Judge In No Fly List Trial Won't Let Plaintiff Or Her Lawyers See The Evidence
from the due-process! dept
We've written quite a few times about the lawsuit brought by Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim, testing the legality of the US's no fly list, which she was put on in what appears to be a massive mistake by Homeland Security, which they've proceeded to make worse every chance they get. Being on the no fly list also appears to have made the State Department deny her a visa to come to her own trial, and then DHS directly got involved to block Ibrahim's daughter from flying to the US to be a witness, and then directly lying about it to the court.Edward Hasbrouck at the Identity Project, who has been doing a ton of excellent reporting on the case, has the latest, noting that the Judge, William Alsup, has now denied both Dr. Ibrahim and her lawyers from being able to see the classified evidence being used against her. This seems like a generally questionable move -- especially since Alsup himself has repeatedly questioned why certain information in the case was secret in the first place. But, in the end, this appears to mainly be a process issue. Dr. Ibrahim was told she could see the evidence if she was present in the courtroom, but since the State Department denied her a visa... she wasn't able to be there.
But, both her lawyers and Dr. Ibrahim herself knew all of this for a while, and could have (and probably should have) sought clearance to view classified documents. That's not to say it would have absolutely happened, but they didn't go through the basic process, and Judge Alsup has said that it's a bit late to suddenly ask.
Plaintiff's counsel could have sought clearance to view classified information well in advance of trial. Plaintiff's counsel did not. Instead, plaintiff's counsel waited until after trial to request an order for access to classified information. This order will not permit plaintiff's counsel to circumvent the usual classified clearance process at this late date when such unreasonable conditions are requested.The "unreasonable conditions" included a request to discuss the classified information with Dr. Ibrahim, though, again, she also did not seek clearance. Now, there's a reasonable argument about whether or not the government ever would have allowed any of them to get clearance and to look at the evidence -- but not even seeking to go through the process appears to be a big procedural mistake, cutting off the opportunity to legally challenge those decisions.
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: classified evidence, no fly list, rahinah ibrahim, william alsup
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Well, I guess William Alsup is out of a job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The 6th Amendment (due to the 14th Amendment) only applies to those who are US citizens and/or living on US soil (thus, foreigners who come to visit or those who crossed the border illegally are covered, but those who live in foreign countries are not.)
Not saying it is right, just that this is the way it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I need a recap here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct. An entirely different situation. But then again, I was going to add YMMV to my comment since the last two administrations (B and W) have been pretty good about not following, repealing, and rewriting the Amendments in all sorts of ways that shouldn't be legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the evidence is secret then it should not be used in trial. And the court has all the powers to shit on the Govt no-fly list and grant permission to the involved to fly into the country to testify regardless of what the shitty Executive says or could arrange a conference via the Internet. This judge doesn't care. If he did we'd see very interesting developments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, not saying it is right, just saying that it is the law (or at least, it is how the law has been interpreted openly.)
I personally believe the Constitution of the United States, which I must remind everyone is a document that *controls* the Federal, State and Local governments in the US, not the people of the US, when used correctly, should apply to everyone in the Universe. We already have all the rights laid down by the Constitution, given to *all of us* by nature/God/the Flying Spaghetti Monster/whatever. The Constitution merely tells the government what they can or can't do to take those rights away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
(emphasis mine)
I am both proud (of you) and sad (for all of us) that you felt that you must include this qualifying clause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But but but... terrorists!!!
Oh we will let you see it but only if you can get here. Then denies Visa. The republic is dying a slow death as we sit by and watch. [Grabs Xanax]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Having to sue in civil court to find out why you are being punished isn't right. Being told you can't find out why even if you win is downright evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't a criminal prosecution.
the accused
In this case the person you're talking about is actually the plaintiff - the opposite of "the accused" (although there's no real 'accused' here since this is not a criminal case).
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
Which was already conducted and concluded, though not in Plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff wants a second bite at the apple after the fact, despite not doing complete due diligence the first time around.
Well, I guess William Alsup is out of a job.
It's not that you're wrong that bothers me so much, because we all make mistakes, but that you just seem so darned proud of it. The smugness is absolutely palpable.
