Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government The Courts Transportation Your Rights Online

State Secrets, No-Fly List Showdown Looms 216

Posted by samzenpus
from the need-to-know-basis dept.
schwit1 writes "The Obama Administration and a federal judge in San Francisco appear to be headed for a showdown over the controversial state secrets privilege in a case about the U.S. government's 'no-fly' list for air travel. U.S. District Judge William Alsup is also bucking the federal government's longstanding assertion that only the executive branch can authorize access to classified information. From the article: 'The disputes arose in a lawsuit Malaysian citizen and former Stanford student Rahinah Ibrahim filed seven years ago after she was denied travel and briefly detained at the San Francisco airport in 2005, apparently due to being on the no-fly list. In an order issued earlier this month and made public Friday, Alsup instructed lawyers for the government to "show cause" why at least nine documents it labeled as classified should not be turned over to Ibrahim's lawyers. Alsup said he'd examined the documents and concluded that portions of some of them and the entirety of others could be shown to Ibrahim's attorneys without implicating national security.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

State Secrets, No-Fly List Showdown Looms

Comments Filter:
  • by OrugTor (1114089) <dmillarhaskell@cox.net> on Monday April 22, 2013 @11:52AM (#43516591)
    I want this judge on the Supreme Court.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, 2013 @12:00PM (#43516693)
      This is the same judge who had the Oracle-Google Java case. He gave Oracle a huge slap down when they tried to argue that a trivial piece of code should bring down Android. I would love to see this guy on the Supreme Court, but unfortunately common sense and plain speaking will not endear him to anybody in Washington DC. #makestoomuchsense
      • by idontgno (624372)

        I like this guy. He's of the good ones.

        Which is why we're going to hear about his tragic and inexplicable suicide* any day now, probably before this case is decided.

        *May not be suicide. May be an unfortunate traffic accident. Or random unsolvable act of violence. Yeah, I'm hedging my bet. Other than the part in which a thorn is plucked out of the lion's paw and discarded.

        • "Which is why we're going to hear about his tragic and inexplicable suicide* any day now, probably before this case is decided."

          It's pretty risky to try to do something like that to a public figure like a judge, especially when everybody is watching.

          • "Which is why we're going to hear about his tragic and inexplicable suicide* any day now, probably before this case is decided."

            It's pretty risky to try to do something like that to a public figure like a judge, especially when everybody is watching.

            Light aircraft accidents, on the other hand . . .

          • by s.petry (762400) on Monday April 22, 2013 @01:51PM (#43517787)

            Risky, not really. Remember who owns the media companies. If people are not able to read about reality, they don't know reality. Look at the President of Poland for an example of how media completely controlled the story, and that was a pretty big plane crash. Most of the "free" world had no idea he was anti-EU currency.

            • by St.Creed (853824)

              Most of the "free" world had no idea he was anti-EU currency.

              On the other hand, we don't all live in the USA. The inhabitants of that small piece of real estate called the EU were pretty well informed if they cared to read the newspapers.

            • "Risky, not really. Remember who owns the media companies. If people are not able to read about reality, they don't know reality."

              Risky, really.

              Maybe not risky to them personally, but risky to their cause. All it would take is an already-suspicious public to know that it was done, and why. Exactly who did it is far less important. Not unimportant... just lots less.

        • by anagama (611277)

          None of that is necessary. Just let the "new" IT guy find some child porn on his computer at the office during a software update, doctor some log files showing he visited various bad sites ... and that's that. Character assassination is way less risky than assassination.

      • by reve_etrange (2377702) on Monday April 22, 2013 @02:31PM (#43518173)
        Judge Alsup is also a coder - and that's why he knew how trivial the 9 lines of RangeCheck() were.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm not sure Alsup is the reason.

      Alsup, a Clinton appointee, is riding the government pretty hard in recent rulings. However, it's hard to argue that he's exhibiting an anti-government bias. He twice dismissed Ibrahim's claims against federal agencies, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed his decisions . Now, Alsup seems determined to move the case forward. A trial is currently scheduled for November.

