
Their chances of success are slim. The judiciary has been entirely subservient to the executive when it comes to war-on-terror policies. A case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union — which is also handling this no-fly case — challenging the legality of drone attacks was dismissed because the government claimed that it could not even confirm the existence of drone attacks because of national security. Even though the government frequently leaks information to the media about these security measures when it wants to paint them in a positive light, it has adopted a stance of complete secrecy whenever challenged in the courts. The plaintiffs in this case deserve their day in court and deserve to enjoy the right to fly if proven innocent.
It has now become increasingly clear that the security measures instituted at airports need to be reformed. People as prominent as Cat Stevens and Shahrukh Khan have had to endure the indignity of deportation and security delays, to say nothing of the countless of innocent Muslims. Civil rights activists in the US have claimed that the excessive security searches violate the constitutional rights of American citizens. We do not even know how effective these measures are. Terrorists are more likely to innovate and find new ways of carrying out their attacks rather than repeating the tactics they employed on 9/11.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 13th, 2012.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