<i>"Although there are perhaps viable alternatives to flying for domestic travel within the continental United States, such as traveling by car or train, the court disagrees with (the government's) contention that international air travel is a mere convenience in light of the realities of our modern world," Brown wrote.</i><p>Yeah, no kidding. That somebody could <i>sincerely</i> espouse such a position is mind-boggling to me. It ranks up there with <i>"Gay people can already get married too (to the opposite sex)."</i>
I simply do not understand what kind of threat a person can pose, that makes it impossible for them to safely board an aircraft - after an 'enhanced' search. What harm could they possibly cause on a plane, that they couldn't on a train, a bus, or a movie theater?<p>The existence of this Kafka-esque list is mind-boggling.
Somewhere along the way, we decided that the threat of terrorism outweighed our constitutional rights. In the heat of the moment after 9/11, it may have seemed right (to some), but the further we get from the event, the more people are starting to see that there is a problem.<p>These right should not be abridged for any reason. That, or they are not rights.
I've never thought about the issue of international air travel, but yes, I agree with the court. When there's no alternative, you need due process. (Even when there is, due process is always nice to have when you declare yourself "<i>the</i>" democracy for others to emulate.)<p>As I write the reply, I am becoming even more angry that the government can restrict one's activities without any judicial oversight. It's such a simple "check and balance" to add and it's one that makes people really happy. How dumb could you be to try and take away people's rights without even implementing the simplest possible administrative hearing?
A related ruling earlier this year by Judge Alsup (of Oracle v Google fame) involving a Stanford graduate student:<p><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Secret-no-fly-evidence-rejected-by-judge-4180923.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Secret-no-fly-evidence...</a>
(The comma key on my keyboard is not working right sorry).<p>Just before I went on vacation recently I was about to make a political comment online that was very critical of the US. I did not make the comment because I was afraid I would be put on a no-fly list and not be able to travel.<p>When I was about to board the plane I was questioned repeatedly by Customs/DHS agents in a way that was extremely stressful and somewhat humiliating. I believe that they violated my constitutional rights (and if not then perhaps we need another amendment to the constitution).<p>I had already been asked the same questions about where I was going and why by at least two different people. Now I was almost to the ramp to get on the jet and I think they could tell I was frustrated to be asked the same questions again. So since I was frustrated or for whatever reason they decided to basically interrogate me on the spot even though I kept telling them to please go ahead and search my bags. They wanted to know what I did and wanted details of my vacation. When I told them I was a software engineer they seemed to not believe me and asked for more details about what a software engineer does. Basically seemed to be accusing me of being a drug dealer or something.<p>I became angry. I think because I was angry they decided to demand the name of the company I worked for and the name of my manager. I also had told them that I was staying with a friend in this other country and they demanded that I give them her name as well. It seemed to me that unless I gave them this information I would not be allowed to board the plane. Even when they pulled the contract out of my bag that had the same company name I had given them they did not apologize. I really hope they did not contact my boss who is the CTO of the company. I know they did not contact my friend. Regardless getting a call from DHS about me could have affected the relationship with this company.<p>It seemed that basically I was being held back and questioned because I was angry and not submissive. It was not until I made a few statements that were more submissive and actually pleading that I was allowed to go.<p>I was the last person to board the jet. The actual flight which was something like 12 hours and then a stop and another 7 hours was actually fairly enjoyable for me. However the constant questioning and searching in the airports especially in the US was so stressful humiliating and generally horrible that I will certainly avoid flying as much as possible. I actually wonder if there is some group that just generally wants to discourage people from flying?
No-fly list is a gross violation of basic human rights; i can't imagine why a relatively conservative U.S. society tolerate that. Worst part of it is that the airlines are private, government should not be able to tell private enterprises who can be their client and who can't. For (real or imaginary) government-controlled airlines, they are OK. I still doubt they do much to counter terrorism, every self-respecting terrorist should have a few fake passports anyways. More of a good tool for bullying dissidents.<p>As for air travel security overall, i am starting to think what we have in this field now is about what terrorists wanted to achieve: a gross overreaction based on panic.
From the PDF linked in the article, several people were told they could get off the list by becoming informants:<p>> An FBI agent...told him the only way to get off the No Fly List was to "talk to us."<p>It is very troubling to me that the government is not merely using the list as a shield to protect a plane by keeping out people who would pose a physical danger to it, but using the denial of air travel as a stick to beat people into informing on others.<p>To me, this scenario sounds plausible: The government finds people with Islamic names or innocent connections to the Middle East, puts them on the no-fly list and interrogates them whenever they come to the airport. Some of them give in to the government's pressure -- "find us some terrorists or you'll never be able to see your family overseas again" is not an easy offer to refuse.<p>Of course if the person doesn't know of any actual terrorists, the only to be allowed on the plane would be to make some up, or name innocent people they simply don't like or don't know well.<p>So basically lots of innocent people get harrassed by the government denying them international travel, while the government wastes investigators' time and taxpayer dollars pursuing entirely fictional leads from informants with no connection to actual terrorists, who just want the government off their backs and are willing to make up tips to accomplish that.
Thank you Judge Brown!<p>You are my newest hero!<p>This is the USA, not some tin-hat dictatorship, and it's about time someone within the federal government acknowledges these facts.