More on the Murphy allegations of speech-based placementonno-fly list, and on reactions to questio

[Volokh, Eugene]

	I realize that sometimes, "you had to be there," in the sense
that the case rests on the witness's account of facts that he observed.

	But as I understand it, the contested question is whether Prof.
Murphy was added to some occasionally-screen list somewhere in some
FBI/TSA/etc. back office.  Neither Prof. Murphy nor we were there.
Another question is whether Prof. Murphy's name popped up on a TSA
computer with some special "we've had him under suspicion" flag (on the
first leg of the flight, not the second) -- even if that ever happens, I
take it Prof. Murphy wasn't there to look at that computer screen.

	Prof. Murphy was there to talk to the airport (or was it TSA?)
employee, and to hear the employee's assertion that speaking at antiwar
events would get one placed on the occasionally-screen list.  But I
don't doubt Prof. Murphy's testimony about what he heard; I am simply
not sure why we should think the employee was speaking accurately.  So
I'm not sure why being there would tell us much (except that it might
rule out the possibility that the employee was simply joking, unless he
was joking in a very deadpan way).  What am I missing here?

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:59 AM
> To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: More on the Murphy allegations of speech-based 
> placementonno-fly list, and on reactions to questio
> 
> A few small points on this and other points.
> 
> 1.  To some extent, this is an instance of "you had to be 
> there."  So a good deal of the concern is that, at least in 
> my opinion, this is a person with very good judgment who is 
> not likely to fly off the handle. 
> I think the story plays out somewhat differently with a 
> different person.
> 
> 2.  My sense is that there is something fishy going on that 
> is not entirely innocent, but that the fishiness is 
> consistent with a number of concerns between pure randomness 
> and being on the no-fly list.
> 
> MAG
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To 
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; 
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
> messages to others.
>