No Fly List

The Government Says These Men Have No Recourse Against FBI Agents Who Used the 'No Fly' List To Punish Them

The Supreme Court will decide whether three Muslims who refused to be informants can sue for damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

|

The FBI first approached Muhammad Tanvir, a permanent U.S. resident who was born in Pakistan, in February 2007, and asked him to inform on fellow Muslims in Queens. Tanvir declined, but the agents persisted for years, dangling promises, threatening him with arrest and deportation, and at one point confiscating his passport for six months.

In October 2010, Tanvir discovered that he had been added to the federal government's "no fly" list, which prevented him from visiting his family in Pakistan, forced him to quit his job as a long-haul trucker, and cost him the money he spent on airline tickets he was not allowed to use. His freedom to fly was not restored until March 2013, after he repeatedly challenged his inclusion on the list and hired a lawyer to negotiate with the FBI.

That October, Tanvir, joined by two other Muslim men who had similar experiences, initiated a case that the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear next month. They argued that the FBI violated their religious freedom when it punished them for refusing to become informants by preventing them from flying.

In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed that Tanvir et al. could use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to sue the FBI agents who had harassed them for monetary damages. The federal government is asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, arguing that RFRA authorizes only injunctive relief. Since Tanvir is no longer on the no-fly list, the government says, there is no legal remedy for the harm he suffered.

In an amicus brief filed today, the Institute for Justice highlights the broader implications of that position, which it says contradicts a long legal tradition of allowing people to recover damages when government officials violate their rights. "In the 19th century, when federal agents violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights, they could bring a damages claim," says I.J. attorney Anya Bidwell. "Unfortunately, those rights eroded over the past century. To argue that damages are not 'appropriate relief' for the violation of individual rights ignores hundreds of years of American legal history and requires the courts to create policy-based exceptions to the law, invading the constitutional role of Congress."

RFRA says the government may not "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" unless it can show that the burden is the "least restrictive means" of serving a "compelling governmental interest." The law allows "a person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section" to "assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government."

The federal government argues that monetary damages do not qualify as "appropriate relief" under RFRA. It says allowing such lawsuits would increase the burden of litigation on agencies and their employees, and it warns that the threat of damages would "deter employees from carrying out their duties" by encouraging them to "second-guess difficult but necessary decisions."

The Institute for Justice brief questions both of those claims. It notes that "federal officers sued for damages do not bear their own litigation costs," since "they are almost always represented by government attorneys." Furthermore, "the government offers no reason why the 'burdens of discovery' somehow weigh more heavily in cases for personal damages, which it argues RFRA forbids, than in cases for injunctive relief, which it admits RFRA allows." I.J. adds that "there is no foundation for the government's cries of chilled behavior," citing research indicating that the prospect of civil liability does not loom large for police officers as they carry out their duties.

More fundamentally, I.J. argues, it is not the job of the judicial branch to weigh such policy concerns:

Courts do the legal work by deciding whether the government conduct was unlawful and, if so, awarding appropriate relief; Congress does the policy work by determining whether indemnification [or immunity] is warranted….

The system advocated for by the government in this case inverts this historical practice, making courts do policy—by weighing impacts and other policy concerns that holding government officials accountable may have—and restricting the power of Congressional lawmaking by applying a presumption against enforcement of statutory prohibitions.

That inversion is inconsistent with American constitutional design and runs against more than a century of legal tradition in this country. Where there is a legal right, it is for the courts to order appropriate relief; it is for Congress to consider the policy implications and determine whether that relief should be mitigated by immunity or indemnification.

That history illuminates the intent of Congress in authorizing "appropriate relief" under RFRA, the brief argues. "By the time Congress passed RFRA in 1993, all three branches of government were in agreement that individuals could bring claims for damages against federal officials for constitutional violations," it says. "Thus, when Congress included 'appropriate relief' for violations of religious exercise under RFRA," it "understood that relief to include damages."

Although this case hinges on statutory interpretation, the deeper issue is whether government officials will be held accountable when they abuse their power. "Since the founding of this country, the role of our courts has been to decide whether a person's rights were violated and, if so, award appropriate relief, which historically includes money damages," says I.J. attorney Patrick Jaicomo. "If the Supreme Court adopts the government's position, government officials can violate the Constitution without consequence. They are effectively above the law."

