• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Terrorist watchlist ruled unconstitutional

ErrosionOfAccord

#1 Global Warmer
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,885
Likes
4,571
Location
Coal Country
#1
As a war vet who somehow found his way on to this list, I applaud the ruling.



Court Ruling Branding U.S. Terror Watchlist Unconstitutional Celebrated As 'Tremendous Victory' for Muslim-Americans 'Unjustly Profiled by the Government'
By Chantal Da Silva On 9/5/19 at 7:21 AM EDT





Trump Says He’s ‘Concerned About The Rise’ Of Hate Groups, ‘Whether It’s Antifa Or Any Other’

Share
U.S. Terrorism United States
For years, U.S. residents placed on the government's terror watchlist have argued that they have been unfairly targeted by their country, with Muslim-Americans in particular claiming to have been placed on the controversial list for no reason other than their religion.
On Wednesday, a U.S. district judge appeared to agree, ruling that the government's watch list identifying more than 1 million people as "known or suspected terrorists" violates the constitutional rights of those placed on it.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga was hailed as a "complete victory" by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which represented nearly two dozen Muslim U.S. citizens who challenged the constitutionality of the watch list.
"This is a tremendous victory, not just for all American-Muslims, but for all Americans who care about civil rights and the Constitution," Hassan Shibly, a lawyer who heads CAIR's Florida chapter and was named as a plaintiff in the case, told Newsweek.
"For decades, every time I have traveled and every time many people I know who traveled and who share my faith have been stopped at the border for hours at a time, placed in handcuffs, interrogated and treated as second-class citizens," he said. "We have been unjustly profiled by the government and it has been extremely oppressive and stigmatizing treatment that we have received over the years."
"We always knew it was wrong and always knew it was unconstitutional," he said. "And now, after decades of receiving unjust treatment, a judge has found in our favor and vindicated us by agreeing that the profiling and harassment we faced at the hands of the government were unconstitutional. It's a tremendous victory."
In a previous interview with Newsweek, Shibly had detailed how since he was 18 years old he had "personally been stopped over two dozen times, including being placed in handcuffs, asked about my religious practices and subjected to extremely humiliating treatments at the hands of federal officers who have treated me like a second-class citizen on account of my faith."
While the watch list is meant to specifically include those who are "known or suspected terrorists," according to the Associated Press, it contains hundreds of thousands of names—and Shibly said he is just one of many Muslim-Americans whom he believes have been placed on the list for no reason other than their faith.
In Trenga's ruling, the judge said the watch list fails to meet the standards for constitutionally sufficient procedural due process.
"There is no evidence, or contention, that any of these plaintiffs satisfy the definition of a 'known terrorist,'" Trenga wrote, according to Associated Press. Meanwhile, the other standard for placement, being a "suspected terrorist," could be a label easily earned by conduct that is misconstrued, he said.
The judge also found the travel difficulties that plaintiffs placed on the list face to be significant, with plaintiffs alleging to have been handcuffed at border crossings and subjected to invasive searches at airports.
While Trenga's ruling grants summary judgment to the 23 U.S. citizens represented in the case, the judge is seeking additional legal briefs before making a decision on what remedy to impose.
While Shibly said he could not be happier about the judge's decision, he said "the fight is not over."
"The battle is going to continue on what the remedy will be," he said.
For anything to change, the CAIR Florida chief said, the watchlist system will need a "complete overhaul" so the U.S. government cannot unfairly target Muslim-Americans, or anyone else in the country.
"The fact that it was in place was unjust. It curtailed our civil liberties and it didn't stop any terrorists or save any lives," he said.
Related Stories
However, Trenga's ruling now "sets an extremely powerful precedent" for other cases seeking justice for and reformation to the government's watchlist.


https://www.newsweek.com/us-terror-watch-list-unconstitutional-judge-rules-1457803
 
Last edited:

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
34,203
Likes
45,794
#2
Nice but some commie judge in CA's 9th will find some way to overrule this decision. Nothing ever changes permanently in government for the better! They'll get around it somehow!
 

D-FENZ

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
2,216
Likes
5,055
#3
My views seldom align with the ACLU's, but this one does.

Nice but some commie judge in CA's 9th will find some way to overrule this decision. Nothing ever changes permanently in government for the better! They'll get around it somehow!
Agreed. And call me crazy but it will probably have something to do with an acceptable social media score.
 

