The Kafkaesque Country We've Become
The Identity Project website has details from the first lawsuit challenging a US government no-fly order. The plaintiff is a woman, Dr. Raninah Ibrahim.
Dr. Ibrahim, of course, was the one witness who had no option of testifying in person at her own trial. The State Department's witness today confirmed that Dr. Ibrahim applied for a U.S. visa in 2009 for the specific purpose of coming to San Francisco to be deposed in this case. Knowing that was the purpose for her trip, the State Department denied her application for a visa.The government's attorneys objected to questioning about why that visa application was denied, and most of those objections were sustained on the grounds that the reasons for the visa denial, like those for the "nomination" and placement of Dr. Ibrahim on the no-fly list by the FBI and its Terrorist Screening Center, were "state secrets."
However, the limited State Department testimony that was allowed to be presented in open court suggested that the State Department visa officers who denied Dr. Ibrahim's application in 2009 did so purely on the basis of the fact that her name had been placed on a watchlist in 2004 or 2005, without any review or even knowledge of the "derogatory" information (if there was any) which had been alleged by the original "nominating" FBI agent to provide a basis for that watchlist placement.
Here's the most chilling bit:
(FBI documents) showed that the mere opening of an investigation was itself deemed to be sufficient grounds for placing a person on a watchlist, without the need to evaluate whether there had been any factual predicate for the opening of the investigation. This contradicted the government's claims about the existence of threshhold evidentiary criteria for watchlist decisions.
Here's more that reflects an America I think most of us believe we're not supposed to be:
The essence of Prof. Kahn's testimony was the absence from the watchlist procedures of essential elements of due process: notice, opportunity to be heard, and the ability to have decisions reviewed by an entity independent of the decision-making agency. As Prof. Kahn summarizes this in his book, on the basis of information including interviews with the officials who established and operated the system of watchlists:The watchlisters are prosecutor, judge, jury, and jailer. Their decisions are made in secret and their rules for decision -- like their evidence for deciding -- are classified. There is no appeal from the decisions of the watchlisters, except to the watchlisters themselves.This is key to Dr. Ibrahim's complaint, which is both (1) that there was no, or no sufficient, factual basis for her placement on the no-fly list and other watchlists, and (2) that the decisions to place her on those watchlists violated due process, regardless of any evidence on which they might have been based, because she was not given notice, an opportunity to rebut any allegations against her, and an opportunity to have the decisions independently reviewed.
More about Ibrahim here (scroll down for her biography and education).
(FBI documents) showed that the mere opening of an investigation was itself deemed to be sufficient grounds for placing a person on a watchlist, without the need to evaluate whether there had been any factual predicate for the opening of the investigation.
There's safety in bureaucracy. Thinking for yourself is hard and scary. Simply adopting a rule of thumb and slavishly adhering to it is easier.
I don't BLAME the government. The BLAME lies squarely in the laps of the voters.
Duh-mocracy.
Thomas Wictor at December 9, 2013 12:47 AM
She is a follower of religion of peace(as evidenced by her name). That is more than enough reason to put her on constant 24X7 surveillance. If only america would be open enough to say that and people openly support such measures the way they support torture of non muslims in saudi. When you have a PC environment, you end up hiding things in bureaucracy
Redrajesh at December 9, 2013 3:53 AM
I have read extensively about Islam and know that Islam commands violence of its followers. But many -- and probably most -- Muslims are ignorant of their own religion's dictates and do not follow them. Unless there is actual evidence that she is violent and plans violence what has happened to her is entirely, entirely wrong.
Amy Alkon at December 9, 2013 5:45 AM
And yet, somehow, the Boston bombing speedbump travels to a terrorist hotspot in Russia, comes to the attention of the Russian security services and they tip off the FBI to this guy, and yet somehow he doesn't end up on any watch list?
Awesome. These people will be managing your medical information...
I R A Darth Aggie at December 9, 2013 6:16 AM
And yet the shoebomber and underwear bomber were able to fly. I feel safer already. /sarc
Janet C at December 9, 2013 7:56 AM
"That is more than enough reason to put her on constant 24X7 surveillance."
Troll alert.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 9, 2013 8:37 AM
Wheres Jeff or one of the other statists who claim we have nothing to fear if we have nothing to hide?
lujlp at December 9, 2013 9:35 AM
Reminds me about something I read concerning the FBI back in the early '70s. They had a procedure where you could write a letter to them to find out if they had compiled a dossier on you -- you wouldn't necessarily get access to it, but at least they'd tell you if you had one. However, inquiring as to whether you had a dossier was in itself held to be a suspicous act. So if you wrote to them and they didn't have a dossier on you, the act of enquiring would cause them to start one.
This may all be apocryphal, and I can't remember where I read it now. However, it would be in keeping with that era.
Cousin Dave at December 9, 2013 2:28 PM
Leave a comment