fine (an ADA was also aware that the charge was wrong, but I don't think the complaint with the Bar will result in anything), and the judge misapplied the law and contradicted himself so that the issue could be ignored in court. This story is making me reconsider contacting the FBI/DOJ about police misconduct.
achikin 6y ago
A friend of mine was in such situation in Russia. She is a journalist specializing on exotic countries and regions. She has applied for an international passport and was approached by an FSB (Russian FBI) agent. She agreed to meet with him and a lawyer. The FSB agent just disappeared and did not return calls. She has never heard from them again.
- 1cvmask 6y ago
  So more rights in Russia then?
  - betterunix2 6y ago
    She probably wasn't worth the effort. Pretty sure if the FSB considered her even moderately worth pursuing they would have exerted far more (and worse) pressure than the FBI does...
    - achikin 6y ago
      I think if you are a lawful citizen, appear with a lawyer and make the case public - you won't worth the effort anyway.
    - FpUser 6y ago
      >"if the FSB considered her even moderately worth pursuing" Following your logic they've contacted her just for the fuck of it. Looks like grasping at straws trying to prove that russian asshole got to be worse than the american asshole.
      - betterunix2 6y ago
        Or maybe they figured it was only worth trying once, and not really worth pursuing further when it became clear that she would not cooperate. It is not grasping at straws to claim that when the Russians want to make someone's life hard they are far less restrained about it than the Americans. American political activists face BS criminal charges and are sometimes placed on the no-fly list; Russian political activists find themselves poisoned with radioactive metals and with nerve agents.
BeetleB 6y ago
> The first time the FBI went to interview him, he should have requested an attorney - whether he had one or not. Was he under arrest? The FBI is not obligated to bring you an attorney if they are merely interviewing you. > He should have also gone to the media much sooner or threatened to take this public. Yes, it is now, but had he gone to the media sooner, I'm sure the FBI would've backed off a lot sooner. I somehow doubt it. Muslims (and antiwar activists) being placed on no fly lists were often in the news. That didn't stop it.
- Arrath 6y ago
  > Was he under arrest? The FBI is not obligated to bring you an attorney if they are merely interviewing you. No, they are not obligated to do so. However, I believe he would have fully been within his rights to say "I am not prepared to talk to you, I do not feel comfortable continuing this interview without my attorney present."
  - bellyfullofbac 6y ago
    Do people have attorneys in general? I suppose people the FBI are prone to harass should have the ACLU's number on their phone (or have the awareness that it's an organisation that can help them, just google the number on said phone..).
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      People in general should at least have an attorney they plan to contact if necessary, but I say that without having one myself.
    - yawaramin 6y ago
      Doesn't matter if you have one or not, you can just refuse to talk without one.

cortesoft 6y ago

> Having a Muslim racially profiled, intimidated and then put on a no-fly list for no reason is not a good look for that agency. We have had a steady stream of stories like this for almost 20 years now. Nothing substantial has changed. I don’t think the FBI is worried about PR around this at this point.

tyingq 6y ago
This could be substantially different for them. The guy is a citizen, works for an "All American" type company (Ford), etc. And the ACLU picked up the case.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Even if they win, who will enforce it? The FBI/DOJ are supposed to be the ones investigating color of law and law enforcement misconduct.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    This seems interesting in that area. He can sue individual FBI agents for monetary damages: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/10/supreme-court-says-muslims-placed-on-no-fly-list-can-sue-fbi-agents.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/10/supreme-court-says-muslims-p...
- cortesoft 6y ago
  Well, the ACLU has already filed lawsuits about citizens on the no fly list and won... 8 years ago. Seems like not much has changed https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-sides-aclu-no-fly-list-lawsuit https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-sides-aclu... So why is this time “substantially different”?
  - tyingq 6y ago
    Oh, yeah...appears Abe Mashal had a pretty good backstory too...also a citizen, and happened to be a former US Marine: https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/im-former-marine-who-was-no-fly-list-4-years-and-i/ https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/discriminatory-p... I hadn't seen his story before, the ones I had seen were residents. Supposedly, there aren't very many citizens on the list: "According to leaked documents published by The Intercept, there were more than 47,000 people on the No Fly List as of August 2013, including 800 Americans." [1] Chebli's story does include the additional wrinkle of the recruitment, harassment, threats, etc, and thus first amendment violation petitions for relief. [1] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/first-government-officially-tells-aclu-clients-their-no-fly-list-status?redirect=national-security/first-government-officially-tells-aclu-clients-their-no-fly-list-status https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/first-government-officia...
- BeetleB 6y ago
  > The guy is a citizen, works for an "All American" type company (Ford), etc. How is that substantially different? In April 2005, 70000 people were on the list. I bet most fit this description of yours.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    It's secret, so nobody knows for sure, but my guess is that most of the people on the list are not citizens, probably most are not residents either. "According to leaked documents published by The Intercept, there were more than 47,000 people on the No Fly List as of August 2013, including 800 Americans." [1] The recruitment and harassment beforehand is also somewhat unique. [1] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/first-government-officially-tells-aclu-clients-their-no-fly-list-status?redirect=national-security/first-government-officially-tells-aclu-clients-their-no-fly-list-status https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/first-government-officia...
  - dghlsakjg 6y ago
    This makes a good "example case". If you are going to take something to the Supreme Court you want a Plaintiff who looks like a boy-scout to the press. You want to make sure that they can't retroactively dig up a reason for the guy to be on the no-fly list. It needs to be clear that the only reason that he is on that list is that he said "no, thank you" to the FBI
worik 6y ago
"20 years now" You mistyped. 200 years

