>> hi, i'm lisa fletcher and you're in "the stream." are some of the secrets of the no fly list about to be revealed? for the first time, a judge ordered one person taken off the list. does that open the door to more transparency? you're digital producer, raja is here. and while it's very easy for people to be critical of the no-fly list, we saw that all day long, but when i tweeted out,

should america get rid of the no-fly list, nobody responded in the affirmative. >> our community seems to be very critical of the community that's in place, but there's a balance between liberate and security here. some have taken extreme measures. one said i had to quit flying: >> all right, well follow long with me for a minute. you are about to fly somewhere on a trip, and you get to the airport and rush through the crowd and wait on those horrendously long lines to be told that you can't get on your flight, not now or ever. they haven't confirmed that you are on the no fly list, but they

said you can't be on a plane in the united states or in the airspace. 20,000 people are on the no fly list, and some no doubt should be there, but there's increasing frustration that of those on the list shouldn't be. no idea how they got on the list or more importantly, how to get off of it. that may change. the criteria used, that decision, in favor of she's not the only one who should never have been put on the list. others including late senator ted kennedy, cat stevens. does it violate your right to

due process? and should it be changed? here, from the council on islamic-american relations, and the former head of the fbi's terrorist monitoring center. currently, he's the vice president of a government consulting company. and elizabeth, the lead attorney for ibrahim, who just won the no-fly case. and the case went on for eight years, and cost $11 million. and thank you hammed it entirely pro bono. why get involved in such a costly uphill battle case? >> because it was the right thing to do. when we found out what happened to dr. ibrahim, we saw it was an injustice done, and we thought it was our obligation as attorneys and defenders of the constitution to take this case

on. >> i to the get to mr. ibrahim's case later on. but marti, talk to us about when the no fly list was created and why? >> it was created in 2003 by a presidential directive as a result of what happened at 9/11. prior to that, government agencies had watch lists. they had no interoperability and they couldn't see what was on another agency's watch list and it did not work. and local police agencies had no access whatsoever to any of those watch lists. >> how does a person get on the no fly list? you represent a lot of folks trying to get off of it. >> so the criteria that we know

about, known or appropriately suspected terrorists, and that's what the fbi screening centers say. but what we found in practice is that the no fly list targets predominantly the american muslim community and somali community. and it seems to be predicated on foreign travel to places like somalia and yemen and other middle eastern and south asian countries, and it also targets activists, a journalist working with the snowden revelations. she's not on the no fly list, but she's on the terrorist screening database. >> marty, any racial profiling? >> no. >> none at all? >> does it happen? yes, police agencies at every level, from the local up to the flavor. is it sanctioned?

no. let me make one correction on that. it doesn't relatively target american muslims. there are roughly 20,000 people on there, less than 5% are americans, or ren resident alien the united states. >> we have some community on that. but right now, a former flight attendant, rita:

>> who is actually on this list? >> nobody knows. the government has claimed secrecy over all of the information on that, who is on this list or why they're on this list. it is a secret black list, and it is almost impossible to find out why you're on there, or how you can be taken off. >> well, at least one person outside of government circles has actually seen the no-fly list. jim is a journalist, and look at what he has to say. >> the list i had was from 2005, 2006, and it was obtained through an industry source, which showed that you the security around the no-fly list is basically a joke. the list that we got in 2005, 2006, had heads of state on it, and it was absurd. and seemingly, but the reality

is its something to cost the public and make us feel better, but it's a meaningless list. >> marty, is this a meaningless list? >> not at all. it works, it's a large list. >> how do you know that it works? >> i've been personally involved in it through my career with the fbi, directly involved for a portion of time at the terrorist screening center. but the comment about the heads of state, yes, there have been heads of states on the list, and senior government officials on the list, but these are states that sponsor and support terrorism. and that's why they're on there. >> speaking of that, our community tweeted in on that: speaking of letting terrorists

go, we know that the nigerian underwear bomber wasn't on the list, and shahzad, the time square bomber wasn't on the list, and those two would be terrorists, and how would they not get on this list? >> it's not a product of being robust about it, but it's the fact that the washington process itself is a fool's errand. if someone is suspected of a crime, law enforcement should investigate that person. and if the law enforcement finds evidence, actual evidence, they should be charged with a crime. but our safety is not served and our rights not imperilled if the fbi doesn't have the right to punish people for flying. >> what recourse does someone have if they're on the list? >> in dr. ibrahim's case, it

took eight years and a huge court battle with the department of justice to get recourse. the government tells you that you can file a form and somehow get off the list, but bottom line, they give you no information about any actions that you take if you file this claim form, called the trip form. so it's a very opaque process, and dr. ibrahim is the first person who has successfully challenged this list in court. which tells you how effective the redress is given that the lists have been around since 9-11. >> what redress do people have if they feel they should not be on the list, and a student who was placed on the list.

