29 ms·

The Constitution Applies When the Government Bans Americans From the Skies

422 points by ahmadss 13y ago

jdp23 13y ago
Just a reminder, the deadline for comments on the TSA's body scanners is Monday. http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=TSA-2013-0004 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=TSA-2013-0004 has the info.
danielweber 13y ago
The use of the word "Blacklists" for "No-Fly Lists" in the headline is confusing.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  What exactly do you think a No-Fly List is? The use of the word "blacklist" is entirely appropriate.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    Before the headline changed, it was asking if the NSA could "blacklist" people without telling them what. Given the context of no-fly lists, you can see what that's about. But without that context, you are wondering just what in the world it means. Are those people not allowed to be Americans?
TempleOS 13y ago
I'm bouncer for God and Heaven. God says... stuff what_a_mess hit rich ho_ho_ho I'm_feeling_nice_today I'll_get_right_on_it I_pitty_the_fool Is_that_so potentially astrophysics adjusted_for_inflation how_about heaven little_buddy I_can't_believe_it Yes_you_are nerd unemployment you're_in_big_trouble I'm_off_today not_good I_pitty_the_fool You_can_count_on_that Terry so_let_it_be_done patience bye Hicc_up humongous yeah hurts_my_head
jstanley 13y ago
This is outrageous. This is contagious. So futile.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  I do love angry art. It can be just as pretty, if not sometimes prettier, than normal art.
bediger4000 13y ago
This is so un-American I can hardly believe that anyone in the USA would do it. Where's the due process? Where's the confrontation of the accuser? Where's the ability to redress a wrong? This is so wrong on so many levels of Americanism. It's just Soviet, that's what it is.
- AmVess 13y ago
  It's not even Soviet. It's worse. At least in the Soviet Union, one could travel freely without shakedowns that come at the drop of a hat.
  - lmm 13y ago
    Huh? In the Soviet Union one had to be registered as residing in a particular city. You could be stopped and asked for your papers, and if you were in a different city from the one you were down as living in there would certainly be questions.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      Questions, perhaps. Not: "You are not allowed to be here, we don't care if your grandmother is dying; we don't care if you are attending your sister's wedding." This is what is happening in the US with the no-fly list.
      - Vivtek 13y ago
        Yes, exactly that, as in arm-behind-your-back marched to the train station under guard. If they didn't like your look, anyway.
    - AmVess 13y ago
      I traveled in the Soviet Union in the 80's. Never once did I get subjected to the type of treatment that I get from the TSA, and I'm not on any DNF list. Also, don't confuse having to register to aid in central planning with ease of travel. As an American, I traveled all over HHA and rarely had to show my papers. So, no, there certainly weren't questions...not like you alluded to.
3pt14159 13y ago
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Protect http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Protect At least the Canadian one allows you to protest. As a result only about a thousand people on the list.
gambiting 13y ago
As a person coming from a former Soviet republic - it reminds me of times 30 years ago, where the usual conversation with any official would look like this : "no" "why?" "because the government says so" No trial, no hearing, someone somewhere in secret made the decision and you had nothing to say in that matter. Or if you tried, you would be charged with interfering with government business, or "national security" and jailed for a random amount of time. Really that different to what the US government is doing right now?
- vxNsr 13y ago
  Yeah but at least in the USSR you could bribe your way out of this type of situation. Here it's even worse because the people at the bottom (checking counter people) wont take bribes and maybe even can't because the computer will stop them from entering certain info.
  - nathan_long 13y ago
    Giving a bribe might make a specific situation easier for you, but having a system where bribes are tolerated is cancerous. Few things have such power to destroy a nation.
    - vinceguidry 13y ago
      One could argue that the nation was already long gone by the time that happened. Corruption is just accelerating the inevitable.
      - potatolicious 13y ago
        Brokenness at a high level can be fixed. Brokenness as a result of rampant corruption at all levels cannot. You can restore civil liberties by enacting or repealing laws. You can't do it when no effective executive mechanism exists (i.e., all your bureaucrats, police, and other officials are on the dole). Widespread corruption, IMO, is far more dangerous in the long term than what we're seeing right now in the US.
blackaspen 13y ago
Soon though(thinking of PRISM), they'll be able to say you landed yourself on a No-Fly list because of a joke you cracked in an email you sent to your friend ten years ago that they only just mined now. (And a joke that their algo/analyst didn't understand) And then they still won't let you appeal it. I wasn't aware though that No-Fly extended to boats, that makes it criminal. The only way to get off the continent then is to go to Canada or Mexico (or another SA country) and hop on a non-US associated airline. That is criminal.
jtbigwoo 13y ago
They can't even get on a boat to cross the Atlantic. Does anybody know if other countries reference the U.S. no-fly list? Could one of these plaintiffs drive to Canada and travel abroad that way?
- omarali 13y ago
  Canada has it's own version of the no fly list which includes data from the US no fly list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#No_fly_lists_in_other_countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#No_fly_lists_in_oth...
  - a3_nm 13y ago
    I would imagine that travelling through South American countries would be a better option (ie., the only option).
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  Canada and the US share data. It may be possible but that probably depends on your personal situation. If you can get across the border you'd be okay I would guess, although you better hope the flight doesn't fly into (or over) US airspace. For reference: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ifim/airspace/ http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ifim/airspace/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
omarali 13y ago
Is it possible for someone on the no fly list to join the lawsuit? I know two US citizens who are on the list.
- ahmadss 13y ago
  don't know, but you could probably email the lawyers that wrot e this blog post and find out. contact information for various ACLU lawyers is listed in the filing [1] found on the blog post. [1] http://www.aclu.org/national-security/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-aclu-challenges-government-no-fly-list http://www.aclu.org/national-security/latif-et-al-v-holder-e...
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Is it possible for someone not on the no fly list to join the lawsuit? No US citizens can find out whether they are on the list short of being refused (being on the list does not guarantee refusal, and refusal does not guarantee being on the list).
cpursley 13y ago
It's interesting to sit back and realize that the libertarians were right all along. On security theater and the bailout economy.
- prof_hobart 13y ago
  But being right about the problems isn't automatically the same as being right about the solutions...
  - McPants 13y ago
    Being right about the problems is the first step. I would argue providing a bad solution for a problem you know exists is better than providing a good solution for a problem that doesn't exist.
    - mbetter 13y ago
      Problem: Hamburger buns aren't noticeable enough. Solution: A cheeseburger with a lightbulb inside. Problem: Some humans are currently suffering. Solution: Destroy the universe.
      - McPants 13y ago
        It's time for another good idea, bad idea.
    - Vivtek 13y ago
      Headache? Amputate! It will certainly stop the headache.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > I would argue providing a bad solution for a problem you know exists is better than providing a good solution for a problem that doesn't exist. I would argue that details matter here and there is no valid generalization here. Neither of these are good things, but which is worse will depend on the details, and specifically how you define "good solution" and "bad solution".
run4yourlives 13y ago
The US is a lost cause for anyone on the bad side of the government for any particular reason, crimes committed or not. What really gets me though is that people are truly shocked that the piece of paper held up as some illusion of rights is, like everything else, simply not worth the paper it is printed on. This is a document that has been used to justify slavery, prohibition, woman as property, Jim Crow laws, the "sanctity" of marriage etc. If history shows us anything it is that regardless of whatever is written down, the laws of the land will be made by the popular opinion of those that have power, and how they interpret things. The USA is no different than Rome, feudal Europe or France under Napoleon, despite the best intentions of its founders.
- clarkmoody 13y ago
  Slavery was the issue that almost destroyed the Union before it formed and nearly destroyed the Union again in 1860. But it seems we worked that one out. Prohibition was instituted through the proper constitutional channel of the amendment process -- and repealed the same way. You may view it as the extreme opposite of the gay marriage issue today: a sweeping prevailing mindset that turned out to be a really bad idea in the long run. As for women, Jim Crow we worked those out too. I can't respond to your '"sanctity" of marriage' comment, because all I'm getting is vague left-wing ire. Those rights on that piece of paper have saved us from much government tyranny. Indeed, without the Bill of Rights, we would have lost many of them long ago. The founders were rightfully wary of government in this regard. Why is the 9th Amendment there at all? Does the government treat us as serfs or as sovereigns? The Constitution is not perfect: it did not foresee the level of political activism present on the Supreme Court throughout the years. The Court has been amending the Constitution for far too long without proper oversight. We should not be able to predict the votes of the Justices, since most of us are not constitutional scholars. Yet we can... The USA is different than most countries throughout history, but it has lost its way. The latest NSA / IRS news could be seen as simply the last in a long train of 'repeated injuries and usurpations' to and of our Liberty.
