June 27, 2016

How Europe's Terrorists Get Their Weapons

Very interesting article in Time.

http://time.com/how-europes-terrorists-get-their-guns/

Here are a few excerpts, the full article is well worth the time to read.

"Lone wolf attacks, though terrifying in their randomness, usually result in comparatively few casualties. More worrying is the use of firearms in coordinated attacks involving multiple gunmen. The 2008 Mumbai attacks made it clear to terrorists around the world that guns could yield significant damage. That November, 10 Pakistani militants launched bombings and shootings on train stations, hotels, cinemas and a Jewish community center, killing 164 people. “Mumbai really kicked off this kind of crime,” says Paul James, former head of the U.K.’s National Ballistic Intelligence service who is now leading an E.U.-funded project to look at how weapons cross out of the Balkans into the rest of Europe.

The Paris attackers likely took their inspiration from Mumbai, both in terms of weapons and indiscriminate soft targets. As in Mumbai, the Paris attacks involved both explosives and firearms, but it was the guns that ultimately had the most devastating effects, especially at the Bataclan theater, where gunmen killed 90 people.

....


For E.U. officials, the Paris and Copenhagen attacks this year have confirmed a suspicion that illegal weapons are flowing freely through Europe’s 26-country Schengen zone, which allows near frictionless travel across borders, and that European leaders are lagging behind in cracking down on the trade. “We have so many weapons in Paris,” Christophe Crépin, spokesman for France’s national police union, told TIME a few days after the Nov. 13 attacks. “There are links between organized crime and terrorists, and a route that goes from the Balkans.”

....

But with failed states at the edge of Europe’s borders and stockpiles of guns floating around in unstable regions like Libya and Ukraine, the continent’s struggle is likely to be a long one.

June 24, 2016

ACLU - Govt Targeting Civil Rights Leaders

People wake up. Do not let one issue be used to give way to more authoritarian government. Those old enough to remember the 60's and especially the 70's when abuses were uncovered, this is a frightening specter raising its head again.

From the ACLU just two years ago.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/whats-government-doing-targeting-civil-rights-leaders

What’s the Government Doing Targeting Civil Rights Leaders?
By Laura W. Murphy, Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office
July 9, 2014 | 5:11 PM


The NSA and FBI are targeting prominent American Muslims, including civil rights activists, academics, and a former government official, we learned in a troubling report released last night.

Their emails have been stored, their movements have been monitored, and their relationships have been tracked. No detail has proved too remote for the prying eyes of the NSA and FBI.

None have been charged with any criminal or terrorist activity, and because of the excessive secrecy of the government’s surveillance laws, the government doesn’t have to explain itself. Anyone who reads the report can’t help but worry that the government is engaging in highly invasive and personal surveillance based on activism, religion, and political belief.

The story raises profound questions about the surveillance authorities of the government, including its ability to selectively target a political, ethnic, or religious group. In this case, it’s American Muslims. But we already know that the FBI is engaging in a much more expansive racial and ethnic mapping program that should worry us all.

We’ve been here before. In the 1960s and 70s, civil rights organizations, activists, and minority communities were surveilled and monitored simply because their views differed from the government’s. Constitutionally protected activity had become a shibboleth. What’s going on today is reminiscent of that time.

Innocent American Muslims and South Asian Americans have been repeatedly scrutinized and stigmatized ever since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. And since that time, racial profiling at the borders, the airports and in the criminal justice system has gotten worse for Latinos, Asians, African Americans, and other people of color.

The Council for American Islamic Relations, for example, is the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the United States. Why is Nihad Awad, their executive director who was profiled in the report, being monitored and tracked?

Discriminatory surveillance chills free speech, the right to associate freely, and religious expression.

An ACLU-led coalition has sent a letter to the Obama Administration asking for a full accounting of the practices revealed in the report. The letter also highlights the need to strengthen the Department of Justice’s Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, so that profiling on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin is conclusively prohibited.

