U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

[questionmark]

(Reuters) - The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, ruling on a lawsuit filed in federal court in Oregon by 13 Muslim Americans who were branded with the no-fly status, ordered the government to come up with new procedures that allow people on the no-fly list to challenge that designation.

"The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society," Brown wrote in her 65-page ruling.

Read more

[Space Commander Travis]

They made arrangements stipulating people's right to air travel in the Constitution? Boy, they were even more forward thinking than I thought.

[+and-then]

I always considered that air travel was like driving a car - a privilege - no one has a right to do either. The good of the many?

[Leonardo]

5th Amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It's quite clear.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Leonardo

[RoofGardener]

5th Amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

It's quite clear.

The question then becomes: does the statutory instrument supporting the "no fly list" constitute due process of law ?

[Leonardo]

The question then becomes: does the statutory instrument supporting the "no fly list" constitute due process of law ?

In the US "due process of law" includes the right of appeal - which is what I believe the Fed. Judge ruled the current system did not take into account. She did not rule that the denial of liberty itself was unconstitutional, but that liberty can only be denied after due process, including appeal, has ruled it necessary.

[andy4]

Isn't this mostly stemming from the Patriot Act, which completely overrides the constitution for more "freedom" and "safety?" You know, from those scary Muslims? I mean terrorists... not Muslims, excuse me.

[andy4]

In the US "due process of law" includes the right of appeal - which is what I believe the Fed. Judge ruled the current system did not take into account. She did not rule that the denial of liberty itself was unconstitutional, but that liberty can only be denied after due process, including appeal, has ruled it necessary.

Not if you're suspected of doing something you didn't do! Innocent until proven guilty? More like guilty until you don't leave your yard for 5 years, and don't talk to anyone outside of the USA, perhaps including your family.

Edited June 24, 2014 by andy4

[Michelle]

Isn't this mostly stemming from the Patriot Act, which completely overrides the constitution for more "freedom" and "safety?" You know, from those scary Muslims? I mean terrorists... not Muslims, excuse me.

Yes, I was extremely disappointed in Obama for not only extending the Patriot Act but expanding it.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Michelle

[andy4]

Yes, I was extremely disappointed in Obama for expanding the Patriot Act.

Same here, I'd say that it was truly his biggest failure.

The country was just caught up in a wave of patriotism after 9/11, and we all probably guessed that anything with the word "patriot" in it must be good for us. Not so much.

They should rename it the "Schizophrenics, You Were Right" act.

[questionmark]

The question then becomes: does the statutory instrument supporting the "no fly list" constitute due process of law ?

Was it approved by a jury of their peers? No? Well, there you have it.

[Bama13]

I always considered that air travel was like driving a car - a privilege - no one has a right to do either. The good of the many?

I disagree. I do have a right to drive a car. I just don't have the right to drive it on public roads unless/until I meet the requirements they (the public) set. However I can drive on private property without meeting any outside requirements.

[Rafterman]

Sounds like they simply need to add a better appeal process into the policy and problem solved.

[questionmark]

Sounds like they simply need to add a better appeal process into the policy and problem solved.

To have a valid appeal process first they would have to inform the people that they are "guilty" of something. Which the current procedure also lacks.

[spartan max2]

From article

"because it gives them no meaningful way to contest to this decision"

I totally agree with this, anytime your a U.S citizen you have the right to due process. Even if your put on a secret no fly list.

As citizens we always have a right to challenge anything we are charged with by goverment

Edited June 25, 2014 by spartan max2

[questionmark]

From article

"because it gives them no meaningful way to contest to this decision"

I totally agree with this, anytime your a U.S citizen you have the right to due process. Even if your put on a secert no fly list.

As citizens we always have a right to challenge anything we are charged with.

due process is not even limited to citizens as long as it happens in the US (which is why Dubya invented the Guantanamo Bay detention center).

[+and-then]

People on that list may be inconvenienced by being unable to fly but it isn't like being arrested and thrown into a cell now is it? There is NO right being taken from them in this case. One cannot fly if they are badly intoxicated, rowdy and combative, cannot produce a proper ID...the list goes on. Flying and driving on public roads are privileges of modern life - NOT rights given by our constitution.

[questionmark]

People on that list may be inconvenienced by being unable to fly but it isn't like being arrested and thrown into a cell now is it? There is NO right being taken from them in this case. One cannot fly if they are badly intoxicated, rowdy and combative, cannot produce a proper ID...the list goes on. Flying and driving on public roads are privileges of modern life - NOT rights given by our constitution.

The difference is that many of the people on that list did nothing to deserve being on it... which we cannot say about intoxicated, rowdy and undocumented.

[spartan max2]

People on that list may be inconvenienced by being unable to fly but it isn't like being arrested and thrown into a cell now is it? There is NO right being taken from them in this case. One cannot fly if they are badly intoxicated, rowdy and combative, cannot produce a proper ID...the list goes on. Flying and driving on public roads are privileges of modern life - NOT rights given by our constitution.

And if all of a sudden the government put me on a secret list that says I cant drive on the highway, I deserve to be able to fight that in court. Do you not agree?

IF your drunk, rowdy or combative at least its not a secret list, You know clearly what rule you broke and im sure there is some process to fight that if you get banned for too long.

With a secret list without due process they can literally de facto put anyone they want on it at any time. And there would be absolutely none thing you could do about it.

Edited June 25, 2014 by spartan max2

[Leonardo]

due process is not even limited to citizens as long as it happens in the US (which is why Dubya invented the Guantanamo Bay detention center).

The 5th Amendment applies only to limiting the powers of the US Govt., not limiting to where those powers may be applied. So long as it was the US Govt whose action caused a person to be put in a situation in which their Constitutional rights are curtailed, then that person has cause for redress against the US govt for that unConstitutional action.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Leonardo

[Space Commander Travis]

People on that list may be inconvenienced by being unable to fly but it isn't like being arrested and thrown into a cell now is it? There is NO right being taken from them in this case. One cannot fly if they are badly intoxicated, rowdy and combative, cannot produce a proper ID...the list goes on. Flying and driving on public roads are privileges of modern life - NOT rights given by our constitution.

What about that one that was reported a while ago, who'd inconsiderately made a fuss about GWB's warmaking, and went to Hawaii on vacation, and when he got to the airport to come back found that- "oh dear, sorry sir, you appear to be on a No Fly List".

And anyway, what is this obsession about ID? The 9/11 Hijackers all used their actual names, and even, as I'm sure you'll recall, had their passports with them.They even found one of them, as I'm sure you'll remember.

[Bama13]

And anyway, what is this obsession about ID? The 9/11 Hijackers all used their actual names, and even, as I'm sure you'll recall, had their passports with them.They even found one of them, as I'm sure you'll remember.

It is all about control.