Well, humility is perhaps the emotion most alien to the Techdirt group-think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you cannot see the difference here to those police officers sued elsewhere in the States over wrongful deaths, then I have a bridge to Oahu to sell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You had a good argument going. Too bad you ruined it with the obvious ad-hom...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously this judge is not in allegiance with the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for the "liberty and justice for all" part, that is not opposed to socialist ideals -- that's pretty much the goal of socialism.
However, this bit from the wikipedia entry is interesting:
Also, That One Guy is hilariously correct, the original salute was identical to the one that is now indelibly associated with Nazis. It was changed to the hand over the heart because of that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's pretty much the goal of Socialism and Democracy.
The means are the primary difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't want a security clearance
Why would I want to assume that potential liability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You don't want a security clearance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You don't want a security clearance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You don't want a security clearance
no !! just no, that is not right at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You don't want a security clearance
This is why the Watergate documents, for instance, could be legally distributed despite being classified: they weren't related to national defense.
In practice, though, the government very rarely prosecutes ordinary citizens who pass along such information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You don't want a security clearance
"In order to obtain a security clearance, an applicant must promise not to disclose information obtained from classified documents except in accordance with specified rules and procedures. Unauthorized disclosure of classified information by a person holding a security clearance is treated essentially as a breach of that person�s promise. There is no prohibition, restriction, or penalty for any use, discussion, or publication of classified information by anyone who does not hold a security clearance."
Amusingly, this is from a post by John Gilmore from the context of this very trial: http://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/19/no-fly-trial-there-are-secrets-and-then-there-are-secrets/
And, of course, you may wish to familiarize yourself with the Classified Information Procedures Act: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18a/usc_sup_05_18_10_sq3.html
Otherwise, could I ask you to post a bit more than "That's wrong!" next time? Or even, God forbid, do some research before you declare someone else wrong? Thank you, good netizen!
Have a nice day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the Google/Oracle judge
Remember, the DoJ tried to get him to look at evidence outside of the trial (by courier, no less), and he told them to take a hike.
He likely accepted out-of-band evidence from the DoJ in order to prevent a sympathetic appeals judge from listening to the DoJ whine about "He didn't even look at our evidence!"
Remember, just being a judge doesn't mean you get to expose classified information, but you sure as hell can ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Road-Blocks
The US constitution sounds more like a list of rules that are required to be broken to get promotion in the US government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Road-Blocks
Again, sad, but true.
I'm so going to copyright, trademark, and patent the shit out of this sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Road-Blocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
where was the court?? on the moon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: where was the court?? on the moon
I believe she was in Pakistan.
I suppose she could have flown to Canada or Mexico.
Do you really think that she'd still be able to cross into the US being on the so-called "do not fly" list?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: where was the court?? on the moon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: where was the court?? on the moon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh. CIPA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She would also be barred from boats.
Most likely she would need to chatter a private flight to central america and drive up. When she hits the boarder its highly likly she will be found on the no fly list and be barred from walking into the united states as well. (because the law is secret there is no way to know if this is true or not).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reversible error???
Sounds like William Alsup is either a) blessed with an awe-inspiring lack of common sense or b) a traitor. Pending further evidence, I choose option A.
However, that the court has denied the petition to see the evidence against plaintiff is a plain error of both law and equity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i guess i'm alone on this...
it's fucking secret 'evidence' and i don't care what the 'law' is, this makes no sense justice-wise...
this bullshit uber-trump card of 'state security' is a tired and ratty excuse for fascism...
i know, i know, we are in bizarro, upside-down world now, where anything goes; but this catch-22 legal system is more kafkaesque than kafka...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the judge is simply upholding the law, as he has been charged to do. he is openly and harshly critical of the government, and seems like he would be happy to rule against the government, but he has to do it fairly and legally or the the inevitable appeal will be an easy win for the government.
tldr - not everything is a god damn conspiracy people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Moreover, as Jose mentioned about, the 6th amendment doesn't apply to everyone all over the world, only to US citizen and US residents. There is very little indication that there is anything in the US law that would allow a foreign national outside of the US to appeal being on the no fly list, especially when the information that put them there is considering confidential / top secret / whatever.
This judge seems to have sided with the plaintiff as much as possible, but there are limits, and yes, the US government does reserve the right to refuse any non-citizen entrance to the country for any reason they choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]