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    Those rights on that piece of paper have saved us from much government tyranny. Really? Have you lived outside of the USA at all? Because I fail to see how anyone who has can make this statement. Life is no better or worse. The constitution does absolutely nothing. Indeed, without the Bill of Rights, we would have lost many of them long ago. The founders were rightfully wary of government in this regard This says more about American culture than it does anything else. Of course Canada survived without a constitution for most of it's existence, the UK still doesn't have one, and Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights. In fact, most countries in the world don't have a constitution as America knows it to be. They seem to be doing just fine. The USA is different than most countries throughout history, No, actually, it isn't. The principles of the USA were in place in Athens and Rome thousands of years ago, the Magna Carta and the Republic of France more recently. Stop believing your own mythology.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Our brief highlighted the utter irrationality of the government's No Fly List procedures. The plaintiffs in Latif all flew for years without any problems. But more than two years ago, they were suddenly branded as suspected terrorists based on secret evidence, publicly denied boarding on flights, and told by U.S. and airline officials that they were banned from flying¾perhaps forever. One of the reasons that I'm not too attached to the specific details of the Snowden story (aside from supporting him, of course) is that it's just a piece of a much larger picture. Snowden's "NSA direct server access" is but a tiny speck in an ocean of civil liberties problems. In this case, the government is effectively using a quasi-military/police force to control who can travel the country. (Yes, I know you can drive, but for business travelers, air travel is many times the lifeblood of their work) People are banned from traveling, in many cases from performing their livelihoods. They do not know how they got on the list. They cannot get off the list. In charge of all of this is an agency, best I can tell, that has a mission of making all transportation safe from random terror attacks. It's insane. Aside from not protecting anybody, can you begin to imagine the ways such a system could be abused? It staggers the mind. There are probably around 100 people in the entire country that shouldn't fly. But the way this no-fly list is constructed, it will continue to increase year-by-year, without any incentive to pare the numbers back. Is anybody doing the math on the kind of economic impact such a system will have over a few decades? I've said it before. We need to completely disband the TSA. Structural adjustments are not going to fix its scope creep, conflict of interest with the military industrial complex, and lack of competence. It's just gotta go.
- gcb0 13y ago
  They are also ignoring the side effects. What happens in any place where incompetence/corruption run rampant? People find ways around. The more people they add to the no-fly list for no reason, the more people will be willing to travel with fake documents. Or create business around the block (those people can probably fly airwave). Soon, there will be so much work arounds that the one or two terrorist per century that would have been deterred by that measure will just have plenty of options to bypass it as well.
- pasbesoin 13y ago
  1) Smear some chemical trace on a competitor's clothing or luggage, and/or submit an "anonymous tip". 2) Profit! Seriously, though -- think about it. Secret system -- who knows how it's being gamed.
Vivtek 13y ago
"There are alternatives to flying". Try driving to Puerto Rico or Hawaii.
TempleOS 13y ago
niggers God says... Venus on_the_otherhand you_are_my_sunshine Percival geek arrogant I'm_on_a_roll pick_me_pick_me anger Icarus watch_it_buddy fer_sure could_it_be___Satan debt Ivy_league Terry I'm_in_suspense impossible youre_lucky hilarious astrophysics wazz_up_with_that never_happy computers LOL lighten_up how_about_that freak test_pilot are_you_deaf how_come you're_nuts I_could_be_wrong NOT fake furious revolution off_the_record humongous what's_the_plan cheerful a_likely_story BRB check_this_out You_fix_it what_luck
will_brown 13y ago
I hate to make such a prediction, but this case is factually analogous to the ACLU's case against the targeted killings of US citizens without due process and ACLU's demand the standards of the kill list be disclosed. If a citizen can have his life taken without due process, it seems consistent a citizen's Constitutional Right to travel can be taken without due process. For those that do not know: "On August 30, 2010, the [ACLU] filed a "targeted killing" lawsuit, naming President Barack Obama, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as defendants. They sought an injunction preventing the targeted killing of [a US citizen], and also sought to require the government to disclose the standards under which U.S. citizens may be "targeted for death". Judge John D. Bates dismissed the lawsuit in an 83-page ruling, holding that the claims were judicially unreviewable under the political question doctrine inasmuch as he was questioning a decision that the U.S. Constitution committed to the political branches." Coincidentally, or likely not coincidentally Judge John D. Bates, is also the presiding Judge of the FISA Court as shown in the Rules of Procedure for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (See: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf) I do not agree, but at least the US government has an argument that by disclosing publicly known or suspected terrorists, it may jeopardize our national security interests. How the hell can that be logically extended to the idea that disclosing the criteria to get on the "kill list" or "no fly list" jeopardizes our national security interests?
mapt 13y ago
"Back in September 2003, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released a piece of model legislation it called the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act. Like so many bills drafted by the free-market think tank, AETA was handed over, ready made, to legislators with the idea that it could be introduced in statehouses across the country with minimal modification. Under the measure, it would become a felony (if damages exceed $500) to enter "an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other means," and, in a flush of Patriot Act-era overreaching, those convicted of making such recordings would also be placed on a permanent "terrorist registry." Frustrated by unauthorized documentaries of slaughterhouse abuses, the agriculture industry hired corporate lobbyists to hire Congressmen to insert laws that would ban PETA activists from using the US air transportation system. These have been implemented in a number of states recently, although I'm not sure if any of them included the watchlist provision in the final draft. * http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/06/ag-gag-laws-mowmar-farms http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/06/ag-gag-laws-m...
- prsutherland 13y ago
  Would drones be considered a loop hole here?
grecy 13y ago
It appears people are agreeing this (and other) actions by the government are unacceptable. So what are Americans doing about it? We see people in Turkey, Brazil and many other parts of the world protesting against their government, while those in the US appear to be doing nothing. What's it going to take?
InclinedPlane 13y ago
It's good to see that in the 21st century there are at least some areas of daily life that haven't been pushed into a constitution free zone through technicalities.
guelo 13y ago
I sometimes wonder how the authoritarians that come up with these policies can look at themselves in the mirror and call themselves patriotic Americans.
- trobertson 13y ago
  They don't. They don't need to. This idea of a 'patriotic American' is propaganda. A complete and utter fabrication. It's a tool used to divide the American populace into opposing factions: those are patriotic, and those who are enemies of the stats. It's a remarkably similar tactic to what the Nazi's used [1]. The Nazis attempted (and succeeded) in demonizing anyone who didn't agree with their ideals. That's basically what our politicians are doing: demonizing anyone who is 'not a patriot', 'against national security', 'disagrees with American Exceptionalism'. Also, to those who will inevitably think 'Godwin's Law': thank you for derailing a legitimate comparison. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda#Themes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda#Themes
Tycho 13y ago
Can I coin a new political term: terrorismism. It is the enlargement of all state powers over its citizens in the name of fighting terrorists.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Interestingly, the enlargement of state powers over its citizens in the name of fighting (boogeyman of the day) is exactly what gave "the Terror", and its architects the original "Terrorists", their names. So, "terrorismism" is just classical Terrorism.
  - Tycho 13y ago
    Who were the classical terrorists?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      The word "Terrorism" was coined based on the express philosophy behind the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France.
frisco 13y ago
I'm interested to see how the Tea Party deals with these issues. It could be a huge opportunity for them... As crazy as they are, if they take up the mantle of getting government out of peoples' personal lives, it could propel them into legitimacy. I'm this close to deciding that this is a vote-deciding issue compared to abortion, fiscal policy, or foreign affairs. Democrats, take note.
trippy_biscuits 13y ago
Ever since they decided that they had the right to look at or touch my privates before I can get on a plane, I refuse to fly.
Fuxy 13y ago
Welcome to the United Prisons of Americal where the only thing preventing you from being forced to walk to your destination is the fact that using a car is still legal... for now.

