Posted on 09/05/2019 5:56:22 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
The federal government has violated the rights of more than 1 million people by placing them on a watchlist of “known or suspected terrorists,” a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
The plaintiffs, 23 U.S. citizens, argued, with the backing of the Council on American Islamic Relations, that they were wrongly placed on the list, causing “a range of adverse consequences without a constitutionally adequate remedy.”
The plaintiffs, ruled U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga, “have constitutionally protected liberty interests that are implicated by their inclusion” on the list, and the Department of Homeland Security process by which people listed on the watchlist can challenge their inclusion “is not constitutionally adequate to protect those liberty interests.”
Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee, added “there is no evidence, or contention, that any of these plaintiffs satisfy the definition of a ’known terrorist’.” While Trenga’s ruling grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, it directs both sides to file supplemental briefings on appropriate remedies before he rules further.
SNIP
That might require revealing sources and methods and expose informants or undercover agents.
Something tells be that this is really what they are after.
“It is (well, should be according to the Constitution) the responsibility of the accuser (the government) to prove the guilt of the accused.”
Perhaps whomever decides if an individual goes on the list must first present the name as well as the proof to a panel of some sort who can then weigh the evidence after which, if it has been agreed the individual should go on the list, they would be informed of the decision as well as being provided with the evidence in order that they can, if they choose, contest the findings.
Thank you for your common sense approach to defending our rights. The Bush era was a dark stain on freedom. Hidden lists you are placed on that affect your life, but you have no way of knowing if you are on it, nor can you appeal the decision? I can’t believe our countrymen thought this was acceptable at the time.
No fly lists were illegal to begin with - it was the blind marriage of party line obedience and propaganda that suckered many of us into thinking it was a necessary sacrifice. While I’m proud to say I never subscribed to the idea, it was the norm at the time in my social and political circles.
I get why it happened - I just wish we’d had more foresight.
> What is the social credit score if one is not online or doesn’t use the social media crapola ?
Obviously a dangerous loner and not adjusted to the modern life of having eyes firmly focused on phone screen.
No Guns For You!
ROTFL. Court decisions are whatever the judge wants, and precedents can be distinguished all sorts of ways to get the intended outcome.
A secretary at an University was put on the No-Fly list and only found out when she needed to travel to a family funeral. She figured it was because she worked at the Nuclear Engineering Dept., full of foreign and middle-eastern students. I was a counter part at the same university at Chemical Engineering. I was not on the list. The meanest thing that girl would have ever done was bless your new house and maybe read a Bible verse to you. I retired and don’t know if she ever got off the list. At the time the list seemed pretty random.
“Accusers and government agencies that fail to obtain a conviction must be held liable for the accused’s legal fees, and subject to civil suit for slander, liable, and defamation of character.”
But, OTOH, expecting any kind of accountability on the part of government is a bit of a pipe dream.
“The plaintiffs, 23 U.S. citizens, argued, with the backing of the Council on American Islamic Relations,”
One of my Constitutional Law profs once said to our class that new law is made at the fringes - generally speaking, average and ordinary people doing average and ordinary things don’t cause any cases or controversies.
“How about if the potential “listee” is notified before inclusion on watch list and given reasons why he is being listed?”
“That might require revealing sources and methods and expose informants or undercover agents.”
If you’re OK with that, Cuba and Venezuela have that, and probably a nicer climate than where you’re living now; but please don’t be part of the statists who wish to gradually deprive us of all of our meaningful rights.
OK, how many here that are cheering the Muslims being taking off the Jihid list want them on the plane they and their family are flying on? None? Thought so.
“Would YOU like to be placed on the no-fly list and not even know it until you were denied the ability to fly, not know why you were placed on the list, and have no expeditious way to appeal it and correct any error(s)?”
Before you open your mouth and insert your foot(again), why not read the post after the one you responded to in which I addressed what you are saying?
Of course it does. But what is the point of gathering intelligence on jihadies if we can't use it. It would just be another story where (after the fact) it comes out the the feds knew all about the perp and failed to act to prevent another attack.
What these jihad lawyers really want is full disclosure of out investigatory methods so they can shut them down.
But what the heck why not fly with a bunch of suspected jihadies on your plan at least that is what this judge thinks.
Absolutely not.
A "panel" to decide your fate? A panel to which you are "allowed" to plead your case? There is a solid reason our Constitution requires the state to prove their case to a duly selected jury. Your suggestion is that reason. In addition to being patently unconstitutional, it is absolutely guaranteed to be a politically corrupt weapon. Think FISA warrants and 3 effin years of "Russian collusion".
The Constitution guarantees us the right of free passage between the states.
This "list", no matter who compiles it, no matter how it is compiled, is a despotic violation of that as well as a clear violation of our right to a trial with a jury of our peers. A trial that comes **after** we have been properly charged for violating a legally passed law by our elected representatives. Not an edict penned by unelected bureaucrats.
“What these jihad lawyers really want is full disclosure of out investigatory methods so they can shut them down.”
Be that was it may, it’s how it’s always worked. We have a court system that makes most everything public because it’s in the public interest to not be secretive when it comes to judicial deliberations. Remember how many people on FR rejoiced when Snowden leaked all those government secrets?
You can’t have it both ways.
OK, so isn’t checking people at airports a violation of our Constitutional right to privacy?
Solid fifth amendment ruling.
“He can then dispute his inclusion by refuting with evidence...”
Nope, that’s still the opposite of how it works in the USA. The government must prove their case against you, while you have no obligation to prove your innocence.
Meh, I could care less if NAMBLA and the Communist Party USA backed the defendants. A good decision is a good decision.
Well, the NRA is not a person, so it has no due process rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.