Supreme Court unanimously rules against government in No Fly List case
thehill.com
Fikre alleges that he traveled to Sudan in late 2009 in pursuit of growing an electronics business in his native East Africa. The FBI questioned him while in Sudan, according to court filings, telling Fikre he was on the No Fly List and could be removed if he became an informant.
Fikre allegedly refused and moved to the United Arab Emirates, where he claims he was then abducted and tortured for months by the country’s secret police at the FBI’s request. After leaving the United Arab Emirates, Fikre says he moved to Sweden, filed his lawsuit and sought asylum.
You are viewing a single comment
I think the concept has merit, the problem is the complete lack of accountability and transparency.
Fix those points and you have a fairly reasonable way to stop people with criminal histories from just skipping the country and running to a no extradition country to escape justice.
Can't you just have a "no leaving the county" list instead? If you can enforce one, you can enforce the other.
That would be fine if it were backed up by warrants, proper due process.
... that's the exact same thing?
If you examine the situation very closely you may be able to spot a few differences between flying from Michigan to Las Vegas, versus flying from Idaho to Egypt.
No it's not.
Well yeah except boats exist
Trains and cars too
Who cares if they leave the country? It's no longer our problem so long as they don't come back.
It was used, at least partially, for high risk individuals that they considered might be a terroristic threat akin to the 9/11 hijackings.
There's plenty of crimes that affect people inside your country and can be perpetrated by people outside your country. If the criminal happens to be inside your country, don't let them leave.
We don't need a no fly list for that. We can use the same info that would prevent them from flying to arrest them instead.
Agreed. I only said "don't let them leave. "
Buying knife abroad is still preparation outside of country, still to commit crime in some country you have to be in that country.
"Perpetrated," not prepared.
You can become a gang leader and decide the fuz are getting too close to your trail, then move to Honduras and keep advising your gang members back home. You could also just scam people out of their money over the internet and the country in which the victims live is going to be interested prosecuting you, regardless of where you are.
Derp. Then you have crime commited outside of jurisdiction of US.
Yes and no. It's a crime committed across international borders. The US can't go into the other country to go get the perpetrator, but if they step foot inside the US the feds can arrest and charge them. If their home country is decent the perpetrator will get charged at home or extradited to the US, but some countries don't do either, for a variety of reasons.