This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Why Liberals Oppose a Gun Ban for People On Terror Watchlist
Everyone agrees – other than ISIS and a handful of crazies – that we have to stop the epidemic of mass shootings (mass shootings have skyrocketed under Obama; 5 of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in history took place during Obama’s first term alone).
President Obama plans to introduce – through executive action – a gun ban on those on no-fly lists. So does the governor of Connecticut.
Sound like a no-brainer … stopping terrorists from having guns?
But as Daily Beast points out, in an article called “My Fellow LIBERALS, DON’T Support Obama’s Terror Watch List Gun Ban“:
As Americans we understand well how important due process is. No one, for instance, should be thrown in jail just on the say-so of some government official who declares they deserve it. Such is the behavior of tyrants, the Founding Fathers understood, and so we enshrined in our Constitution the right to counsel, the right against being compelled to testify against oneself, the right to trial by jury, etc.All of these rights are checks to ensure the government can’t simply pluck innocent people out of their lives and strip them of their life, liberty, or property. Only after fairly testing the charges against them can the government punish people with such deprivation.
But none of these hurdles must be overcome for the government to put someone on a list, especially not a list like this, which is a watch list. It is a list of people that for whatever reason (a reason that no one outside the government knows) the government has decided deserve closer scrutiny of their actions.
Is the government right to be concerned about these people? Maybe yes, but maybe not, and there is no way for ordinary citizens to know. Which means there is also no way for ordinary citizens to know whether any of them, even people who in no way intend to commit acts of terrorism, are also on that list.
In other words, there is no way to know whether you are on that list. Nor is there any way to know how to get off it.
That there is any list at all should give us all pause. It has not historically been the hallmark of a healthy democracy when governments have kept lists of people they didn’t like. It is hard to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people when the government keeps track of the people, including those dissidents who would challenge it (which is something that in a democracy they are allowed, and even supposed, to do).
***
What this proposal calls for is the government using the list as a basis to deny the people on it a right to which they were otherwise entitled.
***
Based on the plain text of the Second Amendment and subsequent jurisprudence it is clear that some right is in there somewhere, and what this proposal calls for is for the government to arbitrarily and un-transparently deny this right to certain people without any sort of the due process ordinarily required. And that’s a problem.
***
With this proposal we would be authorizing the government to act capriciously and unaccountably for any reason, including—and this point cannot be emphasized enough—bad reasons or no reasons at all, and against anyone, including—and this point cannot be emphasized enough, either—people just like you. There would also be no reason why, if the government could take away this right this way today, it couldn’t take away other rights you depend on having tomorrow the same way.
Liberal journalists Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux document:
The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.
The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.”
***
The document’s definition of “terrorist” activity includes actions that fall far short of bombing or hijacking. In addition to expected crimes, such as assassination or hostage-taking, the guidelines also define destruction of government property and damaging computers used by financial institutions as activities meriting placement on a list. They also define as terrorism any act that is “dangerous” to property and intended to influence government policy through intimidation.
This combination—a broad definition of what constitutes terrorism and a low threshold for designating someone a terrorist—opens the way to ensnaring innocent people in secret government dragnets. It can also be counterproductive. When resources are devoted to tracking people who are not genuine risks to national security, the actual threats get fewer resources—and might go unnoticed.
“If reasonable suspicion is the only standard you need to label somebody, then it’s a slippery slope we’re sliding down here, because then you can label anybody anything,” says David Gomez, a former senior FBI special agent with experience running high-profile terrorism investigations. “Because you appear on a telephone list of somebody doesn’t make you a terrorist. That’s the kind of information that gets put in there.”
***
In 2004, [liberal] Sen. Ted Kennedy complained that he was barred from boarding flights on five separate occasions because his name resembled the alias of a suspected terrorist. Two years later, CBS News obtained a copy of the no fly list and reported that it included [liberal] Bolivian president Evo Morales and Lebanese parliament head Nabih Berri. One of the watchlists snared Mikey Hicks, a Cub Scout who got his first of many airport pat-downs at age two. In 2007, the Justice Department’s inspector general issued a scathing report identifying “significant weaknesses” in the system. And in 2009, after a Nigerian terrorist was able to board a passenger flight to Detroit and nearly detonated a bomb sewn into his underwear despite his name having been placed on the TIDE list, President Obama admitted that there had been a “systemic failure.”
***
The rulebook appears to invert the legal principle of due process, defining nominations as “presumptively valid.”
Left-leaning Nation tells how two middle-aged, lesbian peace activists got put on the no-fly list.
