Great news from the Homeland Security front:
Sister Glenn Anne McPhee is a busy woman.
As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ secretary for education, Sister McPhee oversees Catholic education in the United States, from nursery school through post-graduate. Her job includes working with the Department of Education, speaking frequently at conferences and scrutinizing religious textbooks to clear them with the teachings of the church.
For nine months in 2003 and 2004, Sister McPhee also took on the task of clearing her name from the government’s no-fly list, an endeavor that proved fruitless until she called on a higher power, the White House.
“I got to the point I could hardly go to the airport, because I couldn’t anticipate what would happen and I couldn’t do anything,” she said in an interview with Wired News. “I missed key addresses I was to give. I finally got to the point where I always checked my bag, because after I got through the police clearance, then they would put me through special security where they wand you from head to foot all over. They would dump out everything in your bag, then roll it into a ball and hand it back to you.”
McPhee is not the first high-profile individual to be caught by the government’s watch lists. Sen. Edward Kennedy and former presidential candidate John Anderson both found that their names matched names on the list, but like McPhee, were able to resolve the problem by contacting powerful officials.
But, thanks to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, her ordeal offers one of the most illuminating illustrations of the failures of the airport screening system that has come to light since 9/11. The Electronic Privacy Information Center plans to release the results of the FOIA request this week, Wired News has learned, handing the latest black eye to a government initiative aimed at preventing terrorists from boarding commercial flights that originate in the United States.
While I have a natural aversion to bureaucracies, I don’t think it is fair to be one of those people who just blindly criticizes the government or government agencies for anecdotal stories such as this one, particularly since I don’t have solutions and I know that in many cases mistakes will be made. I also recognize the difficulty in implementing broad policies such as this one, and I understand that mistakes will be made.
But for the love of everything Holy, it has been four years since 9/11. We STILL don;t have a way to remove people from these lists when it is CRYSTAL CLEAR they do not belong on them?
Another Jeff
That sucks for the nun and John Anderson, but i can think of any number of reasons to not wanna be on the same flight as Ted Kennedy.
Mr Furious
give ’em some time, John, old habits are hard to break…
[/rimshot]
Krista
I don’t know…my mom had nuns as teachers in school, and some of them were scary, scary women. But yeah, there’s got to be a better way to operate things. And I’m with you about the bureaucracies (not just government ones)…they’re just allowed to grow into these unmanageable, multi-headed behemoths, with inter-departmental communication skills of a bunch of rocks.
TallDave
There’s too much focus on hijacking airliners. This is a classic case of a gov’t fighting the last war instead of the next. No one is ever going to be able to hijack a jumbo jet and fly it into a skyscraper again; Flight 93 proved that threat ended as soon as people knew about the attacks on the Twin Towers.
Defense Guy
This is right in line with the USSC ruling that actual innocence of a crime is not enough to overrule a criminal court ruling and sentence. That, like this defies common sense and decent treatment of human beings who have been wronged.
Krista
DG – are you serious? I’d not heard about this ruling. That is just…I can’t believe….
(Reduced to indignant sputtering…)
I’ve not used this word before on this site, but if anything called for the word “fucktarded”, that was it.
stickler
Oh, come on. You vote for an Administration which rewards failure and which is famously addicted to secrecy, and you’re surprised by this? This is the Bush Administration’s approach to everything: more data, more secrecy, more screwups. This story has been out there for years, as you’ve pointed out. Google “Donald Nelson” for another head-shaking example.
And the fact that there’s no accountability? Well, again, what did you expect? Quite a few Bush supporters have been happy to point out that we had an “accountability moment” back in late fall 2004. If Bush wanted this problem fixed, it would have been fixed.
pmm
I plead ignorance on the whole concept of a no-fly list: how exactly is an individual too dangerous to let on an airplane but not dangerous enough that they haven’t otherwise been held or charged? What am I missing on this topic?
Narvy
DG —
I’ve encountered something like this statement before, but I haven’t found a way to verify it short of exhaustively searching humongous legal/court websites. I suspect that the case in point may have some peculiarity or nuance or circumstance that makes the SC ruling make sense. I’d really like to find out. Do you have a reference for this?
Narvy
The need for any government to make a great public show that they are working ceaselessly to protect the public from whatever the public fears at the moment, no matter how pointless or irrelevant the action is.
Defense Guy
Krista
Not sure if this is the only case, I think there are others that set the precedent.
Source
docG
I would like to nominate TallDave for the Outstanding Common Sense Award of the week! Absolutely dead on statement.
Pb
What’s worse is the advice they give people who legitimately shouldn’t be on those lists. Instead of actually being able to take them off of a list somehow, they tell them, just use an alias when you buy tickets, so you won’t be flagged by the system. Use initials, use your middle name, whatever.
Fortunately, they only tell the good guys to do this, and publish their stories in American newspapers, so the evil foreign terrorists won’t find out…
Why don’t we just openly switch to an honor system, instead of covertly using one? When you buy tickets, you can also agree to a statement that says you aren’t a terrorist. It’d be about as effective, there’d be much less hassle, and it’d save both the government and the airlines money!
