Another Terrorist Thwarted By The Do Not Fly List

[otterinbham 0]

Professor Murphy is easily the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science. His works on both constitutional theory and judicial behavior are classics in the field. Bluntly, legal scholarship that does not engage many themes in his book, briefly noted below, Constitutional Democracy, may be legal, but cannot be said to be scholarship. As interesting, for present purposes, readers of the book will discover that Murphy is hardly a conventional political or legal liberal. While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination. Apparently these credentials and others noted below are no longer sufficient to prevent one from becoming an enemy of the people.

"On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving."

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Professor Murphy is easily the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science. His works on both constitutional theory and judicial behavior are classics in the field. Bluntly, legal scholarship that does not engage many themes in his book, briefly noted below, Constitutional Democracy, may be legal, but cannot be said to be scholarship. As interesting, for present purposes, readers of the book will discover that Murphy is hardly a conventional political or legal liberal. While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination. Apparently these credentials and others noted below are no longer sufficient to prevent one from becoming an enemy of the people.

"On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving."

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "

Good thing we caught that bastid.

[bigsixfive 328]

So is this an internet story presented as concrete fact intended to rile up the anti-Bush movement?

[JohnDeere 0]

I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

Professor Murphy did not write this, if he did write it I would question his "accuracy".

A Marine referring to his career as a professional soldier. HA!

All wounded combat veterans I have met, do not refer to themselves as being wounded. How about, "I was awarded the Purple Heart". Also, never heard anybody refer to themselves as being 'decorated for heroism'. More like, "I was awarded a Bronze Star with a v device for valor".

[GalensGhost 0]

No link? I smell a rat.

[saniflush 0]

No link? I smell a rat.

Thank goodness they caught that rat from the ivory halls of academia! No telling what kind of lies he has been passing on to the youth of America!

[otterinbham 0]

Sorry. Forgot the link. Here: http://www.crablaw.com/mdweekly.html

And, supposing it is true for a moment, what will you say then?

[saniflush 0]

Sorry. Forgot the link. Here: http://www.crablaw.com/mdweekly.html

And, supposing it is true for a moment, what will you say then?

I say as Americans you had better get used to it. Americans were shielded for the most part from things that other countries have had to deal with for the last 30 - 40 years. Smell that coffee folks!

[otterinbham 0]

Sorry. Forgot the link. Here: http://www.crablaw.com/mdweekly.html

And, supposing it is true for a moment, what will you say then?

I say as Americans you had better get used to it. Americans were shielded for the most part from things that other countries have had to deal with for the last 30 - 40 years. Smell that coffee folks!

So if we protest against the government, we can't travel on airplanes? Is that what you're saying?

[jw 4 au 526]

Sorry. Forgot the link. Here: http://www.crablaw.com/mdweekly.html

And, supposing it is true for a moment, what will you say then?

I say as Americans you had better get used to it. Americans were shielded for the most part from things that other countries have had to deal with for the last 30 - 40 years. Smell that coffee folks!

So if we protest against the government, we can't travel on airplanes? Is that what you're saying?

Before 9/11, no. Any one could travel pretty freely (obviuosly). After 9/11, on a case by case basis. Better safe than sorry. Remember, he was allowed to fly it was just a little inconvenient for him. Seems like it worked how it is suppoosed to in my opinion. Makes me feel safer, hopefully it is also working with "other" terrorist.

On a side note, didn't this happen to John Kerry a while back, or am I only hoping?.

[saniflush 0]

Sorry. Forgot the link. Here: http://www.crablaw.com/mdweekly.html

And, supposing it is true for a moment, what will you say then?

I say as Americans you had better get used to it. Americans were shielded for the most part from things that other countries have had to deal with for the last 30 - 40 years. Smell that coffee folks!

So if we protest against the government, we can't travel on airplanes? Is that what you're saying?

Don't be asinine! I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is with heightened security come "uh oh's". If greater safety when flying costs someone including myself some small civil liberties and minor inconviences then so be it. Americans have had it soft from a travel aspect much longer than any other country on the face of the planet. Speak to anyone in the military who has traveled to any degree. I guess I just don't understand why it is always such a stink when the system does not work perfectly? Wasn't like he was taken out back and shot!

What happens if he is let on the plane and he is a terrorist? Then it is slanted to the other side. "Nobody was doing their job." "Why isn't the government catching these folks?"

I say it is a lot better to be safe than sorry.

[otterinbham 0]

Sorry. Forgot the link. Here: http://www.crablaw.com/mdweekly.html

And, supposing it is true for a moment, what will you say then?

I say as Americans you had better get used to it. Americans were shielded for the most part from things that other countries have had to deal with for the last 30 - 40 years. Smell that coffee folks!

So if we protest against the government, we can't travel on airplanes? Is that what you're saying?

Before 9/11, no. Any one could travel pretty freely (obviuosly). After 9/11, on a case by case basis. Better safe than sorry. Remember, he was allowed to fly it was just a little inconvenient for him. Seems like it worked how it is suppoosed to in my opinion. Makes me feel safer, hopefully it is also working with "other" terrorist.

On a side note, didn't this happen to John Kerry a while back, or am I only hoping?.

Man, surely I'm not the only one here who can see how quickly it can be abused. What you and SaniFlush don't seem to get is that, because an eminent authority on constitutional law exercised his political rights to protest, he automatically gets put on the no-fly list for his views. We're not talking about a guy with any links whatsoever to terror, nor a radical by any definition of the word. Just somebody who expressed an opinion that contradicts the administration.

And, gentlemen, this was not a simple bureaucratic snafu. What essentially happened is that, somewhere in the bowels of the TSA, somebody said "Oh, we don't like this guy" and entered his name into a database. With this as precedent, what do you think will happen next time you write an editorial to the newspaper? Heck, the IRS has already been caught singling out people who write their congressmen for audits. You see this as a glitch in the system. I see this as a systematic quashing of any dissent.

[saniflush 0]

Sorry. Forgot the link. Here: http://www.crablaw.com/mdweekly.html

And, supposing it is true for a moment, what will you say then?

I say as Americans you had better get used to it. Americans were shielded for the most part from things that other countries have had to deal with for the last 30 - 40 years. Smell that coffee folks!

So if we protest against the government, we can't travel on airplanes? Is that what you're saying?

Before 9/11, no. Any one could travel pretty freely (obviuosly). After 9/11, on a case by case basis. Better safe than sorry. Remember, he was allowed to fly it was just a little inconvenient for him. Seems like it worked how it is suppoosed to in my opinion. Makes me feel safer, hopefully it is also working with "other" terrorist.

On a side note, didn't this happen to John Kerry a while back, or am I only hoping?.

Man, surely I'm not the only one here who can see how quickly it can be abused. What you and SaniFlush don't seem to get is that, because an eminent authority on constitutional law exercised his political rights to protest, he automatically gets put on the no-fly list for his views. We're not talking about a guy with any links whatsoever to terror, nor a radical by any definition of the word. Just somebody who expressed an opinion that contradicts the administration.

And, gentlemen, this was not a simple bureaucratic snafu. What essentially happened is that, somewhere in the bowels of the TSA, somebody said "Oh, we don't like this guy" and entered his name into a database. With this as precedent, what do you think will happen next time you write an editorial to the newspaper? Heck, the IRS has already been caught singling out people who write their congressmen for audits. You see this as a glitch in the system. I see this as a systematic quashing of any dissent.

I do not disagree with you that the possibility for misuse exists. Does it not exist with almost everything though? What makes this so much more of a potential misuse than anything else in the government? I am supposed to cry because somebody got done wrong? Bad shite happens to good people everyday. Should he have been on any watch lists? No. Do I think it is a problem that is running rampant? No.

[otterinbham 0]

Sorry. Forgot the link. Here: http://www.crablaw.com/mdweekly.html

And, supposing it is true for a moment, what will you say then?

I say as Americans you had better get used to it. Americans were shielded for the most part from things that other countries have had to deal with for the last 30 - 40 years. Smell that coffee folks!

So if we protest against the government, we can't travel on airplanes? Is that what you're saying?

Before 9/11, no. Any one could travel pretty freely (obviuosly). After 9/11, on a case by case basis. Better safe than sorry. Remember, he was allowed to fly it was just a little inconvenient for him. Seems like it worked how it is suppoosed to in my opinion. Makes me feel safer, hopefully it is also working with "other" terrorist.

On a side note, didn't this happen to John Kerry a while back, or am I only hoping?.

Man, surely I'm not the only one here who can see how quickly it can be abused. What you and SaniFlush don't seem to get is that, because an eminent authority on constitutional law exercised his political rights to protest, he automatically gets put on the no-fly list for his views. We're not talking about a guy with any links whatsoever to terror, nor a radical by any definition of the word. Just somebody who expressed an opinion that contradicts the administration.

And, gentlemen, this was not a simple bureaucratic snafu. What essentially happened is that, somewhere in the bowels of the TSA, somebody said "Oh, we don't like this guy" and entered his name into a database. With this as precedent, what do you think will happen next time you write an editorial to the newspaper? Heck, the IRS has already been caught singling out people who write their congressmen for audits. You see this as a glitch in the system. I see this as a systematic quashing of any dissent.

