Jump to content

No Fly List Is Unconstitutional


Recommended Posts

The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/judge-no-fly-list_n_5526587.html

 

I've always thought it was unconstitutional. I think the No Fly List is a good idea but the lack of a way to contest someone's listing is just wrong. I blame this on Congress. They've had more than a decade to fix this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/judge-no-fly-list_n_5526587.html

 

I've always thought it was unconstitutional. I think the No Fly List is a good idea but the lack of a way to contest someone's listing is just wrong. I blame this on Congress. They've had more than a decade to fix this.

 

I agree that it is probably unconstitutional, but only for the 500 of 20,000 on the list who are US citizens. We agree on that.

 

Blame it on Congress? Not so much agreement there. It was created by the executive under Bush without a vote in the legislature to make it law, and Obama hasn't taken any action to curtail it.

 

It is nice to see you acknowledge that Congress should exercise their Constitutional powers to maintain the balance of power.....sometimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/judge-no-fly-list_n_5526587.html

 

I've always thought it was unconstitutional. I think the No Fly List is a good idea but the lack of a way to contest someone's listing is just wrong. I blame this on Congress. They've had more than a decade to fix this.

 

About time.

 

It was apparently a tempting target for those wishing to deny other constitutional rights.

 

 

...

The idea (that seems to me to be coming from a certain part of our political spectrum) of prohibiting people on the government's secret "no fly" list from purchasing guns is a step far beyond prohibiting convicted felons, and into the range of infringing on a constitutional right based only on unarticulated suspicion. Where's the outrage? As I asked over here, do we also give up our fourth amendment rights if we are put on that list?

 

A list that elicits a statement like the bolded one below from a politician is an inherently dangerous list.

 

 

 

Daley was dead set against guns but Rahm is going to have to either relent or hire a shitload of cops.

Shitload of cops it will be, then...

 

 

>...and I think the most simple thing we can do, and we've gotta make this a number one issue as a test vote and then take it into the election, that is: if you are on the no fly list because you are known as maybe a possible terrorist, you cannot buy a handgun in America.

Now we all know that the pen is mightier than the sword, so I say we expand on his idea and say no first amendment rights for people on "the list" either. Why should terrorists use our constitution to spread their message? And another thing: why should they be voting? If someone is on that list, we need to ensure that their voter registration is revoked. We do not need terrorists picking our leaders any more! It's gotten almost as bad as all the terrorist incidents involving handguns and airplanes that he's trying to prevent here. Hey, when did those happen anyway?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

>...and I think the most simple thing we can do, and we've gotta make this a number one issue as a test vote and then take it into the election, that is: if you are on the no fly list because you are known as maybe a possible terrorist, you cannot buy a handgun in America.

Now we all know that the pen is mightier than the sword, so I say we expand on his idea and say no first amendment rights for people on "the list" either. Why should terrorists use our constitution to spread their message? And another thing: why should they be voting? If someone is on that list, we need to ensure that their voter registration is revoked. We do not need terrorists picking our leaders any more! It's gotten almost as bad as all the terrorist incidents involving handguns and airplanes that he's trying to prevent here. Hey, when did those happen anyway?

 

Good old Douchebag Rham gets a Constitutional "Twofer" with his statement above.

 

Check out the surveillance in Camden these days.

 

 

The zoomed way out view:

Either the wealth gets redistributed from the casino's on Wall Street to the people so we have a viable economy or it gets redistributed to massive police forces and technology to keep massive numbers of poor with a lot of spare time under control.

 

Pick your poison socialism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

>...and I think the most simple thing we can do, and we've gotta make this a number one issue as a test vote and then take it into the election, that is: if you are on the no fly list because you are known as maybe a possible terrorist, you cannot buy a handgun in America.

Now we all know that the pen is mightier than the sword, so I say we expand on his idea and say no first amendment rights for people on "the list" either. Why should terrorists use our constitution to spread their message? And another thing: why should they be voting? If someone is on that list, we need to ensure that their voter registration is revoked. We do not need terrorists picking our leaders any more! It's gotten almost as bad as all the terrorist incidents involving handguns and airplanes that he's trying to prevent here. Hey, when did those happen anyway?

 

Good old Douchebag Rham gets a Constitutional "Twofer" with his statement above.

 

Check out the surveillance in Camden these days.

 

 

The zoomed way out view:

Either the wealth gets redistributed from the casino's on Wall Street to the people so we have a viable economy or it gets redistributed to massive police forces and technology to keep massive numbers of poor with a lot of spare time under control.

 

Pick your poison socialism.

 

Wall St rules result in street crime?

 

I'd say drug war rules are far more culpable, if we're going to isolate one set of rules.

 

Of course, my view implies a solution involving less government in our lives. Harder to see for those for whom more government is always the only solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Terrorist Watch List Sounds Useless

 

According to the documents obtained by The Intercept, out of the 680,000 people included on the list, 280,000 have ”no recognized terrorist group affiliation,” making it the largest category of any other on the list of ”known or suspected terrorists.” The next-largest specific terrorist organization on the list is al-Qaida in Iraq, with only 73,189 people.

 

(RELATED: Newly Released Document Reveals How The US Government Defines A Terrorist)

 

The documents also highlight the dramatic expansion of the government’s terrorist watch-listing under the Obama administration, which includes increasing the the no-fly list to 47,000 — ten times higher than the Bush administration.