pjc50 6y ago

> Having a Muslim racially profiled, intimidated and then put on a no-fly list for no reason is .. is what the DHS was created for? After 9/11 some Muslims had to be punished for something, regardless of personal guilt, and here we are. There have been worse outcomes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki

1cvmask 6y ago
The Clinton administration (with Senator Bidens support) targeted and removed “rights” of the weak and non-whites with the unconstitutional Omnibus Terror Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_o...
- elihu 6y ago
  According to the wikipedia article you cite, the bill was neither voted on nor passed. > Both bills were never put to a vote, although a significantly altered version of the House bill became law as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
roget 6y ago
Anwar al-Awlaki, an Al Qaeda terrorist, was also a CIA agent. It's unfortunate the Ammurican regime murdered his son, but he was the one who chose to work with the terrorists of the US 'government'.

CivBase 6y ago

I thought this too, but it's definitely easier to say in an HN comment than it would be to do in the moment.

giantg2 6y ago

It won't make a difference. How could he go to the media before getting banned? There's not much to go on, especially if he didn't have a recording. The other part is, who will actually listen to that story? My wife was subjected to pretrial restrictions on a charge that the trooper knew was incorrect. I even have evidence supporting it. An investigative journalist pitching it to their editor, but other than that nobody cares. IAD thinks it's fine, the DA thinks it's fine (an ADA was also aware that the charge was wrong, but I don't think the complaint with the Bar will result in anything), and the judge misapplied the law and contradicted himself so that the issue could be ignored in court. This story is making me reconsider contacting the FBI/DOJ about police misconduct.

achikin 6y ago

A friend of mine was in such situation in Russia. She is a journalist specializing on exotic countries and regions. She has applied for an international passport and was approached by an FSB (Russian FBI) agent. She agreed to meet with him and a lawyer. The FSB agent just disappeared and did not return calls. She has never heard from them again.

1cvmask 6y ago
So more rights in Russia then?
- betterunix2 6y ago
  She probably wasn't worth the effort. Pretty sure if the FSB considered her even moderately worth pursuing they would have exerted far more (and worse) pressure than the FBI does...
  - achikin 6y ago
    I think if you are a lawful citizen, appear with a lawyer and make the case public - you won't worth the effort anyway.
  - FpUser 6y ago
    >"if the FSB considered her even moderately worth pursuing" Following your logic they've contacted her just for the fuck of it. Looks like grasping at straws trying to prove that russian asshole got to be worse than the american asshole.
    - betterunix2 6y ago
      Or maybe they figured it was only worth trying once, and not really worth pursuing further when it became clear that she would not cooperate. It is not grasping at straws to claim that when the Russians want to make someone's life hard they are far less restrained about it than the Americans. American political activists face BS criminal charges and are sometimes placed on the no-fly list; Russian political activists find themselves poisoned with radioactive metals and with nerve agents.

BeetleB 6y ago

> The first time the FBI went to interview him, he should have requested an attorney - whether he had one or not. Was he under arrest? The FBI is not obligated to bring you an attorney if they are merely interviewing you. > He should have also gone to the media much sooner or threatened to take this public. Yes, it is now, but had he gone to the media sooner, I'm sure the FBI would've backed off a lot sooner. I somehow doubt it. Muslims (and antiwar activists) being placed on no fly lists were often in the news. That didn't stop it.

Arrath 6y ago
> Was he under arrest? The FBI is not obligated to bring you an attorney if they are merely interviewing you. No, they are not obligated to do so. However, I believe he would have fully been within his rights to say "I am not prepared to talk to you, I do not feel comfortable continuing this interview without my attorney present."
- bellyfullofbac 6y ago
  Do people have attorneys in general? I suppose people the FBI are prone to harass should have the ACLU's number on their phone (or have the awareness that it's an organisation that can help them, just google the number on said phone..).
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    People in general should at least have an attorney they plan to contact if necessary, but I say that without having one myself.
  - yawaramin 6y ago
    Doesn't matter if you have one or not, you can just refuse to talk without one.