Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution


“The U.S. government’s no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.”


God bless Judge Anna Brown. It’s nice to see a federal judge put the government in its place. I hope her ruling is upheld on appeal.


@Irish Cabbie,
Do want to get on a plane with people who have known terrorist links? I don’t. I think the no-fly list is not comprehensive enough. There should be far more people on the list than there are. Only, our government is afraid of profiling. If you are looking for Muslim terrorists you shouldn’t have to pretend you are not by also including other groups.


Here’s the kicker: You don’t know if you’re on the no-fly list until you try to fly. At that point, you could find out that you share a name with someone who has “known terrorist links”, and you’re on the list for life. Want to avoid it? All it takes is a fake ID with a known-good name. Not exactly difficult for someone intent on hijacking a plane. The “no-fly” list is a feel-good intrusion on personal freedoms with no appeal. I vote we toss it entirely.


Sure I would because having terrorist links mean nothing! They label a Jesuit priest a terrorist, so that should tell you that these lists are not about safety or stopping terrorists at all.

Unfairly Targets Those with Controversial Political and Religious Beliefs

Rebecca Gordon and Jan Adams learned they were on a ""No-Fly"" list from the San Francisco International Airport ticket counter.   The ticket agent "came back and said 'you turned up on the FBI no-fly list. We have called the San Francisco police.' We were shocked, really shocked,"" recalled Adams.  Gordon and Adams may have been targeted for their work on War Times, a free bilingual newspaper that has been critical of the war and the Bush administration's policies on terrorism. -- CBS, February 5, 2004
John Dear, a 43-year-old Jesuit priest, member of the Catholic peace group Pax Christi and a former executive director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, an interfaith global peace organization has also been targeted. ""I fly just about every week,"" Dear says. ""Since 9/11, I've been taken aside at the boarding gate every single time and searched and questioned."" -- In These Times, Dave Lindorff, November 22, 2002
Virgine Lawinger, a 74-year-old nun and a member of Peace Action, was stopped at the Milwaukee airport along with some 20 other members of the group on their way to Washington to lobby the Wisconsin congressional delegation against military aid to Colombia. She says they were told at the time by local sheriff's deputies and Midwest Express ticketing personnel that one or several of them were ""on a list,"" and that the TSA had instructed airport security to keep the group off the plane. -- In These Times, Dave Lindorff, November 22, 2002


Some Jesuit priests are a little more active than others. Fr. Dear was part of the anti-military Plowshares movement, which involves breaking into defense related sites (either military bases or defense contractors) vandalizing them, then waiting to be arrested. He has served many months in prison for such activity.

Last year, he was dismissed from the Jesuits for being “obstinately disobedient.”


Sometimes things just don’t seem right…even though they may be for the best…

What do you expect in a “free society”?

Next thing you know we will be forced to acknowledge something like…


So what if airlines kept their own no-fly lists?


I wish a federal judge would rule the TSA unconstitutional.



Henry Stimson questioned Bendetsen’s Plan did he not?


Stop and Frisk?

Oh here’s another…The Holy Innocents…:heart:

During the war, the Philippines was a U.S. commonwealth. The U.S. military promised full veterans benefits to Filipinos who volunteered to fight. More than 250,000 joined. Then, in 1946, President Truman signed the Rescission Act, taking that promise away. Think about waiting to get into a VA hospital or getting a benefit check for over 60 Years!!! :crutches:

Remember the WASPs? :takeoff: (Women Airforce Service Pilots)

What exclusions did the US allow to the Native Americans?:winter:

Have not US troops been used against Striking Workers? Veterans? Students?

Why should you not tolerate injustice unless it immediately affects you…:hammering:



Everyone… even Muslims… has a constitutional right to due process. Not to mention the fact that since 911 there have been more deaths in the US from domestic terroists than there have from Muslim terrorists.


It’s no big deal…for me. For others, not as fortunate.