422 points by ahmadss 13y ago

jdp23 13y ago

Just a reminder, the deadline for comments on the TSA's body scanners is Monday. http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=TSA-2013-0004 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=TSA-2013-0004 has the info.

danielweber 13y ago

The use of the word "Blacklists" for "No-Fly Lists" in the headline is confusing.

jnbiche 13y ago
What exactly do you think a No-Fly List is? The use of the word "blacklist" is entirely appropriate.
- danielweber 13y ago
  Before the headline changed, it was asking if the NSA could "blacklist" people without telling them what. Given the context of no-fly lists, you can see what that's about. But without that context, you are wondering just what in the world it means. Are those people not allowed to be Americans?

TempleOS 13y ago

I'm bouncer for God and Heaven. God says... stuff what_a_mess hit rich ho_ho_ho I'm_feeling_nice_today I'll_get_right_on_it I_pitty_the_fool Is_that_so potentially astrophysics adjusted_for_inflation how_about heaven little_buddy I_can't_believe_it Yes_you_are nerd unemployment you're_in_big_trouble I'm_off_today not_good I_pitty_the_fool You_can_count_on_that Terry so_let_it_be_done patience bye Hicc_up humongous yeah hurts_my_head

jstanley 13y ago

This is outrageous. This is contagious. So futile.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
I do love angry art. It can be just as pretty, if not sometimes prettier, than normal art.

bediger4000 13y ago

This is so un-American I can hardly believe that anyone in the USA would do it. Where's the due process? Where's the confrontation of the accuser? Where's the ability to redress a wrong? This is so wrong on so many levels of Americanism. It's just Soviet, that's what it is.

AmVess 13y ago
It's not even Soviet. It's worse. At least in the Soviet Union, one could travel freely without shakedowns that come at the drop of a hat.
- lmm 13y ago
  Huh? In the Soviet Union one had to be registered as residing in a particular city. You could be stopped and asked for your papers, and if you were in a different city from the one you were down as living in there would certainly be questions.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Questions, perhaps. Not: "You are not allowed to be here, we don't care if your grandmother is dying; we don't care if you are attending your sister's wedding." This is what is happening in the US with the no-fly list.
    - Vivtek 13y ago
      Yes, exactly that, as in arm-behind-your-back marched to the train station under guard. If they didn't like your look, anyway.
  - AmVess 13y ago
    I traveled in the Soviet Union in the 80's. Never once did I get subjected to the type of treatment that I get from the TSA, and I'm not on any DNF list. Also, don't confuse having to register to aid in central planning with ease of travel. As an American, I traveled all over HHA and rarely had to show my papers. So, no, there certainly weren't questions...not like you alluded to.

3pt14159 13y ago

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Protect http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Protect At least the Canadian one allows you to protest. As a result only about a thousand people on the list.

gambiting 13y ago

As a person coming from a former Soviet republic - it reminds me of times 30 years ago, where the usual conversation with any official would look like this : "no" "why?" "because the government says so" No trial, no hearing, someone somewhere in secret made the decision and you had nothing to say in that matter. Or if you tried, you would be charged with interfering with government business, or "national security" and jailed for a random amount of time. Really that different to what the US government is doing right now?

vxNsr 13y ago
Yeah but at least in the USSR you could bribe your way out of this type of situation. Here it's even worse because the people at the bottom (checking counter people) wont take bribes and maybe even can't because the computer will stop them from entering certain info.
- nathan_long 13y ago
  Giving a bribe might make a specific situation easier for you, but having a system where bribes are tolerated is cancerous. Few things have such power to destroy a nation.
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    One could argue that the nation was already long gone by the time that happened. Corruption is just accelerating the inevitable.
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      Brokenness at a high level can be fixed. Brokenness as a result of rampant corruption at all levels cannot. You can restore civil liberties by enacting or repealing laws. You can't do it when no effective executive mechanism exists (i.e., all your bureaucrats, police, and other officials are on the dole). Widespread corruption, IMO, is far more dangerous in the long term than what we're seeing right now in the US.

