As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I’ve got a little list — I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!–Gilbert & Sullivan, “The Mikado”
Government figures provided to The Associated Press showed that the so-called no-fly list has skyrocketed from 10,000 suspected terrorists to around 21,000. Officials have refused to disclose exactly who is on the list or why a person might be placed on it.
“The news that the list is growing tells us that more people’s rights are being violated,” said Nusrat Choudhury, a staff attorney working for the ACLU’s national security project. “It’s a secret list, and the government puts people on it without any explanation. Citizens have been stranded abroad.”
The government also maintains a separate “terrorist watch list” that reportedly included over one million names by 2009.
Yeah, I know, there’s no constitutional right to buy an airplane ticket. However, as far as we know the no-fly list has never prevented an actual terrorist from boarding a plane. The Underpants Bomb guy who wanted to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 wasn’t on the no-fly list, which is a reason given for expanding the list. One function of the list has been to provide the Bush and Obama administrations and the TSA an unaccountable way to harass their critics.
Of course, this is still the good old USA. We have rights. Individuals on the no-fly list have been allowed to purchase guns and explosives.
66.162.57.62#1 by Bob S. on February 2, 2012 - 11:42 am
People on the no-fly list have also been allowed to speak, exercise their religion, gather in public.
On top of those, the people on the no-fly list have also been protected (somewhat) against unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, they’ve been allowed to vote too.
Isn’t it amazing that we actually let people have liberty until the government can prove they’ve broken the law.
Guess you only want to let people exercise some of their rights, eh?
166.2.73.102#2 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2012 - 12:15 pm
The point is, if someone is regarded as a terrorist by the U.S. Government and not allowed to board an airplane, then they should also be banned from buying guns and explosives. There is no such ban because the no-fly list is meaningless and our government knows it. But it does make a neat tool for political revenge:
Actor Mark Ruffalo Put On Terror Watch List For Anti-Fracking Activism
24.20.118.143#3 by cav on February 2, 2012 - 12:18 pm
Has the subject of ‘No-Fly’ private jets been addressed?
There’s been talk of economics being just another arena or tool for warring. Not much of a stretch at all to using econ as a terrorist tool (in the right hands, of course).
I’m wondering if curbing some of the bankster perks might not reduce the temperature on some of this terrorism they fearsomely promote all of the time. Those guys aren’t perpetually buzzing the planet chasing ‘t’- times alone.
166.2.73.102#4 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2012 - 12:31 pm
cav–
I expect you know the answer.
Want to Fly Through a Loophole in the No-Fly List? Buy a Plane
Don’t tell the terrorists about this!
66.162.57.62#5 by Bob S. on February 2, 2012 - 12:40 pm
Richard,
Thanks for showing your cluelessness.
Please explain why someone who has been put on a list without due process should be deprived of their right to purchase legal products?
Please explain why if those people put on a list, again without due process, should be allowed to exercise some rights but not others?
Ted Kennedy was on that list wasn’t he?
here is no such ban because the no-fly list is meaningless and our government knows it.
Given the fact that it is a harassment technique and an infringement of rights…it isn’t meaningless.
Unless your goal is to do away with only some of the people’s rights, say like the right to keep and bear arms.
166.2.73.102#6 by Richard Warnick on February 2, 2012 - 12:47 pm
My goal is to do away with the no-fly list because it does not prevent terrorism and it’s been used for political harassment by two administrations now.
67.172.251.22#7 by Shane on February 2, 2012 - 7:03 pm
Bob, explain why someone put on the list without due process should be deprived of their right to fly legally? (a question mark? really? end brewski)
I think Richards point is that if you are going to prevent terrorists from doing things, it makes sense to prevent them from doing things that can aid them in commiting acts of terror. If you are going to allow them to do things that could be used for such activities, then surely they should be allowed to do all such (legal) activities. Personally, I (and it sounds like Richard) think that both issues are silly. However if you could make an argument for one, it would be the opposite of what we are doing now…
Something about being clueless, not being able to read what is actually written, and think (standard boiler plate for replying to rightwingers that get their little panties in a knot when they think a “freedom” is being threatened)
Follow that up with an actual understanding of what the amendment says and the cultural context, a screw it, that would require too much thought on someone elses part. As you were.
67.6.172.61#8 by Sponge Bob on February 3, 2012 - 8:15 am
Uh, duh Shane…because under obama we have achieved a rare form of fascism? It isn’t so much a “really”? as a “duh WTF have ya been while this jerk off president has been busy being bush’s 3rd term”..Shane are you being disingenuous or just a clueless partisan?
66.162.57.62#9 by Bob S. on February 3, 2012 - 9:24 am
Shane,
So you are okay with terrorists having the right to assemble so they can plan their attacks but they can’t fly to get there.