I rarely fly, and am unlikely to fly anywhere other than within the country anyway, and from places terrorists are not likely to pick.

And I don’t live in a place that terrorists are ever likely to target.

So, when the results of our foreign and domestic fecklessness come to roost, which they surely will in time, I’m probably not going to be a victim. But having said that, I do not wish on anyone what is going to happen sooner or later due to the extreme “nondiscrimination” policies and poor security efforts to which this government and judiciary is given.


Suggesting then, I take it, that since not all killings can be thwarted, no attempts should be made to thwart them.

But there really is a difference. I assume you’re talking about the various “shooters” the media likes to advertise. I think it’s pretty well recognized that those people are insane. There might be measures to interdict the insane, and might not be. Their very insanity oftentimes results in limitation of their damage. But is there any good reason to think, say, most Islamic radical terrorists are anything other than rational planners with talent?

If you look at it, the killings by Islamic terrorists have greatly exceeded those of the insane on a per act basis.


How can you have such an opinion when no one knows who is on the list? If the list is top secret all you can base your judgement on is your assumptions about the quality of the work done by government agents. Knowing what I know about the government I know they do everything terribly, including this list.

That would be perfectly acceptable, except the same government that has the secret list you can’t know if you are on or appeal to get off of makes discrimination illegal. The reflexive response from most folks is that is great. Discrimination is evil. At one time we understood discrimination is not inherently evil. A discriminating palate at one time was a compliment. But as it stands now any airline that tried to have such a list would suffer in court. Good thing the government is exempt from the law and can provide that discriminatory service for them.


I don’t have a problem with a “no fly list” – but there need to be corresponding protections with it.

First, I should know that I have been listed. Consider a restraining order as an example: I have got to have been served with that restraining order before it goes into effect. They should have to, at least, make a good faith effort (provable) to let me know I’ve been listed. I should be able to go to a government office and check to see if I have been listed…before I plan to travel.

Second, if I have been listed, I should be able to know why I was listed. I should be able to have my day in court to correct the record…and, unless some past conviction was involved (i.e., something I bloody well should know about), that day in court should be paid for by DHS…after all, they are making the accusation.


Well, I would feel better if airlines paid closer attention to the passengers rather than rely on the government. Discrimination is perfectly legal except when done on a prohibited basis. Airlines have kept people off of planes just for being disagreeable. They ought to have a good deal of latitude as to who gets on their planes.


Yes, actual behavior is an allowed area of discrimination. But the nebulous criteria of who is a possible terrorist is going to run directly into the prohibited areas of race, religion, and national origin.


Maybe they could take some lessons from the Israeli’s who seem to vet passengers on the basis of behavior and answers to questions.


Its been tried, and found to be ineffective.

Here is a 2011 news story about the technique:
Passengers Face Israeli-Style Behavior Screening at Boston’s Logan Airport

And a news report from last year:
TSA Behavior Profiling Not Effective, GAO Report Finds

Behavioral screening at airports across the county has wasted up to $1 billion since 2007 and cannot be proven effective, according to the Government Accountability Office.

GAO released its report on the Transportation Security Administration’s Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques program, also known as SPOT, where agents profile cagey looking people and engage them in conversation in an attempt to determine whether they are up to no good.

The report found that the available evidence and data show that the program cannot be proven effective and that profiling is “probably no better than chance.”

Last May, The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General released a report on SPOT that also found the program is tough to prove effective.


now the other side…Do you really want someone whose prints have been found by TEDAC to even be in the airport, let alone your plane. I think that the only way to more permanently insure safety lies in the CONVERSION OF SOULS…so let us feed the hungry, clothe the sick, and be of help to the hopeless … :idea:… washing feet…now that would eliminate…oh we’ll Let us learn to share rather than impose….


What about those infected with Ebola? Possibly infected? Will the world see biologicals used more than explosives by terrorists? Were smallpox contaminated blankets used by Amherst?..others?

Where does the line between safety and rights reside?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.