Ten times as many people on the secret no-fly list?
Obama is like SuperBush!
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Judge Rejects Fedgov Motion To Dismiss No-Fly List Suit


In a ruling issued Thursday in federal court in Alexandria, Judge Anthony Trenga said that while he might allow certain evidence to be kept out of trial, he would not shut down the entire lawsuit.

 

The government argued that the entire lawsuit needs to be tossed, but Trenga said he reviewed the documents in question and remains unconvinced that the lawsuit will necessarily expose state secrets. He said remedies can be fashioned that leave the lawsuit intact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Noted Security State Zealot Feinstein Wants Terror Suspects Deprived of Rights.

 

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.) today introduced the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 to give the Department of Justice authority to prevent a known or suspected terrorist from buying firearms or explosives.

 

Cosponsors include Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). The House bill has 14 cosponsors.

 

“Under current law, known or suspected terrorists on terrorist watch lists are prohibited from boarding airplanes, but they are legally allowed to buy firearms and explosives anywhere in the United States. That makes no sense,” said Senator Feinstein...

 

 

My reaction from 2011 still fits...

 

Now we all know that the pen is mightier than the sword, so I say we expand on his idea and say no first amendment rights for people on "the list" either. Why should terrorists use our constitution to spread their message? And another thing: why should they be voting? If someone is on that list, we need to ensure that their voter registration is revoked. We do not need terrorists picking our leaders any more! ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the Republicans on this?? Shouldn't all those constitution thumping righties be exploding from their ears???

 

Good thing I am an independent

 

Rep King is cosponsoring the bill.

 

As the topic post noted, the no fly list was ruled unconstitutional because the necessary secrecy surrounding the list made it impossible for people to challenge denial of their rights.

 

This version fixes that problem. Unless secrecy is necessary. <_<

 

  • Allow the Justice Department, in any administrative or court proceeding challenging the accuracy of a denied firearm or explosive transfer under the bill, to protect information that, if disclosed, would compromise national security.

     

     

Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

 

 

Where are the Republicans on this?? Shouldn't all those constitution thumping righties be exploding from their ears???

 

Good thing I am an independent

Rep King is cosponsoring the bill.

 

As the topic post noted, the no fly list was ruled unconstitutional because the necessary secrecy surrounding the list made it impossible for people to challenge denial of their rights.

 

This version fixes that problem. Unless secrecy is necessary. <_<

  • Allow the Justice Department, in any administrative or court proceeding challenging the accuracy of a denied firearm or explosive transfer under the bill, to protect information that, if disclosed, would compromise national security.

     

Tom, I haven't kept up this entire thread. But what does a firearm transfer have to do with a no fly list?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're on the secret list for secret reasons, you can't buy a gun. You can challenge this denial, unless secrecy is a higher priority.

 

Feinstein and King are acting to close the extremely scary "TERROR GAP" that has been allowing so many terrorists to legally acquire guns here in the US. This kind of thing has been going on for years.

 

I think we should close the TERROR GAP the rest of the way, preventing these terrorists from voting, publishing, speaking, or assembling in public, among other things. Also, we should immediately search the homes and computers of anyone who was secretly placed on the secret list. Why should terrorists continue to elect our leaders? Why should they keep taking advantage of our freedom of expression? And why should these terrorists have any privacy rights at all? Fuck them people.

 

CLOSE THE TERROR GAP! NO MORE PROTECTED RIGHTS FOR TERRORISTS!

 

(Favre was the best.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're on the secret list for secret reasons, you can't buy a gun. You can challenge this denial, unless secrecy is a higher priority.

 

Feinstein and King are acting to close the extremely scary "TERROR GAP" that has been allowing so many terrorists to legally acquire guns here in the US.

 

I think we should close the TERROR GAP the rest of the way, preventing these terrorists from voting, publishing, speaking, or assembling in public, among other things. Also, we should immediately search the homes and computers of anyone who was secretly placed on the secret list. Why should terrorists continue to elect our leaders? Why should they keep taking advantage of our freedom of expression? And why should these terrorists have any privacy rights at all? Fuck them people.

 

CLOSE THE TERROR GAP! NO MORE PROTECTED RIGHTS FOR TERRORISTS!

 

(Favre was the best.)

 

Ahhh, I get it. I totally agree with you tom. Those secretly suspected terrahists shouldn't be allowed to exercise any of their other rights either. Once we close this terror gap, we can finally start working on the doomsday gap....

 

DrStrangelove060Pyxurz.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

 

If you're on the secret list for secret reasons, you can't buy a gun. You can challenge this denial, unless secrecy is a higher priority.

Gotta reliable cite on that ultra-sweet piece of malarkey, something that ends in .gov ?

 

ps: guns.

 

 

You didn't notice that the part you clipped out was an answer to JBSF's question and that the rest of the reply was sarcastic?

 

Oh well. Anyway, here's one that ends in .gov and has schumer in it:

 

The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 authored by Senator Feinstein would:

  • Allow the attorney general to deny the purchase or transfer of a firearm or explosive to a known or suspected terrorist if the prospective recipient may use the firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism.
  • Maintain protections in current law that allow a person who believes he has been mistakenly prevented from buying a firearm to learn of the reason for the denial, and then to challenge the denial, first administratively with the Department of Justice, and then through a lawsuit against the Justice Department.
  • Allow the Justice Department, in any administrative or court proceeding challenging the accuracy of a denied firearm or explosive transfer under the bill, to protect information that, if disclosed, would compromise national security.

 

 

 

As you can see, the law contemplates denials based on being on the secret list and that last provision says that the reason for denial can be kept secret if national security requires it. That's another way of saying, "If you're on the secret list for secret reasons, you can't buy a gun. You can challenge this denial, unless secrecy is a higher priority."