    • by a.d.trick (894813)
      This isn't the first time I've heard his name before. This is also the guy who declared Oracle's Java API's to be not copyrightable and the rangeCheck code they were crying over was something so simple he'd written 100 times before.
    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Monday April 22, 2013 @12:39PM (#43517033) Homepage

      That mental clarity is why he'll never get nominated. Presidents aren't looking for sharp judicial minds, they're looking for reliable votes on whatever the successor case to Roe v Wade will be.

      The sharp judicial minds have this annoying habit of thinking for themselves and coming to conclusions that are significantly different from the politicians who put them on the court. Some examples of this: David Souter, John Paul Stevens, John Roberts. What most politicians actually want is another Clarence Thomas.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JackieBrown (987087)

        Why did you only mention to pro-life judges?

        • by dkleinsc (563838)

          Because there the ones that came to mind of smart judges who have done different things in office than they were expected to do by the politicians who nominated them. If you have some judges thought to be pro-choice who changed their mind, feel free to list them.

          David Souter, for example, was vilified by the Republican Party for his vote on Griswold v Connecticut. John Roberts has gotten raked over the coals in Republican circles for his vote on the Affordable Care Act.

          • by dkleinsc (563838)

            Sorry, wrong citation for Souter. As a sibling post mentioned, the case is actually Planned Parenthood v Casey. Griswold is something different.

        • by s.petry (762400)

          Bigotry runs thick. Don't get too down on people however, most don't see that they are trained to be biased and the education is continued in all forms of media and Govt. propaganda.

          Seriously, think about how much time has been spent discussing the "Black vote" vs. the "Hispanic vote" vs "Gay vote", etc... As long as people continue to talk that way, we will maintain learned biases. And the vote discussion is just a fraction of the bias being discussed in all forms of media and politics.

        • by ShanghaiBill (739463) * on Monday April 22, 2013 @01:59PM (#43517863)

          Why did you only mention to pro-life judges?

          Neither Souter nor Stevens is "pro-life". They repeatedly voted to uphold abortion rights, most significantly in Planned Parenthood v Casey [wikipedia.org], but in other cases as well.

    • by steelfood (895457)

      Same. If anyone retires, I want him nominated. Shame it's not actually going to happen, now that he's taken on the Obama administration.

      Obama's really something. At the least, if he had defended DOMA, he had the excuse of his duty to defend the law. But given his stance there, it's obvious that any law his people defends is by choice.

      The government under his watch is so transparent now we can almost see into it. Oh wait. That's just our reflection.

    • Unfortunately, he's just made sure no POTUS will ever nominate him. Shame.

  • Smoke and Mirrors. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Not sure what disgusts me more here, reading how TSAs due diligence with assessing no-fly status is suddenly a matter of national security, or the fact that this was an issue in 2005 and our wonderful legal system is just now getting around to it.

    Gotta love it when judges are arguing over bullshit that is so damn old that former Presidents barely remember authorizing it.

    Obama will be retired and tending to his marijuana crops by the time we bring up his policies for legal review...

    Captcha = erasable. Yup,

  • Warrant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Monday April 22, 2013 @11:56AM (#43516653) Journal

    Just the things being investigated and when can tip off associates, or, in the case of mistaken identities due to similar names, the real target.

    While I am all for increased legislative oversight of all spy and terrorist-related investigations, good luck with this. The real Constitutional crime is not just warrantless stuff, but warrantless without cursory review by elected legislators or judges.

    • by houghi (78078)

      Look at the positive side. If the defense does not get the papers, they can't sue and win.

    • Re:Warrant (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Areyoukiddingme (1289470) on Monday April 22, 2013 @01:25PM (#43517527)

      Just the things being investigated and when can tip off associates, or, in the case of mistaken identities due to similar names, the real target.

      Which just goes to show that no one in the intelligence community was consulted before the list was created in the first place. Someone you suspect of being a terrorist shows up at the airport and his experience is suddenly radically different than everyone around him? That's a flashing neon sign, isn't it? I'm sorry, but I had the idea that when you suspect someone of being an enemy agent, you do nothing to alert them to the fact you suspect them, right up until the point where you bring the hammer down. You don't want a bomber to know you're coming. That's a good way to get blown up. It should have been the Pay-Really-Close-Attention-and-Screen-Really-Well List, not the No-Fly List.

  • There will be no 'showdown'. The feds can and will tell everybody to fuck off, and as always, they will comply... to avoid being tagged as 'anti-American'

  • Does the No-Fly List consist of just strings ($NAME) or is it a set of unique records?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, 2013 @12:41PM (#43517055)

      As I am given to understand it, the No-Fly list consists of a list of the names of known terrorists, terrorist suspects, and the aliases that they have used. Back in 2004, Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy was stopped and questioned [washingtonpost.com] five times at airports because "T. Kennedy" was an alias used by a terrorist suspect. It took the senator and his staff more than three weeks to get his name removed -- a process likely to be more painful and time-consuming for the average individual who only has access to the DHS TRIP [dhs.gov] ('Traveler Redress Inquiry Program') site.

  • by kannibal_klown (531544) on Monday April 22, 2013 @12:09PM (#43516771)

    I like David E Kelley's Boston Legal in general. Granted, lots of people hated his shows because his main characters tended to go on rants and act as mouth-pieces for his political views, but I enjoyed his shows and think that even if you disagree that he would at least make good points about them.

    Anyway, there was an episode about the No Fly list and that monologue always stuck with me.

    The main character (Alan Shore) went on and on about how poorly contrived it was and how INSANE it was that a system that cost SOOOO much money was less advanced than an iPod that fits in his pocket. That the iPod could store meta-data AND pictures for 20,000+ items but the No Fly List only handled names. Names which could be faked AND shared with others.

    How it's insane that in a country that has Google, Apple, and even small-yet-innovative companies that the contract went to a system as worthless as what became the no-fly-list.

    The plot-point was "Denny Crane" couldn't even fly on his private jet because his name was an alias for a terrorist. Then the main character had a dozen+ people named Denny Crane from the Boston area to come in to show how ridiculous it was they couldn't fly (even the children).

    The monologue was found here: http://www.boston-legal.org/script/BL03x12.pdf [boston-legal.org]
    But the delivery of it was quite solid and emotional.

    • by Hatta (162192) on Monday April 22, 2013 @12:33PM (#43516969) Journal

      The plot-point was "Denny Crane" couldn't even fly on his private jet because his name was an alias for a terrorist.

      Private planes are exempt from TSA regulations. You don't get checked against the no-fly list, and you don't get groped. Those affluent enough to afford their own plane are above the rules the rest of us peons must obey.

    • by hawguy (1600213)

      I like David E Kelley's Boston Legal in general. Granted, lots of people hated his shows because his main characters tended to go on rants and act as mouth-pieces for his political views, but I enjoyed his shows and think that even if you disagree that he would at least make good points about them.

      Anyway, there was an episode about the No Fly list and that monologue always stuck with me.

      The main character (Alan Shore) went on and on about how poorly contrived it was and how INSANE it was that a system that cost SOOOO much money was less advanced than an iPod that fits in his pocket. That the iPod could store meta-data AND pictures for 20,000+ items but the No Fly List only handled names. Names which could be faked AND shared with others.

      An iPod is not a distributed database system, you're comparing apples and oranges.

      Sure, there may be weaknesses in the no-fly list infrastructure, but claiming that it would somehow magically be better (and cheaper) if they just issued iPods to everyone and let them download no-fly-list updates from the Apple Store is not realistic - the iPod is just a display (and storage) device, it's no better than whatever computer is used to access the list today.

      • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Monday April 22, 2013 @01:19PM (#43517457)

        but claiming that it would somehow magically be better (and cheaper) if they just issued iPods to everyone and let them download no-fly-list updates from the Apple Store is not realistic

        Luckily for all of us (except you, perhaps) that OP made no such claim, and didn't even hint that that might be a solution.

        What was actually suggested was that PICTURES accompany NAMES on the No-Fly List, since there are frequently multiple people with the same name in the USA (note that I have an unusual surname, and yet I've managed to run into several people who knew someone with my FULL NAME)...

        • by thomst (1640045)

          CrimsonAvenger admitted:

          (note that I have an unusual surname, and yet I've managed to run into several people who knew someone with my FULL NAME)...

          Wait ... you've run into SEVERAL people who knew someone named CrimsonAvenger?

      • by kannibal_klown (531544) on Monday April 22, 2013 @01:21PM (#43517481)

        First, I realize this, I'm in IT. But it's a good monologue. Pocket device != large database.

        Second: he wasn't saying give everyone an iPod. He was using it as an example, a token of "look what an innovative company can do... maybe hire THEM instead of some guy"

        Even in 2001 (or whatever) the idea of a distributed system wasn't unheard of. Heck at our college we had access to large-infrastructure database systems shared among campuses across the country. Said databases had searchable articles with bilbiographic meta-data, images of the pages, and a whole bunch of features. I can't speak for whether it was encrypted but I do know you needed a login.

        The systems are obviously already networked to be able to get to the (I imagine) encrypted database. I can't imagine a scenario where a 2001-era PC would have a hard time also getting extra meta-data besides just a names-list (age, gender, etc). Heck we were even doing pictures.

        And as Alan Shore said in the monologue: this is a country with some innovative tech companies are there. Apple, Microsoft (yeh they count), Google, loads of small companies. All advanced. All innovative. All doing incredible things at the time.

        And you're saying the best that they could do, after throwing billions of dollars at the problem, was come up with a simple encrypted names list? No meta-data? No pictures? Nothing?

        Fine, maybe slightly more expensive but wouldn't it be better to have a BETTER system than a names list that count stops a 10-year-old from getting on a plane?

        We've come a long way in 12 years. But even back then things were advanced enough to do a better job on the system they picked.

  • by sl4shd0rk (755837) on Monday April 22, 2013 @12:11PM (#43516795)

    This is the same guy that headed off the Oracle vs. Java ruling [cnet.com] disaster.

  • by enrevanche (953125) on Monday April 22, 2013 @12:23PM (#43516903)
    The real question is why there should even be a no-fly list. No U.S. citizen or legal resident should be denied their right to travel without due process.
    • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday April 22, 2013 @12:52PM (#43517163)

      What puzzled me to no end about this whole "no fly list" debacle was: Are these people dangerous only on a plane? Let's assume that list is actually accurate. You know what I mean, let's assume these people are dangerous. Dangerous enough that we'd have to assume they blow up a plane when we let them on one. Because, well, why else should they not be allowed on a plane?

      Then why are they no threat at all if not on a plane?

      This question alone makes the whole list questionable IMO. Either someone is a threat to national security or he is not. There's no "on a plane". It almost feels as sane as the "on the internet" laws.

      • by snadrus (930168)

        & I was thinking "...on a tablet" patents.

      • by Beorytis (1014777)

        There's no "on a plane".

        Unless you're talking about snakes.

      • by bigpat (158134)

        With reinforced cockpit doors, air marshals, hopefully good scanning to prevent weapons on airplanes and a general agreement that nobody is going to be allowed to ever hijack a plane again even if they do assault or kill people or scream about having a bomb the pilot is not going to relinquish control of the plane.... having no-fly lists does now seem superfluous and fundamentally the wrong approach to take.

        That said, airlines are still private businesses serving the public and if they are given information

    • by lcam (848192)

      Nobody is denying anyone the right to travel. You can stick out a thumb and hitchhike no problem.

      The issue is using the airport infrastructure to aid in your travelling activities...

      • by Microlith (54737)

        No, in this case the Federal Government is denying the people on the list the right to travel. If not for their interference it is unlikely that anyone stopped by the list would otherwise have trouble getting on the plane and going to their destination.

        • by lcam (848192)

          Travel on an airplane.

          Try renting a car and driving, you will not find your travel impeded in any way.

          • by fuzznutz (789413)
            For now
            • by lcam (848192)

              Yeah well, the trend is to tighten everything up. I think you are probably right. Another poster sent me a link that showed me the tragic reality of things.

              A very very sad day for all of us.

      • by spire3661 (1038968) on Monday April 22, 2013 @01:04PM (#43517299) Journal
        Show me a walking path from every origin to every destination in the US, and your point will be valid. Otherwise airports, roads, railways are REQUIRED to travel in the US, thus you should have to show SERIOUS and PUBLIC cause to deny right of travel.
        • by lcam (848192)

          Are you suggesting that TSA has a presence in the non-existent train stations or that they put up checkpoints on our motorways?

          • Are you suggesting that TSA has a presence in the non-existent train stations or that they put up checkpoints on our motorways?

            They have. [wikipedia.org]

            • by lcam (848192)

              I'm flabbergasted.

              You win.

              • There's still a solution. Horses! I bet you can still go around on horses and not get stopped by the TSA.

                • by lcam (848192)

                  Yeah, the problem is people put up fences so it's not as easy to cut across a field.

            • by HeckRuler (1369601) on Monday April 22, 2013 @03:36PM (#43518817)

              The worst part about all this, besides the over-reach of inept agency and the slow descent into a police state:

              To detect "threats to national security as well as immigration law violators"
              X-ray trucks for "explosives, weapons, anything unusual", "radiation, explosives, and drugs".

              You simply cannot trust people in a position of power to keep a narrow focus when you grant them broad and reaching powers to do a specific job. Once they have those tools, they ARE going to use them for anything and everything under the sun that they think they can help with. Part of it is the infatuation with a new toy. When all you have is hammer, or even when the hammer just solved a difficult problem for you, EVERYTHING starts looking like a nail. And it's natural. The people working in anti-terrorism department, spending all that time not finding any terrorists, feel the need to be productive and find another reason for doing their job. Nobody wants to lose their job.

              I would LOVE to have some method of identifying everyone who really wanted to fuck over America. Or everyone that transported too much explosives. Or tried to make Anthrax. But the people that are trying to get the powers to do such things simply cannot be trusted with said power.

              Because while certain immigration and certain drugs are a moderately bad thing, there is no fucking way I'm letting these piddly little problems justify the transformation of the USA into a police state.

        • by DarkOx (621550) on Monday April 22, 2013 @02:17PM (#43518015) Journal

          I tend to agree with you but there are two problems some are going argue of a legal perspective. There is no clearly enumerated right to travel. Yes the 10th Amendment should have enough tooth to cover you and I there but sadly a century of legal precedent (WRONG IMHO) does not support us. The second problem is like the parent poster did people are always going to insist as long as some mode of travel remains open to you; government should be allowed to restrict any particular mode of travel. Naturally all the particular ones will be all the practical ones.

          What you do have is an explicit right to free assembly! Its there in plain ink! Now to assemble you must by definition go to where the assembly is taking place, and be there at the time it is taking place. Because of this I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that government should NOT be allowed to interfere with private travel as doing so interferes with your right to assemble with others. They should have to prepared to initiate some evidence based criminal process with court orders and warrants or leave you to your business.

    • by Bearhouse (1034238) on Monday April 22, 2013 @01:16PM (#43517431)

      Actually, as a non-USA resident I don't see why I should be denied access to a flight either, as long as I have a valid ticket, ID and visa etc. just because I shared a name with a suspected bad guy. Rights in the USA are only for citizens now? You don't think you should have rights when you come to Europe?

      But rest assured, we have the same bullshit here too. Recently I was stopped while in transit in Switzerland because I have the same name as a guy who apparently did not pay his parking fines. The border guard said that they had to right to put me in prison until I paid. (I checked later; unbelievably this is true).
      Fortunately I was able to prove that I was not the same guy...