blackaspen 13y ago

Soon though(thinking of PRISM), they'll be able to say you landed yourself on a No-Fly list because of a joke you cracked in an email you sent to your friend ten years ago that they only just mined now. (And a joke that their algo/analyst didn't understand) And then they still won't let you appeal it. I wasn't aware though that No-Fly extended to boats, that makes it criminal. The only way to get off the continent then is to go to Canada or Mexico (or another SA country) and hop on a non-US associated airline. That is criminal.

jtbigwoo 13y ago

They can't even get on a boat to cross the Atlantic. Does anybody know if other countries reference the U.S. no-fly list? Could one of these plaintiffs drive to Canada and travel abroad that way?

omarali 13y ago
Canada has it's own version of the no fly list which includes data from the US no fly list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#No_fly_lists_in_other_countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#No_fly_lists_in_oth...
- a3_nm 13y ago
  I would imagine that travelling through South American countries would be a better option (ie., the only option).
run4yourlives 13y ago
Canada and the US share data. It may be possible but that probably depends on your personal situation. If you can get across the border you'd be okay I would guess, although you better hope the flight doesn't fly into (or over) US airspace. For reference: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ifim/airspace/ http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ifim/airspace/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

omarali 13y ago

Is it possible for someone on the no fly list to join the lawsuit? I know two US citizens who are on the list.

ahmadss 13y ago
don't know, but you could probably email the lawyers that wrot e this blog post and find out. contact information for various ACLU lawyers is listed in the filing [1] found on the blog post. [1] http://www.aclu.org/national-security/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-aclu-challenges-government-no-fly-list http://www.aclu.org/national-security/latif-et-al-v-holder-e...
ctdonath 13y ago
Is it possible for someone not on the no fly list to join the lawsuit? No US citizens can find out whether they are on the list short of being refused (being on the list does not guarantee refusal, and refusal does not guarantee being on the list).

cpursley 13y ago

It's interesting to sit back and realize that the libertarians were right all along. On security theater and the bailout economy.

prof_hobart 13y ago
But being right about the problems isn't automatically the same as being right about the solutions...
- McPants 13y ago
  Being right about the problems is the first step. I would argue providing a bad solution for a problem you know exists is better than providing a good solution for a problem that doesn't exist.
  - mbetter 13y ago
    Problem: Hamburger buns aren't noticeable enough. Solution: A cheeseburger with a lightbulb inside. Problem: Some humans are currently suffering. Solution: Destroy the universe.
    - McPants 13y ago
      It's time for another good idea, bad idea.
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    Headache? Amputate! It will certainly stop the headache.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > I would argue providing a bad solution for a problem you know exists is better than providing a good solution for a problem that doesn't exist. I would argue that details matter here and there is no valid generalization here. Neither of these are good things, but which is worse will depend on the details, and specifically how you define "good solution" and "bad solution".

run4yourlives 13y ago

The US is a lost cause for anyone on the bad side of the government for any particular reason, crimes committed or not. What really gets me though is that people are truly shocked that the piece of paper held up as some illusion of rights is, like everything else, simply not worth the paper it is printed on. This is a document that has been used to justify slavery, prohibition, woman as property, Jim Crow laws, the "sanctity" of marriage etc. If history shows us anything it is that regardless of whatever is written down, the laws of the land will be made by the popular opinion of those that have power, and how they interpret things. The USA is no different than Rome, feudal Europe or France under Napoleon, despite the best intentions of its founders.