 

They want to change things so that if you're on the secret list you MUST (as opposed to can) be denied protected rights. Like the right to purchase guns.

 

You do now understand that we have a second amendment-protected right to purchase guns, right? Or do we need to go over that one again?

 

ps: tools

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what the meaning of is is?

Certainly not Senate Dems, who care about what is suspected as much as what is known...

DiFi: “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous to own a gun.”

Reid: "By leaving this terrorist loophole open, Republicans are leaving every community in America vulnerable to attacks by terrorists armed with assault rifles and explosives purchased legally, in broad daylight."

Schumer: "Because of the NRA it hasn’t happened, but because of Paris we’re hoping there will be new impetus to do this and do it now.

Slamming this appalling loophole ought to be a no-brainer."

 

 

DiFi's proposal says that if a person "is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support of resources for terrorism; and has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism."

 

So appropriate (but secret) suspicion that can not be challenged is sufficient to deny protected rights?

 

At least she's consistent, as she seems to feel that suspicion of some connection to terrorism is sufficient not just for second amendment violations but also fourth amendment violations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

US to Tell Americans Why They Are On Secret List

 

But the ACLU isn't satisfied with the government's new policy, outlined in documents filed Monday in federal courts in Oregon (PDF) and Virginia (PDF).

"After years of fighting in court for complete secrecy and losing, it's good that the government is finally now going to tell people of their status on the No Fly GUNS List," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project and the lead attorney on the case, in a statement.

"Unfortunately, we've found that the government's new redress process falls far short of constitutional requirements because it denies our clients meaningful notice, evidence, and a hearing. The government had an opportunity to come up with a fair process but failed, so we're challenging it in court again."

...

Those who appear on the no-fly VOTES list will then have further opportunity to dispute their status in writing, with supporting materials or exhibits, and will receive a final written decision from the Transportation Security Administration.

The 2014 ruling that prompted the policy changes had called for passengers on the list to be given the opportunity to dispute their status before a judge.

 

 

It looks like people on the secret No GUNS/VOTE/RIGHTS List will not get before a judge in the revised redress procedure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

>...and I think the most simple thing we can do, and we've gotta make this a number one issue as a test vote and then take it into the election, that is: if you are on the no fly list because you are known as maybe a possible terrorist, you cannot buy a handgun in America.

Now we all know that the pen is mightier than the sword, so I say we expand on his idea and say no first amendment rights for people on "the list" either. Why should terrorists use our constitution to spread their message? And another thing: why should they be voting? If someone is on that list, we need to ensure that their voter registration is revoked. We do not need terrorists picking our leaders any more! It's gotten almost as bad as all the terrorist incidents involving handguns and airplanes that he's trying to prevent here. Hey, when did those happen anyway?

 

Good old Douchebag Rham gets a Constitutional "Twofer" with his statement above.

 

Check out the surveillance in Camden these days.

 

 

The zoomed way out view:

Either the wealth gets redistributed from the casino's on Wall Street to the people so we have a viable economy or it gets redistributed to massive police forces and technology to keep massive numbers of poor with a lot of spare time under control.

 

Pick your poison socialism.

 

By all means, protect the drug dealers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

US to Tell Americans Why They Are On Secret List

 

But the ACLU isn't satisfied with the government's new policy, outlined in documents filed Monday in federal courts in Oregon (PDF) and Virginia (PDF).

 

"After years of fighting in court for complete secrecy and losing, it's good that the government is finally now going to tell people of their status on the No Fly GUNS List," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project and the lead attorney on the case, in a statement.

 

"Unfortunately, we've found that the government's new redress process falls far short of constitutional requirements because it denies our clients meaningful notice, evidence, and a hearing. The government had an opportunity to come up with a fair process but failed, so we're challenging it in court again."

 

...

 

Those who appear on the no-fly VOTES list will then have further opportunity to dispute their status in writing, with supporting materials or exhibits, and will receive a final written decision from the Transportation Security Administration.

 

The 2014 ruling that prompted the policy changes had called for passengers on the list to be given the opportunity to dispute their status before a judge.

 

 

It looks like people on the secret No GUNS/VOTE/RIGHTS List will not get before a judge in the revised redress procedure.

I'm shocked you can't take a gun on a plane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

US to Tell Americans Why They Are On Secret List

 

But the ACLU isn't satisfied with the government's new policy, outlined in documents filed Monday in federal courts in Oregon (PDF) and Virginia (PDF).

 

"After years of fighting in court for complete secrecy and losing, it's good that the government is finally now going to tell people of their status on the No Fly GUNS List," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project and the lead attorney on the case, in a statement.

 

"Unfortunately, we've found that the government's new redress process falls far short of constitutional requirements because it denies our clients meaningful notice, evidence, and a hearing. The government had an opportunity to come up with a fair process but failed, so we're challenging it in court again."

 

...

 

Those who appear on the no-fly VOTES list will then have further opportunity to dispute their status in writing, with supporting materials or exhibits, and will receive a final written decision from the Transportation Security Administration.

 

The 2014 ruling that prompted the policy changes had called for passengers on the list to be given the opportunity to dispute their status before a judge.

 

 

It looks like people on the secret No GUNS/VOTE/RIGHTS List will not get before a judge in the revised redress procedure.

I'm shocked you can't take a gun on a plane.

