"No Fly List" - is a net to supress voice???

Matt wrote:
"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...

Matt wrote:


Are you saying you would not object if your name was place on
the list without due process?

There is a difference between placing "me" on the no fly list and
placing my "name" on the no fly list. I would not object if my
name was on the no fly list as long as there was then someway to
differentiate "me" from the other person that shares my name.

What if you *are* the person who's name is going to be placed on the
list?

What then?

Do you care if there is due process involved?


Well, as I said, I would like to be able to file an appeal, and then they
would either have to remove me from the list or get a court order to keep me
on the list. Is that not due process?

Matt

Due processs should occur before you are put on the list.

Matt wrote:
"Fly Guy" wrote:
Do you care if there is due process involved?

Well, as I said, I would like to be able to file an appeal, and then they
would either have to remove me from the list or get a court order to keep me
on the list. Is that not due process?

AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.

To my reading it ought to be happening before the fact. That's why we have
all that stuff with warrants and judges.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 30 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Matt wrote:
"Fly Guy" wrote:
Do you care if there is due process involved?

Well, as I said, I would like to be able to file an appeal, and then they
would either have to remove me from the list or get a court order to keep me
on the list. Is that not due process?

AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.

To my reading it ought to be happening before the fact. That's why we have
all that stuff with warrants and judges.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 30 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
Matt wrote:
"Fly Guy" wrote:
Do you care if there is due process involved?

Well, as I said, I would like to be able to file an appeal, and then
they
would either have to remove me from the list or get a court order to
keep me
on the list. Is that not due process?

AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.

To my reading it ought to be happening before the fact. That's why we have
all that stuff with warrants and judges.

miguel
--

So how to police get away with arresting people and holding them until their
arraignment? By your logic they must have the arraignment in front of a
judge before they are arrested. But that is not how it's done because the
courts decided police can hold suspects for 48 hours (I think that's right)
and still meet the due process requirements.

Due process has a vague legal definition.

Matt

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
Matt wrote:
"Fly Guy" wrote:
Do you care if there is due process involved?

Well, as I said, I would like to be able to file an appeal, and then
they
would either have to remove me from the list or get a court order to
keep me
on the list. Is that not due process?

AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.

To my reading it ought to be happening before the fact. That's why we have
all that stuff with warrants and judges.

miguel
--

So how to police get away with arresting people and holding them until their
arraignment? By your logic they must have the arraignment in front of a
judge before they are arrested. But that is not how it's done because the
courts decided police can hold suspects for 48 hours (I think that's right)
and still meet the due process requirements.

Due process has a vague legal definition.

Matt

Matt wrote:
"Miguel Cruz" wrote:
To my reading it ought to be happening before the fact. That's why we have
all that stuff with warrants and judges.

So how to police get away with arresting people and holding them until their
arraignment? By your logic they must have the arraignment in front of a
judge before they are arrested. But that is not how it's done because the
courts decided police can hold suspects for 48 hours (I think that's right)
and still meet the due process requirements.

The police are subject to a fairly high standard - they have to demonstrate
concrete reason to believe the person they arrest committed a crime. Failure
to adhere to that and a whole host of other standards jeopardizes the case
and the person may be set free even if guilty.

It doesn't work that way with the no-fly list at all. People are put on
there for unknown reasons, and frequently, for reasons that are clearly
bogus (like the old nuns who were put on there for protesting Bush). Once on
the list, people have no way to determine how they got on it, or reliably to
get themselves off.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 30 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

And you need to learn how to read. My last statement was that I'm not
defending the way the system currently works and that I think it needs
fixing.

Trust me mate, the system does not need any fixing. Prof. Sri Kanth is
a well known member and fund raiser for LTTE, an organisation listed
by the government of USA as a banned terrorist organisation. The LTTE
have been terrorising Sri Lanka over 2 decades with Al-Queda style
tactics and terror. For example, just before the twin towers in NY
were attacked, they bombed the central bank in Colombo killing
hundreds of civilians.

http://www.spur.asn.au/attro/Ch3/Col...ntral_Bank.htm

I guess you never heard about it right? even so, the government of Sri
Lanka have been pleading to US authorities about stopping LTTE fund
raising in the US. Only when USS Cole was rammed with a explosive
laden boat off the coast of Yemen, did they start to realise the
connection between different terrorist groups, in particular between
LTTE and Al Queda. The LTTE have used similar tactics against the Sri
Lankan navy for years. The group within LTTE that carries out such
operations are known as the ‘Black Tigers'. And here are some of Prof.
Sri Kanth;s writings;

July 2000 Devotion of Black Tigers,
June 2004 Homage to the Black Tigers: A Review of Sooriya Puthalvargal

Now there seems to be close co-operation between the US and Sri Lankan
authorities as they are both victims of terrorists. For example US
Ambassador at Large, State Department Coordinator for Counter
Terrorism J. Cofer Black is currently visiting Sri Lanka.

This guy belong in this list. He should not be allowed to fly.

-Punde
From Sri Lanka

And you need to learn how to read. My last statement was that I'm not
defending the way the system currently works and that I think it needs
fixing.

Trust me mate, the system does not need any fixing. Prof. Sri Kanth is
a well known member and fund raiser for LTTE, an organisation listed
by the government of USA as a banned terrorist organisation. The LTTE
have been terrorising Sri Lanka over 2 decades with Al-Queda style
tactics and terror. For example, just before the twin towers in NY
were attacked, they bombed the central bank in Colombo killing
hundreds of civilians.

http://www.spur.asn.au/attro/Ch3/Col...ntral_Bank.htm

I guess you never heard about it right? even so, the government of Sri
Lanka have been pleading to US authorities about stopping LTTE fund
raising in the US. Only when USS Cole was rammed with a explosive
laden boat off the coast of Yemen, did they start to realise the
connection between different terrorist groups, in particular between
LTTE and Al Queda. The LTTE have used similar tactics against the Sri
Lankan navy for years. The group within LTTE that carries out such
operations are known as the ‘Black Tigers'. And here are some of Prof.
Sri Kanth;s writings;

July 2000 Devotion of Black Tigers,
June 2004 Homage to the Black Tigers: A Review of Sooriya Puthalvargal

Now there seems to be close co-operation between the US and Sri Lankan
authorities as they are both victims of terrorists. For example US
Ambassador at Large, State Department Coordinator for Counter
Terrorism J. Cofer Black is currently visiting Sri Lanka.

This guy belong in this list. He should not be allowed to fly.

-Punde
From Sri Lanka

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
Matt wrote:
"Miguel Cruz" wrote:
To my reading it ought to be happening before the fact. That's why we
have
all that stuff with warrants and judges.

So how to police get away with arresting people and holding them until
their
arraignment? By your logic they must have the arraignment in front of a
judge before they are arrested. But that is not how it's done because
the
courts decided police can hold suspects for 48 hours (I think that's
right)
and still meet the due process requirements.

The police are subject to a fairly high standard - they have to
demonstrate
concrete reason to believe the person they arrest committed a crime.
Failure
to adhere to that and a whole host of other standards jeopardizes the case
and the person may be set free even if guilty.

It doesn't work that way with the no-fly list at all. People are put on
there for unknown reasons, and frequently, for reasons that are clearly
bogus (like the old nuns who were put on there for protesting Bush). Once
on
the list, people have no way to determine how they got on it, or reliably
to
get themselves off.

miguel

I agree, there should be a way to get off of the list, and there should be
valid reason for getting put on the list in the first place. But you don't
throw out the whole list because of mistakes, you fix it. Just like you
don't disband a police department because of a bad arrest.

Matt

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
Matt wrote:
"Miguel Cruz" wrote:
To my reading it ought to be happening before the fact. That's why we
have
all that stuff with warrants and judges.

So how to police get away with arresting people and holding them until
their
arraignment? By your logic they must have the arraignment in front of a
judge before they are arrested. But that is not how it's done because
the
courts decided police can hold suspects for 48 hours (I think that's
right)
and still meet the due process requirements.

The police are subject to a fairly high standard - they have to
demonstrate
concrete reason to believe the person they arrest committed a crime.
Failure
to adhere to that and a whole host of other standards jeopardizes the case
and the person may be set free even if guilty.

It doesn't work that way with the no-fly list at all. People are put on
there for unknown reasons, and frequently, for reasons that are clearly
bogus (like the old nuns who were put on there for protesting Bush). Once
on
the list, people have no way to determine how they got on it, or reliably
to
get themselves off.

miguel

I agree, there should be a way to get off of the list, and there should be
valid reason for getting put on the list in the first place. But you don't
throw out the whole list because of mistakes, you fix it. Just like you
don't disband a police department because of a bad arrest.

Matt