ErrosionOfAccord

#1 Global Warmer
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,885
Likes
4,571
Location
Coal Country
#4
But then there's this



(SC Op-Ed) — There have been several interesting developments in the United States government’s war on free speech and privacy.
First of all, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP), which is responsible for actual entry of travelers into the country, has now declared that it can legally access phones and computers at ports of entry to determine if there is any subversive content which might impact on national security.
“Subversive content” is, of course, subjective, but those seeking entry can be turned back based on how a border control agent perceives what he is perusing on electronic media.
Unfortunately, the intrusive nature of the procedure is completely legal, particularly as it applies to foreign visitors, and is not likely to be overturned in court in spite of the Fourth Amendment’s constitutional guarantee that individuals should “…be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Someone at a port of entry is not legally inside the United States until he or she has been officially admitted. And if that someone is a foreigner, he or she has no right by virtue of citizenship even to enter the country until entry has been permitted by an authorized US Customs and Border Protection official. And that official can demand to see anything that might contribute to the decision whether or not to let the person enter.
And there’s more to it than just that. Following the Israeli model for blocking entry of anyone who can even be broadly construed as supporting a boycott, the United States now also believes it should deny admittance to anyone who is critical of US government policy, which is a reversal of previous policy that considered political opinions to be off-limits for visa denial.
DHS, acting in response to pressure from the White House, now believes it can adequately determine hostile intent from the totality of what appears on one’s phone or laptop, even if the material in question was clearly not put on the device by the owner. In other words, if a traveler has an email sent to him or her by someone else that complains about behavior by the United States government, he or she is responsible for that content.
One interesting aspect of the new policy is that it undercuts the traditional authority of US Embassies and Consulates overseas to issue visas to foreigners. The State Department visa process is rigorous and can include employment and real property verification, criminal record checks, social media reviews and Google-type searches. If there is any doubt about the visa applicant, entry into the US is denied.
With the new DHS measures in place, this thoroughly vetted system is now sometimes being overruled by a subjective judgment made by someone who is not necessarily familiar with the traveler’s country or even regarding the threat level that being a citizen of that country actually represents.
Given the new rules regarding entering the United States, it comes as no surprise that the story of an incoming Harvard freshman who was denied entry into the United States after his laptop and cellphone were searched at Boston’s Logan Airport has been making headlines. Ismail Ajjawi, a 17-year-old Palestinian resident of Lebanon, was due to begin classes as a freshman, but he had his student visa issued in by the US Embassy in Beirut rejected before being flown back to Lebanon several hours later.
Ajjawi was questioned by one immigration officer who asked him repeatedly about his religion before requiring him to turn over his laptop and cell phone. Some hours later, the questioning continued about Ajjawi’s friends and associates, particularly those on social media. At no point was Ajjawi accused of having himself written anything that was critical of the United States and the interrogation rather centered on the views expressed by his friends.
The decision to ban Ajjawi produced such an uproar worldwide that it was reversed a week later, apparently as a result of extreme pressure exerted by Harvard University. Nevertheless, the decisions to deny entry are often arbitrary or even based on bad information, but the traveler normally has no practical recourse to reverse the process. And the number of such searches is going up dramatically, numbering more than 30,000 in 2017, some of which have been directed against US residents.
Even though permanent resident green card holders and citizens have a legal right to enter the United States, there are reports that they too are having their electronic media searched. That activity is the subject of an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security that is currently working its way through the courts. The ACLU is representing 10 American citizens and a legal permanent resident who had their media searched without a warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment.
It is believed that many of the arbitrary “enforcements” by the CBP are carried out by the little-known Tactical Response Team (TRT) that targets certain travelers that fit a profile. DHS officials confirmed in September 2017 that 1,400 visa holders had been denied entry due to TRT follow-up inspections. And there are also reports of harassment of American citizens by possible TRT officials.
A friend of mine was returning from Portugal to a New York Area airport when he was literally pulled from the queue as he was departing the plane. A Customs agent at the jetway was repeatedly calling out his birth date and then also added his name. He was removed from the line and taken to an interrogation room where he was asked to identify himself and then queried regarding his pilot’s license. He was then allowed to proceed with no other questions, suggesting that it was all harassment of a citizen base on profiling pure and simple.
My friend is a native-born American who has a Master’s degree and an MBA, is an army veteran and has no criminal record, not even a parking ticket. He worked for an American bank in the Middle East more than thirty years ago, which, together with the pilot’s license, might be the issue these days with a completely paranoid federal government constantly on the lookout for more prey “to keep us safe.”
Unfortunately, keeping us safe has also meant that freedom of speech and association as well as respect for individual privacy have all been sacrificed. As America’s Founding Father Benjamin Franklin once reportedly observed, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
 

hammerhead

Morphing
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
7,648
Likes
8,949
Location
On a speck of dust
#6
And there’s more to it than just that. Following the Israeli model for blocking entry of anyone who can even be broadly construed as supporting a boycott, the United States now also believes it should deny admittance to anyone who is critical of US government policy, which is a reversal of previous policy that considered political opinions to be off-limits for visa denial.
What will they do to the citizens that are already in the country?
 

