Witness In No Fly List Trial, Who Was Blocked From Flying To The Trial, Shows That DOJ Flat Out Lied In Court

from the incredible dept

On Friday the case against the US government, brought by Rahinah Ibrahim over her being placed on the "no fly list," officially concluded with closing arguments, but that may have been the least interesting part of everything. Apparently, the day got off to a rocky start, after Ibrahim's lawyers informed the DOJ that they intended to file bar complaints against some of the DOJ legal team for their actions in court, specifically concerning "misrepresentations" made to the court. It seems clear that this was mainly about the DOJ denying that the US government (mainly DHS) had done anything to prevent Ibrahim's daughter, Raihan Mustafa Kamal, an American citizen, from coming to the US to be a witness in the trial. As you may recall, on Monday it had come out that she had been denied in her attempt to board her flight in Malaysia, and the DOJ claimed, flat out, that Kamal had merely missed her flight and rebooked on another flight.

It appears that none of that was true.

Instead, while Kamal had been rebooked by her travel agent earlier in the week to a different flight (because Expedia informed her that her original flight was full and she wouldn't be able to travel on it), she arrived at the airport with nearly 3 hours to spare for her own flight, and was then denied the ability to board. There was a lot of back and forth, but eventually she obtained the email that had first been sent to Philippines Airlines (she was flying from Malaysia to the Philippines and then on to San Francisco), warning that Kamal was "a possible no board request."
While that's not a full on "denial" it was enough to have the airline deny her passage, and clearly shows that, contrary to the DOJ's claims, DHS specifically had targeted Kamal and was hinting very strongly to airlines not to let her fly. It seems unlikely that they ever expected that email to get out. Either way, Kamal had spent nearly $2,000 of her own money on the original flight, and noted in her own deposition that she was unable to afford another immediate flight to the US (especially given that it's holiday travel season).

Judge Alsup held a closed hearing about all of this, so it's not entirely clear what he's going to do, though from the public statements he has made to date, he did not appear to be happy about all of this. During the closing arguments -- some of which involved kicking the public out -- he even noted how ridiculous it was that they had to have a closed session since he didn't think any of the "sensitive security information" was really that sensitive. He also challenged the government's argument that they can properly review people who "appeal" their status without ever letting anyone know if or why they're on the list. From Edward Hasbrouck's transcript of the exchange:

JUDGE ALSUP: That's just going back to the same sources that were wrong in the first place, and of course they are going to say, “We were right the first time.”

That troubles me.

Do you know what happened to Robert Oppenheimer?

He was denied his clearance. It was totally unjust. The information was bogus. They suspected him of being a Communist, but that was wrong.

It was a low point for America, to do that wrongly to an American hero.

You’re not seeing the other side of what can happen.

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL: TRIP is a continually improving process…

JUDGE ALSUP: We know that there’s going to be mistakes in your system, in any system, and people are going to get hurt.

What do we need? Should there be some sort of follow-up FBI interview to find out if there is contrary evidence?

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL: When a TRIP letter is sent, the recipient is offered the possibility of review by a Court of Appeals. Review by a Court of Appeals would reveal any improper basis for the decision.

JUDGE ALSUP: How could the Court of Appeals tell that from the file it is handed up by the agency?

Even if it includes the derogatory information, how is the Court of Appeals going to know from looking at the face of the document whether it’s true?

Couldn’t there be some process where you tell the person the nature of the allegations (”You contributed money to Al Qaeda”) without revealing the specific sources or methods for the information containing those allegations?

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL: We can say more in closed session, but we can’t do that.

The government also appeared to admit in its closing that the original no fly determination on Dr. Ibrahim was a mistake, but then seems to bend over backwards not to take responsibility for all the additional fallout from that incorrect designation -- including the repeated denial of a visa to go back to the US (even for this very trial).


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 6:22am

    Where's the money?