I do not disagree with you that the possibility for misuse exists. Does it not exist with almost everything though? What makes this so much more of a potential misuse than anything else in the government? I am supposed to cry because somebody got done wrong? Bad shite happens to good people everyday. Should he have been on any watch lists? No. Do I think it is a problem that is running rampant? No.

Sorry. I just can't be that cavalier about it. This was not a snafu. This was not a computer glitch. This required somebody actively entering this man's name on a screen list because he dared voice political dissent. It's just as bad as Hillary Clinton holding 800 FBI files of Republicans.

[saniflush 0]

I think I have just come to terms with what I believe to be the fact that no decent person is in public service. They are all 10 gallons of shite in a 5 gallon bag.

[otterinbham 0]

I think I have just come to terms with what I believe to be the fact that no decent person is in public service. They are all 10 gallons of shite in a 5 gallon bag.

See? I knew we, two intelligent well-meaning people, could agree on something here. Never, ever trust these bastages. You're going to get hosed if you do.

[jw 4 au 526]

Sorry. I just can't be that cavalier about it. This was not a snafu. This was not a computer glitch. This required somebody actively entering this man's name on a screen list because he dared voice political dissent. It's just as bad as Hillary Clinton holding 800 FBI files of Republicans.

How do you know? I don't think it was a "vast right wing conspiracy" theory. Professor Whoever is not that important of a fool. I found this reply on some other web page, a lengthy explaination by some nerd, but makes just as much sense or more as your opinion. Remember, both are appartenly opinions, I could find no factual articles (including crablaw) on the matter.

There is a podcast of the Sunday September 19, 2006 Madison lecture Walter Murphy delivered at Princeton entitled Wanted Constitution Dead or Alive. Besides the rhetorical flourish of that talk, perhaps to be expected in a speech to youthful lawstudents to entice their interest, there is reportage on the internet of the revered emeritus prof Murphy's having taken public exception to the policies that expanded government eavesdropping. That speech occurred, as well while the drubbing in the election the president's party endured was still a stinging memory. Additionally, the processes which produced the MCA rewrite of DTA were churning over those few weeks following the speech until the end of that year of 2006. Because of my own business entity's configuration limitations, I was reluctant to reset preferences to install the software for listening to the podcast of the speech, but it is archived, I believe, there. Which is far from aligning my own views with TSA's on the lost luggage question and surrounding imputations echoed in the post by the host author, above. Rather, it is likely, from my perspective, that the government's profiling systems were working as designed when they netted the esteemed emeritus professor; that computer likely had no knowledge that the administration, rather than being suspicious of the libertarian streak in this renowned and conservative professor, should have added an expedited processing attribute to the plus side of his profile, given his historical efforts to train the conservative now Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court, Samuel Alito. It is unfortunate that cyberprocesses are so humiliating and dehumanizing, and that the professor was disturbed in his travel and flagged as suspicious by the software. I suspect it is a case of garbage-in, garbage-out; that the humans who examined prof Murphy's records missed his place of respect in the legal community. Further, if one is capable of stripping the partisanship of the current congressional oversight committee investigations from their immediate effects in DoJ, it seems that the transitory result of serving as a balance for processes that need refinement is opportune and welcome in circles which extend far beyond government and academia. Yet, I have a tendency to see beyond the incidents and issues, the mechanics and quotidian results; instead I favor examination of process. Indeed, much of the message which Murphy conveys has to do with keeping governance within its definitions. Regrettably, much of the defense of the country in facing the nebulous stateless ideologic problems posed by various terrorists, sacrificed chinks of the bill of rights in order to plug gaps quickly, and deal with due process in followup. The difficult transom to pass through is just this followthrough, however; because, having set aside the checks and balances in order to achieve instantaneously effective results, there is a challenge in dislodging entrenched interests of both bureaucratic and volatile political sorts, as power, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and attempts to fill that unclaimed territory. The constitutional refinements which Murphy holds dear are important. Putting the most optimistic facade on the story, I would hope the glitch merely was a bulk processing of biographical information fed into a software filter that knew only the instructions to which it was programmed. So far, we have yet to invent the perfect constitutional law machine.

posted by John Lopresti

[TexasTiger 13,016]

I know I'd feel safer if a couple of you guys were on it.

[saniflush 0]

I think I have just come to terms with what I believe to be the fact that no decent person is in public service. They are all 10 gallons of shite in a 5 gallon bag.

See? I knew we, two intelligent well-meaning people, could agree on something here. Never, ever trust these bastages. You're going to get hosed if you do.

The only good line from the excruciating painful to watch movie "Brazil"......

"Trust but verify"

[bigsixfive 328]

I know I'd feel safer if a couple of you guys were on it.

Be afraid... I'm boarding today at 4:45 EST!