Papers, Please!

The Identity Project

Category Archives: Secret Law

Aug 02 2010

TSA says all their Standard Operating Procedures are secret

The TSA is still stonewalling our FOIA requests for their Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), which we presume are among those that have been (illegally) sidetracked and delayed for review by DHS and other administration political commissars.

But after the Associated Press pried loose internal DHS e-mail messages confirming the delays in processing “politically sensitive” FOIA requests and the DHS Inpector General started asking questions, the TSA has responded to a request from Phil Mocek (some months older than ours) for the TSA Screening Management SOP.

Not, of course, that the TSA has actually disclosed any more information about its standard operating procedures. The TSA’s response to Mr. Mocek’s request consists of a blanket claim that the entirety of the Screening Management SOP is exempt from disclosure because it would “benefit those attempting to violate the law” (by exercising their rights?) and “be detrimental to the security of transportation” if disclosed.  Despite having released excerpts from an earlier version of the same document in response to one of our previous FOIA requests, and despite an unredacted copy of the entire document having been posted on a public Federal government website, the TSA now claims that no portion of the current version can be released.

Mr. Mocek’s request had been pending for more than a year before he received even this categorical denisal. In response to his periodic requests for information concerning the status of his request, he was told by the same TSA FOIA office staff who are handling our requests that  “processing” of his request was completed in January 2010, but that the response (i.e. informing Mr. Mocek that his request had been denied in its entirety) was delayed until July for “management review”. According to one e-mail message from the TSA to Mr. Mocek in February, “Your FOIA has been processed and is currently being reviewed by TSA management before a response can be sent to you.” This seems to indicate that Mr. Moceks’s request — and, we presume, our still-pending request for the same document — was subjected to the process of political review and illegal delay described in the documents released to the AP.

[We eventually received a response identical to that sent to Mr. Mocek, denying our request in its entirety.  We have appealed that denial.  To confirm whether our requests were among those improperly delayed or subjected to political scrutiny, we’ve filed new FOIA requests for the documents released to the AP and for all records of the processing of our previous FOIA requests and appeals.]

Jul 30 2010

DHS plays politics with FOIA requests

The Associated Press reports that the Department of Homeland Security has been delaying responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests — possibly including ours — while they are “reviewed’ by top political advisors:

[T]he Homeland Security Department detoured hundreds of requests for federal records to senior political advisers for highly unusual scrutiny, probing for information about the requesters and delaying disclosures deemed too politically sensitive….

The special reviews at times delayed the release of information to Congress, watchdog groups and the news media for weeks beyond the usual wait….

Political staffers reviewed information requests submitted by reporters and other citizens as a way to anticipate troublesome scrutiny. Days after the nearly catastrophic Christmas Day bombing attempt aboard a Detroit-bound airliner, they asked whether news media or other organizations had filed records requests about the attack.

[To confirm whether our requests were among those improperly delayed or subjected to political scrutiny, we’ve filed new FOIA requests for the documents released to the AP and for all records of the processing of our previous FOIA requests and appeals.]

Jul 06 2010

Lawsuit seeks suspension of TSA virtual strip-searches

Last year the Identity Project was one of more than 30 organizations that filed a joint petition with the DHS requesting a formal rulemaking on use of virtual strip-search machines or “body scanners”, then being referred to by DHS and TSA as “whole body imaging” machines and since re-euphemized as “advanced imaging technology”, as though the name itself could make them inherently more “advanced”.

In May of this year, after the DHS ignored our petition and moved forward with deployment of virtual strip-search machines without a formal rulemaking, we joined most of the same groups in filing a renewed petition for a formal rulemaking (including an opportunity for public comment) and for rescinsion of the rules requring submission to a virtual strip-search as a condition of passage through TSA checkpoints and travel by air common carrier.  We also filed a series of FOIA requests and appeals, which the TSA has to date ignored, for the TSA Standard Operating Procedures, screening-related directives to airlines, and other documents embodying the secret rules that include the virtual strip-search requirements.  We’ve also speculated about what legal recourse travelers denied passage on the basis of refusal to submit to a virtual strip-search might have, particularly in jurisdictions abroad where it would be easier than it is in the USA to raise issues of international human rights law.