>> welcome back. we're talking about the government's secret no-fly list. and the nearly impossible task of being removed from it. malaysian professor, ibrahim, won her eight year battle to be removed from the list, and now she's free to fly. she's the first person to win such a case. >> i'm very pleased with the ruling because now everyone in the world knows that my name should not be on the list in the first place. nine years is a very long time. i am more happy. >> so marti, i read that certain people like students and researchers, academics, they may have travel patterns that flag more often and they may end up being on the list more often that be others. how do people with miss identification end up on the list? >> well, the list is huge, and no doubt, there are individuals that should not be on there who are. and there are also individuals

with names similar to someone on the watch list, and they get scrutinized when they travel. but look at the process for putting people on the list. it's not a an process. when it gets to the terrorist screening center, it has to have a name and date of birth. and then there has to be information on there justifying the person on the list. you frequently hear people say that it's dangerous not to fly, but you can't arrest them. and you don't want to get the two confused. in order to be arrested, somebody has the burden of evidence for probable cause and if that's not necessary for the watch list, it's reasonable suspicion, so it's not enough to arrest somebody, and it's not

enough to search their residence, but it's a reasonable suspicion that they may be involved with a terrorist organization. >> joining us now is kevin, and you were trying to come home from costa rica and discovered that you were on the no fly list. tell us what happened and how you got back to the u.s.. >> thank you for letting me come on the show and tell my story to you and the world and show how our government treats citizens unjustly without committing crimes. i was born in san diego at the navy base because my mother was in the navy. my mother is american, and my father is iranian, and i lived my life as a normal californian, serving on the beach and playing high school sports. after graduating, i headed to costa rica to the university for peace, and this is a vibrant

community of people from all over the globe who want to be ambassadors of peace in their country and abroad. so after completing my master's program, my brother and father came down and we took a trip and sid after going back to the airport, after going through the hassles of the line, and we tried to print out our boarding ticket about is we couldn't. me and my father were both stuck, and they basically fold us that there's nothing that they could do, and for 30 minutes they were on the phone and we were basically stuck there, and they told us that we would have to go to the u.s. embassy. my two brothers were okay, they were able to fly back, and me and my dad had to go to the u.s. embassy. we gave our brothers our luggage and thought that they made a mistake and we would be on the next flight. >> you discovered that you were

put on the list. how long were you in costa rica and how did you get back to o'the list? >> i was in costa rica for 10 months studying over there. >> how long did it take you once you got on the no fly list to get home. >> two days, i was stuck there and basically homeless. >> you ended up walking across the border to get back. >> my dad was able to fly into san diego, and then i had to go to mexico and to tijuana and walk across the border there. >> americans say:

and since you got called out from our community, i want to ask you about the question between the balance between little bit and security. >> we have limited time, and there are no national security threats, should some liberties be compromised for the greater good? >> we're too willing to trade the liberty of others for what we perceive to be our safety interests. and the situation here, the no-fly list has gross and despicable consequences of people who are never charged with cripes, and kevin's story is an example of it. but another man tried to fly to oklahoma to visit his terminally ill mother. and he was prevented from doing so, though he was a veteran, and they said if it he wanted them

to search him extra, he was more than happy to, and they visited his terminally ill mother to check her prescription drugs, and then he flew home. and after he threatened to sue and thousands of signatures were sent to the local agency and the fbi that was in charge, when he tried to fly back, they wouldn't let him again, and we sent the fbi a letter and saying, this is when he's going to fly, search him. instead, he had to take a bus to mexico and south america before getting back to his family. what those stories illuminate, it's not about the safety of airplanes, but a means which the fbi extracts leverage and puts people, such as kevin and others that are abroad in positions that allow them to extract information from folks, by having them forgo rights to attorneys. >> i take exception with that.

