DOJ Finally Tells Short List Of People That They Are Officially Not On The No Fly List
from the it's-a-start dept
Last week, we wrote about Judge Anna Brown telling the DOJ to quit stalling and to tell a list of plaintiffs whether or not they were on the no fly list. This was a followup to her earlier ruling, noting that the process to get off of the list was unconstitutional. While a different court had ordered the US government to make sure that Rahinah Ibrahim was off the list in an earlier case (though she's been kept on another list), this was the first time that the court had directly ordered the US government to reveal to people whether or not they were on the list.Late on Friday, the government sent a short letter to the ACLU, telling seven of the plaintiffs in the case that they were "not currently on the No Fly List as of the date of this letter."
Today’s letter from the government informed the seven plaintiffs that they “are not currently on the No Fly List.” One of the plaintiffs notified was Abe Mashal, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and dog trainer who suffered professionally and personally when he could not travel far from his home in Illinois.It's pretty crazy the lengths Mashal had to go to get his freedoms "back."
“More than four years ago, I was denied boarding at an airport, surrounded by TSA agents, and questioned by the FBI,” said Mashal. “That day, many freedoms that I took for granted were robbed from me. I was never told why this happened, whether I was officially on the list, or what I could do to get my freedoms back. Now, I can resume working for clients who are beyond driving distance. I can attend weddings, graduations, and funerals that were too far away to reach by car or train. I can travel with my family to Hawaii, Jamaica, or anywhere else on vacation. Today, I learned I have my freedoms back."
The government still needs to respond to the other six plaintiffs in the case who it did not name in this letter -- though the fact that they were not named suggests they are still on the no fly list. The government has a bit more time with those people, since it needs to also provide some sort of explanation, and allow those people to effectively appeal their status on the list.
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: dhs, doj, homeland security, no fly list
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Knowing the games the DOJ loves to play, this doesn't rule out the DOJ taking them off of the list only for that one specific date, and then putting them back on the day after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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:
The agencies are probably laughing their asses off how the public and judiciary sweat and strain for months to accomplish something they circumvent in seconds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
yes, exactly...
it is perhaps difficult for kampers to understand that -YES- the gummint's eee-vil minions of doom WILL lie and dissemble in such obvious, childish, and simplistic ways...
j edna hoover would regularly do shit like that: knowing he was going to a kongressional hearing where he was going to be grilled on 'illegal' wiretaps; he would order that all wiretaps be halted for that day, then go and testilie that 'no, kongresskritter, we have ZERO wiretaps ongoing at this point'...
the next day, they put the wiretaps back on (if -in deed- they even bothered taking them off) and hoover was 'legally correct' in that they didn't (officially) have any wiretaps THAT DAY, but that was obviously a BIG LIE in the context of what was trying to be determined...
AND when you have massive files and recordings of everyone who is anyone, that IMPLIED threat kept most anyone from challenging him on his bullshit...
but i'm sure that has all been -you know- checked and balanced out of the system...
*snort*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're not thinking deviously enough. Yeah, they are off of the "No Fly" list. But now they are on the "Can Fly When Hell Freezes Over" list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Knowing the games the DOJ loves to play, this doesn't rule out the DOJ taking them off of the list only for that one specific date, and then putting them back on the day after."
It says a lot about the lack of character, integrity and trust citizens have in the US government, because I was thinking exactly the same thing while reading their statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, this is obviously not ethnic, religious profiling, no. Imagine if a war breaks out where the other eminently Islamic country actually fights back and throws a bomb in the US not due to some terrorism bogeyman. I wouldn't be surprised if the US went full Nazi-profiling style in the blink of an eye. There's a tiny veil between security concerns and flat out profiling totalitarianism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Ninja on Oct 13th, 2014 @ 6:11am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Ninja on Oct 13th, 2014 @ 6:11am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Ninja on Oct 13th, 2014 @ 6:11am
That kind of thing has happened, and would without a shred of doubt happen again were the conditions deemed sufficient to roughly justify it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Ninja on Oct 13th, 2014 @ 6:11am
The Japanese Concentration camps might never have happened if the Japanese-American population had not stupidly filled out their US Census and checked the box for "Japanese" on the form, therefore painting themselves with a huge bullseye.
This is why, in the US at least, the post-WWII census never asks for a person's religion, as the Jewish lobby made damn sure of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Ninja on Oct 13th, 2014 @ 6:11am
Want to profile someone? There's an app for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting.
What do you think WW2 was fought over?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The same (propaganda) reasons as WWI, of course, (as WWII was basically the second phase of WWI):
1. Making the world safe for democracy
2. The war to end all wars
And there's little question that had WWI never been fought (or even had ended differently), the Nazis would not have taken over Germany and the Communists would not have taken over Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Short people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Short people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
typo
Good read :)
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Additional Lawsuit Material
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the head of the DoJ can do it and get away with it, why can't they.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]