How Obama Officials Cried ‘Terrorism’ to Cover Up a Paperwork Error

[Sousuke 1,214]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/

After seven years of litigation, two trips to a federal appeals court and $3.8 million worth of lawyer time, the public has finally learned why a wheelchair-bound Stanford University scholar was cuffed, detained and denied a flight from San Francisco to Hawaii: FBI human error.

FBI agent Kevin Kelley was investigating Muslims in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2004 when hechecked the wrong box on a terrorism form, erroneously placing Rahinah Ibrahim on the no-fly list.

What happened next was the real shame. Instead of admitting to the error, high-ranking President Barack Obama administration officials spent years covering it up. Attorney General Eric Holder, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and a litany of other government officials claimed repeatedly that disclosing the reason Ibrahim was detained, or even acknowledging that she’d been placed on a watch list, would cause serious damage to the U.S. national security. Again and again they asserted the so-called “state secrets privilege” to block the 48-year-old woman’s lawsuit, which sought only to clear her name.

Holder went so far as to tell the judge presiding over the case that this assertion of the state secrets privilege was fully in keeping with Obama’s much-ballyhooed 2009 executive branch reforms of the privilege, which stated the administration would invoke state secrets sparingly.

Ibrahim was a Stanford University doctoral student in architecture and design from Malaysia and was headed to Hawaii to give a paper on affordable housing. Wheelchair-bound after just having a hysterectomy, she was handcuffed, detained for hours at San Francisco International Airport and denied her pain medication until paramedics arrived in 2005. She was eventually released and allowed to fly to her home country of Malaysia.

She sued, seeking to learn if she was on the no-fly list and to clear her name. Her case ping-ponged across the legal landscape for years as the government tried everything it could to have the lawsuit tossed.

The woman was even barred a return flight for her own trial. So was one of her daughters, a U.S. born American citizen, who witnessed her mother’s humiliation at the San Francisco airport.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/02/no-fly-coverup/

After seven years of litigation, two trips to a federal appeals court and $3.8 million worth of lawyer time, the public has finally learned why a wheelchair-bound Stanford University scholar was cuffed, detained and denied a flight from San Francisco to Hawaii: FBI human error.

FBI agent Kevin Kelley was investigating Muslims in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2004 when hechecked the wrong box on a terrorism form, erroneously placing Rahinah Ibrahim on the no-fly list.

What happened next was the real shame. Instead of admitting to the error, high-ranking President Barack Obama administration officials spent years covering it up. Attorney General Eric Holder, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and a litany of other government officials claimed repeatedly that disclosing the reason Ibrahim was detained, or even acknowledging that she’d been placed on a watch list, would cause serious damage to the U.S. national security. Again and again they asserted the so-called “state secrets privilege” to block the 48-year-old woman’s lawsuit, which sought only to clear her name.

Holder went so far as to tell the judge presiding over the case that this assertion of the state secrets privilege was fully in keeping with Obama’s much-ballyhooed 2009 executive branch reforms of the privilege, which stated the administration would invoke state secrets sparingly.

Ibrahim was a Stanford University doctoral student in architecture and design from Malaysia and was headed to Hawaii to give a paper on affordable housing. Wheelchair-bound after just having a hysterectomy, she was handcuffed, detained for hours at San Francisco International Airport and denied her pain medication until paramedics arrived in 2005. She was eventually released and allowed to fly to her home country of Malaysia.

She sued, seeking to learn if she was on the no-fly list and to clear her name. Her case ping-ponged across the legal landscape for years as the government tried everything it could to have the lawsuit tossed.

The woman was even barred a return flight for her own trial. So was one of her daughters, a U.S. born American citizen, who witnessed her mother’s humiliation at the San Francisco airport.

They will do anything. Remember when they cried bad movie to cover up terrorism

[Pooky 3,840]

They will do anything. Remember when they cried bad movie to cover up terrorism

Not to mention the workplace violence categorisation, to cover up the 2009 Fort Hood shooting spree.