 

 

Of course you can. People do it with disturbing regularity, usually accidentally. Or so they say. I'd call it negligence, not knowing where your gun is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/judge-no-fly-list_n_5526587.html

 

I've always thought it was unconstitutional. I think the No Fly List is a good idea but the lack of a way to contest someone's listing is just wrong. I blame this on Congress. They've had more than a decade to fix this.

 

Hey Olsonist,

 

This question for you somehow got misplaced and put into a response to one of my comments. I figured I'd put it here for you.

 

 

...

 

So would you agree that your statement about the no-fly list being unconstitutional is not a true statement of the status of the list?

 

 

 

You're welcome!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/judge-no-fly-list_n_5526587.html

 

I've always thought it was unconstitutional. I think the No Fly List is a good idea but the lack of a way to contest someone's listing is just wrong. I blame this on Congress. They've had more than a decade to fix this.

 

I share your opinion but there is a legal technicality to be observed.

 

 

...

The procedure to ensure due process was declared constitutionally insufficient by the court in the case I cited. The no fly list still exists and has not been declared unconstitutional. Anyone suggesting otherwise is not telling the truth.

 

...

 

 

I'm telling the truth about my opinion, as I suspect Olsonist is.

The cited case notes that the "no fly list" is a subset of the "watch list" and my opinion is that the watch list (including the "no fly" subset list) is unconstitutional, though I understand that it still exists and recognize that my opinion does not mean the law is gone. It's still there, still unconstitutional IMO, still being challenged by the ACLU, and still tempting big government advocates to find new ways to use it to violate our rights.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time Magazine and ACLU Support Arming Terrorsts

 

Or something.

 

...In 2014, a federal court found the no-fly list unconstitutional because it denied those listed due process in challenging their inclusion. Since then, the U.S. government has said it’s providing more information to those who are on the list, potentially allowing persons banned from air travel to appeal and get their names removed. The ACLU, however, is still challenging the list in court, arguing that the government isn’t handing over enough information about how it populates those names. The civil liberties organization is also against barring those included from being denied guns for similar reasons.

 

“We are opposed to the use of terror watch lists, as presently constituted, to screen gun purchases,” said ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi. “We believe the lists are deeply flawed.”

...

 

 

Of course, Time joined Olsonist in calling the no-fly list unconstitutional, which is a bad thing sometimes.

 

...

 

You will not find the court declaring the no fly list to be unconstitutional. You will find that the government's mechanism for challenging inclusion on the list failed the procedural due process test. Tom TIME has once again made a misrepresentation of the law.

 

 

Fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder about this part:

 

The civil liberties organization is also against barring those included from being denied guns for similar reasons.

 

 

What could those "similar reasons" be, I wonder? Due process is something applied to rights of individuals in this context.

 

But the ACLU doesn't believe that the second amendment protects an individual right. So I'm not sure why they object to applying the No Rights List to gun purchases, but I'm glad they do object.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of Congresscritter Miller McClintock?

 

Neither has the No Rights List, which is very convenient for Congresscritter Tom McClintock.

 

“While serving in the California state Senate a decade ago, I discovered suddenly I couldn’t check into a flight. When I asked why, I was told I was on this government list. The experience was absolutely “Kafkaesque.” My first reaction was to ask, ‘Why am I on that list?’ ‘We can’t tell you.’ ‘What are the criteria you use?’ ‘That’s classified.’ ‘How can I get off this list?’ ‘You can’t.’ I soon discovered that another California state Senator had been placed on that list. A few months later US Senator Edward Kennedy found himself on the list. I at least had the office of sergeant-at-arms of the state Senate to work through, something an ordinary American would not. Even so it took months working through that office, with repeated petitions to the government to get my name removed from that list. And the farce of it all was that I was advised in the meantime just to fly under my middle name, which I did without incident . . . .”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Malloy, Cuomo, and Schumer want state govt access to lists of suspected terrorists

 

Democrats get two Pinnochio's on No Rights List rhetoric

 

That one points out that in 2007, the W administration's Justice Dept proposed what the Dems are now proposing: closing the "Terror Gap" by using the No Rights List.

 

Leading us to the Inverted Politics of the No Rights List

 

The subtitle of that one sums up my view of the situation perfectly. This kind of abuse is fine with Republicans as long as their guy is doing it and fine with Democrats as long as their guy is doing it.

 

Democrats, once critics of Bush-era terror policies, have decided they’re a useful tool, while Republicans have rediscovered the importance of due process.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly. Speaking of which, if state govts get access to the No Rights List, will they do absolutely everything they can to make sure no terrorists approach polling places on election day? That is a state govt role after all...

Link to post
Share on other sites

ACLU Director Takes NRA Position

 

Is there anyone the NRA can't buy?

 

 

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform.

 

...

 

the government made two basic arguments in its defense of the No Fly List, both of which the court rejected. First, it argued that U.S. persons had no constitutionally protected right to fly. In August 2013, the court disagreed, holding that constitutional rights are at stake when the government stigmatizes Americans as suspected terrorists and bans them from international travel.

 

Second, the government asserted that national security concerns meant the government couldn’t confirm or deny whether people were on the No Fly List, and it couldn’t give them reasons or a hearing before a neutral decision-maker. This is absurd as a practical matter and violates due process as a constitutional matter. Practically speaking, people know they are on the No Fly List when they are banned from flying and surrounded — and stigmatized — by security officials publicly at airports. Some of our clients were told they would be taken off the list if they agreed to become government informants. Again, the court agreed with us and held that the government’s refusal to provide any notice or a hearing violates the Constitution. As a result, the government announced in April that it would tell U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents whether they are on the No Fly List, and possibly offer reasons.