  • by Snotnose (212196) on Monday April 22, 2013 @12:40PM (#43517041)

    I can't wrap my brain around the no-fly list. You can't find out if your on it until you're denied boarding. You can't find out how you got on it. You can't get off it once your on it. That's constitutional how? Oh, I forgot. Bush tossed the constitution out on it's ear 9/12/01.

    Why doesn't some hacker group like anonymous start putting politicians and staffers on the damn thing so we can all watch the fun?

    • Bush tossed the constitution out on it's ear 9/12/01.

      Good thing he's gone and it's all better. It's well past time to hold the "new" regime responsible for its own abuse.

      I know you never said it wasn't Obama's fault, but when you continue to blame Bush for what Obama is doing, it helps create a cover for him.

      • by cmdr_klarg (629569) on Monday April 22, 2013 @01:43PM (#43517697)

        Good thing he's gone and it's all better. It's well past time to hold the "new" regime responsible for its own abuse.

        I know you never said it wasn't Obama's fault, but when you continue to blame Bush for what Obama is doing, it helps create a cover for him.

        The fact that Obama commits the same sins does not excuse Bush43 from committing them in the first place.

        • No, but it means it's not a Bush43 problem. It's a "leaders of both parties are assholes" problem.

          • by Shompol (1690084)

            leaders of both parties are puppets of undisclosed entities who rule this country by pulling strings from behind a curtain

        • No it doesn't, but focusing on the past president without even mentioning the current is a irresponsible.

          • No it doesn't, but focusing on the past president without even mentioning the current is a irresponsible.

            Perhaps, but bear in mind that without Bush43 enacting those shitty policies Obama would not be able to continue them now. Credit must be given where credit is due.

    • by lcam (848192) on Monday April 22, 2013 @01:08PM (#43517347)

      The constitution is alive and well; the First 7 articles are alive and very well. It's the bill of rights that was add as a compromise in 1792 so that a few state representatives would feel confortable with the document and sign that is "under fire".

      However if you consider your rights to be self evident, you don't need a document defining those rights for you.

      Understanding is not a requisite of cooperation or fulfillment of citizen related beneficiary obligations: obey the law, pay taxes and submit to jury duty. If you have a problem with the way government is conducting business, you should take more action about those issues than rant about stuff on /. or making suggestions that some hackers take actions that would threaten the dignity of our public servants or the policies they choose to implement. That type of action will only justify a reaction that will result in new policies that are more similar to the proverbial "shaved, sterilized and destroyed" processing of our remaining freedoms.

      The single best way to make changes is to get people in your community organized in a way that can productively send a clear and constructive message to our leaders.

      • by snadrus (930168)

        They're our representatives, not our leaders. This is a democracy, not militaristic rule.

        • by lcam (848192) on Monday April 22, 2013 @01:52PM (#43517797)

          Are you sure about that? or is it just semantics.

          We certainly don't have a direct democracy; your vote is merely an optional symbolic show of support for your "representative". Voting is not even an obligation of a citizen; they don't even try to hide how little it really means, or the minimal value our opinions hold.

          A citizen has 3 obligations: obey the law, pay taxes, and subject to jury duty. One for each branch of government. I don't see voting anywhere in that list as a symbolic type of action for government related "decision making".

          If your representative incidentally speaks or acts on your behalf and you can do nothing to intercede since you have neither the place or the means to make a protest, does it matter what it's called if people view their rule a militaristic or representative type of governance?

          How often are public protests or even public opinion on a topic simply ignored by our "representatives" as they carry on with their day to day?

          So yes, they are our leaders and we depend on their decisions as leaders so that our futures may be secure. And as a final point the term "Senator" or "Representative" as prefixed to the name of an elected official in the senate or house is a title of nobility. Citizen is another one. Why do you think that is? Do you even know that the implications of titles of nobility are?

        • by anagama (611277)

          They're our representatives, not our leaders.

          Can you send me a check for $5,000,000? Really I mean it, you must be very wealthy given that you have representatives in Congress.

      • by Danathar (267989)

        "The single best way to make changes is to get people in your community organized in a way that can productively send a clear and constructive message to our leaders."

        That may be the BEST way.

        But largely it's ineffective.

        • by lcam (848192)

          You are right, of course.

          The point is, without community level organization, people (the public) are disorganized. The first step is to bring everyone together.

          One community may be easily ignored, but how about an entire state of communities, or the majority of communities in most states.

          Think of it like a large corporation, except that it's corporate goal is not profit, but the interests of its members.

          I would call it a church, except that that term comes with too many pre-conceptions based on the Christi

      • by DarkOx (621550)

        Making suggestions that some hackers take actions that would threaten the dignity of our public servants or the policies they choose to implement.

        They would have to still have dignity. If you want people to respect the law than the law needs to be respectable. If government officials don't want to be called liars; they need to stop spreading disinformation.

        What is wrong with ranting on Slashdot anyway? How is it so different than the pamphleteers of yesteryear? Sorry I don't agree. We absolutely should attack and lampoon dear old uncle Sam. We absolutely should attempt to built contempt and vitriol among the population toward him. That is how

        • by lcam (848192)

          I agree with your points about the law needing to be respectable and your surrounding viewpoints.

          Nothing wrong with rants on /. that's why it's here, although a word of caution. I wouldn't want to incite social disorder on a monitored online forum.

          If a rev0lut!on of some sort is to happen, there needs to be a definite plan with a long term strategy. If your strategy is not sound, you risk committing your "fast adopter" contempt group into positions that will compromise those resources for no definite gai

      • by srmalloy (263556) on Monday April 22, 2013 @03:41PM (#43518845) Homepage

        However if you consider your rights to be self evident, you don't need a document defining those rights for you.

        The purpose wasn't to define them for you, it was to enumerate them as being specifically beyond the ability of the government to take away. Unfortunately, the interpretation of the Constitution has gone from the original "The government is empowered to act only where specifically granted authority" to "The government is empowered to act whenever not specifically denied authority, and if government lawyers can come up with some pretzel-like, taken-out-of-context, and misinterpreted reading of a specific prohibition that makes it not say what the plain text says, then the government can act there, too."

        • by lcam (848192)

          You are correct.

          Plus, words that where defined one way have gradually had their official definition altered over the years... Try looking at how definitions of certain words have changed from Blacks Law 3rd edition to the 7th edition.

          You want control of the law? You need only rewrite the dictionary. adverb-verb fictions are your friend.

          This gradual and constant inflection leads to the declensions of the self-evident in all areas, not just how government interpretes the authority granted to it. These chan

        • Unfortunately, the interpretation of the Constitution has gone from the original "The government is empowered to act only where specifically granted authority" to "The government is empowered to act whenever not specifically denied authority ...

          Blame Jefferson and Madison. They were the original "strict constructionists", but knowingly threw away that philosophy in order to make the Louisiana Purchase. It was never universally shared by the authors and signers of the Constitution (Washington and Hamilton never believed in it), and even its proponents killed it 210 years ago. Time to accept that.

    • I'm not saying that Obama hasn't done the same thing (that I know of), but when the no-fly list first came out there were Democrats (like Kennedy) and liberal activists who were magically finding themselves on the list with no explanation or clear path to get off it.

  • I bet they are working hard to get rid of him as soon as possible. Can't have irrelevant things like fundamental legal principles slow down the establishment of a police state.

  • The whole system by which the No-Fly list operates is stupid. If the government wants to have a no fly list, then they should have to justify to a court putting someone on that list, before the name goes on it.

    If you want to search someone's house you need a warrant. If you want to tap someone's phone you need a warrant. So why don't you need a warrant to stop them from flying? It just seems stupid to me. Also when does your name of this No-Fly list expire? Wire taps expire, warrants expire, so how come

There is no royal road to geometry. -- Euclid

Working...