    Under what authority is the money for the ticket being forfeited? Where's the money? Who is keeping it? With hundreds of thousands of names on the list and tickets running hundreds to thousands of dollars...hmmmmmm. It wasn't her plans that changed that would trigger the "non-refundable" clause - it was government interference - so her original ticket should have been refunded NQA. But, that would be "fair" and "just"... and DOJ and our government have shown that neither is in their playbook anymore. With the Department of JUSTICE proving that it does not care about Truth or Justice, and has been caught again in lies in court, it is time to flush it and start over. And refund all the stolen funds, return all the stolen domains...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 6:50am

    The bigger question is...

    Will the Executive Branch care what the judge says? Considering that the Executive Branch is completely out of control, like when Nixon and Hoover were in charge, I doubt it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 7:31am

    Re: The bigger question is...

    Given they pretty flat out gave a 'Haha, no' when a judge told them to declassify the ruling/interpretation they were using to justify their spying, I'm going to guess that they won't really care what the judge says.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Quiet Lurcker, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 7:54am

    Re: Re: The bigger question is...

    The government won't care that much - until they get that paper that tell them to tell the judge why they should not be held in contempt of court and possibly found guilty of perjury and witness tampering at minimum.

    Make no mistake, what the government did is nothing short of a crime in most jurisdictions, and if memory serves (it probably doesn't this time around) the court can infer that the government is probably guilty solely on this basis. I believe the term of art is 'negative inference'.

    Any lawyer types out there care to edu-ma-cate me on where I'm wrong?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Government Shill, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 7:57am

    "he even noted how ridiculous it was that they had to have a closed session since he didn't think any of the "sensitive security information" was really that sensitive. "

    Anything that has the potential to embarrass the government is sensitive information. After all, wouldn't you consider anything potentially embarrassing about you, like your medical records, confidential?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 7:59am

    A list

    After WW2 the Nazi hunters had a tough time tracking everyone down. Now would be a good time to compile a public list of all of the "we were just following orders" people so that when we finally get our country back, we know exactly who did what to whom and put them in jail for a long time.


    They compile lists on us, we need to start one on them.
    Names, Actions, Relatives, Associates, Places of Employment, etc... We can only hope in the next 10 years the court system is filled to the top with all of these criminals.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    vegetaman (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 8:04am

    The list works as intended -- only important people with real social status, like Ted Kennedy, can clear themselves up.

    Move along, citizen. Nothing to see here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    LVDave (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 8:04am

    I always wonder WHY everyone acts suprised when government lies... Kinda like when people act suprised when snakes and lions bite. Government LIES, about EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME.. There IS no surprise here, people!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    scotts13 (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 8:10am

    First ones against the wall...

    when the revolution comes, to borrow a phrase from Douglas Adams. There were a fair number of people who took pains to cover their asses when they saw the direction Germany was taking 70 years ago; never though I'd live to see the necessity for that in this country. But, it's true.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 8:14am

    Re:

    Lying in court is perjury, which can have some unpleasant penalties. People are surprised that the government is telling blatant lies in a place where the people making them can catch severe personal repercussions for them, as well as heavily damage their own case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 8:18am

    It's getting REALLY annoying and frustrating to see the government commit these sort of "errors" and have no punishment over it, even though they are screwing with people's lives.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 8:19am

    DEFENDANTSí COUNSEL: When a TRIP letter is sent, the recipient is offered the possibility of review by a Court of Appeals. Review by a Court of Appeals would reveal any improper basis for the decision.

    "possibility" in government eyes is the same as "if we give shit enough to "offer" it to you in the first place. Provided by the same court that decides your fates ex parte.

    Freedom? Where?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 8:19am

    Hubris

    What I find amusing is the note at the bottom of the letter claiming that it is sensitive information and that releasing it would violate various US laws without written permission from the US government as if a foreign citizen in a foreign country working for a foreign airline would be subject to those laws. Kudos to the ticket agent that used common sense in determining that the person they were denying the ability to board the plane at the request of the US government was one of the people that "needed to know" what was in the request and released it to her.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 8:24am

    Re: Hubris

    Good point!

    We already see the wheels turning in some of those torture cases where people are not allowed to discuss their tortures because those are state secret now!

    Next up... Someone going to jail and not being told why because of state secret!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    WDS (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 8:27am

    I can here it now.

