The Crazy Redactions Of The No Fly List Decision: The Kafkaesque 'On-Off-On' Redactions

from the dig-in dept

So, we already highlighted the key information revealed and the newly unredacted version of the court's ruling in the Rehinah Ibrahim "no fly list" case (namely: that the US has a "secret exception" by which it can put people into the terrorist screening database despite no "reasonable suspicion" that they're a threat). However, seeing as we had noted some of the bizarre redactions in the original, and now that we have the unredacted version, I figured we could look at some of the more bizarre redactions now that they've been revealed. Let's start with what might have been the most hilarious redaction from the original
If you can't read it, it's:
Given the Kafkaesque [REDACTED] treatment imposed on Dr. Ibrahim, the government is further ordered expressly to tell Dr. Ibrahim [REDACTED] (always subject, of course, to future developments and evidence that might [REDACTED]). This relief is appropriate and warranted because of the confusion generated by the government's own mistake and the very real misapprehension on her part that the later visa denials are traceable to her erroneous 2004 placement on the no-fly list, suggesting (reasonably from her viewpoint) that she somehow remains on the no-fly list.
Now those redactions have been uncovered, and here's what we see (with the redacted portions in yellow):
And the text version, with redacted portions underlined:
Given the Kafkaesque on-off-on-list treatment imposed on Dr. Ibrahim, the government is further ordered expressly to tell Dr. Ibrahim that she is no longer on the no-fly list and has not been on it since 2005 (always subject, of course, to future developments and evidence that might warrant reinstating her to the list). This relief is appropriate and warranted because of the confusion generated by the government's own mistake and the very real misapprehension on her part that the later visa denials are traceable to her erroneous 2004 placement on the no-fly list, suggesting (reasonably from her viewpoint) that she somehow remains on the no-fly list.
Many people rightly mocked the original version as the Kafkaesque nature of the situation appeared to be increased by that particularly hilarious looking redaction. Of course, now having seen all the redactions, we can see the true reason behind it. It appears that, despite all of this, Ibrahim is still in the Terror Screening Database (TSDB), for some secret reason, even though everyone admits she's no threat. And that secret reason is apparently unrelated to the original mistake.

In other words, the purpose of all those original redactions was to misleadingly suggest that Ibrahim had been cleared from all lists, but the "on-off-on-list" aspect was actually hidden in the redacted version. Now that it's all been revealed, reading between the lines, we see that Ibrahim is only being cleared from some lists and databases, while remaining in others that likely prevent her from ever returning to the US. In other words, the redactions were created to mislead the public into believing that Ibrahim has been totally cleared, when the reality is she's still in the same basic position -- other than the fact that she now knows she's in the TSDB rather than the no fly list, which she was removed from all the way back in 2005.

Still, other redactions seem equally bizarre. Take this one:
The unredacted version says:
Government counsel has conceded at trial that Dr. Ibrahim is not a threat to our national security. She does not pose (and has not posed) a threat of committing an act of international or domestic terrorism with respect to an aircraft, a threat to airline passenger or civil aviation security, or a threat of domestic terrorism. This the government admits and this order finds.
Why was that redacted? Perhaps the government thought the reasons someone might be put on the list needed to be secret? But, did anyone doubt that any of the things listed above were considered reasons why you might be put on the no fly list or the terrorist screening database? This identical redaction was done later in the ruling as well, again enforcing the idea that the government sought to hide the fact that you have to be a threat to one of those three things to be placed on the lists. But it also hid the fact that even if you were not one of those things, you can still be placed in the Terrorist Screening Database for a "secret exception" to the reasonable suspicion requirement.

Another bizarre one, concerning an attempt in 2006 to have her removed from all lists:
The unredacted version:
In a form dated February 10, 2006, an unidentified government agent requested that Dr. Ibrahim be "Remove[ d) From ALL Watchlisting Supported Systems (For terrorist subjects: due to closure of case AND no nexus to terrorism)" (TX 10). For the question "Is the individual qualified for placement on the no fly list," the "No" box was checked. For the question, "If no, is the individual qualified for placement on the selectee list," the "No" box was checked.
Can anyone explain why this was redacted? It makes no sense at all.

There is also a lengthy discussion of how the US blocked Ibrahim's daughter, Raihan Binti Mustafa Kamal, from flying to the US for the trial and then lied about it. We noted how bizarre it was that Judge William Alsup's entire discussion of what happened there was redacted. Now seeing the full version, it is, once again, entirely unclear why it was redacted in the first place. The unredacted parts do show more screwups by the US, in which Homeland Security falsely flagged Kamal based on rules that are not supposed to apply to US citizens, even though she is a US citizen. In fact, it notes that Customs and Border Patrol realized in six minutes that she was a US citizen, but then there was a series of other confusions that resulted in her not being allowed to board the flight.

Unfortunately, despite considerable anger on Judge Alsup's part, when all of this came out, it appears that, in the end, he did nothing about this, other than make sure that Kamal's own record in the TSDB was "updated... to reflect that she was a United States citizen."

In the end, the revelation of these redactions do reveal that Ibrahim still appears to be unable to come to the US, and also suggests that the US government tried to use redactions to hide this fact -- allowing the public to believe that Ibrahim had been entirely cleared, when she had not been. It also sought to hide, as mentioned in our earlier post, that the DOJ has some "secret exception" that allows them to basically destroy someone's life, even if there's no reasonable suspicion that they're a terrorist threat of any kind.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), Apr 18th, 2014 @ 2:50pm

    The 'no' box redaction

    Perhaps revealing that a single box existed in the system to determine you're 'threat' meant telling terrorists how to possibly hack the system?

    boggles the mind.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2014 @ 3:00pm

    And now imagine CIA/NSA level redactions about crimes they committed. Secrecy is abused to hide crimes not to enhance national security.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2014 @ 3:05pm

    Maybe?

    All these redactions seem to be related to her status as to whether she is on or not on the list.

    It looks like the passages were redacted to hide this, maybe because its personal information, or could be construed as such. There is probably some kind of policy against releasing it, leading to these bizarre redactions.

    Of course it doesn't make much sense to redact this information, but since when has anything the government does made sense?

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2014 @ 3:07pm

    Re:

    Ah... but hiding crimes of the CIA/NSA is enhancing national security, it is allowing them to continue to do their job
    /s

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2014 @ 3:15pm

    Re: Maybe?

    It is not normal to redact court rulings. This was the government trying to hide its misdeeds.

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Apr 18th, 2014 @ 3:32pm

    Not only US Government is , but it is also . .

     

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

  7.  
    icon
    sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), Apr 18th, 2014 @ 3:33pm

    Re:

    Oops, sorry for spamming. Alas, cannot delete/redact comments here.

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    Christopher, Apr 18th, 2014 @ 7:13pm

    Apparently, the court opinion was redacted by Yossarian.

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2014 @ 4:39am

    Those DHS folks should stop using expired Prozac.

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2014 @ 5:24am

    Re: The 'no' box redaction

    I thought the description of the NO box was ambiguous enough it could mean both put on NO FLY list and NO does not belong on NO FLY list.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    GEMont, Apr 19th, 2014 @ 4:22pm

    Who are these people!!??

    Well, if you have ever wondered what an organized criminal association could buy with the trillions of dollars in profits from 75 years of un-taxed income from the sales of narcotics and cannabis, look no further than the Pharmaceutical Industry, the Energy Industry, the Insurance Industry, the Entertainment Industry, the Medical Industry and the Federal Government.

    If it acts like MAFIA, looks like MAFIA, steals like MAFIA and lies like MAFIA, chances are really good that it is MAFIA.

     

    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
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.