View Full Version : The No-Fly/No-Buy list.......
I actually think that if we are going to remedy the No-Fly/No-Buy list that the 72 hour thing Trump is leaning towards is probably not a bad idea (with a few caveats, more on those later). Say someone is mistakenly put on "The List". They go to buy a gun and are denied. The Feds at that point have 72 hours to resolve the issue, and the onus is on THEM to show why that person is on the list. Now imagine it without the 72 hour thing.......we've all heard horror stories of someone on "The List" who tries in vain to get themselves cleared and is only frustrated by months, maybe even years of government intransigence. No doubt that person has also spent beaucoup $$$ on attorneys to assist in their endeavor. If the 72 hour limit is in place then a decision MUST be made in 3 days at no cost to the affronted individual. No mountains of unresponsive government bureaucracy to deal with over many months. Nope, 3 freaking days. Think about it: never before has there been a proposal to address the issue of wrongly being placed on "The List", let alone in a timely fashion.
Now, those caveats:
1) If a further denial is the end decision, the Feds MUST show why that person is on "The List". Yes, even if that means a legit terrorist now knows he's being watched. The rights of the individual wrongly accused override the desire for secrecy. Too bad so sad, deal with it FBI.
2) If an individual wrongly placed on "The List" has lost any money (like buying plane tickets and paying for a resort stay in Jamaica for instance) only to find out at the airport that they can't board the plane, then the Feds must reimburse every penny lost immediately.
3) If they can basically have a Federal judge "on call" for secret wiretap approval then they can damn sure have one (or several) "on call" for rectifying these erroneous "List" additions.
4) PC will NOT be allowed to remove you from the list, like Mateen was. If you deserve to be on there because you're a terrorist no religion/race/creed whining can have you removed. If you are removed for one of those reasons (like Mateen was) then the agents who made that decision and anyone involved in that process like supervisors will be charged with dereliction of duty CRIMINALLY. No, not just a demotion or loss of job, but PRISON.
Now, there is one more major concern, and I'm not sure how it could be worded. That is exactly who makes the decision as to who is on "The List" and what criteria are used. A terrorist would have to be very specifically defined to prevent any future administration from putting (for instance) any gun owner who didn't turn in their guns on there or maybe someone who has written "Fvck Cuntlery" on their Facebook page. In other words the definition of terrorist needs to be VERY specific.
How about if they are such a genuine threat, that we build a case and arrest or deport them. If they are so dangerous they can't be allowed on a plane I don't think they become less dangerous walking around Disneyland or anywhere else.
And guns are irrelevant. We have seen stabbing attacks and sooner or later somebody is going to figure out that with some chains, padlocks and a couple cans of gasoline you can get everyone in the building and might even escape yourself.
If they aren't allowed on a plane how can they work for DHS?
How about good old fashioned Due Process?
How about if they are such a genuine threat, that we build a case and arrest or deport them. If they are so dangerous they can't be allowed on a plane I don't think they become less dangerous walking around Disneyland or anywhere else.
And guns are irrelevant. We have seen stabbing attacks and sooner or later somebody is going to figure out that with some chains, padlocks and a couple cans of gasoline you can get everyone in the building and might even escape yourself.
I agree wholeheartedly, but shy of what you suggest "The List" still exists and has to be dealt with.
How about good old fashioned Due Process?
In this case it's Due Process after-the-fact I'll agree, but as I said just above "The List" is a reality so let's deal with it effectively.
I would also suggest that "The List" is what the Feds use when they don't have enough on someone to hang them but still want to keep tabs on their business.
In this case it's Due Process after-the-fact I'll agree, but as I said just above "The List" is a reality so let's deal with it effectively.
But is it Constitutional?
Either label the subject an Enemy Combatant or don't. You either have a case or you don't.
Outlander Systems
06-18-16, 13:00
That's what gives me the red ass.
Is there a ****ing case or not? The "Secret Lists" and Soviet-style bullshit we've been subjected to is insane.
The Bill of Rights doesn't have a ****ing asterisk at the bottom of it that says, "Unless Terrorism."
But is it Constitutional?