This past Friday, July 2nd, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia review the TSA and DHS failure to conduct a formal rulemaking before deploying virtual strip-search machines and issue an emergency stay of the TSA/DHS decision to deploy and require them as a condition of passage through checkpoints and air travel.

The Identity Project was a party to the original petitions for rulemaking, and while we aren’t a party to the EPIC lawsuit, we fully support it.

As EPIC notes in its latest filings, even after September 11th Federal courts have upheld “administrative (warrantless, suspicionless) searches in airports only to the extent that they are limited to what is “necessary” — meaning that they are actually effective and are the least restrictive available means — to detect weapons and explosives. Even beyond the specific issue of virtual strip-searches, this lawsuit is likely to be significant in helping define the bounds of TSA authority to conduct ever more intrusive searches as a condition of common-carrier travel.

The petition filed in May by EPIC, the Identity project, and others stated that, “The undersigned file this petition pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), which requires that ‘[e]ach agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.'”  Notwithstanding this explicit statement, the DHS and TSA responded with the bizarre claim that, for unspecified reasons, it did not constitute such a petition.  Unfortunately, that’s characteristic of the behavior of the DHS and TSA, which have repeatedly refused to acknowledge or docket our formal complaints and then falsely claimed, including to the US public and to foreign governments  that they have received no such complaints.

Jun 30 2010

New lawsuit challenges no-fly orders

In a lawsuit filed today by the ACLU in Federal court in Oregon, Latif, et al. v. Holder, et al., ten U.S. citizens who have been refused permission to board flights to, from, or within the US, or have boarded flights to the U.S. only to have them turn back en route, are suing the Attorney General, the Director of the FBI, and the Director of the Terrorist Screening Center for denying their rights by ordering airlines not to transport them.

At least one of the plaintiffs even flew to Mexico, to avoid overflying the US, with the hope of returning to the US by land.  Instead, he was arrested by Mexican police (presumably at the behest of the U.S. government, and deported not to the country of his citizenship, the USA, but to Colombia, where he has only a temporary visa and can’t remain.  That should have prompted diplomatic protest by the US to Mexico for the improper deportation of a US citizen to a third country.  But presumably Mexico acted at the behest of the US, and there has been no sign of US objection.

So far as we know, this is only the second lawsuit to directly challenge the legality of no-fly orders, and the first on behalf of US citizens.  The previous case was brought by Rahinah Ibrahim, a Malaysian graduate student at Stanford University, after she was detained by San Francisco Airport police and prevented from flying home to her country in 2005. While her complaint remains pending against the individual police in U.S. District court for the Northern District of California, the cases against all of the Federal agencies and officials have been dismissed.

The latest case will test whether the Obama Administration still agrees with former Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff that no-fly decisions should not be subject to judicial review.  [Update: From the latest statement by the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, it appears that they may.] And it will be closely watched in Europe as well, where the Obama Administration has assured the European Union that adequate means of redress do exist in U.S. courts for individuals — including some of the plaintiffs in the latest case — denied permission to travel from the EU to the U.S. on the basis of passenger data transmitted to the DHS.

Jun 22 2010

TSA reaches out to the Identity Project

After years of having our complaints ignored, we were pleased to be invited by the TSA to participate in the ongoing “Multi-Cultural Coalition” organized by the Office of Traveler Specialized Screening and Outreach of the TSA Office of Civil Rights and Liberties, under the direction of the TSA Office of the Special Counselor.

In response to an invitation to submit questions and concerns for the agenda of today’s TSA outreach briefing with this coalition — our first such — we submitted the following questions.  We only got notice of the conference call and submitted our questions at the last minute, and didn’t expect these issues to be addressed on such short notice, but we were pleased to be able to put them on the table for TSA consideration, should the agency chose to respond:

