At Supreme Court, a Case on Abuse of the No-Fly List

When was a Catholic ever put on the no-fly list for refusal to spy on the Pope?

The FISA court was set up after the fearful days of 9-11 to prevent such attacks again. This extra-judicial tool allowed surveillance normally not allowed under our judicial system. It depended on explicit trust of those judges and those agents requesting warrants to respect FISA limitations. Now it appears the temptation to use these powers for political purposes became irresistible to some. If true all those involved should be removed from government positions and eliminating the FISA court be seriously considered. Carter Page,George Papadopoulos and others who went though this ordeal deserve public apologies. Their only crime was supporting the wrong political candidate. Silence from some media sources and the ACLU who are usually concerned of federal government law enforcement excess for over 2 years is telling..

There are, I would suggest, several issues that the article doesn't discuss. First of all, the federal government does not have any police power. Thus, certain things that a police officer could do in an emergency are not relevant here. Second, the actions of the agents appear to come under the extortion / blackmail laws. Even if there is a claim that they were committed in some location not under state jurisdiction, they were certainly committed in the Special Maritime of Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States and thus subject to federal prosecution. Finally, the Court has held that there is a "right to travel" -- at least for citizens. This right actually precedes adoption of the Constitution, and is codified in 49 U.S.C. § 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." Thus, it appears that by any reasonable measure the FBI agents actions were unlawful.

The Secret Policeman is many things but most of all lazy. BTW try substituting the words Jew or Catholic instead of Muslim in you mind and get back to me with how OK you are with forcing others of your faith to become state spies. Make no mistake, once impressed into being an informant by the Secret Policeman you will be continually pressured to give someone, anyone up in order to earn your keep and not be betrayed as a snitch by your new masters. It is a filthy game and is yet another sign post as to how far "We the People" have fallen from grace.

Mine is not a No-Fly List story. Rather, it offers insight into abuse. Offered a new position at USEPA (I retired in 2007), I underwent a background check. (I had several before.) Completed paperwork, but 2 USEPA agents visited my office. "So why the blanks on countries visited?" I could identify countries but not dates on the form. I didn't keep those kind of records, even after looking at my old passports. I said much of the travel was in Summer, many in August near my niece's birthday. Then these agents, sworn to uphold the Constitution as was I, told me something incredible: "Make Up Dates." Huh? Was I being tested to see if I would lie? I said "No, because you could then come back on me & asked why I lied. You are the guys with access to immigration computers, you check, its your job!" Despite the intimidation, I got the job & did not lie.

"National Security, we can't talk about it" has been an umbrella defense of the indefensible for awhile. This one has a certain sinister beauty to it.

Seems like the GOP interprets freedom of religion as only applying to Christians who want government funds to subsidize their schools, or want to discriminate against gays, or want to control women's bodies.

The police actions in this article remind me of how the Communist security services behaved in Eastern Europe before 1990. People were frequently not given passports and permission to travel unless they collaborated with the secret police, spying on friends, colleagues and on contacts in the West. In a free society, agreement to be an informer has to be freely given, not forced.

So according to previous SC decisions, and the government, federal law enforcement officials can do whatever they want to you. There’s no recourse. (The government and the late justice Kennedy would claim that there is: complain to their superiors. But we all know this is meaningless - after all no single person has ever been prosecuted or even disciplined or had their career hindered in any way at all for designing, running, or participating in a torture program. If torture doesn’t matter, nothing does.) I’m not quite correct of course - I should have said “except if your Trump’s friend”.

It seems to me that the F.B.I's actions were clearly unconstitutional. You know, that little thing called religious freedom, the First Amendment? The Republican Supreme Court is eager to cite religious freedom when it's used to deny gay men a wedding cake or women employees birth control. But, let's see what they do in this case when Muslims are the victims of religious persecution. They have already sided with Trump in denying entry to many Muslims because of their country of origin so I'm not the least bit optimistic.

Forcing one to spy on their fellow citizen is Unamerican.