Either label the subject an Enemy Combatant or don't. You either have a case or you don't.
That's what gives me the red ass.
Is there a ****ing case or not? The "Secret Lists" and Soviet-style bullshit we've been subjected to is insane.
The Bill of Rights doesn't have a ****ing asterisk at the bottom of it that says, "Unless Terrorism."
What gets me is that 'terrorism' is nothing new. I've been watching Turn on TV here and there about Colonial espionage and people were a billion times more paranoid.
You were beholden to the crown or you hung by a tree.
There is NOTHING NEW here. The only difference is that we are a far less hardier people.
Well the first thing we need to do is split the "no fly list" into two categories.
Those who are assholes who have been ejected from the bar.
Those who are considered a true threat to the plane and passengers.
Business_Casual
06-18-16, 13:19
This idea is shockingly illegal and unlawful. This idea is prior restraint and essentially a bill of attainder. I'm disappointed that the bill of rights means so little that we would throw it out because we've artificially created a class of disaffected savages that want to change our way of life. Which they seem to be doing...
Outlander Systems
06-18-16, 13:42
Steyr, in your AO, the latter can be found congregating here:
http://www.gethelpflorida.org/get-help-here/food-and-shelter/meals/
Well the first thing we need to do is split the "no fly list" into two categories.
Those who are assholes who have been ejected from the bar.
Those who are considered a true threat to the plane and passengers.
OP...
I hope this is an academic exercise on your part, and not that you are actually falling for this. You do realize that "the list" has been used before? Look back throughout our history. You need only go back to WW2. Ask some Americans of Japanese heritage how they feel about "lists".
The current administration is fond of letting ACTUAL terrorists out of Gitmo due to lack of due process. You know, the whole shut it down spiel. Bring them to CONUS to give them due process thru the legal system, they argue. Yet, somehow, this horseshit passes the smell test for them?
Nope. This makes no sense on any level. We HAVE a system to deal with criminals. Making terroristic threats is already a crime. A REAL crime, btw.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The dems must be absolutely salivating over the prospect of expanding the coverage of the no fly list.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
OP...
I hope this is an academic exercise on your part, and not that you are actually falling for this. You do realize that "the list" has been used before? Look back throughout our history. You need only go back to WW2. Ask some Americans of Japanese heritage how they feel about "lists".
The current administration is fond of letting ACTUAL terrorists out of Gitmo due to lack of due process. You know, the whole shut it down spiel. Bring them to CONUS to give them due process thru the legal system, they argue. Yet, somehow, this horseshit passes the smell test for them?
Nope. This makes no sense on any level. We HAVE a system to deal with criminals. Making terroristic threats is already a crime. A REAL crime, btw.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pretty much. I don't agree with the premise of "The List". Kind of an Orwellian Santa's List......checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty and nice. I was just throwing this out there for discussion. However, while we all pretty much agree it shouldn't exist, it in fact does exist. So shy of doing away with the whole damn thing how do we deal with it in it's current form?
And for the record I don't feel ANY of those POS in Gitmo deserve Constitutional Due Process. They're not Americans and they're not in America, which was the purpose of putting them in Gitmo in the first place. Yet most Libs and Libertarian types think that our Constitutional protections extend all over the world. They don't, and for good reason. If you're not an American, and not on American soil, I frankly don't give a damn what happens to you.
MountainRaven
06-18-16, 14:24
How do we deal with it in its current form?
Well, it's secret, so we can't, outside of lobbying Congress to abolish it or hoping that one day the ACLU (with assistance from Wikileaks or Edward Snowden or a new Snowden-like leaker at the NSA/CIA/FBI/et al.) strikes it rich and manages to take a case all the way to SCotUS and SCotUS finds the list unConstituional (which they should, inshallah).
As for our Constitutional protections... they protect rights that already exist - that exist because we are human beings, not because we are Americans - rights that government neither created nor can destroy. By arguing that people do not deserve such protections because they are not Americans and they are not in America, you are saying that those rights are created by the government and cease to apply to someone because they were born in the wrong place or lived in the wrong place - and that which the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
As far as I'm concerned, the people at the prison at Gitmo should either have been charged with being a spy or saboteur and hanged when they were captured, or they should have been turned over to the natives or let loose. Now we're stuck with them. Try them and imprison them or release them, the prison's existence is an embarrassment to the, "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave."
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-18-16, 14:44
Pretty much. I don't agree with the premise of "The List". Kind of an Orwellian Santa's List....
More Kafkaesque to me.
They get the no-buy list and the UBC. That doesn't work because of prior purchases, so they go for registration (retroactive UBCs). Then they start putting TEA type people on the no-buy list. Start with truly reprehensible people to get buy in and then start titrating down.
I really wish people would ask if the British would have put the Founding Fathers on a no-buy list....
Pretty much. I don't agree with the premise of "The List". Kind of an Orwellian Santa's List......checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty and nice. I was just throwing this out there for discussion. However, while we all pretty much agree it shouldn't exist, it in fact does exist. So shy of doing away with the whole damn thing how do we deal with it in it's current form?
And for the record I don't feel ANY of those POS in Gitmo deserve Constitutional Due Process. They're not Americans and they're not in America, which was the purpose of putting them in Gitmo in the first place. Yet most Libs and Libertarian types think that our Constitutional protections extend all over the world. They don't, and for good reason. If you're not an American, and not on American soil, I frankly don't give a damn what happens to you.
Yeah, the only way to deal with a secret list is to not allow our rights to succumb to it any further. We all understand, With a few recent noted exceptions, that the shift only ever occurs in one direction.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How do we deal with it in its current form?
Well, it's secret, so we can't, outside of lobbying Congress to abolish it or hoping that one day the ACLU (with assistance from Wikileaks or Edward Snowden or a new Snowden-like leaker at the NSA/CIA/FBI/et al.) strikes it rich and manages to take a case all the way to SCotUS and SCotUS finds the list unConstituional (which they should, inshallah).
As for our Constitutional protections... they protect rights that already exist - that exist because we are human beings, not because we are Americans - rights that government neither created nor can destroy. By arguing that people do not deserve such protections because they are not Americans and they are not in America, you are saying that those rights are created by the government and cease to apply to someone because they were born in the wrong place or lived in the wrong place - and that which the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
As far as I'm concerned, the people at the prison at Gitmo should either have been charged with being a spy or saboteur and hanged when they were captured, or they should have been turned over to the natives or let loose. Now we're stuck with them. Try them and imprison them or release them, the prison's existence is an embarrassment to the, "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave."
Don't want to derail my own thread but those scum in Gitmo do NOT have a "right" to trial in the U.S. court system. They have a "right" to a military tribunal, as was planned at one time. They do not deserve, nor should they get, the same Due Process protections Americans do. To do so would imply that if Bin Laden or Hitler had been captured alive that they should have been brought to the U.S. and have all the legal motions, appeals, and other horseshit that Americans have. I say horseshit because we've all seen trials where some legal wiggling got someone off or out of what they truly deserved. I just don't think terrorist scum or foreign enemies deserve such a chance at pulling bullshit with a slick lawyer. Military tribunal, then swift execution after conviction.
Nope, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I do agree with the bolded part though.
In this case it's Due Process after-the-fact I'll agree, but as I said just above "The List" is a reality so let's deal with it effectively.
The best way to deal with it effectively is to do nothing. Let them put millions more folks on it who cannot get guns. Let folks find out you also lose all the guns you currently have when you go on the list.
Then maybe we can vote in folks to repeal the whole thing.
The best way to deal with it effectively is to do nothing. Let them put millions more folks on it who cannot get guns. Let folks find out you also lose all the guns you currently have when you go on the list.
Then maybe we can vote in folks to repeal the whole thing.
Much as I wish this were true, I think totalitarianism will just fully take root.
The_War_Wagon
06-18-16, 19:18
If they aren't allowed on a plane how can they work for DHS?
The mohammedan outreach program - at work, for YOU! :rolleyes:
http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/images/ISIS_NASA_Muslim_Outreach_Iraq.jpg
MountainRaven
06-18-16, 19:28
If they aren't allowed on a plane how can they work for DHS?
What makes you think that they were on the no-fly list?
Outlander Systems
06-18-16, 20:14
I see that, and ponder the insane notion that the political pond scum want ME to disarm?
Nah, brah.
The mohammedan outreach program - at work, for YOU! :rolleyes:
http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/images/ISIS_NASA_Muslim_Outreach_Iraq.jpg
Trey Gowdy back in December 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzqkrLk1QTw
The mohammedan outreach program - at work, for YOU! :rolleyes:
NASA?
Averageman
06-19-16, 05:59
Take away the ability for them to fly, they will drive. Take away their ability to purchase firearms, they will build bombs. Take away their ability to come here, the bad stuff will stay elsewhere.
Anyone who has a goal of some death and destruction isn't going to be curtailed by legislation, sorry it doesn't work. The only way to keep it out is to keep them out. If that means some significant increase in the vetting process that makes the results bulletproof, okay; but that wont happen.
So what do you do with the ones that are here? Assimilate or make it so uncomfortable that they leave/self deport. The Shooters Father should be first in line for such treatment.
What constitutes being put on the No-Fly list?
Are ex-convicts, felons, those with mental issues, etc automatically put on the list? How about if you have history of being arrested, or have a few traffic/civil infractions (tickets), the list can go on here. I don't know the details of the current No-Fly list stipulations, but it seems that extending that towards the issue of guns can be a slippery slope.
Trey Gowdy back in December 2015
That guy definitely does not suffer from "staircase wit".
Damn.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NASA?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/07/nasas_muslim_outreach_106214.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I must confess to a change of mind on the no fly list.
Charge the person with supporting terrorism in the case of an American citizen. In the case of a non American living in the USA deport them.
But give them a day in court to see the evidence against them and to defend themselves.
I must confess to a change of mind on the no fly list.
Charge the person with supporting terrorism in the case of an American citizen. In the case of a non American living in the USA deport them.
But give them a day in court to see the evidence against them and to defend themselves.
I agree 100%. Except that bolded part.......if there's enough to charge you then after prison you get deported .
Libs and Libertarian types think that our Constitutional protections extend all over the world. They don't, and for good reason
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Our rights are endowed by our creator, not our government. That means we receive our rights and liberties from our creator regardless of what type of government we live under or where we are born and raised. If our rights only apply to Americans or those living under our government, then we only enjoy our rights and liberties under the suffrage of our government, granting them the authority to regulate or even take away our rights and liberties as they see fit. It means that all governments are part of the stewardship to protect the right and liberties of those they govern. We too, are stewards of our rights and liberties and are responsible for holding our government to responsible stewardship.
All humans are given free agency, to choose to do good or evil or to choose to do nothing. We cannot and should not change that. It means our enemies are at liberty to choose to attack and attempt to destroy us. This is as it should be because we are then at liberty to identify our enemies and take action against them and they will know their punishment is just.
Our Constitution defines how our government and our nation deals with others, whether it's with honor or if we're just another tyranny. That doesn't mean we let sympathizers pervert the system to weaken us. It means we act with honor.
I think the "No Fly List" and other such policies compromises our honor and weakens our freedoms and sovereignty
I agree 100%. Except that bolded part.......if there's enough to charge you then after prison you get deported .
Nah...deport 'em and then put them on Big O's "drone list".
You know, since they like lists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
06-19-16, 14:13
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Our rights are endowed by our creator, not our government. That means we receive our rights and liberties from our creator regardless of what type of government we live under or where we are born and raised. If our rights only apply to Americans or those living under our government, then we only enjoy our rights and liberties under the suffrage of our government, granting them the authority to regulate or even take away our rights and liberties as they see fit. It means that all governments are part of the stewardship to protect the right and liberties of those they govern. We too, are stewards of our rights and liberties and are responsible for holding our government to responsible stewardship.
All humans are given free agency, to choose to do good or evil or to choose to do nothing. We cannot and should not change that. It means our enemies are at liberty to choose to attack and attempt to destroy us. This is as it should be because we are then at liberty to identify our enemies and take action against them and they will know their punishment is just.
Our Constitution defines how our government and our nation deals with others, whether it's with honor or if we're just another tyranny. That doesn't mean we let sympathizers pervert the system to weaken us. It means we act with honor.
I think the "No Fly List" and other such policies compromises our honor and weakens our freedoms and sovereignty
What I said.
But more eloquent-like.
So....a few things on this topic.
First, as we already know, there is no due process to get on or off the no-fly. You can be put on simply for a google search that pings something, or a twitter post. You can be on the list because your name is the same or similar as someone they are watching. Also, there was a huge dump of data from the FBI and other intel agences, where thousands of names were added to the list, no screening involved, simply a data dump.
Next, say we can fix some of the issues, and we can identify people as being a possible threat, what other freedoms should no longer have because they are on the list? Do they still get to go to work? Do they still have a valid drivers license? Can they access their bank accounts? And so on.
Also, we need to realize that these watch lists are not lists for the purposes of restricting anyone, they are tools that enable the FBI or other agencies to do investigative work. In many cases, the FBI probably doesn't want to share this info, and the most often do not want those on the list to know they are on the list.
And I am sure that the FBI got pinged when the Orlando shooter when the NICs check was processed. That is the current law. The FBI then had to decde what to do with the information, which obviously they didn't do much/
Finally, we have to give consideration to the DHS whistle blower who claims the Obama administration scrubbed the files of many Muslims that were under investigation. Also, a former FBI Asst Director recently claimed that a lot of the calls for gun control were out of distraction for their short comings, and also for politically correct reasons, similar to the above mentioned DHS one.
In conclusion, do not be fooled by this so-called "common sense" measure to make us safer.
I must confess to a change of mind on the no fly list.
Charge the person with supporting terrorism in the case of an American citizen. In the case of a non American living in the USA deport them.
But give them a day in court to see the evidence against them and to defend themselves.
Exactly. Either make a case and charge them (American citizens) or deport them (foreign nationals). But don't forever keep this list of people in limbo. Frankly the only reason they are keeping this list is due to the fact that we are soft on calling out radical Islamists in our midst. Declare allegiance to Isis or other radical group on Facebook or similar; you are supporting terror and should be charged. How is it not a simple matter to write code that immediately identifies radical Islamic discourse online? It should be simple. This recent asshat should have been picked up the moment he posted such. And his phone call to the police declaring allegiance to Isis? How is it that his number wasn't identified, his location immediately pinpointed and the police immediately dispatched? The agencies in charge of this are doing a poor job. And now we are being told we must disarm, submit to more government control, from a government incapable of doing its job to catch terrorists. Right.
And I am sure that the FBI got pinged when the Orlando shooter when the NICs check was processed. That is the current law.
No that is not the law and it does not work like that. They do not even get pinged when a convicted felon tries to buy a gun. There have been well over 1 million NICS denials since inception. They do not have the manpower to go after denials much less go after people who are approved.
No that is not the law and it does not work like that. They do not even get pinged when a convicted felon tries to buy a gun. There have been well over 1 million NICS denials since inception. They do not have the manpower to go after denials much less go after people who are approved.
You may be right, but Comey testified differently:
"“There are a variety of things that we do when we are notified that someone on our known or suspected terrorist database is attempting to buy a firearm. The FBI is alerted when that is triggered, and then we do investigation,” said Comey. The FBI looks for disqualifiers that can be used to stop the transaction, and if the transaction can’t be stopped, the FBI agents assigned to that subject are alerted to investigate, he said."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/fbi-director-fbi-alerted-when-someone-no-fly-list-tries-buy-gun
You may be right, but Comey testified differently:
"“There are a variety of things that we do when we are notified that someone on our known or suspected terrorist database is attempting to buy a firearm. The FBI is alerted when that is triggered, and then we do investigation,” said Comey. The FBI looks for disqualifiers that can be used to stop the transaction, and if the transaction can’t be stopped, the FBI agents assigned to that subject are alerted to investigate, he said."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/fbi-director-fbi-alerted-when-someone-no-fly-list-tries-buy-gun
Yeah I know, he does not understand how it works. Here is another gem. At least after answering wrong, he said "I don’t know for sure actually"
During a December 9, 2015, Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina asked, “If I buy a gun on the internet is it delivered to my home?” Comey responded, “I assume it is shipped to you but I don’t know for sure actually.” The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/fbi-director-doesnt-know-what-happens-if-you-buy-a-gun-online-video/#ixzz4C3jli6bO
Yeah I know, he does not understand how it works. Here is another gem. At least after answering wrong, he said "I don’t know for sure actually"
During a December 9, 2015, Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina asked, “If I buy a gun on the internet is it delivered to my home?” Comey responded, “I assume it is shipped to you but I don’t know for sure actually.” The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/fbi-director-doesnt-know-what-happens-if-you-buy-a-gun-online-video/#ixzz4C3jli6bO
Guess at least he is a typical bureaucrat.
