The Government Is Blacklisting People Based on Predictions of Future Crimes

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Date: October 10, 2018 20:01:40 JST
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The Government Is Blacklisting People Based on Predictions of Future Crimes
> Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
>
> The Government Is Blacklisting People Based on Predictions of Future Crimes
> Our clients on the No Fly List are seeking a fair process to challenge and correct government error.
> By Hina Shamsi, Director, ACLU National Security Project
> Oct 8 2018
> <https://medium.com/aclu/the-government-is-blacklisting-people-based-on-predictions-of-future-crimes-19378218dc6e>
>
> Imagine: You’ve never been charged with any crime, yet the government blacklists you as a terrorism threat and bans 
> you from flying indefinitely. You’re separated from family members, can’t get to weddings or funerals or religious 
> obligations, and lose jobs because you can’t travel or your employer finds out you’re blacklisted.
>
> You know what the government has done violates your constitutionally protected ability to travel and to be free from 
> false stigma. You have rights — the Constitution guarantees due process. So you ask the government for its reasons 
> and evidence, as well as a live hearing to establish your credibility and innocence. In response, the government says 
> it put you on the No Fly List because it predicts that you might commit a violent terrorism act in the future, but it 
> won’t tell you all the reasons why or give you any evidence or the hearing you seek.
>
> This is the Kafkaesque nightmare in which our clients on the No Fly List have been trapped for eight years. And it’s 
> the unfair system we’re challenging on their behalf in an argument Tuesday before a federal appeals court in 
> Portland, Oregon.
>
> Throughout this long-running case, our clients have sought a fair process in order to clear their names and regain 
> rights most Americans take for granted.
>
> At first, they achieved a major success. In 2014, a federal district court judge struck down as unconstitutional the 
> government’s original procedures for people on the No Fly List to challenge their placement. Under that system, the 
> government wouldn’t even confirm whether people were on the list or not.
>
> “[W]ithout proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, an individual could be doomed to indefinite placement on the 
> No-Fly List,” the court found. “[T]he absence of any meaningful procedures to afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to 
> contest their placement on the No-Fly List violates Plaintiffs’ rights to procedural due process.”
>
> The court ordered reforms. As a result, the government told seven of our clients that they were cleared to fly, but 
> it never told them why they’d been put on the No Fly List in the first place. It also announced in April 2015 that 
> under its revised process, it would tell U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents whether they are on the No Fly 
> List — and possibly provide reasons. But when the government applied its reforms to our clients still on the list, it 
> became clear just how inadequate the changes were.
>
> The government still refuses to provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for 
> those reasons, and a live hearing before a neutral decision-maker. Much as before, our clients are left to guess at 
> the government’s case and so can’t actually challenge government error.
>
> Through our lawsuit, we’ve also learned that the government is blacklisting people who have never even been charged 
> with wrongdoing based on a prediction that they might someday engage in terrorism. The government eventually revealed 
> that the criteria it uses to ban people from flying are all based on its view that they are a “threat” — a term that 
> the government has never publicly defined and one that encompasses the entire universe of First Amendment-protected 
> speech, association, and conduct that falls short of committing a prohibited crime.
>
> This is unconstitutionally vague, and it invites arbitrary and discriminatory government action. It is perhaps no 
> coincidence that all our clients are Muslim.
>
> We provided the court with expert evidence — which the government never refuted — establishing that government 
> predictions like these guarantee a high risk of error. When the government undertakes such a perilous endeavor, basic 
> due process requires rigorous procedural safeguards.
>
> Nonetheless, in a decision that was unprecedented and unjustified, the district court concluded that the government’s 
> revised process satisfied constitutional requirements.
>
> The court largely rested its incorrect conclusion on a novel ground — that “undue risk to national security” 
> justified the government’s secrecy and deficient process. But no other court has ever permitted blanket assertions of 
> national security risk, untethered to specific justifications that courts then adjudicate, to legitimize a process so 
> flawed.
>
> To the contrary, courts have time-tested means to manage between legitimate government secrecy needs and individual 
> rights. More fundamentally, the Supreme Court has made clear that the “essential constitutional promises” of 
> meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard “may not be eroded” in cases implicating national security.
>
> Now, on behalf of our clients, we’re asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the Constitution’s promise — 
> and its guarantee of fairness.
>
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-a538de84&post_id=20181010072033:7E90A61A-CC7E-11E8-8ED9-E256508C7B77
Powered by Listbox: https://www.listbox.com