The letter explains:

In an earlier era, during the 1960s and 1970s, civil rights leaders, activists and members of minority communities were subjected to unlawful and abusive government surveillance based not on what they had done, but what they believed and who they were. Despite reform efforts, abusive practices continue today. Federal, state, and local law enforcement are targeting entire communities—particularly American Muslims—for secret surveillance based on their race, religion, ethnicity or national origin.

The First Look report is troubling because it arises in this broader context of abuse. Documents obtained through an American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act request show that the FBI has been mapping a broad spectrum of communities, including American Muslim communities, the African American community and Latino American communities, without any basis for individualized suspicion. Under the guise of community outreach, the FBI targeted mosques and Muslim community organizations for intelligence gathering. It has pressured law-abiding American Muslims to become informants against their own communities, often in coercive circumstances. It has also stigmatized innocent Muslims by placing them on the No Fly List and other watch lists. In short, the government’s domestic counterterrorism policies treat entire minority communities as suspect, and American Muslims have borne the brunt of government suspicion, stigma and abuse.

These practices hurt not only American Muslims, but all communities that expect law enforcement to serve and protect America’s diverse population equally, without discrimination. They strike the bedrock of democracy: that no one should grow up fearful of law enforcement, scared to exercise the rights to freedom of speech, association and worship.

June 23, 2016

ACLU's Most Recent Statement on No Fly No Buy Lists.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america


UPDATE: On June 22nd, the ACLU sent this letter to the Senate opposing Sen. Collins’ (R-Maine) proposed legislation. We had hoped that the Collins Amendment would correct the problems with the earlier Cornyn and Feinstein amendments, but as we describe in the letter, the Collins Amendment would instead cause even more serious problems.

In the wake of the attack on LGBTQ Americans in Orlando, gun control is again at the forefront of the national conversation. It is also the subject of proposed legislation in Congress. We at the ACLU, like many other Americans, are appalled by the Orlando tragedy. We have deep concerns, however, about legislative efforts to regulate the use of guns by relying on our nation’s error-prone and unfair watchlisting system.

That’s why we sent a letter today to the Senate, opposing legislation from Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas), which uses the watchlisting system as a predicate for gun regulation, and also opposing a proposal by Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.), which does not rely on mere presence on watchlists, but nevertheless raises issues of fundamental fairness.

The letter explained to senators the ACLU’s position on gun control:

We believe that the right to own and use guns is not absolute or free from government regulation since firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and their use, unlike other activities protected by the Bill of Rights, can inflict serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health. At the same time, regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy.

And we explained why we oppose Sen. Cornyn’s legislation, which uses the watchlist system as a starting point for regulating guns. It may sound appealing to regulate firearms by using the government’s blacklisting system for what it calls “known or suspected terrorists,” but we have long experience analyzing the myriad problems with that system, and based on what we know, it needs major overhaul. As we told the senators:

Our nation’s watchlisting system is error-prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names.

That’s why we have argued that if the government chooses to blacklist people, the standards it uses must be appropriately narrow, the information it relies on must be accurate and credible, and its use of watchlists must be consistent with the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. This is not what the government is doing, though. Instead, as we explained to the Senate using the No Fly List as an example:

The government contends that it can place Americans on the No Fly List who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime, on the basis of prediction that they nevertheless pose a threat (which is undefined) of conduct that the government concedes “may or may not occur.” Criteria like these guarantee a high risk of error and it is imperative that the watchlisting system include due process safeguards—which it does not. In the context of the No Fly List, for example, the government refuses to provide even Americans who know they are on the List with the full reasons for the placement, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.

It is unsurprising that a system like this is not just bloated, but applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

By relying on the broken watchlist system, Sen. Cornyn’s proposal would further entrench it. Sen. Feinstein’s gun control proposal, on the other hand, has moved away from a previous version that expressly relied on watchlisting standards. Her new proposal does not rely on the mere presence of an individual on a watchlist as a basis for denial of a firearm permit. Still, her new proposal uses vague and overbroad criteria and does not contain necessary due process protections. It also includes a new notification requirement that could result in a “watchlist” that is even broader than any that currently exists — so broad that it would include even people long ago cleared of any wrongdoing by law enforcement.