NEXT: The Supreme Court Tackles Police Shootings, Excessive Force, and the Fourth Amendment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ” . . . by encouraging them to “second-guess difficult but necessary decisions.”

    Minor detail, the decision to leave a law abiding citizen the hell alone is neither difficult nor necessary.
    As much as I hate adding to federal laws, it is clear logic and reason need to be legislated in this case. Congress should require a judicial hearing with full OPEN due process rights before any citizen is placed in a data base that can cause the restriction of rights. To quote Obama, period.

    1. Leaving people the hell alone should be the default state for a government, it’s not even a decision you had to make if you were already doing it.

      I hope these guys win all the money.

      1. On the one hand, I hope these guys win, too. On the other hand, any money they win is going to come from us taxpayers. The morons making these unconstitutional decisions face no adverse consequences at all.

    2. He is not a citizen. He is a Pakistani national that our immigration department let reside here. Give him a token settlement and deport him. Anyone not born in the US of parents born in the US must be deported.

      1. My parent’s next door neighbor is a PRA from Italy. He has permanent resident status. Which is usually not that easy to come by. He’s been hear for forty years. He also founded and owns the gym I go to.

        He pays his taxes and makes a very good living. He does not need to be deported.

        1. Why has he been here for 40 years and still not a US citizen? Its literally a form and a test at this point.

  2. Does the government have any proposals for what it would consider to be appropriate relief? No?

    Well that is really surprising.

    1. As a citizen, I offer for free the following; “for violations of a citizen’s constitutional rights, the employee causing the violation forfeits all accumulated government pension rights, is permanently barred from all future government employment, and fined from personal accounts an amount equal to one year’s wages and benefits for that employee.”

      1. I like it, but when do we get to the woodchipper part?

        1. Look you, woodchipper’s have rights too, and government agents taste like shit.

          1. #IStandWithWoodchippers

      2. Doesn’t apply in this case because the people in question weren’t citizens.

  3. if you listen closely you can hear the sound of marching jackboots

  4. So the FBI is now bad? I thought they were selfless and incorruptible defenders of our American way of life who only targeted the Trump campaign because of those dastardly Russians.

    1. Do corrupt shit to Orange Man? Good!

      Do corrupt shit to Muslims? Bad!

      It’s really quite simple.

    2. +1, if the FBI can get away with illegally targeting the future President of the US, then obviously no mere peon is going to have recourse.

    3. It’s pretty retarded to classify a massive organization of 1000s of people as “good” or “bad”. Judge individual actions on their merits, not some pathetic tribalism that requires a binary mentality.

  5. It says allowing such lawsuits would increase the burden of litigation on agencies and their employees, and it warns that the threat of damages would “deter employees from carrying out their duties” by encouraging them to “second-guess difficult but necessary decisions.”

    I’m really failing to see a downside here.

    1. Seems to provide the right incentives to me; ‘second guessing’ sounds a lot like thinking about the results of your actions.

    2. The downside is that it wouldn’t deter employees from carrying out their duties, or from misconduct, it would simply transfer more money from tax payers to random people the courts deem worthy.

  6. Come one, the FBI would not abuse privileges or lie to judges would they?

    1. The Federal Islamic State Agency?

  7. And remember, this no-due-process no-fly list is one of the secret government databases that anti-gunners want to be able to use to remove 2nd Amendment rights…still without due process.

    A secret list that you can’t know you’re on until after you’re denied, that you can’t readily challenge, and that is compiled based on the whims of bureaucrats, who may have axes to grind.

    Imagine that the next Democrat president has the entire NRA membership roll placed on the no-fly list, then acts to use the no-fly list to deny gun purchases.

    1. They’ll take my boarding pass when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!

  8. Not bootlicking here, but article is missing the most important thing of all, which is why these three men were targeted to begin with. How much you want to bet that reason weakens the anti-government argument?

    I don’t trust the FBI, but I trust you even less Sullum.

    1. It’s entirely possible that they were targeted because of their roles in a Muslim community. From the link to the appeals court decision, it doesn’t seem like any other reason was given.

      Yeah, I know orange mag bad and all, but it would definitely be bootlicking to assume that the FBI had totally reasonable arguments for depriving innocent men of rights without due process that never made it into the court record.

      1. I don’t think it’s bootlicking to want more evidence that the FBI is intentionally depriving people of rights just for kicks before I make that assumption.