 

Unfortunately, the government’s new redress process still falls far short of constitutional requirements...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

 

A top official at the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday appeared to break with the White House’s call for Congress to ban people on the federal no-fly list from buying guns.

 

“I believe it would be apples and oranges” to use the watch list for anything other than its designed purpose, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs Alan Bersin told House lawmakers in an Oversight Committee hearing on Thursday.

 

...

 

The day after the hearing, Bersin said that his remarks "were in the context of an extended discussion about screening procedures and in no way call into question my view that terrorists should not be able to obtain weapons."

"To be clear, it is the administration's position that Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun," Bersin said in a statement Friday.

"This is a matter of national security and common sense, and it is a position I and the department support."

...

Bersin did not seem to be aware of the Obama administration’s proposal on Thursday.

 

 

I guess he got a call from upstairs informing him that sometimes using suspect lists for purposes other than those for which they were created is just dandy.

 

The article also gives me yet another reason Chris Christie can go fuck himself. Kasich too.

 

Some moderate Republicans, such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, both GOP presidential candidates, have suggested they support the Obama administration’s proposal.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly. Speaking of which, if state govts get access to the No Rights List, will they do absolutely everything they can to make sure no terrorists approach polling places on election day? That is a state govt role after all...

Aren't Muslim Americans that haven't been convicted of anything 'The People' too Tom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Possibly. Speaking of which, if state govts get access to the No Rights List, will they do absolutely everything they can to make sure no terrorists approach polling places on election day? That is a state govt role after all...

Aren't Muslim ALL Americans that haven't been convicted of anything 'The People' too Tom?

 

 

Fixed, and yes. Not sure why you're asking me.

 

But "the people" is a term that extends beyond just Americans. It is also used in important places other than our second amendment. The fourth amendment being a prime example.

 

That's why I thought this a pretty good question:

 

Are Illegal Immigrants Also The People?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

ACLU National Security Director:

 

Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn't Be Used to Restrict People's Freedom

 

 

...

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform. As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error....

 

 

 

Rep. Mike Thompson:

 

But They're ON A LIST!!!

 

Why, nutz at the NRA or ACLU might ask, are they on the list?

 

There's a rule for that!

 

In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.”.

 

 

A preponderance of some of the evidence is not a high enough bar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

I have to admit that "TERROR GAP" was a catchy name.

 

 

 




Sarah Brady must have tipped him off.

It's a plot, I tell ya.

The Washington Post has invented a whole new anti-gun scare term around this guy:

(cue scary music)

The TERROR Gap!

In addition to further perpetuating the gun show loophole myth and the false notion that there is such a thing as a "private dealer" at a gun show, they took the opportunity in that article to point out that people on the secret "watch list" who cannot fly still have constitutional rights, among them second amendment rights! The horror! The government putting a person on a secret list should easily be reason enough to start violating constitutional rights! We just need a term to scare the people!

The TERROR Gap! PANIC!!!

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a war on gaps.

 

I would undertake a mission to fill in a couple of these.

 

a49jEz1_700b.jpg

 

I am a centrist but I would be almost as happy on the left or could be easily sold on the right

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
  • 1 year later...

"But we took you off the secret list" isn't quite good enough.
 

Quote

 

A federal appeals court on Thursday revived a Muslim-American man’s lawsuit accusing the U.S. government of improperly keeping him for about six years on its “no-fly list,” where he said he was placed to coerce him into becoming an FBI informant.

Reversing a lower court ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland, Oregon said Yonas Fikre’s due process claims did not become moot when he was removed from the list without explanation in May 2016, three years after he sued.

The court said the government’s refusal to acknowledge that Fikre did not belong on the list and would not be returned there left an overhang that could cause business associates, friends and even family to shun him.

 

Overhangs do tend to have penumbras.

In other news, our secret lists prevented German nationals from flying to Cuba because they'd cross our airspace.

I know that sounds like I forgot the sarcasm font, but...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-german-couple-winds-up-on-the-u-s-no-fly-list-a-1227620.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
8 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

IT WAS 6 PEOPLE ON THE WATCHLIST DUMBASS. THE NUMBER OF TERRORISTS IS ZERO.


But I thought people on the secret list for secret reasons were terrorists. Or they wouldn't be on the list, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2016 at 6:36 AM, random said:

So the no fly list might be unconstitutional while murder of suspects, torture, bribery of politicians, deceit by fossil fuel companies and kidnapping are all good.

 

What a fucked up place.

I am going to miss this kind of wisdom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

I guess Cory Booker hasn't heard that Trump bought into the lefty media Fake News and banned bump stocka.

Still, all the bad ideas haven't been taken and there's another one that needs recycling, apparently.

D54VfM9XkAAinBT.jpg

I still agree with the ACLU that being on a secret list for secret reasons isn't a reason to deny protected rights.

As for the licenses, I guess if the fees are not too high, it wouldn't be too burdensome.

OTOH, as New Jersey has shown, there are good policy reasons for making some rights less affordable to poor people, who can be...volatile.

If FakeNewb were to admit he's Gator, maybe he'd get back around to calling such things regressive and troubling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Kamala Harris Will Close The Terror Gap

Quote

"I'm prepared to say that law enforcement should be allowed to seize the guns of those who are suspected to be involved in domestic terrorism," Harris said.

We shouldn't stop there. Do we really want terrorists speaking freely in our society? Their first amendment rights should be GONE.