But maybe that has more to do with money and denying fair treatment to the victims' families.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Top Pentagon Leader Ordered Destruction of bin Laden Death Photos

udicial Watch announced Monday that it received documents through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showing that Admiral William McRaven ordered the immediate destruction of any photos of Osama bin Laden’s death within hours of a Judicial Watch FOIA request.

More cover ups

According to the Pentagon documents, McRaven sent his email on “Friday, May 13, 2011 5:09 PM.” The documents do not detail what documents, if any, were destroyed in response to the McRaven directive. The Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit seeking the documents was filed in the United States Court for the District of Columbia only hours earlier. Judicial Watch also announced the filing at a morning press conference. […]

The move by McRaven to purge the photos appears to have come, at least in part, in response to aggressive efforts by Judicial Watch to obtain images of the deceased bin Laden that President Obama, in a rewrite of federal open records law, had refused to disclose. In addition to its May 2, 2011, FOIA request with the Pentagon Judicial Watch filed an identical request on May 3, 2011, with the CIA. When neither the Defense Department nor the CIA complied with the FOIA requests, Judicial Watch, in June 2011, filed FOIA lawsuits against both agencies. In the course of the litigation, the Pentagon claimed that it had “no records responsive to plaintiff’s request.”

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff

February 10, 2014 2:48 pm

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Not to mention the workplace violence categorisation, to cover up the 2009 Fort Hood shooting spree.

But maybe that has more to do with money and denying fair treatment to the victims' families.

That was some BS.

I saw the base commander on the news, that day. He was saying something to the effect of we need not destroy diversity blah blah

####### you are a 2-star Div Commander who just had someone kill 13 and gun down 32.

And diversity was his most imp[important concern of the day ?

Someone just frig me. The absurdity. In a normal world he would have been relived on the spot for such as-sine BS.

I guess he was trying to make another star and touting the party line.

I remember Barry Mcaffery of the 24th ID. Political ####### kissing terd ball

J

[deleted-05292014 331]

If you read the article it says

The Justice Department nearly got away with the cover up, which commenced under the President George W. Bush administration.

Anyway not to sound like an a-hole, I really don't care. She is NOT an American citizen. Mistakes happen get over it. I don't think it's necessary to tell her why she is not on the no-fly list. I think this has more to do with more of a executive branch power struggle with the other branches of government than anything. The executive branch has grown in power exponentially since as long as I can remember easily since the Vietnam war and neither party wants to give up that kind of power once they get it.

Here is a hint Republicans.....IF you ever get back into the White House, every single executive order that Obama has issued can be erased. Funny thing is, that chit rarely happens. Obama didn't strike down many of Bush's orders, none that come to mind.

[Pooky 3,840]

If you read the article it says

The Justice Department nearly got away with the cover up, which commenced under the President George W. Bush administration.

Anyway not to sound like an a-hole, I really don't care. She is NOT an American citizen. Mistakes happen get over it. I don't think it's necessary to tell her why she is not on the no-fly list. I think this has more to do with more of a executive branch power struggle with the other branches of government than anything. The executive branch has grown in power exponentially since as long as I can remember easily since the Vietnam war and neither party wants to give up that kind of power once they get it.

Here is a hint Republicans.....IF you ever get back into the White House, every single executive order that Obama has issued can be erased. Funny thing is, that chit rarely happens. Obama didn't strike down many of Bush's orders, none that come to mind.

Which makes laying the blame at the foot of the Obama Administration all the more valid.

The previous administration made a mistake. Instead of correcting that mistake, the current Administration has doubled down on the initial error and continued the obfuscation, evasion and diversion, for no apparent reason other than to cover a departmental #######-up. In doing so, they must shoulder the blame for the continued injustice of the situation.

[deleted-05292014 331]

Which makes laying the blame at the foot of the Obama Administration all the more valid.

The previous administration made a mistake. Instead of correcting that mistake, the current Administration has doubled down on the initial error and continued the obfuscation, evasion and diversion, for no apparent reason other than to cover a departmental #######-up. In doing so, they must shoulder the blame for the continued injustice of the situation.