clarkmoody 13y ago
Slavery was the issue that almost destroyed the Union before it formed and nearly destroyed the Union again in 1860. But it seems we worked that one out. Prohibition was instituted through the proper constitutional channel of the amendment process -- and repealed the same way. You may view it as the extreme opposite of the gay marriage issue today: a sweeping prevailing mindset that turned out to be a really bad idea in the long run. As for women, Jim Crow we worked those out too. I can't respond to your '"sanctity" of marriage' comment, because all I'm getting is vague left-wing ire. Those rights on that piece of paper have saved us from much government tyranny. Indeed, without the Bill of Rights, we would have lost many of them long ago. The founders were rightfully wary of government in this regard. Why is the 9th Amendment there at all? Does the government treat us as serfs or as sovereigns? The Constitution is not perfect: it did not foresee the level of political activism present on the Supreme Court throughout the years. The Court has been amending the Constitution for far too long without proper oversight. We should not be able to predict the votes of the Justices, since most of us are not constitutional scholars. Yet we can... The USA is different than most countries throughout history, but it has lost its way. The latest NSA / IRS news could be seen as simply the last in a long train of 'repeated injuries and usurpations' to and of our Liberty.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  Those rights on that piece of paper have saved us from much government tyranny. Really? Have you lived outside of the USA at all? Because I fail to see how anyone who has can make this statement. Life is no better or worse. The constitution does absolutely nothing. Indeed, without the Bill of Rights, we would have lost many of them long ago. The founders were rightfully wary of government in this regard This says more about American culture than it does anything else. Of course Canada survived without a constitution for most of it's existence, the UK still doesn't have one, and Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights. In fact, most countries in the world don't have a constitution as America knows it to be. They seem to be doing just fine. The USA is different than most countries throughout history, No, actually, it isn't. The principles of the USA were in place in Athens and Rome thousands of years ago, the Magna Carta and the Republic of France more recently. Stop believing your own mythology.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

Our brief highlighted the utter irrationality of the government's No Fly List procedures. The plaintiffs in Latif all flew for years without any problems. But more than two years ago, they were suddenly branded as suspected terrorists based on secret evidence, publicly denied boarding on flights, and told by U.S. and airline officials that they were banned from flying¾perhaps forever. One of the reasons that I'm not too attached to the specific details of the Snowden story (aside from supporting him, of course) is that it's just a piece of a much larger picture. Snowden's "NSA direct server access" is but a tiny speck in an ocean of civil liberties problems. In this case, the government is effectively using a quasi-military/police force to control who can travel the country. (Yes, I know you can drive, but for business travelers, air travel is many times the lifeblood of their work) People are banned from traveling, in many cases from performing their livelihoods. They do not know how they got on the list. They cannot get off the list. In charge of all of this is an agency, best I can tell, that has a mission of making all transportation safe from random terror attacks. It's insane. Aside from not protecting anybody, can you begin to imagine the ways such a system could be abused? It staggers the mind. There are probably around 100 people in the entire country that shouldn't fly. But the way this no-fly list is constructed, it will continue to increase year-by-year, without any incentive to pare the numbers back. Is anybody doing the math on the kind of economic impact such a system will have over a few decades? I've said it before. We need to completely disband the TSA. Structural adjustments are not going to fix its scope creep, conflict of interest with the military industrial complex, and lack of competence. It's just gotta go.

gcb0 13y ago
They are also ignoring the side effects. What happens in any place where incompetence/corruption run rampant? People find ways around. The more people they add to the no-fly list for no reason, the more people will be willing to travel with fake documents. Or create business around the block (those people can probably fly airwave). Soon, there will be so much work arounds that the one or two terrorist per century that would have been deterred by that measure will just have plenty of options to bypass it as well.
pasbesoin 13y ago
1) Smear some chemical trace on a competitor's clothing or luggage, and/or submit an "anonymous tip". 2) Profit! Seriously, though -- think about it. Secret system -- who knows how it's being gamed.

Vivtek 13y ago

"There are alternatives to flying". Try driving to Puerto Rico or Hawaii.

TempleOS 13y ago

niggers God says... Venus on_the_otherhand you_are_my_sunshine Percival geek arrogant I'm_on_a_roll pick_me_pick_me anger Icarus watch_it_buddy fer_sure could_it_be___Satan debt Ivy_league Terry I'm_in_suspense impossible youre_lucky hilarious astrophysics wazz_up_with_that never_happy computers LOL lighten_up how_about_that freak test_pilot are_you_deaf how_come you're_nuts I_could_be_wrong NOT fake furious revolution off_the_record humongous what's_the_plan cheerful a_likely_story BRB check_this_out You_fix_it what_luck