It also seems that you are okay with terrorists being able to go to their mosque (or for a few -church) where they are radicalized into wanting to blow up a building but they can’t fly there.
That is exactly the point that I’m trying to make — buying firearms is a legal activity.
Yet Richard wants to prevent people from doing that legal activity.
And don’t forget that the people on the list are not necessarily terrorists either. It isn’t known how people get on that list.
So if you are going to recommend people are deprived of their rights –AS RICHARD DID — then deprive them of all their rights. Not just the right to travel or purchase firearms.
Follow that up with an actual understanding of what the amendment says and the cultural context, a screw it, that would require too much thought on someone elses part. As you were.
Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has twice ruled in recent times against your view of the “amendment”.
Never mind the fact the 9th Amendment protects the individual right to own firearms even if the 2nd doesn’t.
Screw it, it doesn’t fit your narrative or would require too much thought on your part.
Maybe you should try to understand the context of what others are saying instead of using your preconceived & limited views of the person, eh?
67.172.251.22#10 by Shane on February 3, 2012 - 10:12 am
S. Bob (not Bob S.):
You failed to create communication. As per usual. Go away he who shall not be named…
Bob S. (the more comprehensable of the Bob brothers)
Neither I nor Richard said being on a watch list should stop you from buying a gun. We both said it makes less sense to have a no fly list than a no gun buying list, yet the one that makes less sense is the one we are doing. RTFM.
Stopping people from going to a church or assembling would also make less sense than a gun buying ban, which they can do, yet we seriously debate and sometimes stop the other activities. That makes no sense. It is not a question of stoping gun buying, it is a matter of pointing out that the no fly policy makes no sense.
Unknot your little panties and stop stroking your pistol, I don’t give a damn if you want to buy more or not.
And you can bitch about your gun rights and my not understanding them all you want. What I said is that the people like you who think they are defending them make no sense. I did not say that it isn’t a right. Buy them by the metric ton, see if I care.
You done channeling brewski yet?
66.162.57.62#11 by Bob S. on February 3, 2012 - 11:26 am
Shane,
I don’t know what you’ve said but Richard has said it:
Look at that entire thread. Yes, Richard is against the no fly list BUT he says IF you have the list, then it is OKAY to use it to deny people the right to purchase firearms.
And you can bitch about your gun rights and my not understanding them all you want. What I said is that the people like you who think they are defending them make no sense.
If you lack the intellectual capacity to understand simple common words and phrases, that is YOUR issue. Not mine.
And your argument there was what exactly?
That the amendment refers to a militia and not an individual right?
Yeah, I’ve heard that one from you before. Didn’t fly then either
166.2.73.102#12 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2012 - 11:33 am
Bob S. seems to believe that it’s legal for anyone to buy firearms and explosives. That’s not the case. You have to be 21 to buy a handgun or ammunition, and federal law requires a criminal background check for guns sold by licensed firearm dealers. There are stricter controls on explosives.
166.147.79.126#13 by Shane on February 3, 2012 - 12:31 pm
I am sure it doesn’t fly with you bob. Your inability to understand the argument doesn’t change the reason the amendment was proposed.
…and your argument not making sense is not the same as you argument not being understood. Finish your channeling.
The quote you pull from Richard is perfectly consistent with what I am saying. It also points out a difference between those people we have ligitimite reasons to deny guns to verses what you accuse Richard of saying. If that quote is in your defense you might want to rethink using it.
66.162.57.62#14 by Bob S. on February 3, 2012 - 12:46 pm
Richard,
Please stop lying. Back up your statements with words that I have written, eh.
I have never said it was legal for anyone to buy firearms. NOT ONCE. Prove it or admit you are lying.’
And Richard, just because there are legal restrictions on buying firearms, those may not be constitutional.
I find it amazing the contortions people like you will twist themselves into.
It is legal for a 18 year old buy a shotgun, but it is illegal for an 18 year old to buy a pistol.
Isn’t that a little idiotic?
Shane,
How about backing up your understanding of why the amendment was proposed with something other then your insistence, eh?
It also points out a difference between those people we have legitimate reasons to deny guns to verses what you accuse Richard of saying.
While we may have a legitimate reason to want to deny people guns, that is a far cry from having constitutional or legal authority to do so.
166.2.73.102#15 by Richard Warnick on February 3, 2012 - 3:21 pm
Bob S.–
You strongly implied that buying a gun is a right, not a privilege regulated by law.
I agree some gun laws are idiotic, especially the one that allows loaded firearms in national parks.
This was a post about the no-fly list, which has stopped zero terrorist attacks and caused all kinds of Kafkaesque experiences at airports.
67.2.49.14#16 by Larry Bergan on February 3, 2012 - 7:27 pm
Why shouldn’t we be able to know who every single person on the no-fly list is? This doesn’t have a thing to do with “keeping us safe”.