Do we really want terrorists picking our leaders? Why should they get to vote? Anyone who Trump's DOJ suspects is a terrorist should immediately have his voter registration revoked, preferably permanently.

Anyone see the problem yet, or should I go on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2014 at 8:31 AM, Regatta Dog said:

I agree that it is probably unconstitutional, but only for the 500 of 20,000 on the list who are US citizens

Haahahaaaa.  Fuck the others, they aren't even human!  We can do what ever the fuck we want to them!  Even separate them from their spawn.

Nice work Doggy

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Kamala Harris Will Close The Terror Gap

We shouldn't stop there. Do we really want terrorists speaking freely in our society? Their first amendment rights should be GONE.

Do we really want terrorists picking our leaders? Why should they get to vote? Anyone who Trump's DOJ suspects is a terrorist should immediately have his voter registration revoked, preferably permanently.

Anyone see the problem yet, or should I go on?

would you stop if we asked you to? Doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The FBI's Infamous List of 'Known Terrorists' Is Ruled Unconstitutional
 

Quote

 

Due process prevails? We may finally be seeing an end to George W. Bush-era security theater embodied in the FBI's abysmally flawed terrorist watchlist. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that the official Terrorist Screening Database—a list that has grown to more than 1 million "known or suspected terrorists," including thousands of American citizens—was unconstitutional.

"There is no evidence, or contention, that any of these plaintiffs satisfy the definition of a 'known terrorist,'" wrote Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. His decision echoes what civil liberties groups, Muslim Americans, libertarians, and others have been saying for nearly two decades. 

...

The ruling is in response to a lawsuit brought by 23 American citizens, all Muslim, who had been included on the list. "Trenga noted that the list restricts their ability to fly and engage in everyday activities and backed the plaintiffs' concerns that they were flagged secretly and without a clear methodology," reports The Washington Post.

Read the judge's full decision here.

The plaintiffs were represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), whose executive director, Nihad Awad, said the "secretive watchlist" has effectively been "a Muslim registry created in the wake of the widespread Islamophobia of the early 2000s."

"CAIR has a half-dozen other watchlist cases pending in federal courts across the country, and this opinion will pave the wave for our continued victories," CAIR National Litigation Director Lena Masri said in a statement.

 

Glad to see non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations like CAIR exercise their long-established first amendment rights to expre$$ them$elve$ by filing civil rights lawsuits.

I'm not down with their wave-paving plan and am not even sure how that would work but wish them success otherwise.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

The Government Says These Men Have No Recourse Against FBI Agents Who Used the 'No Fly' List To Punish Them
 

Quote

 

...

In October 2010, Tanvir discovered that he had been added to the federal government's "no fly" list, which prevented him from visiting his family in Pakistan, forced him to quit his job as a long-haul trucker, and cost him the money he spent on airline tickets he was not allowed to use. His freedom to fly was not restored until March 2013, after he repeatedly challenged his inclusion on the list and hired a lawyer to negotiate with the FBI.

That October, Tanvir, joined by two other Muslim men who had similar experiences, initiated a case that the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear next month. They argued that the FBI violated their religious freedom when it punished them for refusing to become informants by preventing them from flying.

In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit agreed that Tanvir et al. could use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to sue the FBI agents who had harassed them for monetary damages. The federal government is asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, arguing that RFRA authorizes only injunctive relief. Since Tanvir is no longer on the no-fly list, the government says, there is no legal remedy for the harm he suffered.

In an amicus brief filed today, the Institute for Justice highlights the broader implications of that position, which it says contradicts a long legal tradition of allowing people to recover damages when government officials violate their rights.

...

 

I hope Tanvir and his fellow Muslim terrorist plaintiffs win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 3:19 AM, justsomeguy! said:
On 8/16/2019 at 3:15 AM, Repastinate Tom said:
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

 

should I go on?

No.

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

Tanzin v Tanvir will be heard October 6th

Nutty Press Release
 

Quote

 

...“It is a bedrock principle of American law that government officials are not above the law,” IJ Nutjob Anya Bidwell explained. “In the 19th century, when federal agents violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, they could bring a damages claim. To argue that damages are not ‘appropriate relief’ for the violation of individual rights ignores hundreds of years of American legal history.”

...

In 2013, Tanvir and several other men, who were also placed on the No-Fly List by retaliating government officials, filed a lawsuit. The men alleged that their placement on the No-Fly List in retaliation for their refusal to spy on their religious communities burdened their right to freely exercise their religion.

On the eve of an important court hearing, however, the government informed the plaintiffs that they had been removed from the No-Fly List and could once again fly. The government then argued that because the men had been removed from the list (albeit years after the fact) the lawsuit should be dismissed. Although the relevant statute provided the plaintiffs “appropriate relief” for what the government and its officials did, the government argued  that money damages were not “appropriate relief” because somehow there should be a presumption against damages in suits against the government.

“This is ironic,” said IJ Nutjob Keith Neely. “Historically, damages have been the go-to remedy for government’s violations of your rights. After all, it is much less intrusive for the courts to order a monetary redress than for the law to change or for the government activity to be halted altogether.”

...

The trial court agreed and dismissed the case, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “appropriate relief” includes damages against government officials who violate individual rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court initially agreed to hear the case in March, but the Court delayed the argument to October in light of COVID-19.

The technical question in the case is whether an individual whose religious rights have been violated can recover damages from the government officials who violated those rights. But the broader issue is whether government officials can be held accountable at all.

Cases like this one are common, but few litigants have the opportunity to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. In June, the Supreme Court declined to hear about a dozen cases presenting questions involving government accountability, prompting Justice Clarence Thomas to write a dissent questioning the validity of one of the legal doctrines currently used to shield government officials: qualified immunity.

To ensure that government officials are held accountable to the Constitution and other laws, the Institute for Justice filed an amicus lymphatus brief in this case, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow damages and explaining the historic role damages play in our constitutional system.

...

 

I'm not sure "lymphatus" is the right word there but it struck me as the funniest choice.

The court has found some other friends in this case, some nuttier than others...

Jan 13 2020 Brief amici curiae of American Atheists, Center for Inquiry, et al. filed.
Jan 13 2020 Brief amici curiae of Freedom From Religion Foundation, et al. in support of neither party filed.
Jan 28 2020 Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, Muhammad Tanvir, et al.
Jan 31 2020 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 24, 2020.
Feb 05 2020 Brief of respondents Muhammad Tanvir, et al. filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amicus curiae of The Sikh Coalition filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amicus curiae of Jeffrey D. Kahn filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amicus curiae of American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amici curiae of Statutory Interpretation Scholars filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amici curiae of Religious and Civil-Rights Organizations filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amicus curiae of General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amicus curiae of Muslim Advocates filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amicus lymphatus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amici curiae of 67 Religious Organizations filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amici curiae of Fourteen Religious-Liberty Scholars, et al. filed.
Feb 12 2020 Brief amici curiae of Religious Organizations, Public Speakers and Scholars filed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 9/11/2020 at 4:53 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

Tanzin v Tanvir will be heard October 6th

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Unanimously You May Sue Government Agents for Damages When They Violate Your Individual Rights

Quote

In a unanimous opinion issued today by the U.S. Supreme Court, and authored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court ruled in Tanzin v. Tanvir that individuals may seek damages as a remedy when federal officers violate their rights. The opinion closely tracks an amicus brief submitted by the nutjobs at Institute for Justice.

...

“The Court today has provided its full-throated endorsement of damages as a necessary and historic mechanism for constitutional accountability,” said Scott Bullock, IJ’s president and general nutjob. “In doing so, the Court also reiterated its support for the foundational principles of this country, such as that damages can be awarded to check the government’s power and that it is Congress’ job to engage in policy making. The Court’s job is to interpret the law, not to do policy.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is interesting. Perhaps a sitting president may be indictable after all. (S)he is of course the supreme (pun intended) federal officer.

Uncle Thomas' copy and paste from his wife's lobby may come back to haunt him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2014 at 3:31 PM, Regatta Dog said:

 

I agree that it is probably unconstitutional, but only for the 500 of 20,000 on the list who are US citizens. We agree on that.

 

Blame it on Congress? Not so much agreement there. It was created by the executive under Bush without a vote in the legislature to make it law, and Obama hasn't taken any action to curtail it.

 

It is nice to see you acknowledge that Congress should exercise their Constitutional powers to maintain the balance of power.....sometimes.

Guess who hasn't been president for four years.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Remodel said:

Now that is interesting. Perhaps a sitting president may be indictable after all. (S)he is of course the supreme (pun intended) federal officer.

Uncle Thomas' copy and paste from his wife's lobby may come back to haunt him.

Indictments and suits for damages are not the same thing.

Who was damaged by Thomas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

More on Tanzin v Tanvir
 

Quote

 

...

None of the men was suspected of illegal activity, and indeed the Obama administration tried to head off the suit by removing their names from the no-fly list just days before the case first went to court. It didn't work. The men refused to drop their case, and on Thursday the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in their favor.

...

 

I didn't recall that Obama tried to moot the case that way to head off a ruling unfavorable to his no-fly list.

 

On 8/6/2014 at 5:12 AM, Quotidian Tom said:
Ten times as many people on the secret no-fly list?
 
Obama is like SuperBush!

I guess he had his reasons.

The article goes on to say:

Quote

This is not the end of the line in the case. The three men now have the right to sue, but the government may wish to settle the case out of court, or in the alternative, it could invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity, and assert that the agents are immune from suit because they had no way of knowing their conduct would be illegal at the time.

So I expect I'll be updating the Qualified Impunity thread before too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NY Times article on Tanzin v Tanvir wanders off onto another case.

 

Quote

 

...

Delaware’s court system is both widely admired and idiosyncratic, a product of two unusual provisions in its Constitution. One says that judges affiliated with any one political party cannot make up more than a bare majority of the state’s five main courts. The other says that only judges affiliated with one of the two major parties may sit on the Delaware Supreme Court and two other courts.

...

In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the two provisions challenged by Mr. Adams presented distinct issues.

“Bare majority requirements preclude any single political party from having more than a bare majority of the seats in a public body,” she wrote. “Such requirements have existed in various forums for roughly 150 years, currently feature in a large number of public bodies and have been shown to help achieve ideological diversity.”

“Major party requirements like Delaware’s, by contrast, preclude anyone who is not a member of the two major political parties from serving in a public body,” she wrote. “They are far rarer than their bare majority cousins, and they arguably impose a greater burden on First Amendment associational rights.”


 

I agree with the Wise Latina but would omit the word "arguably."

The idea seems to be to help prevent ideological diversity. I can see why it's "widely admired" by Duopoly types but those of us who have no loyalty to a Duopoly party can't see anything to admire.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
14 hours ago, BrickTopHarry said:

In other news, HAHAHAHA:

 


Lots of cheering for this in the thread where it was posted, but the due process problem is still a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Polytelum Tom said:


Lots of cheering for this in the thread where it was posted, but the due process problem is still a problem.