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-19-16, 15:49
You may be right, but Comey testified differently:
"“There are a variety of things that we do when we are notified that someone on our known or suspected terrorist database is attempting to buy a firearm. The FBI is alerted when that is triggered, and then we do investigation,” said Comey. The FBI looks for disqualifiers that can be used to stop the transaction, and if the transaction can’t be stopped, the FBI agents assigned to that subject are alerted to investigate, he said."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/fbi-director-fbi-alerted-when-someone-no-fly-list-tries-buy-gun
So should FFLs let someone try to buy a gun so they get into the system, and perhaps follow up with the FBI to add details?
I am glad to saw that I do not stand alone on this issue. That any sort of "secret" government list that we can be arbitrarily put on and have our basic constitutionally protected birthrights infringed upon, is completely and totally wrong and illegal in this country. We have due process for a reason.
What to do about this secret "no fly list" and secret criteria that puts you on it? Eliminate it. Stop it, and punish those who started it. We already have the means with due process to surveil and investigate any and all suspicious persons, be they foreign or domestic. I'm sure everyone reading this can think of many 3 letter government organizations that engage in this sort of investigation and surveillance. If a person is so dangerous and their deeds so egregious that we cannot trust them to sit on an airplane and travel, then they should be arrested, charged and tried. Or deported, as the case may be. If not, then leave them alone.
I see this boiling down to trust. Do we trust our government to do the right thing? Do we trust their judgement about who to put on this sort of list? I don't. I want my due process, my rights respected and the Constitution and Bill of Rights respected and followed. I want Jonny Jihad back in Jonny Jihad land where his own government can deal with him, unless he gives us reason for the US military to deal with him. Over there.
So should FFLs let someone try to buy a gun so they get into the system, and perhaps follow up with the FBI to add details?
That seems to be how the system is intended to work. The other gun shop that reported info to authorities was pretty much useless since they provided no identifying info. On the other hand, as an FFL, I always have the discretion to simply say no to a transaction.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Our rights are endowed by our creator, not our government. That means we receive our rights and liberties from our creator regardless of what type of government we live under or where we are born and raised. If our rights only apply to Americans or those living under our government, then we only enjoy our rights and liberties under the suffrage of our government, granting them the authority to regulate or even take away our rights and liberties as they see fit. It means that all governments are part of the stewardship to protect the right and liberties of those they govern. We too, are stewards of our rights and liberties and are responsible for holding our government to responsible stewardship.
All humans are given free agency, to choose to do good or evil or to choose to do nothing. We cannot and should not change that. It means our enemies are at liberty to choose to attack and attempt to destroy us. This is as it should be because we are then at liberty to identify our enemies and take action against them and they will know their punishment is just.
Our Constitution defines how our government and our nation deals with others, whether it's with honor or if we're just another tyranny. That doesn't mean we let sympathizers pervert the system to weaken us. It means we act with honor.
Yeah right, how's that been working for the last couple hundred years? No, a foreigner is not subject to Constitutional protections. It is about Americans or those within our borders. If your world view was the case then why aren't we going to war with China because they sure as hell don't apply our Constitutional rights to their citizens? Or Russia? Or Iran? Really, if it is applicable to every person on this planet why aren't we on an eternal crusade for their rights?
Foreigners in our custody overseas are not subject to Constitutional Due Process. Bring them here and it all changes, which is why I'm against bringing the Gitmo scum here to the U.S.