  1. Now that the TSA is carrying out all fly/no-fly decision-making for domestic flights through Secure Flight, what is the procedure for obtaining judicial review of no-fly decisions? Or is it the TSA’s belief that no-fly decisions are not subject to judicial review? (We are particularly concerned, of course, about the situation and the means for judicial review of these decisions against US citizens trapped overseas and unable to return to the USA, or unable to leave the USA, because the DHS will not permit them to fly. The upcoming transition to Secure Flight for international flights means, we presume, that these decisions will shortly be transferred to the TSA. We would like to work this out with the TSA before this transition, so that after the transition travelers denied passage have clear information as to the procedures for judicial review.)
  2. Does the TSA have any plans to promulgate regulations defining what orders travelers are required to comply with from TSA employees or contractors, and/or what questions travelers are required to answer, as a condition of being given TSA permission to proceed through checkpoints or board flights? (The Identity Project has received no response, after more than 6 months, to our FOIA requests for the TSA’s standard operating procedures, and of course those procedures are not binding regulations.)
  3. In particular, does the TSA assert the authority to deny passage to travelers who remain silent in response to TSA or TSA-contractor interrogatories? What language would the TSA prefer travelers use (or would you prefer that they simply remain mute?) in order to most clearly and concisely invoke their right to remain silent in response to interrogatories by TSA employees or contractors?
  4. There have recently been problems with TSA employees and contractors calling local law enforcement officers and making complaints against travelers for exercising their rights to photograph and record their own interactions with TSA employees and contractors, and/or for exercising their right to remain silent in response to TSA or contractor interrogatories. Has the TSA conducted any training or issued any guidance to screeners regarding travelers’ rights to remain silent and/or to record and photograph their interactions with TSA employees and contractors (just as the TSA, airport operators, and/or law enforcement agencies and officers record and/or photograph those interactions)? If so, will the TSA make that guidance public, so that travelers who wish to exercise these rights would be able to carry copies of this TSA guidance to show to TSA employees, contractors, and/or local law enforcement officers?
  5. Has the TSA and/or DHS designated a point of contact and procedures for complaints of violations of human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with Executive Order 13107 on implementation of human rights treaties? If not, when does the TSA and/or DHS expect to do so? Will pending complaints need to be re-submitted once this designation is made? (The complaints of the Identity Project that TSA regulations and procedures violate the ICCPR have been pending without response since 2007 in the case of Secure Fight, and since 2009 in the case of the TSA’s practices of secondary screening on the basis of nationality, in addition to our similar unanswered complaints against other DHS components on closely-related issues.)
  6. The TSA changed its office locations without promulgating new Privacy Act SORN’s or FOIA notices, so that none of the addresses of record in the most recent Federal Register notices or the CFR are valid. As a consequence, none of the TSA’s current SORN’s or FOIA notices are valid, and the knowing operation of each TSA system of records, without a valid SORN with a valid current address having been published in the Federal Register, is a criminal violation of the Privacy Act. What action, if any, is the TSA taking to promulgate valid SORN’s and a valid FOIA notice, to discipline those responsible for the current violations of FOIA and the Privacy Act, and/or to alert those who have sent FOIA or Privacy Act requests into the black hole of the current addresses of record that their requests have not been received, and will need to be re-submitted? What is the proper point of contact for complaints of these violations?
  7. In general, what is the proper point of contact in the TSA and/or DHS for complaints of criminal violations of the Privacy Act, e.g. knowing operation of systems of records by TSA without having promulgated a valid SORN? (The Identity Project has never received any response to any of our complaints, filed in TSA and other DHS component regulatory dockets, of criminal violations of the Privacy Act by TSA or other DHS components.)
  8. 42 USC 2000aa prohibits search or seizure of media, journalism, or other public communications work product materials in the absence of specified conditions (probable cause, etc.). We have received several reports of, and have ourselves experienced, search and seizure of such materials by TSA and its contractors. Has the TSA given any training or produced any guidance to TSA employees and contractors regarding 42 USC 2000aa? If so, will that guidance be made public, so that it can be carried and shown at checkpoints by journalists and others carrying work product materials protected from search and seizure? What procedure would the TSA recommend to people carrying such materials, as a way to alert TSA employees and contractors that certain material is exempt from search or seizure under this statute, and to invoke its protections?

In the course of today’s conference call, the TSA asked for suggestions to improve the signs at TSA checkpoints where virtual strip-search machines (Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT), previously “Whole-Body Imaging” (WBI) in the latest TSA-speak) are being used.  We suggested that the signs should include whole-body images at the same size, scale, and resolution as the displays used by the operators of the machines, when the display is zoomed in on a portion of the body to its maximum magnification.  “That’s new information to me” that the current signs don’t do that, said TSA Special Counselor Kimberly Walton. “We’ll have to look into that. I will take that under advisement.”