Lol.  Fuck that fucking snowflakes.  Cry me a fucking river.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Swimsailor said:
2 hours ago, Polytelum Tom said:

Lots of cheering for this in the thread where it was posted, but the due process problem is still a problem.

Lol.  Fuck that fucking snowflakes.  Cry me a fucking river.

I'd be willing to bet that there is a lot of due process being followed, even if it's not getting media attention.

And to be fair to Tom, he was in favor of due process when the issue was Muslim terrorists too, not just white supremacist ones. Although a lot of Republicans and all Trumpublicans are vigorously against 'due process' applied to brown people or liberals.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

And to be fair to Tom, he was in favor of due process when the issue was Muslim terrorists too, not just white supremacist ones.

No, that wasn't the issue.

On 12/12/2020 at 6:45 PM, Polytelum Tom said:

More on Tanzin v Tanvir
 

Quote

 

...

None of the men was suspected of illegal activity, and indeed the Obama administration tried to head off the suit by removing their names from the no-fly list just days before the case first went to court.


Terrorism is illegal activity. None of those targeted were suspected of illegal activity.

 

8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'd be willing to bet that there is a lot of due process being followed, even if it's not getting media attention.

And that's why I'd be willing to bet you're wrong. Due process would mean a transparent and adversarial process, not one where people are put on a secret list for secret reasons and can't challenge it because it's a secret.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

No, that wasn't the issue.


Terrorism is illegal activity. None of those targeted were suspected of illegal activity.

 

And that's why I'd be willing to bet you're wrong. Due process would mean a transparent and adversarial process, not one where people are put on a secret list for secret reasons and can't challenge it because it's a secret.

To include the pilot at least once who got off the plane and wasn't allowed back on. We can worry about it once the Trumpers are all in jail.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

To include the pilot at least once who got off the plane and wasn't allowed back on. We can worry about it once the Trumpers are all in jail.

"The right and wrong of our methods doesn't matter, what's important is that we prevent Joe Biden from becoming President."

Sound at all familiar? You're heading down the same road but I still think the process and the rules surrounding it matter. Yes, even for the most deplorable offenders. Especially for the most deplorable offenders. They're the ones who get otherwise reasonable people to abandon rules and procedures that somehow never get reestablished.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

"The right and wrong of our methods doesn't matter, what's important is that we prevent Joe Biden from becoming President."

Sound at all familiar? You're heading down the same road but I still think the process and the rules surrounding it matter. Yes, even for the most deplorable offenders. Especially for the most deplorable offenders. They're the ones who get otherwise reasonable people to abandon rules and procedures that somehow never get reestablished.

I did not suggest illegally jailing them, but a decade(s) old problem is not something to waste energy on now. Kind of like being on the Titanic frantically defrosting the freezer before the ship sinks. How about manning the pumps and getting back to the freezer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Airplane Problem is all wrapped up in the overreach of the Patriot Act. (How aptly named, ironically).

We are not going to solve this before this crisis is over. We are also not going to solve Civil Asset Forfeiture in the next 2 months. Or a number of other Constitutional Crises. We SHOULD get them solved. But fucking whackamole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, fastyacht said:

The Airplane Problem is all wrapped up in the overreach of the Patriot Act. (How aptly named, ironically).

We are not going to solve this before this crisis is over. We are also not going to solve Civil Asset Forfeiture in the next 2 months. Or a number of other Constitutional Crises. We SHOULD get them solved. But fucking whackamole.

I have an idea! We could elect a guy who helped write those asset forfeiture laws and has never said a bad word about them as President!

Oh, wait, we just did.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I did not suggest illegally jailing them, but a decade(s) old problem is not something to waste energy on now. Kind of like being on the Titanic frantically defrosting the freezer before the ship sinks. How about manning the pumps and getting back to the freezer?

It's mine to waste and I don't consider it frivolous.

19 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:
21 hours ago, Polytelum Tom said:


Lots of cheering for this in the thread where it was posted, but the due process problem is still a problem.

Well I'll take a bit of time off from that to laugh at the assholes if you don't mind

Ignore it if you like, but the due process problem is still a problem. I continue to agree with Olsonist and the federal judge from the topic post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

It's mine to waste and I don't consider it frivolous.

Ignore it if you like, but the due process problem is still a problem. I continue to agree with Olsonist and the federal judge from the topic post.

Of course its a problem, we can fix it after the ship quits sinking and the fire is out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Polytelum Tom said:

I have an idea! We could elect a guy who helped write those asset forfeiture laws and has never said a bad word about them as President!

Oh, wait, we just did.

Lucky for us our newly elected President appears capable of learning from experience ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:
47 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

I continue to agree with Olsonist and the federal judge from the topic post.

Of course its a problem, we can fix it after the ship quits sinking and the fire is out.

Uh huh. Did you happen to notice that the topic post is from 2014?

5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Lucky for us our newly elected President appears capable of learning from experience ;)

There's evidence of that on mandatory minimums, minimal evidence of it on the stupid drug war, and absolutely no evidence of it on asset forfeiture. I wish I could share your optimism but I don't.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Polytelum Tom said:

Uh huh. Did you happen to notice that the topic post is from 2014?

There's evidence of that on mandatory minimums, minimal evidence of it on the stupid drug war, and absolutely no evidence of it on asset forfeiture. I wish I could share your optimism but I don't.

Kill the War On Some Drugs and that will be 75% of the battle ;)

Link to post