Bleeding heart Huffington Post noted last year:
You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”
***
Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.
***
You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.
***
Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.
***
Finally, you could just be unlucky.
***
A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process “wholly ineffective.”
Progressive Salon reports:
In fact, the rules for putting someone on the list are so weak that it’s acceptable for entire “categories” of people to be considered threats at a White House official’s choosing.
***
Scahill told HuffPost Live. “The government will not tell you if you are on the list, but it will share its labeling of you as a ‘known or suspected terrorist’ with foreign governments and private contractors. These policies make it nearly impossible to challenge your secret designation. The American public has a right to understand the policies of what amounts to a shadow legal system.”
Liberal Slate writes:
The U.S. government’s reliance on “predictive judgments” to deprive Americans of their constitutionally protected liberties is no fiction. It’s now central to the government’s defense of its no-fly list—a secretive watch list that bans people from flying to or from the United States or over American airspace….
Worse, the U.S. government launched its predictive judgment model without offering any evidence whatsoever about its accuracy, any scientific basis or methodology that might justify it, or the extent to which it results in errors. In our case, we turned to two independent experts to evaluate the government’s predictive method: Marc Sageman, a former longtime intelligence community professional and forensic psychologist with expertise in terrorism research, and James Austin, an expert in risk assessment in the criminal justice system. Neither found any indication that the government’s predictive model even tries to use basic scientific methods to make and test its predictions. As Sageman says, despite years of research, no one inside or outside the government has devised a model that can predict with any reliability if a person will commit an act of terrorism.
***
Because the government’s predictive model results in the blacklisting of people who are not terrorists, individuals on the no-fly list need a meaningful method of redress—a fair way to demonstrate their “innocence” of crimes they will never commit. The government refuses to provide these safeguards in its current so-called redress system, which violates the due process guarantees of the Constitution. It refuses to tell our clients all the reasons the government has for predicting future misconduct, leaving them to guess. It won’t provide the evidence underlying those reasons, including government evidence that would undermine its predictions. And it refuses to provide a hearing for our clients to press their case to a neutral decision-maker and challenge government witnesses’ hearsay or biases.
Indeed, the government has a history of labeling dissident as terrorists. Any type of criticism of the fatcats may get you labeled as a terrorist in post-9/11 America.
Are any of the government’s so-called “terrorism” programs really only focused on stopping terrorism? Of course not.
Liberals might remember that George W. Bush said that “you’re either with us or against us” … and stripped Americans of many of our liberties.
One specific example: spying on Americans is all about power, control and money … not protecting Americans from terrorists.
Another example: indefinite detention.
So we've got to stop mass shootings ... but using a Kafkaesque, fatally flawed watchlist system is not the way.
Postscript: What does the Daily Beast article linked above mean when it says that – while liberals may dislike the Second Amendment – it’s still a Constitutional right?
A top liberal Constitutional law expert explains:
Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.
***
It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.
Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.
***
More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.
Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.
None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.
And liberal icons Gandhi and the Dalai Lama accept gun ownership as moral.
- advertisements -


The MO for the political class is to create problems where they don't exist, and then to make them worse with each iteration. Only a fool expects them to solve problems.
Looking back at history, I believe it was always this way. Of course the problems they make can't worsen forever. Every so they build up to the point of collapse like a stack of toy wooden blocks. If you have the sense to see it coming, the best you can do is get out of the way. That's easier said than done and involves some degree of luck.
No, they just want to ban them for everybody.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-amendment-lunatics-enabl...
Are they going to put my Russian wife with a green card and two American born children on that no-fly list? What if she took one of my guns for herself just to have while here in the States? I never said she couldn't touch my guns. Do I have to? Oh OK, Honey you can't touch my guns because even though you are my wife of almost twelve years you might be a terrorist. There, now it is all official. Kind of have them in a shit show don't I?
I double dare these fucktards to have a go at me. They won't do anything. They really can't do anything. Bring it on.
all my brain blinks is 308,308,308
308 - Not Found
Today President Trump Strengthened the Second Amendment with Rules 22, 32, 38, 308 and 7.62.
Exactly none of the proposals from the White House would have prevented the mass shootings which have occurred.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-11/white-house-unable-explain-how-gun-control-will-stop-mass-shootings
If anyone in the US is seriously worried about mass shootings, I suggest we start by ending 14 years of continuous US war that has destroyed 7 nations and is in the process of taking us into World War III (mass extinction event) with Russia and China.
It's all Obama's fault.
Governments have changed their policies now most of us know they are no more than thieves.