I think the truth is this.....

Many anti-Obama people, such as the author of the article, are more interested in finding things to attack him on than are concerned with some perceived injustice. Yes perceived. This lady wasn't thrown in jail or water boarded. She was deported and put on a no fly list. Technically they don't and should not have to give her a reason as to why she can't enter the country IMO. Like I said it's not an Obama or Bush thing it's an executive branch "thing". They don't want to have to answer to any other branch as to why they do things. It's no different than what any other administration would have done.

You want to talk about injustice how about rendition and picking up American citizens and charging them in secret courts with no rights to legal council or Miranda.

[Pooky 3,840]

I think the truth is this.....

Many anti-Obama people, such as the author of the article, are more interested in finding things to attack him on than are concerned with some perceived injustice. Yes perceived. This lady wasn't thrown in jail or water boarded. She was deported and put on a no fly list. Technically they don't and should not have to give her a reason as to why she can't enter the country IMO. Like I said it's not an Obama or Bush thing it's an executive branch "thing". They don't want to have to answer to any other branch as to why they do things. It's no different than what any other administration would have done.

You want to talk about injustice how about rendition and picking up American citizens and charging them in secret courts with no rights to legal council or Miranda.

Subverting due process and legal recourse is a " perceived" injustice?

To you, maybe. To the victim of that injustice, I rather think not.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Pooky

[deleted-05292014 331]

Subverting due process and legal recourse is a " perceived" injustice?

To you, maybe. To the victim of that injustice, I rather think not.

Well damn Pooky I totally misjudged you, forgive me. While you're at it, there is a poor soul somewhere in Afghanistan who is pissed his house got blown up by a drone. He is looking for someone to take up his cause too since you're all about this caring about injustices and what not

[Pooky 3,840]

Well damn Pooky I totally misjudged you, forgive me. While you're at it, there is a poor soul somewhere in Afghanistan who is pissed his house got blown up by a drone. He is looking for someone to take up his cause too since you're all about this caring about injustices and what not

I was commenting on the article posted, not diverting it off topic by introducing spurious equivalency.

If you wish to open another thread about the use of drones to enforce US foreign policy, by all means do so. I may even comment on it. But that has no relevance to the topic at hand.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Subverting due process and legal recourse is a " perceived" injustice?

To you, maybe. To the victim of that injustice, I rather think not.

Was she subject to the protections afforded by the US Constitution? - The answer, surprisingly is, no. The constitution only applies to individuals on US soil. CBP has the right to refuse entry to anyone seeking admittance to the US. Legally she never entered the US therefore the 5th does not come into play.

Was she a victim of injustice? - Not in the legal sense. Being admitted into the US is a privilege - not a right - for any foreign national; even for LPRs.

It is not complicated at all.

Having said that the administration owes her a formal apology. They made a mistake. However I can see how depicting it as a cover up is a far more expedient manner by which to garner the exacerbated feigned outrage of many here.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Was she subject to the protections afforded by the US Constitution? - The answer, surprisingly is, no. The constitution only applies to individuals on US soil. CBP has the right to refuse entry to anyone seeking admittance to the US. Legally she never entered the US therefore the 5th does not come into play.

Was she a victim of injustice? - Not in the legal sense. Being admitted into the US is a privilege - not a right - for any foreign national; even for LPRs.

It is not complicated at all.

Having said that the administration owes her a formal apology. They made a mistake. However I can see how depicting it as a cover up is a far more expedient manner by which to garner the exacerbated feigned outrage of many here.

Mind you they put her daughter, a US citizen, on the no fly list as well do to the error.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Mind you they put her daughter, a US citizen, on the no fly list as well do to the error.

Since the daughter is a US citizen she can petition for a redress of grievance and have her name removed - it seems she did just that, successfully.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Since the daughter is a US citizen she can petition for a redress of grievance and have her name removed - it seems she did just that, successfully.

Only after the whole thing was exposed showing how terrible Holder truly is.