You should read the full letter for yourself. And then we ask you to call your senators to oppose these proposals. Congress can pass effective gun control laws without relying on unfair and discriminatory watchlists or failing to provide meaningful due process.

June 22, 2016

Contemporary Slavery

Read an article on CNN this morning about ISIS having sex slaves,

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/escaped-yazidi-slave-isis-us-fight/index.html

which led me to do a quick search and stumbled across a Wiki page on Contemporary Slavery which was a surprise and shock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery

Turns out India still has slavery as do several other countries, the worst being Mauritania in Africa.

As India and likely the others are trading partners with the US, surely we can do something to help.

Here is the intro:

Contemporary slavery, also known as modern slavery, refers to the institutions of slavery that continue to exist in the present day. Estimates of the number of slaves today range from around 21 million[1]-29 million[2][3][4][5] to 46 million.[6][7]

Modern slavery is a multibillion-dollar industry with estimates of up to $35 billion generated annually.[needs update] The United Nations estimates that roughly 27 to 30 million individuals are currently caught in the slave trade industry.[needs update][8] India has the most slaves of any country, at roughly 18.4 million.[9] China is second with 3.4 million slaves, followed by Pakistan (2.1 million), Bangladesh (1.5 million), and Uzbekistan (1.2 million). By percentages of the population living in slavery, North Korea tops with 4.4% (about 1.1 million people out of 25 million), followed by Uzbekistan (4% of its population), Cambodia (1.6%), India, (1.4%) and Qatar (1.4%).[7]

Mauritania was the last nation to officially abolish slavery, doing so in 2007; yet 4.3% of the population still remains enslaved.[needs update][10] Despite being illegal in every nation, slavery is still present in several forms today.

Here is a link to the Wiki map, maybe someone can help make it display.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Modern_incidence_of_slavery.png

June 18, 2016

Understanding Basics of Firearms Sales Law

This is one of those subjects that people really hurt their credibility by making plainly wrong statements and assumptions and arguing points that are easily demonstrated to be wrong. There is a lot of important detail that needs to be understood in considering new laws.

Here are some basics of law to understand so that a more informed dialogue may be had.

The BATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, is a federal agency within the Department of Justice. They enforce federal law derived from the Constitution, United States Code, which are statutes passed by Congress, and then promulgate their own regulations where Congress has conferred authority to supplement specific statutes. The ATF neither creates nor enforces state laws or state regulations, unless they are incidental to a federal action.

The ATF as the name implies deals with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, and also with explosives. They have agents that investigate potential criminal violations, but also have agents responsible for collecting taxes, and inspecting licensees.

Way oversimplifying a whole area of law, the federal agency only has jurisdiction derived from the Constitution to enforce law between states, or laws affecting interstate commerce. Again, that is a massive oversimplification, but trying to drive home a critical point - there are constitutional limits on the jurisdiction of the federal government. When discussing their authority to regulate the transfer of firearms, the transfer has to fall within those two general zones - transfer between residents of different states or across state lines, or a transaction impacting interstate commerce. Again, this is just a general and highly simplistic explanation. Next, regulation of a transfer between citizens of the same state, in their state of residence is within the jurisdiction of the state government, which may or may not enact state laws regulating transfers. States cannot pass laws which interfere or disrupt the federal government's regulations - and importantly, which cannot restrict a federal constitutional right. As an example, a state cannot pass and enforce a law that prohibits free speech. The first amendment guarantees that right, so the restrictive state law would violate the federal constitution.

Step 1. Manufacture - the ATF regulates the manufacture of firearms. All manufacturers are required to have licenses which track every receiver they manufacture. This technical point is something to understand. In very simple terms, the receiver is similar to the foundation of a home. It is the frame to which parts are added. A barrel is screwed in, a trigger is added, a stock or grips and sights. The receiver aka the frame is required to have a serial number engraved or stamped on it by the manufacturer. They record the serial number and keep these records, which are available for inspection by ATF agents. When the manufacturer transfers the receiver, whether just a receiver, a partially built firearm, or a fully finished firearm, the manufacturer records the serial number and to whom it is transferred.