I'll add that during the aftermath of Operation Pastorius (the Nazi attempt to insert saboteurs into the U.S. by U-Boat) FDR issued an EO ordering a military tribunal for those eight guys captured as he feared (as I do) that the U.S. justice system would be too lenient. These were enemy combatants actually captured on U.S. soil. The tribunal found them guilty and six were executed a month later (two received lesser sentences because they ratted out the others). Now that is how you deal with enemy combatants. However, nowadays if they were indeed captured here they'd be subject to that same lenient U.S. justice system that lets so many of our own criminals off easy. Enemy combatants, if tried by a military tribunal and found guilty, should be immediately executed without appeal. That said, I do believe in Due Process being applicable if captured on or brought to U.S. soil. That prevents the government at some point in the future from putting American citizens on trial with military tribunals for not turning in guns or other "seditious" activities.
In other words I believe that Constitutional protections must meet two basic qualifiers (both, not just one): citizenship and geographical location. A U.S. citizen, even if captured overseas (like Jihad Johnny from OEF I) is subject to Constitutional protections, as is a foreign enemy combatant brought here for internment. A foreign enemy combatant both captured and held overseas is NOT entitled to Constitutional protections. Too bad so sad.
This is all obfuscation of intelligence.
TPTB have no clue what they are doing. None.
Either overreact or underreact. Their only concern is sounding good on TV and getting elected.
I feel like that black preacher back in the day wanting to shout "WHO IN THE HELL LEFT THE GATE OPEN!" more and more each passing day.
None of what they want to do is constitutional, none of what they attempt is feasible, and goshdarn it, their hearts are just not in it.
Do you really think the people who got you into this mess really want to get you out? Really?
MountainRaven
06-19-16, 17:59
Yeah right, how's that been working for the last couple hundred years? No, a foreigner is not subject to Constitutional protections. It is about Americans or those within our borders. If your world view was the case then why aren't we going to war with China because they sure as hell don't apply our Constitutional rights to their citizens? Or Russia? Or Iran? Really, if it is applicable to every person on this planet why aren't we on an eternal crusade for their rights?
Foreigners in our custody overseas are not subject to Constitutional Due Process. Bring them here and it all changes, which is why I'm against bringing the Gitmo scum here to the U.S.
I'll add that during the aftermath of Operation Pastorius (the Nazi attempt to insert saboteurs into the U.S. by U-Boat) FDR issued an EO ordering a military tribunal for those eight guys captured as he feared (as I do) that the U.S. justice system would be too lenient. These were enemy combatants actually captured on U.S. soil. The tribunal found them guilty and six were executed a month later (two received lesser sentences because they ratted out the others). Now that is how you deal with enemy combatants. However, nowadays if they were indeed captured here they'd be subject to that same lenient U.S. justice system that lets so many of our own criminals off easy. Enemy combatants, if tried by a military tribunal and found guilty, should be immediately executed without appeal. That said, I do believe in Due Process being applicable if captured on or brought to U.S. soil. That prevents the government at some point in the future from putting American citizens on trial with military tribunals for not turning in guns or other "seditious" activities.
In other words I believe that Constitutional protections must meet two basic qualifiers (both, not just one): citizenship and geographical location. A U.S. citizen, even if captured overseas (like Jihad Johnny from OEF I) is subject to Constitutional protections, as is a foreign enemy combatant brought here for internment. A foreign enemy combatant both captured and held overseas is NOT entitled to Constitutional protections. Too bad so sad.
Because we should take advice on the Constitution from a guy who tried to pack the Supreme Court to ensure his administration's legislative and executive priorities were not found Unconstitutional and later decided that some people should be put in concentration camps on account of looking different, right?
The no fly list is B.S. I've dealt with people on "the list". Either charge them or don't. The list is a freaking joke.
How about if they are such a genuine threat, that we build a case and arrest or deport them. If they are so dangerous they can't be allowed on a plane I don't think they become less dangerous walking around Disneyland or anywhere else.
And guns are irrelevant. We have seen stabbing attacks and sooner or later somebody is going to figure out that with some chains, padlocks and a couple cans of gasoline you can get everyone in the building and might even escape yourself.