the terrorist council looks carefully at these issues on there. it's a delicate balance between protect being the american public from a terrorist attack, and at the same time, protect being the liberties and privacy of the individuals that are on there. but you know, your comment that people go on, and they have no way of getting off, there is a redress system, and it takes time, but there's a redress system. the government is not going to acknowledge that you were on the list. but they will also say that earlier, you had commented that you had problems with the tsa. we don't want to confuse and compare issues with the process at the airport with the watch

list, those are two entirely different things. there's a watch list, and that's not fair to it. >> what was it about ms. ibrahim's case that made it successful when others haven't been is it. >> i think part of it was persistent. but finding a law firm which was willing it take on the case, which was enormously expensive and a huge effort. and it was fought very strenuously by the united states government though our client was innocent. and they have admitted that she's not a threat to our national security. but she could still be on the lists and still have the stigma of being accused of having some relationship to terrorism. so that was a big part of it, and i think its port to note that the government did fight

this case for eight years, though they concede that she's not a threat to national security. >> do you know why she was on the list? >> that,. we do not know why she was on government watch lists. there is more information about the process by which she was on the terrorist watch lists. and i think that's also another one. the government is still trying to cover up and keep this secret from the public who is funding all of this. to explain what they're doing to the list and justifying to the public how this is protecting everyone, and the government did not do that. they put no evidence that these lists have saved one american life or prevented any terrorist

attacks. >> speaking of the government, we did reach out to the fbi and the department of homeland security and the tsa and though they declined being on the program, we got something from the tsa: >> we just got this tweet in from alfred: and we're getting a lot of opinions. >> when we come back, what changes may be afoot in the wake of miss ibrahim's groundbreaking case, and the no-fly list, what does a better version of it look like? we're getting your tweets in after the break.

>> i went to the airport and i went to get my ticket at the booth. and it told me to go to a ticket agent. and the thing i know, there are patrol officers walking in, and i didn't know what was going on, i just knew something was wrong, and then i asked the ticket agent, am i on the no-fly list? and she tells me yes. >> do you know how you were put on the black list? >> i continue travel for fun. my friends can go, and i can't. >> welcome back. we're discussing why the government makes it nearly impossible for innocent people wrongly put on the no-fly list to be removed from it. a repeat groundbreaking case that ordered the first person ever removed from the list may open doors. elizabeth, you have to keep the

details of the case secret. but what do you think that the likelihood is that the government will -- >> the question was that the likelihood that the judgment will set a precedent? >> i think it's very likely. this case has already set two precedents in the 9th circuit court of appeals, and assuming there's another appeal, i think it will be a third groundbreaking decision. and this hopefully will pave the way for other people to contest their placement on these lists and force the government to take a really hard work at what it's doing, depriving it's citizens of fundamental rights. >> how is that with the process that you take your clients through? >> it's the courts pushing back against the government that the no-fly list is crucial to our safety. so by actually ordering the removal of someone off of the no-fly list, that's an example that our judge in hav virginia,r

judges in oregon, can look to on these no-fly lists and see that, and there's a role that the judiciary can play in these awful practices. >> do things change once it goes to court? >> right now, our position in court is there's no process by which a person can get themselves off of the no-fly list. and that has been rebustly shown, and on what we're arguing for systematically, there needs to be a process, if the government is going to place someone on the no-fly list, there needs to be a process by which they can be removed. the process for people that fly abroad and returning back home, this is the first time in american history where the u.s. government is preventing american citizens from returning

home. and if there's any circumstance that justifies an american system from returning back to the u.s. >> marti, it doesn't sound like the list is going anywhere, and it's obviously controversial. but is there a better version of it? >> the list is going to stay, and i have to say that the list is very effective. almost daily you see the effect of it. and the process certainly needs to be improved upon. the redress process. it is lengthy and i agree with the government's stance that they don't acknowledge you're on the list, you're just taken off. there's no confirmation on that, but it needs to be approved. i will say this. about 1% of the people who my for redress and taken off are actually on it, the other 99% think they're on the list because there are delays at the airport. >> 5 second. >> but they're not. >> thanks it all of our guests.

and until next time, you'll find raj and i online. >> good evening, i'm john seigenthaler in new york. know and shutting down federal offices and even the government. going nowhere, the storm's ripple effect nationwide. travel nightmares, several states of emergency. in switzerland, hoping they can reach a deal. plus. >> they sent