People on the secret "no-fly" terror watchlist buying firearms?

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I agree that there should not be restrictions of anyone's rights based on secret lists. But don't put the cart before the horse. The main threat is that there are these secret lists in the first place.
Bingo.

These lists have been around for so long, that people just take them for granted without questioning. Now that this complacency is so prevalent, we've arrived at the stage where they will seek to implement policy based on the lists. The fact that such a notion is even being considered as a valid notion for discussion by learned people is appalling.
 

1kmb1

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Posts
770
Media
0
Likes
175
Points
363
Location
Tucson (Arizona, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
I don't know that the lists bother me so much. They've been around probably since before J. Edgar Hoover (who was a disgrace btw and shouldn't have a building named after him). If they are effective, great. If they aren't, the more names on it the better, but check lists ARE needed.

I give a shit about the talk of banning people from their civil rights. Didn't anyone see the link to a Rahm speech I put up? Didn't that bother anyone. WTF, is wrong with you people?:0)
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I give a shit about the talk of banning people from their civil rights. Didn't anyone see the link to a Rahm speech I put up? Didn't that bother anyone. WTF, is wrong with you people?:0)

Maybe some of us have had it with in-your-face, partisan, red/blue, "I'm right and you're wrong", discussion ending posts and would like to talk about the problems of the day like adults. Without the name calling and the innuendos and the half-baked ideas based on someone's hardened left or right-wing ideology that has passed for debate in this forum for the past two years.

For heaven's sake, you adequated government run Social Security with the no-fly list's truncation of civil rights. Pardon me if I just pass over the rest of the post and skip the link.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Maybe some of us have had it with in-your-face, partisan, red/blue, "I'm right and you're wrong", discussion ending posts and would like to talk about the problems of the day like adults. Without the name calling and the innuendos and the half-baked ideas based on someone's hardened left or right-wing ideology that has passed for debate in this forum for the past two years.

For heaven's sake, you adequated government run Social Security with the no-fly list's truncation of civil rights. Pardon me if I just pass over the rest of the post and skip the link.

1) I'd like to see where I name called anyone (to play it safe 2 examples).

2) No, I equated implicit trust in govt. with the agreement in the truncation of civil rights and then supplied a video link to a speech of a currently highly placed member of govt. going whack on describing those on the list.

3) and I mocked (likeliest cons/libertarians) those who distrust govt. being against the list for the possibility of them finding themselves on it.
 
Last edited:

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Maybe some of us have had it with in-your-face, partisan, red/blue, "I'm right and you're wrong", discussion ending posts and would like to talk about the problems of the day like adults. Without the name calling and the innuendos and the half-baked ideas based on someone's hardened left or right-wing ideology that has passed for debate in this forum for the past two years.

For heaven's sake, you adequated government run Social Security with the no-fly list's truncation of civil rights. Pardon me if I just pass over the rest of the post and skip the link.

My complaint? The ridiculous intransigence of some here.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
1) I'd like to see where I name called anyone (to play it safe 2 examples).

2) No, I equated implicit trust in govt. with the agreement in the truncation of civil rights and then supplied a video link to a speech of a currently highly placed member of govt. going whack on describing those on the list.
The "name calling" is part of the general malaise on this form and not directed at your post specifically. Sorry if you interpreted it so.

What is wrong with some level of trust in government? How does a nation function without some level of trust in public government? No one would claim Social Security to be perfectly administered. But why are you using it in the same sentence as a terror watch-list?

You attempted to link those who favor social programs and want the govt to run them, to those who favor the govt. compiling secret lists of suspects who should have their rights abridged. No such generalization can be made and I like to see some evidence if you insist that it can.

But then you said-
I don't know that the lists bother me so much..... If they are effective, great. If they aren't, the more names on it the better, but check lists ARE needed.
So you don't have much of problem with the lists and they ARE needed. Ergo, you have an implicit trust in the government?

I don't think it makes sense to mistrust govt to administer pensions and health insurance reform, but not be bothered so much by govt being in position to abridge your basic civil rights and constitutional rights without due process.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
So you don't have much of problem with the lists and they ARE needed. Ergo, you have an implicit trust in the government?

I don't think it makes sense to mistrust govt to administer pensions and health insurance reform, but not be bothered so much by govt being in position to abridge your basic civil rights and constitutional rights without due process.

Yes, we should have no lists unless we can prove definitively that every last person on it are on their way to terrorist rendezvous point alpha and not before or after or in a guessing fashion. Yes, we should tell people how they got on the list and how to get off. We should tell them that they are on the list. Yes, somehow I am contradicting myself when I say I don't implicitly trust the govt. and then don't find myself outraged at this list. I must be some kind of idiot or something.:rolleyes:
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
no-fly list has about 6000 names

terror watch list hits one million names

clearly so secret that the ap couldn't dig up any numbers... and i was agreeing with you, so im not sure where the snarky attitude is coming from:p
My remark to you was deliberately hyperbolic, and I apologise if the intentional overstatement wasn't readily apparent. I do question the accuracy of these data you present, though...the first link provides no source for its stated figure, not even a departmental one; the second link provides a reference to an FBI report that's over a year old now, but does contain some interesting footnotes.

Namely, this footnote to the 1.1 million entry figure:

This number does not represent the number of individuals on the watchlist. One individual can have numerous records with each record providing information for a different identity the individual uses, such as aliases. The consolidated terrorist watchlist averages just over two records per individual watchlisted. The TSC estimated that, as of September 9, 2008, the total number of unique individuals on the watchlist was approximately 400,000.
And this footnote on its usage by other government agencies:
The consolidated terrorist watchlist exports to downstream screening databases including the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS); the Department of State’s Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) passport and visa; DHS’s Transportation Safety Administration’s (TSA) No Fly and Selectee lists; the FBI’s Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File (VGTOF), and select foreign government watchlists. See Appendix II for further information regarding these screening databases.
But what does the TSA do with this data in regard to their no-fly list?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you:

The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) No Fly list includes names of individuals that are to be denied transport on commercial flights because they are deemed a threat to civil aviation. The criteria for No Fly list is defined by the Homeland Security Council Deputies Committee. The original criteria were established by the committee on October 21, 2004. On February 8, 2008, this committee established revised criteria for the No Fly list which are not listed here because the criteria has been deemed sensitive by TSA.
But the report did include criteria that would explain how someone might land on the terror watchlist, right? (doesn't hold breath)

But not to worry, because apparently those in charge of the list don't have much clue either...

...we also found a general lack of understanding among field personnel of the entire watchlisting process.
Long story made short, I didn't intend to sound like I was attacking you. As you can see just from the selected passages here, there isn't any clear idea of how these lists work by anyone...not even those keeping them. Internal audits show poor adherence to the established policies both of placing suspects on the list when they should be watched and of removing persons from the list once they're "cleared."

Personally, I wouldn't care if these lists were kept 100% in compliance with the policies of the agencies responsible for them...the suggestion discussed in the OP would still be a clear violation of due process. The notion of actually denying any citizen their constitutionally guaranteed rights based on such a vaguely understood and poorly maintained roster as we have in reality is simply unconscionable.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183

Personally, I wouldn't care if these lists were kept 100% in compliance with the policies of the agencies responsible for them...the suggestion discussed in the OP would still be a clear violation of due process. The notion of actually denying any citizen their constitutionally guaranteed rights based on such a vaguely understood and poorly maintained roster as we have in reality is simply unconscionable.

1) We need a list good or bad. Preferably a good one. But bad is how govt. usually works.

2) We can't deny rights w/o due process. You can't deny someone a gun or to travel based on this list; sadly Rahm Emanuel does believe so though.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
1) We need a list good or bad. Preferably a good one. But bad is how govt. usually works.
Agreed wholeheartedly on the first point, and I tend to believe you're correct on the latter.

spiker067 said:
2) We can't deny rights w/o due process. You can't deny someone a gun or to travel based on this list; sadly Rahm Emanuel does believe so though.
True enough for owning a gun, but travel (and I'm assuming you mean via mass transit) is another matter. Nobody has any guaranteed right to ride a bus or fly aboard a plane, so I have no problem with a government agency keeping certain individuals out of the seats next to me aboard the tin cans full of tens of thousands of gallons of Jet-A.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
I have no problem with a government agency keeping certain individuals out of the seats next to me aboard the tin cans full of tens of thousands of gallons of Jet-A.

Actually, I do have a problem with the list blocking expedient and common travel modes w/o due process. I believe we have rights in travel guaranteeing our rights to freedom of association, privacy, equal access... . I like the list to be used for extra scrutiny of a passenger who is a citizen of the U.S. and to block non-citizens from traveling here.
 

1kmb1

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Posts
770
Media
0
Likes
175
Points
363
Location
Tucson (Arizona, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
My remark to you was deliberately hyperbolic, and I apologise if the intentional overstatement wasn't readily apparent. I do question the accuracy of these data you present, though...the first link provides no source for its stated figure, not even a departmental one; the second link provides a reference to an FBI report that's over a year old now, but does contain some interesting footnotes.

Namely, this footnote to the 1.1 million entry figure:

And this footnote on its usage by other government agencies:
But what does the TSA do with this data in regard to their no-fly list?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you:

But the report did include criteria that would explain how someone might land on the terror watchlist, right? (doesn't hold breath)

But not to worry, because apparently those in charge of the list don't have much clue either...

Long story made short, I didn't intend to sound like I was attacking you. As you can see just from the selected passages here, there isn't any clear idea of how these lists work by anyone...not even those keeping them. Internal audits show poor adherence to the established policies both of placing suspects on the list when they should be watched and of removing persons from the list once they're "cleared."

Personally, I wouldn't care if these lists were kept 100% in compliance with the policies of the agencies responsible for them...the suggestion discussed in the OP would still be a clear violation of due process. The notion of actually denying any citizen their constitutionally guaranteed rights based on such a vaguely understood and poorly maintained roster as we have in reality is simply unconscionable.

i didnt say attack, i said snarky:p maybe its just me, but the rollseyes smiley reads that way to me

i dont get hyperbole from "cloaked in secrecy from top to bottom" because it is. and deliberately hyperbolic? isnt that redundant lol just messin with you

honestly, it doesnt bother me if no one knows how they work. because they definitely wouldnt work if we did.

i agree that you cant just take away constitutional rights all willy nilly just because some people are afraid of the word "terrorist" but Bloomberg wasnt suggesting we prevent someone from buying a gun just that we "look very hard before you let them buy a gun" and hes not wrong

even if they dont actually "take a closer look" just the knowledge that they do would probably be enough to deter a terrorist. what terrorist would be stupid enough to risk going through that?
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
1) We need a list good or bad. Preferably a good one. But bad is how govt. usually works.

2) We can't deny rights w/o due process. You can't deny someone a gun or to travel based on this list; sadly Rahm Emanuel does believe so though.

Let me guess we let United, Delta and American determine the list?