More on the Murphy allegations of speech-based
placementonno-fly list, and on reactions to questio
laycockd at umich.edu
Wed Apr 11 10:05:18 PDT 2007
I am quite prepared to think ill of the Bush Administration, but I
think there is just not much here in the Murphy incident. It all
depends on the casual remark of the airline agent, who is not likely
to know anything, and if the agent's statement were accurate, we
should have heard of more examples before this one. The defenders of
the Administration are winning this argument on the merits. And if
there were anything objectionable going on, incompetence is far more
likely than malice.
Quoting "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>:
> I realize that sometimes, "you had to be there," in the
> that the case rests on the witness's account of facts that he
> But as I understand it, the contested question is whether
> 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
> first leg of the flight, not the second) -- even if that ever
> 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
> employee, and to hear the employee's assertion that speaking at
> 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
> not sure why we should think the employee was speaking accurately.
> I'm not sure why being there would tell us much (except that it
> rule out the possibility that the employee was simply joking,
> was joking in a very deadpan way). What am I missing here?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
>> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Mark
>> 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.
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
>> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> 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.
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof