Federal Judge None Too Impressed With Government's Defense Of Its 'No Fly' List

by Tim Cushing

The top secret "No-Fly" list has been problematic since day one. The DHS and FBI apparently believe over 20,000 people are too dangerous to allow to board a plane but not dangerous enough to arrest.

This is the process the government follows to place would-be travelers on the no-fly list.

1. The government places a person on the no-fly list.

That's all there is to it. The list is too "sensitive" to publish and exposing its methodology would apparently result in airliners raining down around us.

If you're a lucky recipient of the "no-fly" designation, here's how you're informed of your new status.

1. Purchase a ticket and attempt to travel. 2. Be rebuffed by TSA personnel.

This process can sometimes be applied with more flexibility.

1. Purchase a roundtrip ticket and fly to a foreign destination. 2. Attempt to return home. 3. Be rebuffed by local customs/security officials.

You won't know you're on The List until the list is triggered, which could happen when you're a few thousand miles from home. And if you think you're boarding the next boat back to the US, think again. The list is also "no-sail," meaning passenger ships are out of the question.

Now, if you're on the list and wish to be removed or, at the very least, informed of why you've been banned from commercial airline travel, there's no reason to panic. The DHS has a resolution process that relies very heavily on "process" and skips the "resolution" completely.

Their only recourse is to file a request with the Department of Homeland Security's "Traveler Redress Inquiry Program," after which DHS responds with a letter that does not explain why they were denied boarding. The letter does not confirm or deny whether their names remain on the No Fly List, and does not indicate whether they can fly. The only way for a person to find out if his or her name was removed from the No Fly List is to buy a plane ticket, go to the airport, see if he or she can get on the flight ? taking the risk of being denied boarding and marked as a suspected terrorist, and losing the cost of the airline ticket.

One wonders what a letter that answers no questions and explains nothing is supposed to "redress."

Dear Sir/Madam No Fly,

Thank you for expressing an interest in our Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. The Department of Homeland Security works in conjunction with all domestic airports, as well as those in 22 other nations worldwide, in order to provide you with a safe traveling experience. We hope that you will continue to make use of our products and services.

Thank you again for your support.

If you have additional comments or questions, please dial (202) 282-8495.

Sincerely, The Department of Homeland Security

This decade-long lack of specifics or actual redress has led to the ACLU suing the federal government on the behalf of thirteen no-fly list members.

Thirteen people on the no-fly list have sued the U.S. government, arguing that their placement deprives them of due process and smears their reputation by branding them as terrorists. Several of the men who filed suit have been surrounded at airport security areas, detained and interrogated.

The suit seeks to either remove the plaintiffs from the no-fly list or tell them why they are on it.

Government attorney Scott Risner addressed these complaints by arguing that air travel is not a "right" but a "convenience."

Risner said placement on the list doesn't stop people from traveling, and stopping people from using one mode of travel doesn't deprive them of their liberty. That's a key question in determining whether the government must ensure due process and one that's at the heart of the constitutionality of being placed on the list.

"We're not suggesting that there's not a convenience in air travel," Risner said. "(But) there's no right to travel without impediments. That's what's happening here.

Risner went so far as to point out that those stranded by sudden inclusion on the no fly list had made it back to the US via alternate forms of travel, thus "proving" a lack of air travel isn't preventing traveling.

Unfortunately for Risner, Judge Anna J. Brown wasn't buying it.

"To call it 'convenience' is marginalizing their argument," Brown said. [She] said alternatives to flying are significantly more expensive. "It's hugely time-consuming, and who knows what impediments there are between the Port of Portland and other countries."

She also pointed out that sea and land travel options aren't suitable replacements for flying, especially when time is of the essence and that the government's argument "fails to take into account the realities of modern life."

The DHS and FBI would obviously like everything to proceed the way it has for years, which means convincing the judge that flying isn't a fundamental right. This removes the question of constitutionality, as least as far as flight restrictions go.

The ACLU has gone further, though, declaring the entire system to be screwed up.

"We're asking the court to finally put a check on the government's use of a blacklist that denies Americans the ability to fly without giving them the explanation or fair hearing that the Constitution requires. It's a question of basic fairness," said ACLU Staff Attorney Nusrat Choudhury, one of the ACLU attorneys who will argue the case Friday in Portland. "It does not make our country safer to ban people from flying without giving them an after-the-fact redress process that allows them to correct the errors that led to their mistaken inclusion on the list."

It also points out that issuance of notice and due process are required for much less far-reaching actions.

The ACLU argues that this system violates the Fifth Amendment's command that the government cannot deprive a person of liberty "without due process of law." Courts have ruled that the Constitution requires some kind of notice and hearing for far less severe actions, such as losing state assistance for utility bills or being suspended from school for 10 days.

Judge Brown hasn't said when she'll issue a ruling, but so far she seems less than impressed with the government's arguments. In the meantime, 20,000 people, including the 13 US citizens represented here (four of which are military veterans), are still stuck in War on Terror limbo -- unofficially "detained" in the US by secretive travel restrictions.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- TSA Puts on the Dog
- Charges Dismissed For Teen Arrested Over NRA T-Shirt
- 5-Year-Old's Suspension Over Toy Cap Gun Reversed
- "There's A LOT Of Wrong Doing Taking Place (By The U.S. Government) That Americans Aren't Aware Of"
- "I Think Glenn Greenwald Should Calm Down" Piers Morgan
- "Snowden Is The Traitor! (NOT ME!) And Anybody That'd Call Him A Hero Is Terribly Misguided!"
- Maddow Does Her Best To Convince You Snowden Is The One Stealing Your Information NOT Obama
- Snowden's Secrets 'Belong To The People Of The US' & He's A Traitor For Giving Them What They Own?

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

The 'Lazy, not Lawless' Defense

by Tim Lynch

From the New York Times:

The picture painted in court of the New York Police Department?s officers was not pretty.

Ten percent of them were malcontents who worked as little as possible. Unless they are being paid overtime, officers seem to avoid writing summonses. Indeed, some police officers need to be weaned of the idea that they are paid to drive around in their patrol cars, eating doughnuts.

And those sentiments came not from critics of the department, but from police commanders and city lawyers.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Video: Victims Of Boston Bombing Police State Lockdown Speak Out
- 16-Year-Old Girl Arrested and Charged With a Felony For Science Project Mistake
- High School Student Faces 20 Years For Obama Facebook Threat
- Honors Student & Eagle Scout Charged with Felony and Expelled After Accidentally Leaving Shotgun in Truck
- Video: Man Gets Arrested For Not Letting Undercover Cop Smell His Iced Tea (And No, It's Not Fake)
- Man Charged For Not Rolling Window All The Way Down
- Investigators Trashed Wrongly Accused Ricin Sender's House
- Cop Shot Himself While Driving, Let Car Crash Into Oncoming Traffic

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Caught On Tape: Officer Sucker Punches Inmate In Face, Files Report Claiming 'Self Defense'

Chris | InformationLiberation

40-year-old Rico Palomino, a 12 year veteran corrections officer at the Cook County Jail in Illinois, claimed in his incident report an inmate "turned around abruptly" and grabbed his shirt, for which he had no choice but to act in self defense by striking the inmate with his open palm to "create a safe distance between himself and the detainee," reports NBC Chicago. The trouble is, the incident was caught on tape, and rather than show the officer was responding to being grabbed suddenly, it shows the cop casually walking up to an inmate and suddenly sucker punching him viciously in the face leaving him bleeding profusely from the mouth.

Here's how the incident went down:

Prosecutors said Palomino was working at a desk when an inmate walked by, asking Palomino where officers kept inventoried property because he wanted to get a phone number.

As the inmate continued to walk down a hallway, Palomino followed and told him to return to the lockup area.

"If you don't get back over here, I'm going to f--- you up," prosecutors alleged in a proffer.

A surveillance camera from the hallway recorded Palomino, eight inches taller and 100 pounds heavier than the inmate, striking the detainee, causing him to fall to the floor.

Prosecutors said the inmate was left bleeding from the mouth and required stitches.

The corrections officer is now being charged with a Class 3 felony, he is potentially facing 2-5 years in prison and up to a $25,000 fine. You have to wonder what the punishment would be if the shoe was on the other foot, not to mention if the officer's lies were simply accepted as fact.
_
Chris runs the website InformationLiberation.com, you can read more of his writings here. Follow infolib on twitter here.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Police: 17-Year-Old Strangled Himself With Seat Belt In Cop Car
- US Army Tactical Manuals Describe How to Control Domestic Insurrection
- Video: 'Routine' Traffic Stop Gets Arkansas Cop Shot & Killed
- Cops Strip Search Mom, "Forcibly" Pull Tampon Out of Her for Maybe Rolling Through Stop Sign
- Man Sentenced to 30 Days for Catching Rain Water on Own Property Enters Jail
- Cop Detains Woman, Allegedly Takes Her To Dark Alley & Asks To See Her Breasts
- Video: Police Raid On The Mansion Of Megaupload's Kim Dotcom
- Police Raid Wrong House, Kill Family Dog & Make Children Sit With Its Bloody Corpse