To keep this simple, let's assume it was a fully finished firearm, which goes to a wholesale distributor. The distributor has a federal firearms license. They transfer (sell) it to a retail store, and keep a record of the transfer. The retail store has a federal firearms license to sell firearms. This person or store is referred to as a FFL, a federal firearms licensee. They record the serial number of every firearm they receive and sell. A customer may order directly from a manufacturer, but the firearm must be delivered to a FFL in the customer's state of residence and the customer completes the transfer through the FFL as described in the next step.

Step 2 - Retail Sale - The customer walks in door to buy whatever they have picked out. The FFL, the seller, has the purchaser fill out an ATF Form 4473. Here is a link to Form 4473: https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download Putting down a not truthful answer is a federal offense.

The purchaser fills it out and has to provide an acceptable form of identification, a state driver's license, a passport, concealed handgun license, license to carry, and there are others. The FFL takes the paperwork and i.d., and calls the FBI who checks the National Instant Criminal background check database. The agent inputs the identifying information, examines whatever records come up and makes a decision to approve, decline, or put a hold on the transfer. There are specific legal standards that disqualify a person from owning a firearm such as conviction of a felony, domestic abuse, drug abuse, involuntary mental health commitment, and renouncing citizenship.

They do not, and legally cannot, decline a transfer because of a reason that falls within protected class status i.e. race, religion, or national origin. Thus, them saying someone is "suspicious" is going to raise flags about profiling. If the FBI declines or puts a hold on the transfer, the FFL business owner must not complete the transaction. The FBI hold can last for up to 72 hours. If no further instruction is received from the FBI, the default at the end of 72 hours is in favor of the citizen and the transfer may go forward. If approval is received or the 72 hour hold expires, the FFL may go forward with a transfer, but has discretion to decline to complete the sale. However, many FFL's are extremely reluctant to refuse to complete a transfer that the FBI approved for fear of being sued for discrimination.

Straw Purchase - this concept is very important to understand. A straw purchaser is a person who can legally buy a firearm goes in, completes the paperwork and background check, buys the firearm and leaves. But in reality, they were a front buying the firearm for someone who could not legally own one. Girlfriends doing this for their boyfriend who has some drug offenses is a common example. This is a serious federal offense and is prosecuted with long prison sentences. Don't do this. Idiot TV reporters trying to make a good story have fallen into this trap recently and the ATF has received criminal complaints recently about this example.

State laws - this adds another layer of potential restrictions that vary widely between the states. Some states impose waiting periods, restrict the sale of certain kinds of firearms or ammo. The FFL and purchaser in that state also has to comply with the state law in addition to the federal law.

Understand that the sale of most firearms involve small margins of profit, typically 10%. The business makes more selling other things to go with it, a holster, a purse, camo hunting clothes, ammo, flashlights and other do dads.

Now that the purchaser completed their sale and walked out the door, they own the firearm. If they want to sell it to a friend who is a resident of the same state, federal law does not have jurisdiction over the transfer between them. (Again, this is a oversimplified example to learn the basics.) If there is any state law regulating the transfer, they must comply with the state law.

Other commonly discussed issues, that are commonly misstated.

Gunshows - FFL's may and do sell guns at gunshows. If you walk up to the table of a FFL (think retail sale of a new firearm, or he or she also sells used firearms), federal law applies to the transaction. At a gunshow, a purchase from a FFL must comply with completing the Form 4473 and the call in for the background check. Just across the aisle is Farmer Brown selling his shotgun. A resident of that state can walk up and buy directly from Farmer Brown and does not have to fill out Form 4473 or submit to the FBI background check. The state may impose a requirement, but federal law does not. The caveat is that Farmer Brown cannot make a sale to a person if he has a reasonable basis to believe that person cannot legally own a firearm. Example - FB hears one guy talking to the other guy about doing some time for drug possession. If FB make a sale, he has committed a federal offense. If FB sells to an underage purchaser, that is a federal offense. Sales require a person to be 18 years old for a rifle or shotgun, and 21 for a handgun.

