Judge Slaps Feds Over Secret Evidence for No-Fly List

Must stop "persistent and stubborn refusal" to follow the law

A federal judge in San Francisco has indignantly rejected an attempt by the Obama administration to use secret evidence to derail a former Stanford student's challenge to her apparent inclusion on the government's no-fly list.

The government must halt its "persistent and stubborn refusal" to follow the applicable laws, said U.S. District Judge William Alsup.

Rahinah Ibrahim's name on the confidential no-fly list has barred her and one of her four children from returning to the United States for nearly eight years. She was a Stanford graduate student in January 2005 when she was first stopped at San Francisco International Airport and prevented from boarding a flight to her native Malaysia.

(H/T Sevo)

Comments

[Gindjurra]

A citizen has a right to confront his or her accuser, which includes that accuser's evidence.

A failure to allow for such a confrontation, constitutionally at least, can result only in an acquittal. In the case of a challenge to a punishment without trial, this would necessarily result in a court order to remove the unlawful punishment.

Violation of constitutional and statutory rights is a federal crime, which can, depending on the particulars of the crime, result in a maximum penalty of execution.

In a very real sense, introducing secret evidence that the accused is not allowed to confront that leads to a conviction or decision against the accused is not terribly different from murdering a public official -- both are illegal, with similar maximum potential penalties.