Yeah real tough guy! He's upset because he's 40 years old and only makes $8 an hour. Should me mad at himself for being so dumb! I have seen it all to often. I have not always been a good guy and have spent many years locked up, 5 years for a crime I did not commit. The CO that punched this kid will run into the right one someday and he will be taught a very valuable lesson. I t's sad but true that these things happen in the system. I have seen CO s get chopped up for less. [Post deleted: Please no quasi-threatening comments] Union man - the union will protect him, that's why they are there scum i would love too meat this guy on the street and see how bad ass he is . too bad the victim didnt have AIDS and spit the blood into the cops eyes and open mouth

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Minor Cuts to Defense Budget Could Lead to War: Top US Military Official

Chris | InformationLiberation

With minor defense budget cuts scheduled to kick in next year, the Pentagon is going into fear-mongering overdrive to prevent such a scenario from taking place.

According to a top U.S. General, slight reductions to the Pentagon's defense budget will pretty much lead to WW3.

(Please ignore the chart to the right, as acknowledging the U.S.'s insanely bloated military budget only gives aid to our enemies.)

Via Fox News

The top U.S. military official suggested Wednesday that scheduled Pentagon budget cuts could lead to war.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before a Senate committee Wednesday alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Both offered dire warnings about the potential impact of the automatic budget cuts, known as sequestration, which will go into effect starting next January unless Congress intervenes.

Dempsey said the cutbacks could lead to the cancellation of weapons systems and disrupt "global operations." In turn, he warned, the U.S. could lose global standing -- opening the door for enemies to test American military might.

"We can't yet say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation," Dempsey told the senators. "We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict."

Panetta made a similar argument last year when he said the sweeping cuts could weaken the military substantially, and invite "aggression" abroad.

Yet so far, Congress has not averted the planned cuts, which were set in place after lawmakers failed to reach a broader deficit-reduction deal.

The Pentagon would face cuts of about $500 billion in projected spending over 10 years on top of the $492 billion that President Obama and congressional Republicans already agreed to in last summer's deficit-cutting budget.

Dempsey said the cuts would mean fewer troops, the possible cancellation of major weapons and the disruption of operations around the world.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, called the description "candid but frightening."

While these government parasites whine about how they couldn't handle even the slightest reduction in taxpayer loot, the public in the meantime lost conservatively 40% of their net worth in the time period between 2007 and 2010. That study does not accurately factor in the rising cost of living, so it's likely even worse. During that same time period, defense spending rose 23%.

Boy, they sure must be struggling!

The truth is if the military had less money we'd be infinitely less likely to face conflict, as the U.S. government would have less money to spend on killing random foreigners (in order to justify their huge budgets), we'd be less likely to face blowback from their foreign policy.

Of course, this is all a pipe dream as they're not actually going to reduce any spending, there is too many pigs at the trough for anyone to cut the gravy train off. That said, the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money. With the U.S. now completely bankrupt, a Greece-style collapse is just on the horizon.

I'm looking forward to it.

Latest Politics/Corruption
- Obama and Eric Holder Are Still Lying About the Medical Marijuana Raids
- Rand Paul Answers: Why He Endorsed Romney
- Tom Woods Has Info Ron Will Not Be Endorsing Romney
- Carol Paul Speaks about Rands Endorsement of Romney and Ron Paul 6-13-12
- Why Rand Paul was Wrong to Endorse Mitt Romney & Jack Hunter is a Statist
- Rand Paul Responds to Endorsement Controversy on Peter Schiff Show
- Joe Scarborough: Why I voted for Ron Paul
- Mitt Romney Once Harangued a Neighbor for Smoking Pot, Then Called the Cops

The United States needs a massive military. Their armed forces are so badly disciplined that only by applying over-whelming fire-power can they hope to win (see Vietnam, Somalia).

It is a very sad state of affairs.

pigs at the trough. The problem is our pols can't let the other side appear stronger on defense. So the race to the end goes on and on and on and on and on and with borrowed money.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here