Understand that the average person cannot call and run a background check in the FBI NICS. If the goal is to have universal background checks, then the solution is to require that the transfer of all firearms to go through a FFL, who will obtain the Form 4473 and submit it to the NICS. This detail is important in understanding what law you are advocating. Details matter.

Internet Sales - Online Vendor - this is one of the most idiotic things that comes out of politicians' mouths. There are online gun vendors. You may buy a gun directly from them. You click on it, punch in the credit card info and it is paid for. Now, you must arrange for a FFL to receive it for you. The online vendor ships it directly to the FFL. You must go to the FFL down the street, fill out the Form 4473 and go through the FBI background check.

Online hunting forums - this is back to the same law as the gunshow. Guy on a hunting forum lists his hunting rifle for sale. Other hunter sees it and wants to buy it. If they are residents of the same state, they can meet up in front of a sporting goods store, swap cash for the gun and they're done as long as there is no other restriction. If guy selling on the hunting forum lives in a different state than the buyer, the rifle is shipped to a FFL in the state of the buyer. Buyer goes to the FFL, fills out the Form 4473, submit to FBI background check. Buyers beware - Craigslist is dumping ground for stolen stuff and guns fall into that category. Flip side of the coin, like all areas of the internet, LEO's routinely are checking online sales and posing as buyers. Comply with the law.

NFA Items - NFA is the National Firearms Act. This federal law regulates fully automatic weapons, true assault rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, shotgun pistols, silencers, explosives, and AOW's (any other weapons). ALL weapons that fall within the statutory definitions of the act MUST be transferred through special FFL's that have an additional license referred to as a Class 3 license. The ATF receives a form listing the NFA items, the transferor and transferee. Skipping a lot of detail here, but the ATF NFA branch performs a background check, registers the weapons for tracking purposes, and issues a special license with a tax stamp on it. This law is part of the tax code. It is a gun control law posing as a tax law. There are some very important details I'm skipping over, but trying to help teach some basics of the framework.

Foreign nationals as buyers - who are in the country legally are legally allowed to purchase firearms in the United States, again subject to any additional state laws. Living in Texas, this is an issue that I find this troubling as it is almost certainly funneling weapons to the cartels, but the anti-discrimination laws provide they have the same legal rights as citizens. If I go to a Cabela's on a weekend, the counters will be jammed with Mexican nationals, who are here legally, buying rifles even though virtually all guns are banned in Mexico. This subject is one area to give some serious thought about revision. Persons from foreign countries here illegally may not purchase a firearm, and in most states it would be illegal for them to possess one.

Problems to consider in rule making considerations -

Like it or not, the right to own a gun is an individual constitutional right. That has been decided, it is over, you are not going to change it short of a constitutional convention. Yammering and harping on this issue is a waste of breath, when in the next breath there is a discussion of abortion or gay marriage rights. They are settled issues and not as obvious in the constitution. Just skip this argument. It might make you feel good, but you are wasting your time and credibility.

Due Process - the government cannot strip a citizen of rights without due process. What constitutes "due process" could fill volumes, but at a minimum a citizen has a right to notice of charges against them, the opportunity to be heard and oppose the charge, and to have those hearings in an impartial tribunal. All of the talk about using secret government lists to take away the right to travel or own a gun is not ok. What is next, the government picking people up in the middle of the night and locking them up without charges? That is already happening. That is a police state/gulag system of government. It is not ok and ought to scare everyone into action to oppose it at all costs.

Equal protection - all citizens have a constitutional right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. This is one of the foundations of the laws of this country. Do not allow it to be eroded.

So, when the bobble heads on the idiot box are babbling, you now know more than most of them.

There is A LOT more to all of these subjects, this is just an overview, but hopefully will make all citizens a bit better informed in deciding what laws we want, need, and are consistent with our founding values.

