Court Says FBI Agent's Wrong Checkmark Put Woman On No Fly List, Barred Her From The US For 10 Years
from the ouch dept
We've been covering the case of Rahinah Ibrahim for a little while now. She's the Stanford PhD student who was wrongfully placed on the no fly list -- something that pretty much everyone admitted early on -- but because of that her student visa to the US was pulled, and every attempt she made to come back was rejected, leaving her unable to come back to this country for nearly 10 years. As we noted last month, it seemed clear that Judge William Alsup had ruled that the feds needed to remove her from the no fly list and any other terrorist watch lists, but it was a little unclear, since the full ruling remained under seal. That ruling has now been released in redacted form, and is well worth reading. Not only does it highlight massive bureaucratic bungling over a ten-year period, it also shows how disingenuous and dishonest the DOJ has been in handling the entire case -- even to the point of promising not to argue "state secrets" to kill the case, and then (of course) claiming "state secrets" and trying to kill the case just a few weeks later. Judge Alsup appears somewhat limited in what he can do in response to all of this for procedural reasons, but he makes it clear that he's not pleased about all of this and orders the government to confirm that Ibrahim has been fully removed from the various terrorist databases and lists, as the government has flatly admitted that they don't believe she poses any threat to national security.In fact, the ruling highlights that this is all due to one FBI agent totally fucking things up back in 2004 -- and not even realizing he had done so until his deposition a few months ago. Alsup makes clear (and it seems everyone agrees) that the FBI agent, Kevin Michael Kelley didn't screw up maliciously, but he simply misunderstood the directions in filling out the form:
Agent Kelley misunderstood the directions on the form and erroneously nominated Dr. Ibrahim to the TSA's no-fly list [redacted]. He did not intend to do so. This was a mistake, he admitted at trial. He intended to nominate her to the [very long redaction]. He checked the wrong boxes, filling out the form exactly the opposite way from the instructions on the form. He made this mistake even though the form stated, "It is recommended the subject NOT be entered into the following selected terrorist screening databases."And from that one screwup, basically a bureaucratic mess appears to have followed, and even if she was removed from that list (as is suggested elsewhere), once her name got into a series of connected databases, she effectively became toxic, and no one would allow her back into the US. So even though everyone now admits that she posed no threat to national security, when she applied for a visa to come back to the US, not only was it rejected, but the reason for the rejection was given as the code for "terrorist activities" (8 USC 1182 (a)(3)(B)) -- and to make matters even more insane, someone at the State Department helpfully scribbled "terrorist" on the form that was sent to her denying her entry.
Given the Kafkaesque treatment imposed on Dr. Ibrahim, the government is further ordered expressly to tell Dr. Ibrahim [redacted] (always subject, of course, to future developments and evidence that might [redacted]). This relief is appropriate and warranted because of the confusion generated by the government’s own mistake and the very real misapprehension on her part that the later visa denials are traceable to her erroneous 2004 placement on the no-fly list, suggesting (reasonably from her viewpoint) that she somehow remains on the no-fly list.Given that she should be told something, it seems utterly bizarre that what she should be told must be redacted.
It is true, as the government asserts as part of its ripeness position, that she cannot fly to the United States without a visa, but she is entitled to try to solve one hurdle at a time and perhaps the day will come when all hurdles are cleared and she can fly back to our country. The government’s legitimate interest in keeping secret the composition of the no-fly list should yield, on the facts of this case, to a particularized remedy isolated by this order only to someone even the government concludes poses no threat to the United States. Everyone else in this case knows it. As a matter of remedy, she should be told that [redacted].
The victory here is the first legal success in getting someone off of the no fly list, but it likely has limited use elsewhere, unfortunately. The case specifics are pretty narrow, and Judge Alsup makes it pretty clear that the government has a right to keep secret databases in which it forbids people from boarding airplanes. He notes that other cases will come along to take on those other issues, and we're sure to pay attention to them as they come up.
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: fbi, no fly list, rahinah ibrahim, william alsup
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Jesting aside, let's hope the DOJ and the rest of the bureaucracy has a nice retirement fund set up for her to ease her obvious suffering of 10 years.
And no, they're not allowed to use Kickstarter to acquire the funds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Being a bully with an attitude of self importance and unchecked power is a job requirement for police departments. Along with that maximum IQ requirement.*
*the maximum IQ requirement is there to protect the DOJ from hiring people having an IQ above 105 who could be disruptive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Being a psychopath/sociopath is a requirement for DOJ job applicants.
Seems about right. Then you can get promoted to Congress. Just ask former FBI undercover agent Michael Grimm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope
which then proceeds to get her put on the no-fly list...
that's some catch, that catch 22 ! ! !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consequences
And the attempts to get off the no-fly list didn't trigger someone to to at least consider the possibility of error in all that time?
And no significant penalties OR remedies assessed against the government by the court???
And cynicism about the government is still a wonder to lots of people.
Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consequences
Of course not. the computer says "terrorist" so they must be a terrorist. They must have done *something* for the computer to say that!
It's sad when you can look at something like Brazil and think "yep, that's true"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...this is all due to one FBI agent totally fucking things up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"...this is all doo..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A idea for a novel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A idea for a novel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A idea for a novel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A idea for a novel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 7th, 2014 @ 6:40am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agent Kelley
The FBI, CIA, NSA et al cannot be trusted to do anything more than fuck up our social contract and violate the Constitution regularly in the process. They're worse than the drug cartels because at least the latter offer services and products that are at least somewhat checked by the free market.
