End the Lie

Judge will not let plaintiff or her lawyer see evidence in ‘no-fly list’ trial

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

By End the Lie

San Francisco International Airport (Image credit: wallyg/Flickr)

San Francisco International Airport (Image credit: wallyg/Flickr)

In a case surrounding the placement of a Stanford University Ph.D. student on the “no-fly list,” the judge is now preventing both the plaintiff and her lawyers from seeing the evidence against her.

Read our latest articles: “California legislators introduce bill that would block support for NSA” and “Report: NSA and tech companies both frustrated by public misunderstanding

The no fly list, which doubled in size in a single year, made news in the past for including some individuals who are clearly not threats, like an 18-month-old child.

In this case, a Malaysian student named Rahinah Ibrahim was prevented from boarding a 2005 flight at San Francisco International Airport and was handcuffed and detained by police.

Eventually, Ibrahim was allowed to fly back to her home country of Malaysia. Yet she was prevented from returning to the U.S. after the State Department revoked her student visa, according an article published by The New York Times that provides the background of the case.

Ibrahim was reportedly denied a visa to come to her own trial and the Department of Homeland Security reportedly blocked Ibrahim’s daughter from entering the U.S. as well.

Ibrahim’s daughter, Raihan Mustafa Kamal, is a licensed attorney in Malaysia, was born in the U.S. and is a U.S. citizen. She was slated to observe and testify at the trial in San Francisco before she was blocked from boarding a flight in Kuala Lumpur.

In his latest report, Edward Hasbrouck of the Identity Project (part of the First Amendment Project), revealed that Judge William Alsup has prevented Ibrahim and her lawyers from seeing the classified evidence being used against her.

This move seems especially surprising since, as Mike Masnick of Tech Dirt notes, “Alsup himself has repeatedly questioned why certain information in the case was secret in the first place.”

Masnick reports that this ultimately appears to boil down to a process issue. That is, Ibrahim and her lawyers could have sought clearance to view the classified evidence, but they didn’t go through the process.

Since they did not begin the process, the judge said that it is now a bit late to suddenly demand the evidence.

“Plaintiff’s counsel could have sought clearance to view classified information well in advance of trial,” Alsup wrote. “Plaintiff’s counsel did not. Instead, plaintiff’s counsel waited until after trial to request an order for access to classified information.”

“This order will not permit plaintiff’s counsel to circumvent the usual classified clearance process at this late date when such unreasonable conditions are requested,” Alsup wrote.

Before the trial, Ibrahim was reportedly told that she could see the evidence if she was present in the courtroom. Of course, she couldn’t be in the courtroom since the State Department denied her the visa required to fly into the U.S.

“The action will proceed without the benefit of classified information provided to plaintiff’s counsel,” Alsup ruled.

That means that while Ibrahim and her lawyers won’t be able to see the classified evidence, it leaves open the possibility that Alsup will consider them in his final decision, according to Hasbrouck.

However, Hasbrouck notes that Alsup could also “again refuse to do so,” leaving the consideration of the documents entirely out of the case.

UPDATE: The judge ruled Tuesday, Jan. 14 that Ibrahim’s placement on the no-fly list was a bureaucratic mistake and had her removed from the list.

We would love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email us at [email protected]

Please support alternative news and help us start paying contributors by donating, doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

2 Responses to Judge will not let plaintiff or her lawyer see evidence in ‘no-fly list’ trial

  1. Booo January 10, 2014 at 9:32 AM

    The fact that she can not face her accuser, UNCONSTUTITIONAL!

  2. Ronnie January 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM

    It would appear one can be ‘convicted’ without being allowed to question one’s accusers or see the evidence. We used to complain about the Russians and the Chinese doing these things to their citizens. We can now place the U.S. of A. in the same group.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>