        1. The court documents linked above demonstrate that they are depriving people of rights for no good reason (I don’t know if it’s “for kicks” so much as to coerce cooperation, though).

          1. I’ve never been a fan of the system for the ‘No Fly List’. I can see why it exists, but it is way too easy to abuse the system. Just like FISA warrants

          2. Cite it then, because the court documents linked above don’t demonstrate that to me at all. They demonstrate that one party feels they are entitled to damages and the letter of the law doesn’t support said damages. The actual facts of how these men were listed on the No Fly list and what happened afterwards are hardly even discussed because most of the documents address whether RFRA is applicable or entitles them to these types of damages.

            1. The fact that the government is appealing on the basis of eligibility for damages rather than the facts of the case means that they have a weak case based on the facts.

        2. Well, if they committed a crime they could, I dunno… arrest them?

      2. It’s entirely possible that they were targeted because of their roles in a Muslim community

        That isn’t saying much, since Islamic terror organizations are “Muslim communities” too, and the government can legitimately target people for being associated with terror organizations.

      3. Metazoan. I’m going to go out on a limb and say holding “a role in a Muslim community” is more or less worthless from the FBI’s perspective. There are a thankfully low number of extremists, an even lower number of terrorists, and a lot of Muslims. In short, why would he know any terrorists? It’s not like they are demanding that he spy on his grandma.

        The FBI cannot and would not go up to a random Muslim man and demand that he become an informant. There must be a substantial reason that they think or know that he would be a good informant. Now, this does not excuse their actions as far as I can see, but if we substitute a few words and say that a known member of the Black Panthers or the Klan was being strong-armed into spying on his group, then I think we would get substantial agreement from many people on left and right.

        1. Randy Weaver and his family would likely disagree with you.

    2. For the purposes of the case, it does not matter. Either they have recourse in the courts or they do not.

  9. RFRA says the government may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless it can show that the burden is the “least restrictive means” of serving a “compelling governmental interest.”

    Again with the “compelling governmental interest”. Can’t we at least add “as would be so determined by a reasonable person”?

    1. This. “Because fuck you that’s why” is a compelling interest from the government’s perspective, might want a second set of eyes on those decisions.

    2. Could someone please direct me to the “compelling government interest” clause in the Constitution?

      1. RFRA is a fairly significant expansion of the free exercise rights granted by the Constitution, not a restriction. As Justice Scalia explained it in Employment Division v. Smith, facially neutral laws of general applicability are presumptively valid even if they burden the free exercise of religion. This was a change from prior jurisprudence, and Congress passed RFRA in response to attempt to restore the prior condition.

        1. Which really didn’t answer the question, did it?

          1. Yes, it did. You are just too stupid to realize it.

  10. What does any of this have to do with religion or religious freedom? The FBI agents abused their power; their actions were wrong regardless of whether they were targeted as Muslims, Christians, atheists, or people of unknown religions.

    What kind of precedent does it set when Muslims can sue the government over this kind of misconduct under “religious freedom” while atheists can’t?

    1. Thanks to the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, that’s probably their only hope of recovery. To sue the government for damages arising out of the use of its governmental powers, you have to have permission. For examples, the US Tort Claims Act sets out the exceptions which allow you to sue the federal government for torts, as well as the exceptions to those exceptions.

      Because the former confederate states were treating the newly freed blacks and their sympathizers so shittily after the Civil War, the federal government passed 42 USC 1983, which gave people the right to sue state officials for deprivations of federal rights under the color of state law. That only applied to state officials, not federal ones, until one day a combined task force of state and federal agents broke into to the house of one Mr. Bivens and roughed him up. Recognizing that it was pretty silly that Mr. Bivens could sue the state agents for roughing him up, but not the federal ones, the Supreme Court created a federal analogue to Section 1983 actions for those circumstances. Several other circumstances were added in subsequent cases, but sometime after the conservative majority took over they pretty much said, this far and no farther. There hasn’t been another set of circumstances recognized as providing a private right of action for 20 to 30 years.

      That’s why you need a hook, like RFRA, which does provide a private right of action (although it’s vastly preferable if it actually mentions damages), if you want to have a realistic shot at victory.

      1. Thanks to the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, that’s probably their only hope of recovery.

        Oh, spare me the partisan b.s. If the progressive wing of SCOTUS rules in these defendants’ favors, it’s because they are getting a hard on for Muslims, not because they give a f*ck about individual liberties. Next time a white male, business owner, or land owner comes before them, the progressives on the Supreme Court will gladly screw them over.