Merlin

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,729
Likes
3,655
#9

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
15,688
Likes
28,138
Location
ORYGUN
#10
What about the poor bastards that live in San Diego & have to go thru an immigration check to get to Orange County. WTF !!
And they have done NOTHING !
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
15,688
Likes
28,138
Location
ORYGUN
#12
We are leaving on vacation Friday morning and we are driving to New Orleans from NW Indiana, not flying. I might fly if I had to fly. Until my passport expires, that is; I don't want any part of the new Real ID drivers license. Gov can go to hell.
I second that motion !!!
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
10,823
Likes
12,984
#13
As a war vet who somehow found his way on to this list, I applaud the ruling.



Court Ruling Branding U.S. Terror Watchlist Unconstitutional Celebrated As 'Tremendous Victory' for Muslim-Americans 'Unjustly Profiled by the Government'
By Chantal Da Silva On 9/5/19 at 7:21 AM EDT





Trump Says He’s ‘Concerned About The Rise’ Of Hate Groups, ‘Whether It’s Antifa Or Any Other’

Share
U.S. Terrorism United States
For years, U.S. residents placed on the government's terror watchlist have argued that they have been unfairly targeted by their country, with Muslim-Americans in particular claiming to have been placed on the controversial list for no reason other than their religion.
On Wednesday, a U.S. district judge appeared to agree, ruling that the government's watch list identifying more than 1 million people as "known or suspected terrorists" violates the constitutional rights of those placed on it.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga was hailed as a "complete victory" by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which represented nearly two dozen Muslim U.S. citizens who challenged the constitutionality of the watch list.
"This is a tremendous victory, not just for all American-Muslims, but for all Americans who care about civil rights and the Constitution," Hassan Shibly, a lawyer who heads CAIR's Florida chapter and was named as a plaintiff in the case, told Newsweek.
"For decades, every time I have traveled and every time many people I know who traveled and who share my faith have been stopped at the border for hours at a time, placed in handcuffs, interrogated and treated as second-class citizens," he said. "We have been unjustly profiled by the government and it has been extremely oppressive and stigmatizing treatment that we have received over the years."
"We always knew it was wrong and always knew it was unconstitutional," he said. "And now, after decades of receiving unjust treatment, a judge has found in our favor and vindicated us by agreeing that the profiling and harassment we faced at the hands of the government were unconstitutional. It's a tremendous victory."
In a previous interview with Newsweek, Shibly had detailed how since he was 18 years old he had "personally been stopped over two dozen times, including being placed in handcuffs, asked about my religious practices and subjected to extremely humiliating treatments at the hands of federal officers who have treated me like a second-class citizen on account of my faith."
While the watch list is meant to specifically include those who are "known or suspected terrorists," according to the Associated Press, it contains hundreds of thousands of names—and Shibly said he is just one of many Muslim-Americans whom he believes have been placed on the list for no reason other than their faith.
In Trenga's ruling, the judge said the watch list fails to meet the standards for constitutionally sufficient procedural due process.
"There is no evidence, or contention, that any of these plaintiffs satisfy the definition of a 'known terrorist,'" Trenga wrote, according to Associated Press. Meanwhile, the other standard for placement, being a "suspected terrorist," could be a label easily earned by conduct that is misconstrued, he said.
The judge also found the travel difficulties that plaintiffs placed on the list face to be significant, with plaintiffs alleging to have been handcuffed at border crossings and subjected to invasive searches at airports.
While Trenga's ruling grants summary judgment to the 23 U.S. citizens represented in the case, the judge is seeking additional legal briefs before making a decision on what remedy to impose.
While Shibly said he could not be happier about the judge's decision, he said "the fight is not over."
"The battle is going to continue on what the remedy will be," he said.
For anything to change, the CAIR Florida chief said, the watchlist system will need a "complete overhaul" so the U.S. government cannot unfairly target Muslim-Americans, or anyone else in the country.
"The fact that it was in place was unjust. It curtailed our civil liberties and it didn't stop any terrorists or save any lives," he said.
Related Stories
However, Trenga's ruling now "sets an extremely powerful precedent" for other cases seeking justice for and reformation to the government's watchlist.


https://www.newsweek.com/us-terror-watch-list-unconstitutional-judge-rules-1457803
So what verdict is good for those "Mussy" terr,,,, ERR "Freedom Fighters" will be good for American Patriots, Oath Keepers, NRA Members,.....
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive". - Sir Walter Scott