Narvy
Krista —
Thanks. I didn’t know the publication existed. I did know of the existence of Barry Scheck et al’s book. There was more in the book review you clipped that, in judicialspeak, shocked my conscience:
Have we got a great legal system or what! You don’t suppose that a John Roberts SC might … Nah, he’s deeply committed to stare decisis.
Krista
I didn’t actually provide that info — it was Defense Guy. I’m too lazy to provide sources, so I just give my ill-informed opinions. :)
Krista
Jesus H. Christ on toast! You have GOT to be freakin’ kidding me!!! Please tell me there’s some sort of context that I’m missing that will make this make sense.
Defense Guy
I will admit it is a tricky situation, as the singular scope of the USSC is supposed to be matters of constitutionality. However, in a practical matter, since they are the court of last hope for many soon to be executed convicts, I should think they might on occasion point to the lower courts and say ‘try again’ when guilt is a serious consideration. That of course puts me at odds with the first statement and the actual role of this court.
Kimmitt
The opinion writers were at the time trying to restrict the concept of “due process” to what’s called “procedural due process,” rather than “substantive due process.” The first consists of, “Were the rules followed?” and is easy to define. The second is more about, “Yes, the rules were technically followed, but was decency offended?” and is harder to define — and therefore rather opposed to conservative judicial philosophy.
Narvy
Apologies all around. I nail people for misattribution, it seems only fair that I commit the sin, too.
DefGuy said
Dead on. The SC’s literalists and strict constructionists are so profoundly committed to being literal and strict that they can’t/won’t find a penumbra that protects a right not to be punished for a crime one didn’t commit. If a right is not enumerated, it doesn’t exist.
Maybe the good citizens out there who are so eager for Constituional amendments against stuff that outrages them could bother their legislatures to start working on this. But I suppose this isn’t as big a problem for them as, say, gay marriage.
And another thing, how do the pledge of allegiance fanatics think the “liberty and JUSTICE FOR ALL part” comports with this ruling?
Tony Alva
I’ve been waiting for Cat Stevens to be cleared for more than two years now. Haven’t we waited long enough.
Defense Guy
Narvy
Part of the problem is that the idea that the governments rights are enumerated and restricted, which is actually defined in the document, has seemingly gone by the wayside in favor of the people’s rights being limited and enumerated. I think it sucks and any judge or lawyer using the argument that actual innocence is a secondary consideration deserves the highest level of scorn and derision.
This is a somewhat different matter from that of the limited powers granted to the USSC to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature. That is supposed to be the sum total of the court’s job.
Kimmitt
The laws must conform to “due process,” as per the 14th Amendment.
Davebo
Back to the subject of the post. As a person who is also incorrectly listed on the no fly list I can tell you it’s a royal pain (although easier at European airports than it is at US airports).
And there is absolutely no way to get removed from the list. Short of generous campaign donations I guess.
Narvy
Guys –
Really, I understand all that. I dropped out of one of the better law schools. Really. What bothers me is the that SC seems perfectly content to ignore the consequences of their decision. Did they send this back to the trial court for a new trial? Why not? The robotic process, unleavened by any trace of humanity bothers me. A lot. Surely they could have at least spoken to the perverse result implied by the decision. (I haven’t read the decision and don’t know whether they dis do that, but the cite in Scheck’s book tells me they didn’t.)
Those of you who know my postings know that I post either carefully reasoned arguments, polite requests for information, and vicious, mean-spirited snark. But every once in a while, something shows up that presses a hot button, and I post an unthought out, posibly irrational, knee-jerk comment.Apologies to all the calm, rational posters on this thread. I promise I won’t do it again. Well, not often.
Narvy
I believe that isn’t quite accurate. But I have read that the process is Kafkaesque and sucks up lot of time and legal fees.
Narvy
Shouldn’t “rights” be “powers” in that sentence?
Defense Guy
Narvy
Yes.
demimondian
There is, and it’s actually something which is a huge part of American Constitutional law…and don’t worry, Krista, now that you all have a written Constitution, will soon be part of Canadian Constitutional law, too. (In fact, it already is.)
After the Civil War, several amendments were added to the US Constitution, two of which are particularly important. The first, the Thirteenth Amderment, banned “involuntary servitude” except as punishment for a crime. The second, the fouteenth amendment, has two clauses. The first guarantees equal protection under the laws. The second guarantees “due process”. The meaning of those two clauses has dominated late 20th and early 21st century American Constitutional law.
Those two clauses have caused never ending problems. In the early 1890’s, the SCOTUS ruled that “separate but equal” access to facilities met the requirement of equal protection. It also decided the the due process clause should be narrowly decided. In the 1940’s and 1950’s, the the Warren court took a long hard look at those two clauses, and decided that the Learned Hand court was smoking something when it imposed that reading on the amendment. A law which bans all people from sleeping under bridges is prima facie unequal, because the rich never need to violate it, but the porr might. The court reasoned from this, than a lot of programs to guarantee eqaul outcomes were entirely reasonable under that interpretation of the Amendment.
Since then, particularly under Rehnquist, the court has moved back towards the Learned Hand interpretation. I expect that we’ll see slow oscillation between narrower and croader interpretation of the fourteenth amendment for a long period of time.