The executive branch of the federal government is a joke nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want people to respect the law, starting with equality by removing the FPA (famous persons act) would help.
Crack your ex girlfriends gmail account and post her nudes online, get 6 months probation, if that.
Do it to a celebrity or politician, get 10+ years in prison from a laundry list of CFAA charges.
Do nothing, get put on no fly list, barred from U.S for 10 years.
Have a DUI from 30 years ago, denied entry into the U.S.
Have felony charges pending for vandalism, DUI and speed racing charges, well hello there, how are you? Move along, have a nice day.
Fuck law, its broken.
[ 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 ]
exactly! they would have been given the high jump! they would have been persecuted for the rest of their lives! they definitely wouldn't have been given the opportunity to correct the mistakes!
why then after all this time, does the government just stick it's hand up, appologise profusely, throw a few thousand bucks at her and give her a free to anywhere and back as often as wanted for the rest of her life? the reason is, because it's the government. i doubt if the idiot that caused this screw up has even been knuckle-rapped, let alone anything else!
i wonder how he would have felt had it been his or a family member (wife, parents) member in the same position? he caused this person to basically lose 10years of her life, and for what? and these sort of twats are in every government dept you can think of, making these sort of decisions (read fuck ups to others lives!) every day!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean like an IRS tax return?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worse even, has he filled a form for a terrorist in the opposite way, clearing him for flight, instead of banning him?
Is any part of this system even reliable if it depends so much on "interpretation" of one form?
Just wondering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How many innocent people are on the no fly list and the other lists, because someone filled out the form wrong when they meant to clear them?
How many suspect people are cleared and not on any lists because someone filled out the form wrong when they meant to flag them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(similar purpose forms from other countries are easier to read, easier to fill in and quicker to fill in, and amazingly gather the same information)
I pity US citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The redacted part, revealed
[... to take a trip down to Best Buy and treat herself to some sweet home entertainment equipment, and put it on the government's tab. After all, we owe her big time.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The redacted part, revealed
A decade of having your rights violated should be worth way more that a big flat screen TV and HiFi stereo system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since we now know this mistake has been made
And why should we believe that it's never made in the opposite manner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A logical conclusion
Isn't something like "better that 10 people go free than to punish an innocent person" applicable? If not then why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A logical conclusion
A mistake has been made. Where there is one there may be more and therefore it is all suspect until shown to be otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's continue with this, and suppose that everyone involved in this case happened to be placed ont he 'noy-fly' list for "Terrorism".
So you suppose, for one second, that those people would stay on the 'no-fly' list?
Neither do I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this the ONLY mistake?
Obviously this is the main reason to fight so hard to cover the mistake made 10 years ago, now everyone on the No-Fly list has a credible excuse to file suit to see why they are on the list.
Judge, how can I be sure that I was supposed to be put on the no-fly list and not on the [redacted] list. This is even worse if the [redacted] list is something like the "Friends of America Group" or "Foreign Nationals who support the US" or "Foreign Nationals who should receive preferential treatment"... since it's [redacted] we are left to speculate is the other checkbox a good one or a bad one (if it's a good one what's it doing on the same form as the no-fly list, and if it's a bad one how much worse than the no-fly list is it???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
risk of casualties of a terrorist blowing up NYC subway in Times Square IS greater then blowing up ten+ airliners.
If we allow no-fly bullshit fly, then why there is no "no-ride" list for subways?
And city busses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130411/10524522679/former-police-chief-defends-nypds-s top-frisk-program-because-it-has-checklist.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about getting those pesky people it considers thorns in it's side publicly staying home instead of broadcasting it to the world and embarrassing it further. Rahinah Ibrahim is not the first one that has been put on the no fly list either by hook or by crook, which has followed with the DOJ and other agencies refusing to look nor alter the list. It again is very telling that part of it is that the people on the list will not be told. There's another, a pesky professor that is on this list, more because he's a thorn, not because he's involved in terrorism, and it's come up several years ago. Then there are those that some how just manage to get on the list after they leave the US, from which is their home country. This too has come up several times. Their not terrorists, they are embarrassments to the government. The dirty solution is to keep them from coming home.
Rahinah Ibrahim sought information that she be told she was off the list after it was done. As part of an earlier article told here, it was one of her court requests for this case. She wanted notification it was done and notification if it was ever changed again. I am sure the DOJ is horrified that some other person on the list might find out how she did it and go through the same process to get removed again showing that this list isn't about terrorism as much as it's about preventing embarrassments for getting around and spreading the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So is Hernando Calvo Ospina.
There are like 50+ documented cases of toddlers amd newborns being on no-fly list. I am sure, that little checkbox had something to do with it. Nice try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abuse by checklist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
---------------------------------------------
(name of individual) current status is:
_ US persons with all the constitutional protections afforded to such a individual.
_ Terrorist who has no constitutional protections.
(please check one box only)
WARNING: This record contains Sensitive Security Information that is controlled under 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520. No part of this record may be disclosed to persons without a "need to know" as defined in 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520, except with the written permission of the President of the United States.
Unauthorized release may result in civil penalty or other action.
-------------------------------------------
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's my theory. She was probably viewed as a potential enabler of biological terrorism, but the DOJ and FBI don't want to admit that's why she was put on the list, because they have no proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]