> Last month, US District Judge William Alsup ruled that Ibrahim must be removed from the government's various watchlists. At Tuesday's hearing, a Department of Justice lawyer said that the government did not intend to appeal the ruling.
So we have an unchallenged order to remove the name. However, the article presents no evidence that Ibrahim's name has actually been removed from any lists.
So we have an unchallenged order to remove the name. However, the article presents no evidence that Ibrahim's name has actually been removed from any lists.
Are you proposing that the US government is planning - as a matter of policy - to ignore that ruling? That's a pretty serious allegation, and one that isn't supported by the evidence in this case.
Planning? No. But have they implemented a system to guarantee compliance with such an order? Doubtful. It's almost assured, through the inefficiency of bureaucracy, with the help from the fallibility of humans, that this name will not be completely expunged for quite some time.
> Are you proposing that the US government is planning - as a matter of policy - to ignore that ruling?
No, I was simply saying that the headline is not supported by the article. Regardless of government policy & plans, a court order and compliance with that order are different things. Let's not conflate them.
However, I think the reply by delinka to your comment makes a good point.
According to the article,
> Last month, US District Judge William Alsup ruled that Ibrahim must be removed from the government's various watchlists. At Tuesday's hearing, a Department of Justice lawyer said that the government did not intend to appeal the ruling.
So we have an unchallenged order to remove the name. However, the article presents no evidence that Ibrahim's name has actually been removed from any lists.