        That’s why you need a hook, like RFRA, which does provide a private right of action

        The precedent that that would set would be horrible, because it would say that only religious people can recover damages from government abuse. It also perpetuates the myth that such abuses are related to religion and that Muslims are being discriminated against because of their religion.

        1. “Oh, spare me the partisan b.s.”

          It’s not partisan b.s. It’s well documented fact. You can look up the Bivens line of cases yourself, and you will see that it is just as I described it. Recognizing reality is not partisan.

          “The precedent that that would set would be horrible, because it would say that only religious people can recover damages from government abuse.”

          No it wouldn’t. First, atheists are protected by the First Amendment and can make claims under RFRA if they are discriminated against based on their atheism. Second, RFRA is an example of a law that has a potential hook (even if not a particularly strong one) for a damage claim. It’s not the only one.

          1. Do you always appeal to pettifoggery to hide your partisanship?

            1. I like to think the best of people, so I assume most people have more intellectual curiosity, and capability, than you’ve demonstrated.

          2. It’s not partisan b.s. It’s well documented fact. You can look up the Bivens line of cases yourself, and you will see that it is just as I described it. Recognizing reality is not partisan.

            Yes, conservatives are frequently are illiberal. My point is: progressives are frequently illiberal too, something you conveniently ignore.

            Furthermore, you misrepresent the Bivens case. It didn’t give anyone “recourse against FBI agents”. It didn’t remove immunity for these people Instead, it simply forced tax payers to cough up more money for things they have no control over. The Bivens decision is the typical authoritarian, statist decision that progressives come up with.

            And the dissenters on the decision didn’t condone the FBI conduct, they simply argued that it was up to Congress to make laws that provided remedies for misconduct by the executive branch, a correct decision and the right decision from a libertarian point of view.

            No it wouldn’t. First, atheists are protected by the First Amendment and can make claims under RFRA if they are discriminated against based on their atheism.

            But these people weren’t discriminated against for religious reasons, that’s just a lie progressives like to tell and progressive judges like to use to justify judgments, and it only applies to a limited class of defendants. The lies progressives tell about discrimination against atheists are of a different nature.

            Second, RFRA is an example of a law that has a potential hook (even if not a particularly strong one) for a damage claim. It’s not the only one.

            But progressive judges are not deciding these cases based on law or fact, they are deciding them based on political preferences and ideology.

            Bivens advanced authoritarianism and government overreach rather than curbing it. Hopefully, it will get tossed out.

            1. “Yes, conservatives are frequently are illiberal. My point is: progressives are frequently illiberal too, something you conveniently ignore.”

              Where do I say anything at all about progressives, much less ignore that they are frequently illiberal?

              “Furthermore, you misrepresent the Bivens case.”

              No I don’t.

              “It didn’t give anyone “recourse against FBI agents”.”

              As I noted, it gave Mr. Bivens, and others in similar circumstances, recourse against government agents, including the FBI. Mr. Bivens was suing six unknown agents, not the agency. If you are upset that the federal government defends and indemnifies its agents, take it up with Congress and the President, not the courts.

              Other cases expanded it to other circumstances, until the conservatives wing of the Supreme Court put a stop to further expansion.

              “Instead, it simply forced tax payers to cough up more money for things they have no control over. The Bivens decision is the typical authoritarian, statist decision that progressives come up with.”

              See, now this here is partisan b.s. Whether you agree with the decision or not, holding the government accountable for the behavior of its agents is far from statist.

              “And the dissenters on the decision didn’t condone the FBI conduct,”

              Something I never suggested they did.

              “they simply argued that it was up to Congress to make laws that provided remedies for misconduct by the executive branch, a correct decision”

              It’s certainly a defensible position, particularly for statists. Of course, the executive branch gets to play a role in making laws too, unless Congress can muster up a veto-proof majority in both houses, which is kind of inconvenient. And do we want to take bets on which side of the aisle in Congress is less likely to support allowing victims of federal agents to sue for damages?

              “and the right decision from a libertarian point of view.”

              That’s certainly an interesting position to take. I’ve really never seen anyone else argue that libertarianism requires allowing the federal government to violate your rights with impunity.

              “But these people weren’t discriminated against for religious reasons,”

              Seems like we’ll find that out.