EVERYONE IS A TERRORIST AND THERE ARE NO INNOCENT PEOPLE ANYMORE.
All so they can keep thieving and stealing, destroying countless lives as they have a wonderful life.
And liberal icons Gandhi and the Dalai Lama accept gun ownership as moral.
Reckon I am in good company then.
As for the population though guns don't cut it no more, you need more effective weapons against reaper drones. Now seeing as a drone is remote controlled through wireless that is the vunerability, target the comms and you got a flying pile of scrap metal.
The bad guys have proven on many occasion that obtaining an illegal firearm is easier to do that doing it legally. The black market is here to stay. More laws will ONLY serve to disarm the law abiding citizens, but we all know that.
Israeli commandos rescue Islamic Militants at Syrian border..
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c80_1449932557
The totalitarian fascist (merger of government with monopoly oligarchy corporations) Washington Empire steamroller presses forward with their agenda of destroying American democracy, independance, soverignity and capitalism (Free Enterprise) manufacturing economy.
Democratically targeting corrupt criminal government officials for accountability and recall from government service are considered a crime by the Washington Empire fascist Orwellian Thought Police.
The MAIN issue with the NO FLY LIST is LACK of DUE PROCESS.
It's blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.( man has a right to face his accusers and to know WHAT he/she is accused of).
But . . . but how could that be? I distinctly remember the MSM drumming into my head that President Peace Prize is a constitutional scholar. (Ironically he's also a war criminal, but that's for another discussion.)
You can check to see if your on the no fly list.
noflylist.gov, and enter your info.
Are you then put on it, for suspecting you've done something bad enough to warrant it?
Put you arch-enemy's name in, then check back leter to see if he has been added.
I can think of 49 states, discarding the blowhard in Connecticut, that need to surround DC and load every one of them up on a ship full of holes and bon voyage motherfuckers! Then we will see if Conecticut wants to behave or not.
Don't confuse the people of Connecticut with the governor of Connecticut. Most of the people can't wait to through this guy out come next election.
Pretty sure most of us on ZH are already on the shitlist. That being said, eat shit, fuck off die Obama, you muslim loving cum belching limp wrist fucking whore!
Oh, how many millions have guns? So they're willing to crash the entire airline industry? That's the kind of shit you can afford when you have a digital zero machine that knows no bounds.
These puke faggot fucking whores are going to destabilize the entire gdm USA just like every other country they've touched trying to build something in their satanic image.
But that is their plan. To destabilize, destroy, rape and pillage of the resources, of the people. The globalists have no loyalty to any one country. They own the whole world in their psycopathic little minds.
At one point in time I would've argued. Not anymore.
This is a real no-shitter issue up here at the border. Coworker lives in BC, works here, crosses the border almost every day. They ask, are you bringing anything across, any fruits or vegetables? Nope. Well, unbeknownst to my friend, an apple rolled out of her shopping bag a few days previous, went under a seat. The American side randomly searches the car and finds the apple. Welcome to the No-Fly list. And while yer at it, hand over your PACE pass . . .plan on getting for work an hour earlier, because you are now in the slow lane, my dear. Also might want to factor in a healthy dose of random inspections.
It is not about a select group of people. Several federal agencies have come out and stated that most americans are going to be considered terrorist. So first they label you, then they put you on the no fly list and then you are either stopped from buying a gun and/or if you have one, it will taken away. This is about the total confiscation of all weapons using the no fly list as an excuse.
It is not about a select group of people. Several federal agencies have come out and stated that most americans are going to be considered terrorist. So first they label you, then they put you on the no fly list and then you are either stopped from buying a gun and/or if you have one, it will taken away. This is about the total confiscation of all weapons using the no fly list as an excuse.
I don't trust planes anymore.
I know I'm overreacting, but my experiences with manufactured 'things' these past years has not been good. Whether it's poorly-made appliances that break down in a year or two, clothing/shoes that fall apart after a few washings, electronics that 'freeze-up' or go obsolete right after hitting the shelves, drugs and other substances that get recalled or found to be harmful...(and what the fuck is 'vaginal mesh'?)...it seems like NOTHING made in the past few decades is worth spit.
Then I think of getting aboard one of those manufactured sardine cans, and being taken 35,000 feet up in the air...with only my seat-cushion 'flotation device' to save me.
Think about that...when is the last time a plane went down over water, and all the passengers were found bobbling around, saved by their seat cushions?
I think, who made that plane? Who inspects it? Who made all the various parts and pieces that went into it? Who is manning the air traffic control? Runway construction? The list goes on...
And I think, why should this plane be any different from the Hampton Bays ceiling fixture that crapped out after 1 year and a week, the screwdriver that twisted its way right out of the plastic handle upon the application of torque, the consumer electronics that disintegrate upon exposure to the Earth's atmosphere, or that vaginal mesh that is doing God knows WHAT to our women?...
It's all crap. Everything made these days is garbage, or if it IS somewhat decent, no one can fix it if needed so once it does go, you are SOL. Airplanes are all MADE somewhere, by someone, and require periodic maintenance by other someones. Why should I expect the damned things to function as they should when nothing else seems to?
The problem is that at 35,000 feet a little problem, like miscalculating the amount of torque your cheap plastic handle can tolerate, becomes a very BIG problem. All I can picture are all the numerous factories and supply-chains involved in getting that bird off the ground, and all the opportunities for someone to fuck up...and there I am, listening to the stewardess tell me about my seat cushion.
At least with ground transport you aren't completely helpless if something goes wrong.
That mesh is for when the hooha has torn away from it's moorings from over-exposure to rough seas.
Well, I'd say it's time to sew that shit up and call it a day...
Eating peanuts in an aluminum tube going 500 mph. Pretty crazy. Takes a lot of faith in our fellow man.
reminds me of what one of the Mercury astronauts said about sitting on top of a Roman Candle with each part made by the lowest bidder.
Google up an image of "Aloha Airlines flight 243". If you're a pessimist it proves your point. If you're an optimist it shows how much damage a plane can take and still land safely.
How long does it take to fall 25,000 feet? Unfortunately, that poor stewardess found out first hand.
Perhaps a ban on SSRI (Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors) would be more effective.
http://ssristories.org/
Laughable stupid article...ummm, you rightwing nutballs have been whining for years about uber-liberal Obama, and the terror of his plan to take everyone's guns. So now, some supposed liberals are OPPOSING an Obama plan to take a few guns, and suddenly you think it is a lovely idea for Obama to take a few guns away from, ahem, a select group of people.
Gosh damn you guys are total hypocrites.
Laughable stupid article...ummm, you rightwing nutballs have been whining for years about uber-liberal Obama, and the terror of his plan to take everyone's guns. So now, some supposed liberals are OPPOSING an Obama plan to take a few guns, and suddenly you think it is a lovely idea for Obama to take a few guns away from, ahem, a select group of people.
Gosh damn you guys are total hypocrites.
Rock, is that you?
And do these geniuses in washington realize that crimnals about to shoot up a bunch of people sitting in a church or restaurant dont give a shit whether they do it with a legal gun or not.
What do they think? Someone pondering on going on a mass shooting is going to think, "Damn it! Cant shoot up a bunch of innocent people today, my gun isnt legal." Awww shucks!
They know that. They just don't want to have to deal with YOU, the voter.
"Barry, these jobs should be for life,"
"I know, Lindey."
"I think you should issue an EO, boss."
"They don't all work that way, John. You and Joe get some goofy ideas."
You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why The NSA is coming to town
They’re making a list
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out Who's naughty and nice
The NSA is coming to town
They see you when you're sleeping
They know when you're awake
They know if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!
O! You better watch out!
You better not cry
Better not pout
I'm telling you why
The NSA is coming to town
The NSA is coming to town
The title of this artcle is funny. I have been arguing with liberals for the past 2 days on FB about why this is a bad idea. They hated the list when it was Bush's list. But they are all for Obama's new and expanded list.
Stay off that Facebook shit and don't argue or debate with a liberal. Actually try not to be near them.
How can you argue or debate a rock?
Sunni Muslim President Barrack Hussein Obama would dearly love the power to deny guns to every one of the millions of Real Americans that he puts on the Unconstitutional "No Fly" lists. It will the duty of every Real American who finds herself or himself on the "No Fly" list to buy guns and lots of ammo in defiance of the Muslim tyrant in the White House.
They've been blacklisting people long before this guy got into the WH without telling them. Decades later you meet the agent provocateur and only then do you really know.
When he is Mahdi, maybe.
Untill then, Inshallah infidel.
The people screaming the loudest and the most often for gun control are always liberals.
for others....not necessarily for themselves. You think Bloomturd walks around without an entourage of pistol packing thugs to protect him?
I bet Bloomtard has a secret vault full of all the banned gunz he can find on the black market. Plus an underground gun range.
"Damn! This pistol shoots well and is easy to load. I should get it banned. Hand me that big tube, guard."
"Sir, we need to go to your country place to use that one."
The only No-Fly List I have any real interest in is a list that keeps Barack Obama off of Air Force One.