Also, this excerpt from the complaint:
>In response, the agents pulled out two newspaper articles about Hezbollah and told Mr. Chebli, “We know you are a Hezbollah agent and were sent here by Hezbollah.”
What a couple of assholes.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/chebli-v-kable-complaint...
> As a result, he was stranded in Lebanon for over a month, during which time the U.S. government confirmed that he had been placed on the No Fly List. Mr. Chebli was then able to obtain a one-time waiver to fly home.
If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once? And if they're safe enough to fly on that occasion why are they, upon landing (presumably safely), once again considered unsafe to fly? The No Fly List logic just doesn't quite add up for me...
I think there might be an issue with these too. It's titled a no-fly list, but I think they have additional restrictions too. I'm not sure if they deny entry based on it too.
"...the right to return to the United States is inherent in American citizenship.” Fikre v. FBI. Which was about this exact issue. They can put you on the no fly list, but if you get to the Border, there is an absolute right for citizens to enter, even without a passport.
Of course, the courts might not get around to enforcing your right to enter for a few months or years, and it might cost you a fortune in lawyer fees
I think its a rather gaping hole in the constitution that has been ruthlessly exploited. Warrantless searches at the border were allowed to be exempt from the 4th amendment since customs agents needed to be able to inspect goods coming in to apply tariffs appropriately and prevent contraband.
Snooping through people's personal papers and phones is pretty far outside of that mandate if you ask me.
The takeaway is that if you have the time, you are free to tell them that you won't be providing a password. They are free to hold you for a 'reasonable' amount of time (reasonable could mean many hours). And they are also legally allowed to seize your phone and allow you entry to the country.
Because it was never about him being dangerous. It was about creating a condition where he felt trapped. And if you are a US Citizen stuck in a foreign country international news orgs notice that. Investigations get started. Questions get asked. And this thing that is wildly unconstitutional gets asked about in a public court. But if it's a US Citizen in the US it can be conveniently swept under the rug. The investigations now not so urgent.
It's not logical, it's political theater. Like the whole TSA, basically.
Legally I'm assuming people on the no fly list can still take a boat in to town.
Extend this logic just a millimeter further and you should understand how awful the no fly list truly is. If we have evidence a person is too dangerous to fly, and we're willing to let everyone know that we know they're dangerous, why wouldn't we just take them into custody and charge them with a crime? Put them in prison, or get them to roll on someone involved in their conspiracy?
But of course, there's approximately never any evidence.
Those people are, by the definition you've used, perpetrators of an actual crime. (at least 375 have been charged, as of a few days ago) Not comparable to the traditional victim of the no fly list at all.
Suspected rioters travelling to and from riots, whose arrest is imminent, would appear to be the most sympathetic use of extrajudicial law enforcement action to keep people off a plane via a no fly list. I don't think there's a big problem there. It is a case that has nothing to do with the standard due process arguments against the no fly list.
I agree that using the no fly list to prevent anyone who was present as a protestor in DC from flying, regardless of whether they were suspected of having committed a crime, would be excessive. I saw shortly after the riot that the chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security suggested TSA and the FBI put protestors identified as having entered the Capitol building on the no fly list. That position, working under the assumption that people who entered the Capitol building during a riot while federal law enforcement was trying to secure it committed a crime and ought to be indicted, doesn't seem crazy.
That case of misappropriation is not alone, just look at other things like surveillance or civil asset forfeiture. Or social security numbers.
Edit: It probably has already settled at "now included in too many useful applications" that it's too big to fail now.
For example [0], the FBI arrested Syrian-Canadian engineer Maher Arer while he changed planes in USA. The FBI imprisoned him without charges, denied him a lawyer, and then kidnapped him and delivered him to a prison in Syria where he was tortured for 10 months. His wife finally got the Canadian government to intervene and get him out. The head of RCMP (Canada's FBI) resigned in shame for letting it happen. All of the US people responsible continued with their lives as before. A few of them apologized.
It seems that citizens (and even permanent residents, which was not the case in e.g. Japan for several months) are free to enter. Sure, number of planes and seats are limited, but that's a different matter from denying entry at the border.
They can of course arrest you the second you set foot in the country, but that's an entirely different story. They must allow you to inter.
> They must allow you to inter.
That's evidently not true. Or at least grossly misleading. Countries can and are refusing to allow all people who want to get onto flights bound for the country they're citizens of.
My country (.au) is currently limiting inbound international travellers to 3000 per week, with over 40,000 Australian citizens registered as trying to get home. Some of those people have been trying for close to 12 months to get home.
These restrictions mean that airline seat pricing is going insane. In pre Covid times, I'd regularly fly Sydney to SF round trip for $AUD1500-$2000 or so on United. A recent news report says they're now flying business/first class only flights with the cheapest one way LA-SYD tickets being $AUD21,000.
Can you imagine being on a trip last Jan/Feb with a return ticket for March or April, only to be told your return ticket keeps getting bumped for higher paying customers but you could always upgrade to a $21,000 ticket to get home. And your travel insurance says "Sucks to be you, you're not covered for pandemics, as outlined in section 374 on page 93 of your Product Disclosure Document you got when you paid your premium. Have a nice day!" So now you're stuck in the US, originally of a 90 day tourist visa waiver and not legally able to work, and there's no casual work available anyway because of Covid shutdowns, and you've needed to manage to find food/shelter for 12 months while waiting for a flight home. I know one of those people, and know of several more...