              “that’s just a lie progressives like to tell and progressive judges like to use to justify judgments, and it only applies to a limited class of defendants. The lies progressives tell about discrimination against atheists are of a different nature.”

              Yup, I’m the one spewing partisan b.s. You are rationally evaluating things from a totally nonpartisan perspective. Clearly.

              “But progressive judges are not deciding these cases based on law or fact, they are deciding them based on political preferences and ideology.”

              So totally non-partisan.

              “Bivens advanced authoritarianism and government overreach rather than curbing it.”

              Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

              “Hopefully, it will get tossed out.”

              Good luck with that.

              1. Where do I say anything at all about progressives, much less ignore that they are frequently illiberal?

                Because you attributed the problem specifically to “the conservative wing”; if you admitted that it was a problem with both the conservative and the progressive wing, that distinction wouldn’t make any sense.

                See, now this here is partisan b.s. Whether you agree with the decision or not, holding the government accountable for the behavior of its agents is far from statist.

                “The government” is an abstraction and can’t be “held accountable”. Ultimately, the people “accountable” are either tax payers, politicians, or government employees. And in this case, it is innocent, uninvolved tax payers who are “held accountable” because they need to foot the bill.

                That’s certainly an interesting position to take. I’ve really never seen anyone else argue that libertarianism requires allowing the federal government to violate your rights with impunity.

                You are hiding again behind the abstraction of “the government”, (and on top of that, you are arguing from the position of limited individual rights instead of limited governmental powers).

                What you are arguing is that government employees can vastly exceed the powers given to them by the Constitution, cause harm to citizens, and that then on top of that, innocent, uninvolved tax payers should be forced to pay restitution for such misconduct. And you call that absurd notion “libertarian”.

                “But these people weren’t discriminated against for religious reasons,”

                Seems like we’ll find that out.

                These people were discriminated against because they are non-citizens; that’s also why they have no right or expectation to stay in the US, and why the executive branch can treat them like shit. That’s the deal immigrants make when they come to this or any other country. Take it from an immigrant: you either accept it or you GTFO. And that’s the way it should be.

                So totally non-partisan.

                I don’t see how observing that progressivism is an evil, racist, authoritarian, manipulative ideology makes me a partisan. What do you think that makes me a partisan for?

                1. “Because you attributed the problem specifically to “the conservative wing”; if you admitted that it was a problem with both the conservative and the progressive wing, that distinction wouldn’t make any sense.”

                  If I claimed it was a problem with both the conservative and progressive wings, I’d be wrong. Recognizing which side caused a particular problem isn’t partisan. The liberal side of the Court created and expanded the Bivens theory of recovery. The conservative side stopped its further expansion.

                  ““The government” is an abstraction and can’t be “held accountable”. Ultimately, the people “accountable” are either tax payers, politicians, or government employees. And in this case, it is innocent, uninvolved tax payers who are “held accountable” because they need to foot the bill.”

                  Bullshit. The government can be held accountable, just like other organizations can and frequently are. Making organizations pay for the damages caused by their employees is one of the way organizations are held accountable.

                  But even if I accept your premise, there’s still nothing statist about making the government pay damages when it violates someone’s rights just because some of that money comes from taxpayers.

                  “You are hiding again behind the abstraction of “the government”,”

                  I’m not hiding behind anything, except maybe reality (someplace you might want to visit once in a while).

                  “(and on top of that, you are arguing from the position of limited individual rights instead of limited governmental powers).”

                  No I’m not. You really aren’t very good at this.

                  “What you are arguing is that government employees can vastly exceed the powers given to them by the Constitution, cause harm to citizens, and that then on top of that, innocent, uninvolved tax payers should be forced to pay restitution for such misconduct. And you call that absurd notion “libertarian”.”

                  I noticed you never denied that your “libertarian” theory is that the government can violate your rights with impunity. It’s a bold theory, Cotton. Let’s see how that catches on.

                  And you are wrong about who is paying the restitution.

                  “These people were discriminated against because they are non-citizens; that’s also why they have no right or expectation to stay in the US, and why the executive branch can treat them like shit. That’s the deal immigrants make when they come to this or any other country. Take it from an immigrant: you either accept it or you GTFO. And that’s the way it should be.”

                  That’s not the way it is. And that’s certainly not the way it should be.

                  “I don’t see how observing that progressivism is an evil, racist, authoritarian, manipulative ideology makes me a partisan.”

