Witness In No Fly List Trial, Who Was Blocked From Flying To The Trial, Shows That DOJ Flat Out Lied In Court
from the incredible dept
On Friday the case against the US government, brought by Rahinah Ibrahim over her being placed on the "no fly list," officially concluded with closing arguments, but that may have been the least interesting part of everything. Apparently, the day got off to a rocky start, after Ibrahim's lawyers informed the DOJ that they intended to file bar complaints against some of the DOJ legal team for their actions in court, specifically concerning "misrepresentations" made to the court. It seems clear that this was mainly about the DOJ denying that the US government (mainly DHS) had done anything to prevent Ibrahim's daughter, Raihan Mustafa Kamal, an American citizen, from coming to the US to be a witness in the trial. As you may recall, on Monday it had come out that she had been denied in her attempt to board her flight in Malaysia, and the DOJ claimed, flat out, that Kamal had merely missed her flight and rebooked on another flight.It appears that none of that was true.
Instead, while Kamal had been rebooked by her travel agent earlier in the week to a different flight (because Expedia informed her that her original flight was full and she wouldn't be able to travel on it), she arrived at the airport with nearly 3 hours to spare for her own flight, and was then denied the ability to board. There was a lot of back and forth, but eventually she obtained the email that had first been sent to Philippines Airlines (she was flying from Malaysia to the Philippines and then on to San Francisco), warning that Kamal was "a possible no board request."
Judge Alsup held a closed hearing about all of this, so it's not entirely clear what he's going to do, though from the public statements he has made to date, he did not appear to be happy about all of this. During the closing arguments -- some of which involved kicking the public out -- he even noted how ridiculous it was that they had to have a closed session since he didn't think any of the "sensitive security information" was really that sensitive. He also challenged the government's argument that they can properly review people who "appeal" their status without ever letting anyone know if or why they're on the list. From Edward Hasbrouck's transcript of the exchange:
The government also appeared to admit in its closing that the original no fly determination on Dr. Ibrahim was a mistake, but then seems to bend over backwards not to take responsibility for all the additional fallout from that incorrect designation -- including the repeated denial of a visa to go back to the US (even for this very trial).JUDGE ALSUP: That's just going back to the same sources that were wrong in the first place, and of course they are going to say, “We were right the first time.”
That troubles me.
Do you know what happened to Robert Oppenheimer?
He was denied his clearance. It was totally unjust. The information was bogus. They suspected him of being a Communist, but that was wrong.
It was a low point for America, to do that wrongly to an American hero.
You’re not seeing the other side of what can happen.
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL: TRIP is a continually improving process…
JUDGE ALSUP: We know that there’s going to be mistakes in your system, in any system, and people are going to get hurt.
What do we need? Should there be some sort of follow-up FBI interview to find out if there is contrary evidence?
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL: When a TRIP letter is sent, the recipient is offered the possibility of review by a Court of Appeals. Review by a Court of Appeals would reveal any improper basis for the decision.
JUDGE ALSUP: How could the Court of Appeals tell that from the file it is handed up by the agency?
Even if it includes the derogatory information, how is the Court of Appeals going to know from looking at the face of the document whether it’s true?
Couldn’t there be some process where you tell the person the nature of the allegations (”You contributed money to Al Qaeda”) without revealing the specific sources or methods for the information containing those allegations?
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL: We can say more in closed session, but we can’t do that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cbp, dhs, doj, no fly list, rahinah ibrahim, raihan mustafa kamal, william alsup
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Hubris
What I find amusing is the note at the bottom of the letter claiming that it is sensitive information and that releasing it would violate various US laws without written permission from the US government as if a foreign citizen in a foreign country working for a foreign airline would be subject to those laws. Kudos to the ticket agent that used common sense in determining that the person they were denying the ability to board the plane at the request of the US government was one of the people that "needed to know" what was in the request and released it to her.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Where's the money?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The bigger question is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The bigger question is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The bigger question is...
Make no mistake, what the government did is nothing short of a crime in most jurisdictions, and if memory serves (it probably doesn't this time around) the court can infer that the government is probably guilty solely on this basis. I believe the term of art is 'negative inference'.
Any lawyer types out there care to edu-ma-cate me on where I'm wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anything that has the potential to embarrass the government is sensitive information. After all, wouldn't you consider anything potentially embarrassing about you, like your medical records, confidential?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A list
They compile lists on us, we need to start one on them.
Names, Actions, Relatives, Associates, Places of Employment, etc... We can only hope in the next 10 years the court system is filled to the top with all of these criminals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Move along, citizen. Nothing to see here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
First ones against the wall...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"possibility" in government eyes is the same as "if we give shit enough to "offer" it to you in the first place. Provided by the same court that decides your fates ex parte.
Freedom? Where?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hubris
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hubris
We already see the wheels turning in some of those torture cases where people are not allowed to discuss their tortures because those are state secret now!
Next up... Someone going to jail and not being told why because of state secret!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I can here it now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There is a difference between private life and actions carried out as a representative and servant of the people. Accepting any public role should come with the realization that you will be required to explain your actions, or why some information should be kept secret. Using secrecy to hide mistakes is an abuse of power by a public servant. The problem of course is that too many public servants think that they have absolute power over citizens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'm starting to think that the criminal enterprise that is the executive branch far and away outweighs the totality of all actual criminal enterprise combined.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The bigger question is...
So what? It's not like the law actually applies to the government...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That's only for the little people, the government (and the rich) can break the law with impunity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I can here it now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The bigger question is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Deport
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Nice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Nice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good to see this make the mainstream
As well EVERYONE should.
An overview of fraud in the Court.
www.bargrievance.net was at one time running to help you do just that.
The radioshow/podcast Rule of Law Radio on some shows covers bar grieving and why to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The bigger question is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And because you are citing a crime, that takes a DA, Judge or Grand Jury to approve criminal charges.
But go ahead and explain how the non DA/Judge/Grand Jury is supposed to get criminal charges?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Perjury vs. witness tampering: burden of proof...
On the other hand witness tampering can be immediately investigated by the court. It's much less dependent on determining intent, instead focusing on the facts and effect of actions. My understanding is that once the interaction with the witness is shown, the burden of proof shifts to show that it was not tampering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good to see this make the mainstream
As well EVERYONE should.
An overview of fraud in the Court.
www.bargrievance.net was at one time running to help you do just that.
The radioshow/podcast Rule of Law Radio on some shows covers bar grieving and why to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The bigger question is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Where's the money?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hubris
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hubris
Of course they would. US laws apply world-wide. That's what drones are for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So far, though, I haven't seen the lawyers making that claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Perjury vs. witness tampering: burden of proof...
Wait, were the lawyers themselves testifying in this case or were they filing sworn testimony from other sources? Couldn't those other sources be charges with perjury?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Perjury vs. witness tampering: burden of proof...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Perjury vs. witness tampering: burden of proof...
Unless the court gave the gov't a big ole "lie for free" card and let them submit unsworn testimony.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A list
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SIEG HEIL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If the judge had cojones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Where did soveriegn immunity come from?
We like in a Republic where the power of the government derives from the people - not from a grant of sovereign power. If the people cannot lie to the government, then where does the government get the power to lie to us, if it derives all of its powers from us?
Sovereign immunity might be 'well settled law' but just because it is well-settled does not mean the original decision was correct. It is like saying that global warming is 'well-settled' while your ship remains stuck in the ice . . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]