In a 65-page ruling issued today US District Judge Anna Brown declare the current US “no-fly list” unconstitutional because it does not allow people on the list to challenge that status.
Brown ruled that flying internationally was not, as the government asserted, a “luxury” but a right that could not be revoked at a whim by the government without any challenge.
Though Brown didn’t rule the no-fly list as such unconstitutional, she did order the government to create some system whereby Americans wrongly included on the list could submit evidence of their innocence.
The ACLU praised the ruling as finally giving the plaintiffs in the case a way to challenge their inclusion on the list, saying it presented them a possible way out from the Kafkaesque bureaucracy that manages the list.
A step in the right direction…a really small step. An elementary school student would have come to the same conclusion.
The mistake Judge Anna Brown made was her ordering the government to create some system whereby Americans wrongly included on the list could submit evidence of their innocence.
An improvement, but apparently the judge was unaware that in the American system of justice, innocence is assumed. It's the government that should have to prove that the person in question has committed a crime, or it has evidence in its possession that would require an arrest.
Unless there is a warrant for a person's arrest, that person should be able to fly.
But, of course, any "evidence" the USG might have would be secret and as such protected by national security concerns.
You are right, I was wondering if the judge is not aware of "National Security" the USG doesn't have to disclose so-called evidence it has against anyone, to do so might jeopardize our "National Security Interest"……so said the USG…..we are screwed.
She acted consistently with the justice system's de facto m.o. that guilt is assumed and is based on secret presumptions that can't be shared with the "guilty".
One would presume that even one of Jason's usual squibs would include which distric, such an important challenge to our of control authoritarian gov. arose… We have seen how quickly such challenges have been quashed in other districts.
Anna J. Brown was born in Portland, Oregon, in 1952,[2] and attended high school there at St. Mary's Academy where she graduated in 1970.[3] She received a bachelor of science degree from Portland State University in 1975.[2] Brown continued her education at Northwestern School of Law (now Lewis and Clark Law School) where she received a Juris Doctor in 1980.[2] While in law school she worked as a law clerk for judge John C. Beatty of the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland from 1978 to 1980.[2] Following law school in 1980, Brown entered private legal practice in Portland where she remained until 1992.[2]
Judicial career[edit]
In 1992, Brown became a judge on the Multnomah County District Court.[2] She was on that court until 1994 when she was elevated to the Multnomah County Circuit Court.[2] On April 22, 1999, Brown was nominated to the federal United States District Court for the District of Ore tried to kill the militarybarrest and gon by President Bill Clinton.[4] She was confirmed on October 15, 1999, by the United States Senate and received her commission on October 26.[2] Brown replaced Malcolm F. Marsh who had become a senior judge.[2] She is an instructor for the Oregon Law Institute at her law school alma mater.[5]
Remember when brave wonderful Kathlene Forest ruled the Obama's military arrest band detention FOREVER was unconstitutional….
WASHINGTON — A high-profile ruling by a federal trial judge last week blocking enforcement of a law authorizing the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects is on hold for now.
Related
U.S. Warns Judge’s Ruling Impedes Its Detention Powers (September 18, 2012)
Late Monday, a federal appeals court judge in New York granted the Obama administration’s request for an “emergency” stay of the ruling, by Judge Katherine Forrest of United States District Court, who issued a permanent injunction against a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 listing conduct that could result in detention without trial…..
Stay tuned for the "emergency" appeal….. It's always an emergency in a police state…..
About time. The thing is unconstitutional not just because there's no mechanism to get out, but because the mechanism to end up on the list is secret and based on secrecies with not even an internal double-check (or would be it too much to ask for a triple check?) mechanism.
Anti-Semites! Anti-Semites! Anti-Semites!
Oh, whoops … wrong article.. (you're still anti-Semites)
The judge asking the government to provide a mechanism to allow people to prove their innocence. And that is considered a step in the right direction?