Hacker News Reader

Comment by vkou | Hacker News Reader

What is it, then? Protecting the Government from Americans exercising their (Constitutional, and UN) right to Freedom of Movement?

Oh. Right. It's "Doing something." For the sake of the children, no doubt.

View on HN

It's been used many times to strand people of interest to the FBI/CIA in order to put pressure on them to become informants.

I used to have a bookmark for a site that documented a bunch of really egregious abuses of the no-fly list and there was a pretty consistent pattern - american citizen or permanent resident leaves the country for vacation or to see family and mid-trip is placed on the no-fly list, usually stranding him in an inhospitable country. Some of the people so stranded reported that they were then approached by US government agents that said if they would just 'cooperate' with them everything would be cleared up in no time at all. The people who told these stories always refused the offer.

Unfortunately, I seem to have lost the bookmark and with all the publicity this ruling is getting, google is flooded on all the keywords I can think of.

My Google-foo is strong today for you:

http://www.loonwatch.com/tag/torture/ http://www.loonwatch.com/tag/civil-liberties/

Exactly what it is for is sort of up in the air, but it is clear that it isn't threat mitigation. As you said, it isn't actually doing something a thorough search could not and the people who make these calls, for all their numerous faults, are not categorically stupid; they know as well as you do that the Do Not Fly lists are senseless from a security standpoint.

My money on what it is actually for? Theater, or "Doing something" as you put it. Alternatively, perhaps it serves as a bogey-man; "now I'm on a watchlist" has entered modern parlance and with it, the mindset that one must speak "unapproved" opinions softly.

Do we have a Constitutional right to freedom of movement? Travel? Are the two any different? Why do I have to agree to involuntary sobriety checks (searches, IMHO) if I get a drivers license?

I would like to think that I have these rights already defined or that they are defined under the Ninth Amendment. Given the current political climate, I am afraid that they are not.

It might fall under the First Amendment's "right of the people peaceably to assemble" but short of that, I don't see anything in the Constitution that allows freedom of movement.

But the No-Fly List does appear to violate the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I'd argue that there's a difference between the ability to move/travel and the ability to operate a vehicle (car/plane/etc). Operating a multi-ton missile puts others in danger if you don't know what you're doing, while sitting on a Greyhound bus as a passenger requires no significant training.

Ironically, US citizens on the no fly list could still get a pilot's license http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tsa-us-citizen-who-no-fly-li...

And this is where it gets all farcical.

Arguably, the 10th amendment means you don't need to find freedom of movement explicitly listed in the constitution in order for it to be a protected right. But I am totally not a lawyer.

Because driving is framed as a privilege and not a right, and by partaking in that privilege you waive and right to refuse a sobriety test. (For bicyclists with no driver's license? That's an interesting question.)

The issue (at least as I see it here) is more about due process than the right to travel. Even if there were a right to travel, you could legally be denied that right for legitimate cases like parole or bail. But those cases mean you have your day in court.

> Do we have a Constitutional right to freedom of movement?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unite...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com