I was going to post almost this exact thing, but nor worded as well.
You are either charged with a crime or not, anything else is a slippery slope of the government screwing innocent people.
Because we should take advice on the Constitution from a guy who tried to pack the Supreme Court to ensure his administration's legislative and executive priorities were not found Unconstitutional and later decided that some people should be put in concentration camps on account of looking different, right?
No FDR fan here but he was right making the assumption that civilian U.S. courts would be too lenient. Can you image that the "big fish" in Gitmo would get what they truly deserve under regular courts here? I can't imagine that. They should be taken and either hanged or shot in the forehead. I have my doubts on whether they'd even be sentenced to death under our "justice" system. We're not talking about domestic criminals here (although the cold-blooded murderers among us citizens I'd have no issue with a quick execution after conviction) but foreign terrorists? Look at KSM for example........do you think that he'd get what he truly deserves in the civilian system? Under a tribunal (remember he's not in the U.S.) he would still get the painless needle but it would be quicker than 20 friggin' years of appeals on the civilian side.
Many of us will have to agree to disagree here, but.......being American or on our soil has certain "privileges". Those "privileges" do not extend to every person in the freaking world! They are "privileges" we have by right of citizenship (or even a turd here who is not a citizen) and given from no government. Therefore we guarantee those rights to our citizens but not every person on this rock! They're on their own.
Yeah I know, he does not understand how it works. Here is another gem. At least after answering wrong, he said "I don’t know for sure actually"
During a December 9, 2015, Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina asked, “If I buy a gun on the internet is it delivered to my home?” Comey responded, “I assume it is shipped to you but I don’t know for sure actually.” The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/11/fbi-director-doesnt-know-what-happens-if-you-buy-a-gun-online-video/#ixzz4C3jli6bO
Unbelievable.
Averageman
06-20-16, 08:04
Foreigners in our custody overseas are not subject to Constitutional Due Process. Bring them here and it all changes, which is why I'm against bringing the Gitmo scum here to the U.S.
I'll add that during the aftermath of Operation Pastorius (the Nazi attempt to insert saboteurs into the U.S. by U-Boat) FDR issued an EO ordering a military tribunal for those eight guys captured as he feared (as I do) that the U.S. justice system would be too lenient. These were enemy combatants actually captured on U.S. soil. The tribunal found them guilty and six were executed a month later (two received lesser sentences because they ratted out the others). Now that is how you deal with enemy combatants. However, nowadays if they were indeed captured here they'd be subject to that same lenient U.S. justice system that lets so many of our own criminals off easy. Enemy combatants, if tried by a military tribunal and found guilty, should be immediately executed without appeal. That said, I do believe in Due Process being applicable if captured on or brought to U.S. soil. That prevents the government at some point in the future from putting American citizens on trial with military tribunals for not turning in guns or other "seditious" activities.
In other words I believe that Constitutional protections must meet two basic qualifiers (both, not just one): citizenship and geographical location. A U.S. citizen, even if captured overseas (like Jihad Johnny from OEF I) is subject to Constitutional protections, as is a foreign enemy combatant brought here for internment. A foreign enemy combatant both captured and held overseas is NOT entitled to Constitutional protections. Too bad so sad.
You know, I've tried to explain this to people a time or two, I gave up. The "Man (or more likely Woman) on the Street" simply wont believe it.
I'm guessing what they think is right is that when a POW is captured we fly him from Iraq to Washington DC so he can get a fair trial. When we have found War Crimes being committed we were more likely to turn those folks over to their host country and then see them back in the fight in a matter of months.
I have this feeling that in the case of a clear cut "War Crime" had we a quick Military Tribunal and some immediate Justice being delivered, we would in many cases have gained more respect rather than the wrath of our enemies.
When Omar tried to guns, I wonder why the FBI didn't put him on the delay list? I assume that he did not have a CHL.
When Omar tried to guns, I wonder why the FBI didn't put him on the delay list? I assume that he did not have a CHL.
I believe he did have one.
HackerF15E
06-20-16, 21:58
Deleted...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.