WASHINGTON — In 2005, Rahinah Ibrahim, a Malaysian architecture professor and doctoral candidate at Stanford University, went to San Francisco International Airport where she was told that she couldn't board an airplane.
Her name was on a government no-fly list of suspected terrorists.
Eight years of court battles later, a federal judge agreed that Ibrahim didn't belong on the list.
The FBI ultimately acknowledged that she ended up on there because an agent investigating her had checked the wrong box on a form, said her attorney, Elizabeth Pipkin.
Chillingly, the U.S. Justice Department never disclosed why Ibrahim was being investigated in the first place.
http://www.dailyitem.com/news/local...cle_94e98fc1-3beb-5cae-9539-aec6f9d0b59c.html
Eight Years Mistakenly on No-Fly List
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by InTheLight, Jun 23, 2016.
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Sounds like the IRS
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I say as long as the Dems want to deny 2nd amendment constitutional rights by banning gun sales to people on a secret government list they might as well go all out and deny 3rd amendment rights and quarter soldiers in their houses as well. Let's see them plan and execute a terrorist act then!
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The problem is there is no due process with this no fly list. So it is highly possible people could be put on the list arbitrarily just to minimize those people who have guns. We should not support the attempt to make this part of gun control.
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
[Edited imminent to eminent to avoid confusion.] -
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Yes, his stance on eminent domain is definitely a big government stance, not a small government conservative stance. His (past) support of a single payer health care system and his current support of keeping the health insurance mandate is another one. So is his plan to "loosen the laws on libel" allowing people to sue journalists more freely. And his plan for massive tarriffs on Chinese goods, as well as banning all Muslims from entering the country,
The guy is BIG GOVERNMENT, and not a conservative. But hey, his name is not Hillary. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
OK, I will give it to you.
http://www.no-fly-list.com/ -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Link is to the "Terrorist Security Administration" whose logo is a vulture with a flag background. Click on any name on the list and there is no information to be had. You've been pranked. This is your "informed" information?
Here is a FAQ from the FBI site, regarding the Terrorist Screening Center, the FBI agency that maintains the no-fly list (formally called the Terrorist Screening Database):
Can I find out if I am in the TSDB?
The TSC cannot reveal whether a particular person is in the TSDB. The TSDB remains an effective tool in the government’s counterterrorism efforts because its contents are not disclosed. If TSC revealed who was in the TSDB, terrorist organizations would be able to circumvent the purpose of the terrorist watchlist by determining in advance which of their members are likely to be questioned or detained.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/nsb/tsc/ -
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Crabtownboy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
The list—along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection—was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence CommitteeChairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: "The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense."[1] However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And I don't need a history lesson.