Theoretically speaking, if a ship crew of only AU citizens would dock at an Australian port, they would not be denied entry given that they follow quarantine procedures, I assume?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return
This includes the USA, which is the country in question here. So yes, there seems to be a strong case that this is in fact breaking their own regulation and treaties.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-right-to-enter-his-or-her-own-c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return
This includes the USA, which is the country in question here. So yes, there seems to be a strong case that this is in fact breaking their own regulation and treaties.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-right-to-enter-his-or-her-own-c...
He should have also gone to the media much sooner or threatened to take this public. Yes, it is now, but had he gone to the media sooner, I'm sure the FBI would've backed off a lot sooner. Having a Muslim racially profiled, intimidated and then put on a no-fly list for no reason is not a good look for that agency.
We have had a steady stream of stories like this for almost 20 years now. Nothing substantial has changed. I don’t think the FBI is worried about PR around this at this point.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-sides-aclu...
So why is this time “substantially different”?
I hadn't seen his story before, the ones I had seen were residents. Supposedly, there aren't very many citizens on the list:
"According to leaked documents published by The Intercept, there were more than 47,000 people on the No Fly List as of August 2013, including 800 Americans." [1]
Chebli's story does include the additional wrinkle of the recruitment, harassment, threats, etc, and thus first amendment violation petitions for relief.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/first-government-officia...
How is that substantially different?
In April 2005, 70000 people were on the list. I bet most fit this description of yours.
"According to leaked documents published by The Intercept, there were more than 47,000 people on the No Fly List as of August 2013, including 800 Americans." [1]
The recruitment and harassment beforehand is also somewhat unique.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/first-government-officia...
If you are going to take something to the Supreme Court you want a Plaintiff who looks like a boy-scout to the press. You want to make sure that they can't retroactively dig up a reason for the guy to be on the no-fly list. It needs to be clear that the only reason that he is on that list is that he said "no, thank you" to the FBI
You mistyped. 200 years
.. is what the DHS was created for? After 9/11 some Muslims had to be punished for something, regardless of personal guilt, and here we are.
There have been worse outcomes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_o...
> Both bills were never put to a vote, although a significantly altered version of the House bill became law as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
How could he go to the media before getting banned? There's not much to go on, especially if he didn't have a recording.
The other part is, who will actually listen to that story? My wife was subjected to pretrial restrictions on a charge that the trooper knew was incorrect. I even have evidence supporting it. An investigative journalist pitching it to their editor, but other than that nobody cares. IAD thinks it's fine, the DA thinks it's fine (an ADA was also aware that the charge was wrong, but I don't think the complaint with the Bar will result in anything), and the judge misapplied the law and contradicted himself so that the issue could be ignored in court.
This story is making me reconsider contacting the FBI/DOJ about police misconduct.
Following your logic they've contacted her just for the fuck of it. Looks like grasping at straws trying to prove that russian asshole got to be worse than the american asshole.
Well then FSB had treated her way better than FBI treated Ahmad.
As for the main point - assholes (or let just say criminals protected by respective government) are still assholes. There is no reason to be proud that you did not fuck / killed as many.
Given the choice, would you rather be a dissident in the USA or in Russia? Would you rather be Ed Snowden (the US politely asks that he come home to stand trial) or Alexei Navalny (nearly died after Russian agents slipped poison into his tea)? You say there is no difference, so maybe you would like to just flip a coin.
It is beyond absurd to claim that the US is just as bad as Russia, and it is equally ridiculous to claim that no comparisons can be drawn and all crimes are just as bad. Of course the US has done things that are wrong, but what Russia does is much worse. It is not a matter of being proud, it is a matter of being rational.
Bad in what way? If we are talking treating their own subjects I would say in average the US does much better than Russia. No argument here. Does not mean that it did not kill people for political reasons. Victims of Kent State shootings or Fred Hampton may attest to that. I am pretty sure if you dig deep enough you will uncover some more.
Internationally I think US kills and otherwise harms way more people than Russia. They just declare it legal and sleep well. Again victims might disagree.
Was he under arrest? The FBI is not obligated to bring you an attorney if they are merely interviewing you.
> He should have also gone to the media much sooner or threatened to take this public. Yes, it is now, but had he gone to the media sooner, I'm sure the FBI would've backed off a lot sooner.
I somehow doubt it. Muslims (and antiwar activists) being placed on no fly lists were often in the news. That didn't stop it.
No, they are not obligated to do so. However, I believe he would have fully been within his rights to say "I am not prepared to talk to you, I do not feel comfortable continuing this interview without my attorney present."
The only thing stopping them is that there's probably a few grey beards who remember the media hell they got for the Texas BBQ
They also have to care about having a case that will win and not lose and set bad precedent.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is stacked against them and they have to have cases that will provoke public outrage if it goes the wrong way to prevent the court from going too far off track.
Having sympathetic defendants is unfortunately something required for right now.
There is a reason why you know about Rosa Parks and not Claudette Colvin.