In 2005, Rahinah Ibrahim, a Malaysian architect, was placed on the United States Government’s No-Fly list, operated by the Terrorist Screening Center.
It wasn’t because she was a member of Al Qaeda. It happened because of an FBI screw-up.
The mess started in January 2005, when Ibrahim and her 14-year-old daughter arrived at the San Francisco Airport. Their destination: Hawaii, to attend a conference trip sponsored by Stanford.
Ibrahim, still recovering from a recent hysterectomy, was in a wheelchair.
When she approached the United Airlines counter to check in, she was seized, handcuffed, thrown in the back of a police car and taken to a holding cell.
There she was interrogated. During this, paramedics had to be summoned because she hadn’t taken her surgery medication.
Then, to her surprise, she was released–and told that her name had been removed from the No-Fly list. She boarded a flight to Hawaii and attended the conference.
But in March 2005, the situation suddenly changed.
Having returned to Malasia, she bought a ticket to fly back to California to meet with her Stanford thesis adviser. But at the airport, she was banned from the flight.
She was told that her student visa had been revoked, and that she would longer be let into the United States. When she asked why, authorities refused to give a reason.
She would not learn the answer for another eight years.
An FBI agent in San Jose, California, had conducted a background check on Ibrahim. He hadn’t meant to place her on theNo-Fly list.
FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
He had simply checked the wrong boxes on a form. He didn’t even realize the mistake until nearly a decade later, during his deposition in 2013.
In fact, he filled out the form exactly the opposite way from the instructions provided on the form. He did so even though the form stated, “It is recommended that the subject NOT be entered into the following selected terrorist screening databases.”
Thus, Ibrahim was placed on the No-Fly list.
That was bad enough–but at least understandable. FBI agents are human, and can and do err like anyone else.
What is not understandable or tolerable is this:
After Ibrahim filed a lawsuit against the United States Government in 2006, the Justice Department ordered a coverup–to prevent word from leaking that one of its agents had made a mistake.
Moreover, Ibrahim was ordered by the Justice Department to not divulge to anyone that she was suing the United States Government–or the reason for the lawsuit.
Ibrahim is currently the dean of architecture at University Putra Malaysia.
Because the Justice Department refused to admit its mistake, attorneys working pro bono for Ibrahim incurred a reported $3.8 million in legal fees, as well as $300,000 in litigation costs.
In his recent decision on the case, U.S. District Judge William Alsup, based in San Francisco, called the agent’s error “conceded, proven, undeniable and serious.”
“Once derogatory information is posted to the Terrorist Screening Database, it can propagate extensively through the government’s interlocking complex of databases, like a bad credit report that will never go away,” he wrote.
If only the Justice Department had readily admitted the mistake and quickly moved to correct it. But the egos of Federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors effectively ruled out this option.
Robert Gates, who served as Secretary of Defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama (2006-2011) had a completely different approach to dealing with mistakes.
In his 2014 autobiography, Duty, he writes of his determination to promote good relations between the Pentagon and the reporters who covered it.
In his commencement address at the Anapolis Naval Academy on May 25, 2007, he said:
“…the press, in my view [is] a critically important guarantor of our freedom.
“When it identifies a problem, the response of senior leaders should be to find out if the allegations are true. And if so, say so, and then act to remedy the problem.
“If [the allegations are] untrue, then be able to document that fact.”
Millions of Americans not only distrust the Federal Government–they believe it is aggressively conspiring against them.
But the vast majority of Federal employees do not come to work intent on destroying the lives of their fellow Americans.
They spend most of their time carrying out routine, often mind-numbing tasks–such as filling out what seem like an endless series of forms.
But even where no malice is involved, their actions can have devastating consequences for innocent men and women.
Especially in cases where “national security” can be invoked to hide error, stupidity, or even criminality.
The refusal of the Justice Department to quickly admit the honest mistake of one of its agents prevented Ibrahim from boarding a commercial flight for seven years.
Federal agencies should follow the advice given by Robert Gates: Admit your mistakes and act quickly to correct them.
Unless this happens, the poisonous atmosphere of distrust between the Government and its citizens will only worsen.



ABC NEWS, BUGGING, CBS NEWS, CELLPHONE CAMERAS, CNN, CRIME, DRIVER'S LICENSES, ENCRYPTION SYSTEMS, FACEBOOK, FBI, JAMES B. COMEY, NBC NEWS, POLICE BRUTALITY, REAL ID ACT, SURVEILLANCE, TERRORISM, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UPI, USA TODAY, WIRETAPPING
PUBLIC ENEMY #1: CITIZENS WITH CAMERAS
In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on October 29, 2015 at 12:04 amWant to report a crime to the FBI? First you’ll have to prove you deserve to even see an FBI agent.
Step 1: Visit a Federal building where the FBI has a field office. To enter, you must show a driver’s license or State ID card.
If your name is on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” list, you won’t show it at all (let alone visit any FBI office).
And if you aren’t a notorious criminal or terrorist, handing over a driver’s license or State ID card with the name “John Smith” isn’t going to tell the security guard anything relevant about you.
It’s simply an invasion of your privacy in the name of security theater.
Step 2: You must remove
All of these must be placed in one or more large plastic containers, which are run through an x-ray scanner.
Step 3: Assuming you avoid setting off any alarm system, you’re allowed to enter.
Step 4: Take an elevator to the floor where the Bureau has its office and walk into a large room filled with several comfortable chairs that sit close to the floor.
Step 5: Approach a window such as you find in a bank–made of thick, presumably bulletproof glass.
A secretary on the opposite side greets you, and asks why you’ve come.
Step 6: State your reason for wanting to speak with an agent. If the secretary thinks it’s legitimate, she requires you to show her your driver’s license or State ID card.
Step 7: Slide this through a slot in the glass window. Then she makes a xerox of this and hands the card back.
Step 8: Then you must fill out a single-page card, which requires you to provide your:
Of course, you can refuse to fill out the card. But then the secretary will refuse to let you meet with an agent.
So the FBI has no qualms about requiring others to give up their privacy. But its director, James B. Comey, believes the public actions of police should be hidden from citizens’ scrutiny.
Addressing a forum at the University of Chicago Law School on October 23, Comey offered a series of possible reasons for the recent surge in crime rates in America.
Click here: FBI — Law Enforcement and the Communities We Serve: Bending the Lines Toward Safety and Justice
“Maybe it’s the return of violent offenders after serving jail terms. Maybe it’s cheap heroin or synthetic drugs. Maybe after we busted up the large gangs, smaller groups are now fighting for turf.
“Maybe it’s a change in the justice system’s approach to bail or charging or sentencing. Maybe something has changed with respect to the availability of guns….”
Then Comey offered what he thought was the real villain behind the rise in crime: Cellphones aimed at police.
FBI Director James B. Comey
“In today’s YouTube world, are officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime? Are officers answering 911 calls but avoiding the informal contact that keeps bad guys from standing around, especially with guns?
“I spoke to officers privately in one big city precinct who described being surrounded by young people with mobile phone cameras held high, taunting them the moment they get out of their cars. They told me, ‘We feel like we’re under siege and we don’t feel much like getting out of our cars.’
“I’ve been told about a senior police leader who urged his force to remember that their political leadership has no tolerance for a viral video.
“So the suggestion, the question that has been asked of me, is whether these kinds of things are changing police behavior all over the country.
“And the answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know whether this explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior.”
The FBI has
But according to the FBI, citizens who aim cameras at cops in public places present a clear and present danger. This holds true even if they don’t interfere with the ability of police to make arrests.
They make heavily armed police feel so threatened that many officers are refusing to carry out their sworn duties.
Share this: