quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Take gun ownership out of the equation for Christ's sake!!!!

The issue may have been using the No Fly List as a deterrent to gun ownership.

After thinking about the list, and reading about the fuck ups involving the list, the existence of the list is the issue.

The existence of any list that puts a citizen under increased surveillance OR curtails their rights as citizens with no previous criminal conviction is the real issue!

Read your fucking history people, Stalin kept such lists, then in the states, McCarthy created such lists.

You people should be pissed as hell that the government is creating any kind of list that places limits on any individual's rights for whatever reason with no proof of illegal activity!

This violates quite a few of the protections the constitution is there to ensure are not violated in the first place.

First, you can be added to this list for the public condemnation of tactics used against terrorists! We have the right to criticize our government and its actions.

Second, if you are on this list, with or without proof of illegal activities, your phones, email, etc can be monitored, under a blanket court order.

We have the right to travel, unless restricted by law as in the case of those who are under supervision for parole or probation. The concept behind the "no fly" list is to prevent some one from hijacking an airplane and crashing it into something, and in the case of American citizens, it prevents them from even getting on a commuter plane for a hop from Dallas to Oklahoma city.

Someone with a name similar to the someone on the list could be prevented from flying for medical treatment.

Is that acceptable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Jeff I find it hard to understand the reasoning. There are two choices here... one... end the program because some people may not be able to get guns because they are falsely on the list... two ...fix the damn list to where at least US citizens, which are not the majority, have a quick recourse to get their name off the list if they feel they are there by mistake.

One... I don't believe either party has the will or support to get rid of the list in this political climate.

So that leaves two... Now if mistakes are kept to a minimum with a quick decisive way to correct what few there will always be and those remaining have a documented record of terrorist support or activity....would you be willing to deny them weapons?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Jeff I find it hard to understand the reasoning. There are two choices here... one... end the program because some people may not be able to get guns because they are falsely on the list... two ...fix the damn list to where at least US citizens, which are not the majority, have a quick recourse to get their name off the list if they feel they are there by mistake.

One... I don't believe either party has the will or support to get rid of the list in this political climate.

So that leaves two... Now if mistakes are kept to a minimum with a quick decisive way to correct what few there will always be and those remaining have a documented record of terrorist support or activity....would you be willing to deny them weapons?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I do understand your point... I think you missed mine... I believe, how about you, that no matter how much some think the list is wrong the program will continue because most Americans want it to. Otherwise it is here to stay...at least for the near future.

The above being said... if true...just my opinion...would you support denying weapons if the list is carefully vetted to only include those with documented support of terrorists or participating in terrorists activities? AND... a expedient way to appeal if falsely accused and placed on the list.

Otherwise since it will be here like it or not would you allow documented terrorist to buy and possess weapons here in the US?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I do understand your point... I think you missed mine... I believe, how about you, that no matter how much some think the list is wrong the program will continue because most Americans want it to. Otherwise it is here to stay...at least for the near future.

The above being said... if true...just my opinion...would you support denying weapons if the list is carefully vetted to only include those with documented support of terrorists or participating in terrorists activities? AND... a expedient way to appeal if falsely accused and placed on the list.

Otherwise since it will be here like it or not would you allow documented terrorist to buy and possess weapons here in the US?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Sure you would....lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/02/201324165957645514.html
...
In numerous cases individuals have claimed to be banned from travelling after refusing to become informants against their own community. Ibrahim "Abe" Mashal, was told by FBI agents that his name would be removed from the No-Fly list if he would agree to go undercover and spy on other Muslims, while Mohammed Tanvir was coerced with threats and blackmail to become an informant spying on the South Asian community in New York. After refusing, Tanvir was placed on the No-Fly list, an act which his lawyer said was direct retaliation for his refusal to inform.
...
As articulated by ACLU attorney Nusrat Choudhury, "It doesn't make anyone safer for innocent people not to be allowed to fly." Effectively granting government the ability to opaquely subject citizens to de facto banishment while abroad protects no one, but rather represents a troubling and potentially consequential deterioration of constitutionally protected rights in the post-9/11 era.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/rights-are-bundled-not-a-la-carte/5328
...
Second, bear in mind that the “no-fly list” is not the result of due process. It’s a mostly unreviewable, often arbitrary, sometimes-incompetently-amassed list of people suspected of a wide variety of conduct, or people with the same names as others suspected of bad conduct. It’s based on questionable science like ”predictive assessments,” is highly susceptible to bad-faith classification of peaceful protestors as dangerous, and it’s near-impossible to get off of it. In short, if it’s used to deny any protected right, it’s a nightmare.
...
Your right to private property can be limited by eminent domain, Ms. Badger continues – perhaps thinking of a different bitterly divided Court allowing the state to confiscate private homes for the good of crony private developers, only to see them abandoned to slow decay when said cronies decamp. In arguing that limits on Second Amendment rights are reasonable, Ms. Badger has neatly illustrated how limiting rights you don’t like may later be used to limit rights you do like.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2015/12/07/42000/
...
Fundamentally the list is pre-crime profiling. Not even based on science. And it’s also done very very poorly. People get on the list by mistake, because they’re related to someone who is on it, or because they visited the wrong country in the wrong year.

It’s a secret list that people haven’t been entitled to know they are on, how they got on, or to confront the evidence relied upon to put them on it. Legally there is very little recourse, and when challenged the government claims ‘state secrets.’

What we actually need are robust due process protections for the No Fly List. People wind up on the list arbitrarily, by mistake, and without significant evidence.
...
You can get on the list just by being related to someone (guilt by association) suspected of terrorist involvement. Or just traveling to the wrong country at the wrong time. An army veteran and civilian military contractor was placed on the list for having visited Yemen in 2009. Or because someone at the FBI checked the wrong box on a form by mistake, or failed to check a box by mistake. (Update: Or in retaliation for refusing to become an FBI informant.) We don’t even know much more about what goes into these determinations because the government has claimed their secret sauce is a ‘state secret’.
...
Remember that the San Bernadino shooters weren’t on the No Fly List (here’s a photo of them entering the US last year, hat tip Greg R.).
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
...
There’s another important aspect to the government’s case at this stage. The government has emphasized that it is making predictive judgments that people like our clients — who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime — might nevertheless pose a threat. That’s a perilous thing for it to do. As we’ve told the court based on evidence from experts, these kinds of predictions guarantee a high risk of error. If the government is going to predict that Americans pose a threat and blacklist them, that’s even more reason for the fundamental safeguards we seek.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Bama... it is not... there is nothing in the Constitution that says you have an unalienable right to fly on airplanes... This has already been adjudicated and found in the governments favor. What is now in the courts...from what i could find...was procedure. Does the government have to give you information on why you are on the list...and must they provide a way to settle a dispute in a timely manner... This is what is before the courts.

If you are a danger to society you can be prohibited from transportation... for instance... if you have had a DUI you may be prohibited from driving a vehicle. ..or flying a plane. If you are even a suspect in a crime or an important witness you can be prohibited from any transportation leaving your area even though you have not been convicted.

Lets talk guns for just a minute... you are prohibited from entering a daycare center with your gun even though you have not been convicted of a crime... why... because of the danger involved... There are many examples.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Go back and read the op's first paragraph... Part of this damn thread is about allowing no fly list members access to firearms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Yes...when my children and grandchildren often use air travel
.. And I don't want suspected asshole terrorist to have access to guns in this country.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Will if it is an example it is part of the thread... And the issue on the nation scale.

quote:

So "guilty until proven innocent" does not mean anything?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

So "guilty until proven innocent" does not mean anything?

It certainly does within reason... if you are under suspicion of a crime your travel freedom can and often is curtailed... same thing.

Butch