Government asks judge to toss out challenge to federal 'no-fly' list

AP ^ | 11/4/4 | DONNA GORDON BLANKINSHIP

[SmithL]

SEATTLE -- A Justice Department lawyer on Thursday asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that alleges the government's handling of its "no-fly" list violates air travelers' rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit says the government has put in place insufficient safeguards to ensure that people with names similar to those on the list aren't treated with suspicion because of mistaken identity.

The seven plaintiffs say they have been repeatedly stopped at airports and questioned for as long as an hour before being allowed to board flights.

Joseph W. LoBue, representing the government, told U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly that airport searches were necessitated by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The ACLU countered that the government should find a way to safeguard lives without infringing travelers' constitutional rights to due process and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Zilly must decide whether to dismiss the case, hear it himself, or determine that his court lacks jurisdiction and send it on to a federal appeals court.

Lawyers said they expected the judge would take at least two weeks to rule.

The Transportation Security Administration has two lists: a "no fly" list of people who are not allowed to board and a "selectee" list of people who go through more extensive screening before boarding.

Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies recommend to the TSA who gets put on the lists, but little else is known about them. The government does not confirm any names on the lists.

[SmithL]

Once again, the ACLU comes out for terror.

[Ilya Mourometz]

Well, without seeing the briefs, I'd have to say this is a pretty specious lawsuit. Plenty of people have the same names as persons who are wanted for crimes, or are otherwise subject to detention. The fact that John Doe might get stopped because another person named John Doe has a bench warrant out on him is not only not a violation of the constitutional right to freedom of movement, it's not anything at all but bad luck.

I suppose one legitimate problem could be that the names on the list, probably mostly Arabic, have no standardized spelling and there is not a great deal of variety in Arabic names as compared to the enormous number of surnames in the US. That being said, I still think the no-fly list would pass constitutional muster.