"325 ,000" ?

Thu Apr 12 16:43:42 PDT 2007

I am always prepared to be corrected, and now promise do my best to remain silent.  My spouse and my impatient publisher both prefer that.  With thanks to Professor Volokh,
Matthew Holden, Jr.
Henry L. and Grace M. Doherty Professor Emeritus of Politics, University of Virginia

DIRECT MAILING ADDRESS
P. O. Box 12588
LeFleur Station
Jackson, MS 39236-2588

Phone: 601-952-0596

-----Original Message-----
From: VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: RE: "325 ,000" ?

    I should just mention that these are very interesting questions, and that are much worth discussing.  Also, I expressly said that Prof. Holden's original message *did* raise a constitutional law question as well as a descriptive question that is quite relevant to constitutional law.  (See http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/2007-April/029678.html for my post on the subject.)

    Eugene

From: matthewhpolsci at aol.com [mailto:matthewhpolsci at aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:46 PM
To: crossf at mail.utexas.edu; Volokh, Eugene; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Cc: hochschild at gov.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: "325 ,000" ?

My intent had been to say no more about this topic,  I do apologize, especially as the moderator has already said that my message did not raise "constitutional" questions.  But all the recalculations, legitimate in the interest of factual accuracy, seem to suggest that the author of the Yale LJ cannot be more than 90% wrong on the number.  If he is 90% wrong on the number, that means that the legitimate number is 32,500.

Given my view of government, already stated, I take comfort that the list has gone from 16 to 32, 500 in six years. 

Is anyone prepared to say that I have misread the Yale LJ author to say (a) if you are on the list you have a very, very hard time finding out why and that (b) you are likely to have a very hard time getting off?

I only got interested in this because I do believe (no matter what lawyers say) that the reality of constitutional restraint is in how much or how little of what administrators do or abstain from doing.   I take it the lawyers say this is simply wrong.

Matthew Holden, Jr.
Henry L. and Grace M. Doherty Professor Emeritus of Politics, University of Virginia

DIRECT MAILING ADDRESS
P. O. Box 12588
LeFleur Station
Jackson, MS 39236-2588

Phone: 601-952-0596

-----Original Message-----
From: crossf at mail.utexas.edu
To: VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 3:16 PM
Subject: RE: "325 ,000" ?

The October 8, 2006 Sixty Minutes television report by Steve Kroft stated that it had obtained the list and stated

The first surprise was the sheer size of it. In paper form it is more than 540 pages long. Before 9/11, the government’s list of suspected terrorists banned from air travel totaled just 16 names; today there are 44,000. And that doesn’t include people the government thinks should be pulled aside for additional security screening. There are another 75,000 people on that list. 

At 03:05 PM 4/12/2007, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C77D3D.DCB2B722"

    It seems that Judge Boggs' and my posts show that the YLJ student Note's 325,000 number is unfounded -- the two sources it cites for that number do not support the assertion that there are 325,000 names on the No-Fly list.  That surely doesn't prove the number is wrong, only that the sources given in the article do not support it.

    As I mentioned in a more recent post, there is a recent Washington Post article that gives a 30,000 estimate.  Whether that's right or wrong, I can't say, but at least it has some source behind it, as opposed to the unfounded 325,000 estimate.

    I also don't know how many of the 30,000 (if 30,000 it is) are U.S. citizens or even U.S. residents, though I'd love to hear it if others have better data.

    Eugene

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [ mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of matthewhpolsci at aol.com

Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:18 PM

To: Danny_J_Boggs at ca6.uscourts.gov

Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu; hochschild at gov.harvard.edu

Subject: Re: "325 ,000" ?

I just responded to Mark Tushnet saying all I know is in the Yale LJ article and asking if the right number is 32, 325, 3250, 32,500 or 325,000?  You will note that my post, relying to that extent on the article, uses the qualifier "arguably."

I am glad to see someone pursue the relevant fact question, though I decided to leave the whole thing alone as most people seemed interested in another question altogether.

If you have a means of showing that the Yale LJ number is wrong and that there is a means of producing a more accurate number, I will be grateful.

Matthew Holden, Jr.

Henry L. and Grace M. Doherty Professor Emeritus of Politics, University of Virginia

DIRECT MAILING ADDRESS

P. O. Box 12588

LeFleur Station

Jackson, MS 39236-2588

Phone: 601-952-0596

-----Original Message-----

From: Danny_J_Boggs at ca6.uscourts.gov

To: matthewhpolsci at aol.com

Cc: hochschild at gov.harvard.edu; conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu

Sent: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 1:43 PM

Subject: "325 ,000" ?

I tried to follow the links from the YLJ article(115 YLJ at 2153 n.15) (WaPo headline is only quoted use of  "325,000") but the only web URL  led me to an ACLU site that stated the following 

Frequently Asked Questions About the "No Fly List" (10/26/2005)

How many names are on the No Fly List and Selectee List? 

The exact number constantly fluctuates and is also a secret. However, the TSA says that tens of thousands of names are on these lists.

Danny J. Boggs

_______________________________________________

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.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com .

_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
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.

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

_______________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20070412/825da5ff/attachment.html