    "See we didn't place her on the no-fly list, we just told them we were strongly thinking about it. If they then elected to not let her on the plane, how is that our fault?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 8:28am

    Re:

    After all, wouldn't you consider anything potentially embarrassing about you, like your medical records, confidential?

    There is a difference between private life and actions carried out as a representative and servant of the people. Accepting any public role should come with the realization that you will be required to explain your actions, or why some information should be kept secret. Using secrecy to hide mistakes is an abuse of power by a public servant. The problem of course is that too many public servants think that they have absolute power over citizens.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Rapnel (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re:

    Apparently those unpleasant penalties are not severe enough.

    I'm starting to think that the criminal enterprise that is the executive branch far and away outweighs the totality of all actual criminal enterprise combined.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re: Re: The bigger question is...

    Make no mistake, what the government did is nothing short of a crime in most jurisdictions, and if memory serves (it probably doesn't this time around) the court can infer that the government is probably guilty solely on this basis. I believe the term of art is 'negative inference'.

    So what? It's not like the law actually applies to the government...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 9:26am

    Re: Re:

    Lying in court is perjury, which can have some unpleasant penalties.

    That's only for the little people, the government (and the rich) can break the law with impunity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 9:34am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Cases in point: Clapper and Alexander committed perjury and apparently those "unpleasant penalties" are non-existent for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 9:46am

    Nice

    It's also nice to see that the sender's email address was included with the email when published. I imagine that mailbox is being filled with complaints and has been added to a ton of spam lists by now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 9:58am

    Re: I can here it now.

    "It was the least untruthful answer we could give."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re: The bigger question is...

    The proper response to that one, were the court not a puppet show, would be "declassify it or we strike it down".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Matthew Cline (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 10:26am

    Apparently, the day got off to a rocky start, after Ibrahim's lawyers informed the DOJ that they intended to file bar complaints against some of the DOJ legal team for their actions in court, specifically concerning "misrepresentations" made to the court.
    To play devil's advocate, maybe the DOJ lied to its own lawyers, and the lawyers didn't know what had been done about the witness.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    ebilrawkscientist (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 10:30am

    Deport

    The witness is now in the "other country" illegally and now must be "DEPORTED" back to the country of origin.

    Problem solved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 10:38am

    Re: Nice

    That's nothing. The sender's email address being included makes it really easy to drag the sender into court and question them about the email. Something the DoJ will probably be quite unhappy about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Nice

    Who, besides Judge Alsup perhaps, is going to drag them into court? The DOJ isn't going to charge their own.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 11:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Nice

    Indeed - that would be too much like necro-incest to be any good.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 11:29am

    Good to see this make the mainstream

    Ibrahim's lawyers informed the DOJ that they intended to file bar complaints against some of the DOJ legal team

    As well EVERYONE should.

    An overview of fraud in the Court.
    www.bargrievance.net was at one time running to help you do just that.

    The radioshow/podcast Rule of Law Radio on some shows covers bar grieving and why to do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: Re: The bigger question is...

    Can't the judge simply declare the classification improper and release it publicly by admitting it into record and not putting it under seal? The judge gets to decide if something stays under seal or not in his court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 11:32am

    Re: Re:

    Lying in court is perjury, which can have some unpleasant penalties

    And because you are citing a crime, that takes a DA, Judge or Grand Jury to approve criminal charges.

    But go ahead and explain how the non DA/Judge/Grand Jury is supposed to get criminal charges?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    DB, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 12:17pm

    Perjury vs. witness tampering: burden of proof...

    Perjury charges would be difficult to sustain. The attorney could be repeating what they were told. Even something that comes across as an outright lie can be explained as a misunderstood message. A trial could take years, especially with the specific details, the procedures and the policy all covered under different 'SSI' rules.

    On the other hand witness tampering can be immediately investigated by the court. It's much less dependent on determining intent, instead focusing on the facts and effect of actions. My understanding is that once the interaction with the witness is shown, the burden of proof shifts to show that it was not tampering.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 12:25pm

    Good to see this make the mainstream

    Ibrahim's lawyers informed the DOJ that they intended to file bar complaints against some of the DOJ legal team

    As well EVERYONE should.

    An overview of fraud in the Court.
    www.bargrievance.net was at one time running to help you do just that.

    The radioshow/podcast Rule of Law Radio on some shows covers bar grieving and why to do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 1:03pm

    Re: The bigger question is...

    This Administration and it's Departments are out of control because the "journalists" are too busy "reporting" WH talking points to cover any other stories.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 1:28pm

    Re: Where's the money?

    Oh, no. They'll refund her. She'll get a check in the mail in about 90 days...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Mike Brown (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 2:20pm

    Re: Hubris

    That ticket agent has probably been terminated by now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 4:26pm

    Re: Hubris

    "... as if a foreign citizen in a foreign country working for a foreign airline would be subject to those laws."

    Of course they would. US laws apply world-wide. That's what drones are for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 4:30pm

    Re:

    "To play devil's advocate, maybe the DOJ lied to its own lawyers, and the lawyers didn't know what had been done about the witness."

    So far, though, I haven't seen the lawyers making that claim.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 4:39pm

    Re: Perjury vs. witness tampering: burden of proof...

    "Perjury charges would be difficult to sustain. The attorney could be repeating what they were told."

    Wait, were the lawyers themselves testifying in this case or were they filing sworn testimony from other sources? Couldn't those other sources be charges with perjury?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 9:30pm

    Re: Re:

    You obviously missed that my post was sarcasm. I guess my sarcasm sounds so like the real arguments made that everyone was fooled even with the name "Government Shill".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 10:04pm

    Re: Re: Perjury vs. witness tampering: burden of proof...

    Well no, if the other sources were never sworn in under anything they certainly can't be held liable as if it were sworn testimony. Reminds me of hearsay not being allowed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), Dec 9th, 2013 @ 10:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    they didn't do it in court. lying to congress is business as usual. lying in court stiill has penalties.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 9th, 2013 @ 10:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Perjury vs. witness tampering: burden of proof...

    That's why things like depositions and so forth are taken under sworn oath and submitted to the court under penalty of perjury. And it's why courts don't allow hearsay. So, somebody here probably committed perjury. If not the attorneys, then those whose sworn testimony was submitted.

    Unless the court gave the gov't a big ole "lie for free" card and let them submit unsworn testimony.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Lurker Keith, Dec 10th, 2013 @ 3:06am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You forgot Poe's Law, didn't you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Lurker Keith, Dec 10th, 2013 @ 3:08am

    Re: A list

    How often does Poe's Law get followed by Godwin's Law?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Dec 10th, 2013 @ 6:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Only if you lack sufficient money and/or connections.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 10th, 2013 @ 7:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Lying to Congress is still perjury though even if it isn't in court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Dec 10th, 2013 @ 9:53am

    Re: Re:

    Lying under oath to Congress is just as illegal as lying under oath in court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    x, Dec 11th, 2013 @ 7:59am

    SIEG HEIL!

    Der Gestapo ist alife and vell in Amerika......

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 11th, 2013 @ 3:18pm

    Re:

    I think it's a flaw in our legal "old boy" network. If you'll recall, folks like Righthaven, Prenda, and many many others, all being attorneys at law, lie their heads off and end up with NO penalties whatever. If you or I tried that, we wouldn't see the light of day for months or years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    zenxyzzy (profile), Dec 15th, 2013 @ 5:57pm

    If the judge had cojones.

    He would use his almost unreviewable contempt power to jail the Government lawyer for lying to him to his face. probably doesn't have the cojones for it, though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    A guy who thought about it, Jan 1st, 2014 @ 10:25am

    Where did soveriegn immunity come from?

    Exactly where in the Constitution of a Republic is the doctrine that the government can lie to us? Where is the doctrine of sovereign immunity where they can contend that as the State the 'king can do no wrong?'

    We like in a Republic where the power of the government derives from the people - not from a grant of sovereign power. If the people cannot lie to the government, then where does the government get the power to lie to us, if it derives all of its powers from us?

    Sovereign immunity might be 'well settled law' but just because it is well-settled does not mean the original decision was correct. It is like saying that global warming is 'well-settled' while your ship remains stuck in the ice . . . .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This