will_brown 13y ago

I hate to make such a prediction, but this case is factually analogous to the ACLU's case against the targeted killings of US citizens without due process and ACLU's demand the standards of the kill list be disclosed. If a citizen can have his life taken without due process, it seems consistent a citizen's Constitutional Right to travel can be taken without due process. For those that do not know: "On August 30, 2010, the [ACLU] filed a "targeted killing" lawsuit, naming President Barack Obama, CIA Director Leon Panetta, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as defendants. They sought an injunction preventing the targeted killing of [a US citizen], and also sought to require the government to disclose the standards under which U.S. citizens may be "targeted for death". Judge John D. Bates dismissed the lawsuit in an 83-page ruling, holding that the claims were judicially unreviewable under the political question doctrine inasmuch as he was questioning a decision that the U.S. Constitution committed to the political branches." Coincidentally, or likely not coincidentally Judge John D. Bates, is also the presiding Judge of the FISA Court as shown in the Rules of Procedure for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (See: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/FISC2010.pdf) I do not agree, but at least the US government has an argument that by disclosing publicly known or suspected terrorists, it may jeopardize our national security interests. How the hell can that be logically extended to the idea that disclosing the criteria to get on the "kill list" or "no fly list" jeopardizes our national security interests?

mapt 13y ago

"Back in September 2003, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released a piece of model legislation it called the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act. Like so many bills drafted by the free-market think tank, AETA was handed over, ready made, to legislators with the idea that it could be introduced in statehouses across the country with minimal modification. Under the measure, it would become a felony (if damages exceed $500) to enter "an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other means," and, in a flush of Patriot Act-era overreaching, those convicted of making such recordings would also be placed on a permanent "terrorist registry." Frustrated by unauthorized documentaries of slaughterhouse abuses, the agriculture industry hired corporate lobbyists to hire Congressmen to insert laws that would ban PETA activists from using the US air transportation system. These have been implemented in a number of states recently, although I'm not sure if any of them included the watchlist provision in the final draft. * http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/06/ag-gag-laws-mowmar-farms http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/06/ag-gag-laws-m...

prsutherland 13y ago
Would drones be considered a loop hole here?

grecy 13y ago

It appears people are agreeing this (and other) actions by the government are unacceptable. So what are Americans doing about it? We see people in Turkey, Brazil and many other parts of the world protesting against their government, while those in the US appear to be doing nothing. What's it going to take?

InclinedPlane 13y ago

It's good to see that in the 21st century there are at least some areas of daily life that haven't been pushed into a constitution free zone through technicalities.

guelo 13y ago

I sometimes wonder how the authoritarians that come up with these policies can look at themselves in the mirror and call themselves patriotic Americans.

trobertson 13y ago
They don't. They don't need to. This idea of a 'patriotic American' is propaganda. A complete and utter fabrication. It's a tool used to divide the American populace into opposing factions: those are patriotic, and those who are enemies of the stats. It's a remarkably similar tactic to what the Nazi's used [1]. The Nazis attempted (and succeeded) in demonizing anyone who didn't agree with their ideals. That's basically what our politicians are doing: demonizing anyone who is 'not a patriot', 'against national security', 'disagrees with American Exceptionalism'. Also, to those who will inevitably think 'Godwin's Law': thank you for derailing a legitimate comparison. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda#Themes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda#Themes

Tycho 13y ago

Can I coin a new political term: terrorismism. It is the enlargement of all state powers over its citizens in the name of fighting terrorists.

dragonwriter 13y ago
Interestingly, the enlargement of state powers over its citizens in the name of fighting (boogeyman of the day) is exactly what gave "the Terror", and its architects the original "Terrorists", their names. So, "terrorismism" is just classical Terrorism.
- Tycho 13y ago
  Who were the classical terrorists?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    The word "Terrorism" was coined based on the express philosophy behind the Reign of Terror in revolutionary France.

frisco 13y ago

I'm interested to see how the Tea Party deals with these issues. It could be a huge opportunity for them... As crazy as they are, if they take up the mantle of getting government out of peoples' personal lives, it could propel them into legitimacy. I'm this close to deciding that this is a vote-deciding issue compared to abortion, fiscal policy, or foreign affairs. Democrats, take note.

trippy_biscuits 13y ago

Ever since they decided that they had the right to look at or touch my privates before I can get on a plane, I refuse to fly.

Fuxy 13y ago

Welcome to the United Prisons of Americal where the only thing preventing you from being forced to walk to your destination is the fact that using a car is still legal... for now.