                  I’m sure you don’t. But you don’t see a lot of things.

                  And that’s not what you said. What you said is “But progressive judges are not deciding these cases based on law or fact, they are deciding them based on political preferences and ideology.” Now take a look at your first paragraph and substitute “progressive judges” for “conservative wing”. Pretending that progressive judges decide all of their cases on political preferences and ideology, or that only progressive judges do that, is as partisan as can be.

  11. Land of the free, my ass.

    1. Those damned Jooooooossssss are behind it all, right?

  12. What does any of this have to do with religion or religious freedom? The FBI agents abused their power; their actions were wrong regardless of whether they were targeted as Muslims, Christians, atheists, or people of unknown religions.

    What kind of precedent does it set when Muslims can sue the government over this kind of misconduct under “religious freedom” while atheists can’t?

    Reply
    EXACTLY. The problem is they are suing under RFRA, and the proper response would be to say the plaintiffs have misconceived their remedy and should be suing on pre-RFRA grounds, which they are granted leave to do. In this way the plaintiffs can get justice, but RFRA is not expanded. This sets the stage for a complete overturn of RFRA when a proper case arises.

    1. “and the proper response would be to say the plaintiffs have misconceived their remedy and should be suing on pre-RFRA grounds”

      If you could identify what those grounds would be, I’m sure their lawyers would love to hear them.

      1. “If you could identify what those grounds would be, I’m sure their lawyers would love to hear them.”

        It’s wonderful when a member of the legal profession makes such an ass of himself in public!

        1. You remind me of Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland. Can’t contribute anything of value, so you just lash out and pretend that makes you clever. Such a sad little boys.

  13. I’m convinced that I’m order to be a federal agent you have to just be plainly evil.

    1. Not at all. My niece and her husband are FBI. She coordinate security sweeps and is trained to defuse explosives at public events for Homeland Security. Her husband is a helicopter pilot instructor. They do pretty straightforward jobs. In her case, she really does help keep people safer.

      There are a lot of people like that that are not part of the problem. And interestingly enough, she told me if they ever tried to make her go work for the DEA or ATF, that she would quit without hesitation.

      1. There are a lot of people like that that are not part of the problem.

        Yes, they are. They enable the other people to abuse their power. Tax payers have to pay their salaries at non-market rates, insure them for their abuses without consequences, and cover their extensive government benefit promises. They are covered by the same legal exemptions as other government employees

        You want to “keep people safer” at events? Hire private security firms with proper liability coverage, market-based hiring and firing, and civil and criminal liability.

        Your niece and her husband may be nice people, but they are part of the problem.

  14. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…Start here>??

    …………… Read more

  15. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…….Read MoRe

  16. Hi…
    I’m Elena gillbert.If you are denied boarding on a flight, you can submit a standard form to the Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP). DHS TRIP transmits complaints and any supporting information you provide to the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), which determines whether any action should be taken.
    you can also read more….click here https://it-experts-belgie.constantcontactsites.com/blog/post/36361/hoe-google-home-mini-op-te-lossen-die-geen-verbinding-maakt-met-wifi-fouten

  17. It should have been obvious that the main beneficiaries of that free religion act were going to be muslims. And in this case not even citizens. CAIR is starting to make JDL look like rank amateurs. The Christians, who don’t have a famous named group at all, are so far back they’re about to get lapped. They fought for these “rights” but will benefit not at all.

  18. I make a big amount online work . How ??? Just u can done also with this site and u can do it Easily 2 step one is open link next is Click on Tech so u can done Easily now u can do it also here..>>> Click it here  

  19. This should have nothing at all to do with religion. This is the danger of all government lists, especially those associated with “red flag” laws. This guy should get his plane fare money back plus a little extra for his trouble, lawyers fees, etc. The people responsible for his plight should lose their jobs. Immediately. And that should be the end of it.

  20. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt here. They are required to defend their client in the best way they can. If the argument is weak and nonsensical, that’s because they are mandated to defend the indefensible

    What irks me is that the government does have another option, just giving in and settling. However, it seems that they don’t do that in cases where it’s obvious what the wrongdoing is.

  21. Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job But Was Able To Stay On Top By Banking Continuously $1500 Per Week With An Online Work She Found Over The Internet… Check The Details…..>>> Click it here  

  22. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours… Click it here  

  23. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours….. Click it here  

Please to post comments