DOJ Pretends No Fly Guidelines Haven't Been Leaked, Claims 'State Secrets' To Avoid Revealing Them To The Judge
from the hiding-in-shame dept
Back in July, we wrote about the Intercept releasing a leaked copy of the US law enforcement guidelines for putting someone on the no fly list. There have been a series of lawsuits recently concerning the no fly list, and the government has basically done everything possible, practically to the point of begging judges, to avoid having those cases move forward. So far, that's failed miserably. The Rahinah Ibrahim case, for example, showed how a Stanford PhD student with no terrorist connections was put on the list by someone checking the wrong box on a form (and then was kept on a separate terrorist watchlist under a secret exception to the rule that there be "reasonable suspicion.") In that case, like every other, the DOJ claimed "state secrets" in trying to get the case dismissed. There have also been cases about the feds using the threat of being put on the no fly list to force unwilling people to "become informants." An important ruling back in July said that the process for getting off the list is unconstitutional.In another case involving the list, Gulet Mohamed is challenging the fact that he's on the list, and the DOJ has done its usual "state secrets, throw out the case" claim. The judge, so far, isn't buying it, and has asked the DOJ to reveal how it puts people on the list. Specifically, Judge Anthony Trenga asked the DOJ to provide:
[A]ll documents, and a summary of any testimony, expert or otherwise, that the United States would present at an evidentiary hearing or trial to establish that inclusion on the No Fly List, as applied to United States citizens who are not under indictment or otherwise charged with a crime and who have not been previously convicted of a crime of violence, is necessary, and the least restrictive method available, to ensure the safety of commercial aircraft from threats of terrorism, and that no level of enhanced screening would be adequate for that purpose.In a filing last week, Mohamed's lawyers pointed to the leaked guidelines, and the DOJ responded by saying, "Huh? Document? What document? We don't know of any such document, and deny its existence." Or something to that effect:
With respect to Plaintiff’s points, Defendants do not acknowledge the authenticity of the purportedly leaked documents, and will respond to the proposed Notice in due course.The DOJ has now gone further and said it still doesn't think it should have to produce the information because it's still claiming state secrets, and it doesn't think the judge should have to look at the documents in question to determine if the state secrets demand is appropriate. Yes, they're arguing that the judge should determine if something can properly be called a state secret without revealing what the information is. Actually, the DOJ is going even further, arguing that it's inappropriate to look at the alleged state secrets to determine if the state secrets privilege applies.
The requested submission would not assist the Court in deciding the pending Motion to Dismiss because it is not an appropriate means to test the scope of the assertion of the State Secrets privilege, does not pertain to the claims in the Complaint, and does not address the appropriate legal standard for substantive due process.Got that? The Court should just agree that it's a state secret and shut down the entire case. The DOJ pretends first that the necessary documents haven't already been leaked to the world, and second acts like it's crazy for a judge to want to actually see the documents before determining if it's really a "state secret" they're protecting.
Of course, as we noted, when the document leaked it seemed pretty clear that the DOJ was lying when it said it wouldn't reveal them because of state secrets. It doesn't want to reveal them, because they reveal how the process almost certainly violates the 4th Amendment. Rather than protecting "national security," the attempts to hide the details of the list are very much about protecting "DOJ security."
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: doj, guidelines, gulet mohamed, leaks, no fly list, state secrets, watchlist
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Call the bluff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Depending on your definition of 'is'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"These are not the documents you are looking for."
That might be more effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minijust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
like they pretend the little people have the same rights as corporations?
like they pretend they are upholding the law, while ignoring obvious fraud then take a job with those they should have taken to trial?
So the DoJ have decided that are above the law they are charged with upholding. A Judge is being told no, denied access to material at the heart of a case because the secrets are to secret to be seen by a court that doesn;t just rubber stamp things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
citizen 1: m r ducks
citizen 2: m r not
citizen 1: m r 2 c m wings
citizen 2: l i b m r ducks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obama has declared war 3-4 separate times now without congress. Just once used to be grounds for impeachment. Then look at all the crimes he has openly done. No Americans are for a lack of a better word, cowards waiting for someone else to get things going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hope and change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relax guys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, it's coming
Because, you know that's legal now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, it's coming
With barbed wire fences,walls, and armed guards patrolling the perimeter. Of course according to those in charge that's for the camp enrollees safety to have armed guards restricting them from leaving the FEMA camp. Its fun for the whole family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh, it's coming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even Eric Holder's mother thinks he is a cretin
DOJ = Dept of Jackasses, not even one employee at the entire rogue agency that should be preserved... every one of them a true parasitic ignorant traitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that was the old one!
I want a cookie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for false leaks/redactions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]