Here is a link to FBI data on types of weapons used in homicides. This table is from 2011. I do not see a comparable table yet for the most recent reporting year - 2014.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

In any event, for context.

There were 12,000 homicides, which includes lawful use of force, which is not broken out, but excludes suicides.

Rifles of all kinds ("assault rifles" plus all other kinds) 323

Shotguns - 356

Handguns - 6,220.

Other -

Knives - 1,694 - about 5x the number are killed with knives as rifles.

Hands, Fists and Feet - 728

Blunt objects such as hammers - 496


Anyway, this turned out way longer than I intended, but hopefully it will help promote a more informed dialogue - think more light, less heat - in the discussion.

Edited to add more federal law:


18 U.S.C.A. § 922 - This federal law applies to all sales of all firearms and ammunition.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person--

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;

(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien--(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that--(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale or disposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who pursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is not precluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a person who has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant to subsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter. (This last provision allows the person to dispose of their firearms by selling them to a dealer.)

June 17, 2016

Watch Lists & ACLU comments

Saw this in Reuters, which was new information. How many "watch lists" are there?

"U.S. authorities maintain several watch lists - the FBI maintains three and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence runs one database. People are placed on such a list according to the threat level they are believed to pose.

The Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, had been on a government watch list at one point when he was being investigated by federal authorities in 2013 and 2014, but was not on it at the time of his weapons purchase. The couple who carried out the San Bernardino shooting were not on watch lists."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting-guns-idUSKCN0Z31T8


From the ACLU:

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform. As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.

Over the years since we filed our suit — and in response to it — the government has made some reforms, but they are not enough.

We filed the suit in June 2010 on behalf of 10 U.S. citizens and permanent residents who the government banned from flying to or from the U.S. or over American airspace. (Three more people later joined the suit.) Our clients, among them four U.S. military veterans, were never told why they were on the list or given a reasonable opportunity to get off it. Some were stranded abroad, unable to come home. As one response to our lawsuit, the government began to allow Americans to fly home on a “one-time waiver,” with stringent security precautions.

Separately, the government made two basic arguments in its defense of the No Fly List, both of which the court rejected. First, it argued that U.S. persons had no constitutionally protected right to fly. In August 2013, the court disagreed, holding that constitutional rights are at stake when the government stigmatizes Americans as suspected terrorists and bans them from international travel.

Second, the government asserted that national security concerns meant the government couldn’t confirm or deny whether people were on the No Fly List, and it couldn’t give them reasons or a hearing before a neutral decision-maker. This is absurd as a practical matter and violates due process as a constitutional matter. Practically speaking, people know they are on the No Fly List when they are banned from flying and surrounded — and stigmatized — by security officials publicly at airports. Some of our clients were told they would be taken off the list if they agreed to become government informants. Again, the court agreed with us and held that the government’s refusal to provide any notice or a hearing violates the Constitution. As a result, the government announced in April that it would tell U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents whether they are on the No Fly List, and possibly offer reasons.

Unfortunately, the government’s new redress process still falls far short of constitutional requirements. In our case, it refuses to provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker. Much as before, our clients are left to guess at the government’s case and can’t clear their names. That’s unconstitutional.

There’s another important aspect to the government’s case at this stage. The government has emphasized that it is making predictive judgments that people like our clients — who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime — might nevertheless pose a threat. That’s a perilous thing for it to do. As we’ve told the court based on evidence from experts, these kinds of predictions guarantee a high risk of error. If the government is going to predict that Americans pose a threat and blacklist them, that’s even more reason for the fundamental safeguards we seek.

We disagree with Speaker Ryan about many things. But he’s right that people in this country have due process rights. We want to see them respected.


https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

June 15, 2016

No Fly Lists - ACLU Statement

Since this subject keeps popping up in several threads.

Here is the ACLU’s statement from when this was discussed last fall:

" the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating."


https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

LA Times editorial in opposition.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-terrorist-watch-list-20151207-story.html