Jun 18 2010

More reports of US violations of citizens’ right of return

“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.” (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12)

This week the Council on American-Islamic Relations held a news conference in Washington (statements, testimony, and links to adiditonal info) featuring first-hand accounts of US citizens who have been trapped overseas, unable to exercise their right to return to the USA, because the US refuses to give airlines “permission” to transport them to the USA.

We’ve reported previously on some of the same and similar incidents.  The denial of transport, in the absence of judicial orders such as a no-fly injunction, violates airlines’ contractual and regulatory obligations as common carriers, and the extra-judicial government denial of transport and entry to the country fails to satisfy the substantive and procedural standards under the ICCPR for measures that implicate freedom of movement under Article 12, and violate US international obligations as a party to that treaty.

The US signed and ratified the ICCPR with the reservation that in the USA it would not be “self-efeectuating”, and it is not clear to what degree it has been effectuated by other US legislation. Since no-fly orders are given to airlines by the government, and the orders themselves are kept secret from the (would-be) traveler, it’s difficult for travelers to establish standing to challenge them against the government in US courts. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff’s publicly declared goal was never to allow judicial review of no-fly orders, and the Obama Administration has announced no change in that policy.

But US citizens who are trapped abroad, unable to return to the USA because airlines won’t transport them (presumably because the US government has told them not to, or hasn’t given them affirmative clearance to do so), aren’t limited to recourse through US courts.  By depriving them of their right of return, while they are outside the USA, the US has given them the opportunity to shop the world for the jurisdiction form which to try to return, and to sue the airline (and, perhaps, the US government) for extra-judicial refusal of, and interference with, common-carrier transportation, and violation of Article 12 of the ICCPR. Those lawsuits won’t be heard in the USA, but in jurisdictions that ratified the ICCPR without reservations, and where the USA may not be able to invoke its “state secrets” doctrines to give impunity to airlines that chose to obey, rather than to challenge, illegal orders form the US government.

Jun 08 2010

“Freedom Flyer” trial in Albuquerque postponed

The trial of “Freedom Flyer” Phil Mocek, previously scheduled to begin June 14th in Albuquerque, NM,has been postponed due to the recusal of the judge to which the case was assigned, who apparently had a potential conflict of interest with one of the potential witnesses.

Mr. Mocek was arrested at a TSA checkpoint at the airport in Albuquerque, NM. The charges against him remain pending, but no new trial date has yet been set.  We are continuing to follow the case, and will post an update in this blog and in our FAQ as soon as we have more information.

Jun 07 2010

Another Paris-Mexico flight barred from US airspace

Despite being a party to international aviation and human rights treaties guaranteeing free passage through international airspace, the US government claims the right to require prior government permission (granted or withheld in secret, without due process, judicial review, or publicly disclosed standards) not just for travel to or from the USA but for transit through US airspace — even on nonstop flights that aren’t scheduled to land in US territory.

Most such overflights of the US between other countries are to and from Canada, where US control and surveillance of overflights have provoked continuing controversy and opposition.

Of the handful of other airline flight paths between other countries that cross over  US territory, the Paris-Mexico route continues to generate most of the — increasingly bizarre — incidents of US refusal of permission to overfly the US.

Read More →

May 23 2010

“Freedom Flyer” Phil Mocek to go on trial June 14th in Albuquerque

[UPDATE: The trial which was scheduled to begin June 14, 2010 has been postponed. Check our FAQ about the case or the court calendar for further updates as soon as they are available.]

We’ve written previously about the arrest of Phil Mocek at a TSA checkpoint at the airport in Albuquerque last November. Mr. Mocek had a valid ticket on Southwest Airlines (“You are now free to move about the country”), and was attempting to get to his flight. Like the “Freedom Riders” of the 1960s on interstate buses, Mr. Mocek sought to exercise his Federally and Constitutionally-guaranteed right to travel, but was arrested by local police for alleged violations of state and local laws and ordinances.

So far as we can tell, this is the first time someone in the USA has been arrested or charged with a crime for attempting to exercise their right to travel by air without showing ID or answering questions about themselves or their trip, or for photography or audio or video recording at a TSA checkpoint.

Mr. Mocek is now scheduled to go on trial starting June 14th on charges of violating four state and local ordinances carrying a total maximum sentence of 15 months in jail.  (The charges could still be dropped, and the trial could be rescheduled.  We’ll post an update in this blog and in our FAQ about the case if we learn of any change in the schedule.)

Read More →