76.184.21.215#17 by Bob S. on February 3, 2012 - 8:42 pm
Richard,
You’ve got to be kidding me, right?
Are you trying to claim that buying a firearm ISN’T a right?
Yes the government can pass restrictions on rights — like free speech. You can talk but you can’t lie to investors, you can’t slander people.
There are restrictions on buying firearms yes. Age, mental health, convictions for felonies etc.
But should there be restrictions because some government bureaucrat got a bee up his bonnet about you?
NO. That is why we have the court systems, if you want to restrict a person’s rights you have to do it legally, allow them a chance to defend themselves and confront their accusers.
We actually agree on this. I think it is ridiculous and an excuse for more government intrusion in our lives.
Please tell me you don’t really believe that purchasing a firearm is a privilege.
24.20.118.143#18 by cav on February 3, 2012 - 10:41 pm
Now wait just a minute…Yes, in the constitution, there’s that bit about bearing arms – you can even speculate about just why you’d want to do such a thing or not. (You can even speculate about the ongoing validity of the Constitution itself). Nobody’s arguing arguing otherwise.
So, if the argument is about whether it is the government’s purview to regulate the manufacturing, and control of these utensils – that they may equip an army; regulate the ammo, that it might fit in the utensil – lest our army be out-gunned by the swarthy haters that live ‘out there’, and seek to regulate just where these critters were to be held (in the arms shed) or not – then we have an argument indeed
After that, it was every mans job to come by their arms as best they could even if they had to rip off some fallen combatant, Tory, Confederate, gook, rag-head or Sandinista.! Or simply purchase one of the many wonderful varieties available in the ‘Free Market’ (were blessed I tell ya).
That being the case, it was certainly easier to just pick up a manufactured weapon than to craft your own, even though there were those who did and still do so.
In any event, there’s a need to regulate – or intrude, as you may wish to call it.
See how easily that ties us back to restrictions on air travel?
192.245.61.104#19 by Sponge Bob on February 4, 2012 - 2:30 pm
There is a desire to regulate, the need is defined by the powers at large as to whether the right people are getting the guns. AS it stands having a lethal weapon for self defense is a natural right, and no wishing it away or nit picking about the type or effectiveness of the weapon is ever going to matter. The right to self defense is so obvious and clear that the “apparatus” is nothing more than the physical manifestation of that natural right.
You can no more regulate weapons in real terms than you can stop the Earth from spinning. Those trying will have to bear with the arms bearers.
76.184.21.215#20 by Bob S. on February 4, 2012 - 4:51 pm
Cav,
There is a major difference — a legal difference between regulating arms for the army and regulating arms for the militia.
It is the job of the Government to arm the militia IF the person is unable to afford firearms or if it is called into service.
After that you lose me…how do you go from regulations regarding arms to being able to deny people the right of travel without due process?
24.20.118.143#21 by cav on February 4, 2012 - 7:32 pm
Oh, I don’t know…I just de-constructed the thread, comments 1 through 17, and regulating air travel reared its ugly head.
And, as usual, always trying to de-construct the preposterous wackiness that has taken up residence in our sad, silly culture.
And, recognizing – shouting out to – someone I know to be a thoughtful, if not always correct, commenter.
71.219.54.200#22 by Larry Bergan on February 4, 2012 - 8:52 pm
So – as a terrorist – you can buy all the guns you want; you just can’t get on a plane.
Am I reading this right, Bob S.omebody?
76.184.21.215#23 by Bob S. on February 6, 2012 - 5:13 am
Larry,
Prove to me that everyone on the “terror watch list” is a terrorist, eh.
I have never said that a terrorist should be able to buy a gun…a known and proven terrorist should either be dead or in jail. Not out running around the streets able to buy a gun.
The people on the terror watch list are all known terrorists. They are suspected terrorists or people the government think might be a terrorist or somebody someone in government didn’t like.
Richard who still hasn’t addressed whether buying a firearm is a privilege or not stated that as long as we have the list we should keep those people on it from buying firearms.
166.2.73.102#24 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2012 - 9:34 am
According to the New York Times, 1,119 people on the terror watch list have been able to purchase weapons. One of them bought 50 pounds of military grade explosives.
Either these people are wrongly suspected of being terrorists, or they ought to be prohibited from buying weapons and explosives. One or the other.
Right-wingers in Congress routinely vote for suspending constitutional rights in the name of fighting terrorism, despite the fact that more Americans die from dog bites. Yet they have voted against legislation to ban weapons sales to suspected terrorists.
Under federal law:
So it’s a moot point. Purchasing forearms is a privilege, not a right. Same goes for explosives.
66.162.57.62#25 by Bob S. on February 6, 2012 - 10:27 am
Richard,
Why?
Do the police never make mistakes? Police never get overzealous? Police never try to get revenge?
Do people with the same name as a ‘suspected terrorist’ never get put on the list?
How about the simple idea of Due Process? Are you saying the government should have the power to deny people their rights without proving in a court of law anything?
So it’s a moot point. Purchasing forearms is a privilege, not a right. Same goes for explosives.
Good grief, it is incredible how wrong you can be.
Just because there are legal restrictions on a right doesn’t mean it isn’t a right.
We have the right of free speech but we are prohibited by law against slander, against lying about products, etc.
Can you cite law or court cases showing it is a “privilege” to purchase firearms?
24.20.118.143#26 by cav on February 6, 2012 - 10:39 am
Add to that; provocative stings.
166.2.73.102#27 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2012 - 11:11 am
Bob S.–
You have no right to board a commercial aircraft. That’s what they say when they use a secret list to prohibit you from flying without due process. Buying a gun or explosives – same thing as buying a plane ticket.
66.162.57.62#28 by Bob S. on February 6, 2012 - 11:42 am
No it isn’t Richard.
First, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Specifically Enumerated Constitutionally protected right.
And if there is a right to keep and bear arms (regardless what you think multiple court cases have established there is) then there is a right to purchase them.
Second, you have a right to travel. That includes the right to enter into a contract with a commercial carrier — aka an airline.
Where I think your confusion lays is you aren’t differentiating between a right and the government having the authority to infringe upon that right.
I agree with you the No-Fly list should be abolished. It is abominable the people have allowed the government to over reach its authority for so long.
AGAIN, can you cite any law or court cases to support your view?
And as far as rights go, why don’t you look up the 9th Amendment. You seem to have forgotten what it says.
67.172.251.22#29 by Shane on February 6, 2012 - 12:32 pm
Court cases and laws do not make something correct. You might consider that Bob. Slavery was not correct before it was illegal as well as after. The Good doesn’t change because a law changes. The law is simply wrong.
Second:
“How about backing up your understanding of why the amendment was proposed with something other then your insistence, eh?”
It is right in the amendment, what more do you need from me?
B is needed for C, A is implied in maintaing B. The end goal is C. It is therefore implied that A is protected in so far as it serves B which might also be implied as protected insofar as it serves C.
There are three seemingly legitimate inturpretations of the amendment that currently occupy legal and constitutional scholars. See for example the dissenting opinion in Heller. You prefer one. The other two find your reading to be in error. You could try accepting that rather than picking a fight over issues that don’t matter.
The post is about a no-fly list, which you have stated you agree is a bad idea. So why all this argument over a side comment?
Oh yes, anything to get the pro-gun lobbies panties in a bind.
166.2.73.102#30 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2012 - 12:34 pm
Bob S.–
I did cite the law, federal law that prohibits certain classes of people from purchasing firearms. It would be a simple matter to add another category, those whose names are on the terror watch list or no-fly list.
Also, it is a well-known principle that a “right” is inherent in the individual. It’s not something that has to be provided by someone else. I have a right to life, but I do not have a right to buy food, for example.
66.162.57.62#31 by Bob S. on February 6, 2012 - 12:38 pm
Stan,
Sorry but you pointed to the restrictions on the right to purchase but no where does it state that it is a privilege to purchase.
By your own standard then, we don’t have the right to free speech but the privilege of it. You have to purchase the service of a hosting company for your blog, you have to have a permit to march on the city streets or have an rally, etc.
I have the right to purchase anything legal, no one is forced to sell it to me. Maybe you should spend a little time thinking about what you are saying, eh?
67.172.251.22#32 by Shane on February 6, 2012 - 12:45 pm
Who is Stan?
Also, if something is a “right” but can be “restricted” how is that different from a “privilege”?
66.162.57.62#33 by Bob S. on February 6, 2012 - 1:32 pm
Sorry meant Richard.
Shane,
Easily…a privilege is something the government has the control based on its own criteria and a right can only be removed or restricted based on the actions of the individual.
I have had the privilege of attending many air shows at military bases. Nothing requires the government to allow people to wonder around the military bases.
The government can cancel the air shows at any time.
The government can not restrict my rights without reason, without due process.
Isn’t that pretty basic?
166.2.73.102#34 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2012 - 2:06 pm
Bob S.–
I’m glad we agree that the no-fly list is unreasonable, and no doubt there are other things the government does that neither of us approve of because they undermine the Constitution.
I just find it crazy that right-wing members of Congress are ready to approve almost any repressive measure that supposedly is against terrorism — except they refuse to consider restrictions on suspected terrorists buying weapons and explosives.
66.162.57.62#35 by Bob S. on February 6, 2012 - 2:11 pm
Richard,
Maybe you should stop insulting some of the people who agree with you — you’ve called me ‘right winger’ before and it doesn’t fit.
Second, there is a reason why. You just don’t want to accept it. Look at the number of groups that have been labeled extremist under any administration.
There are far more ‘right wing’ groups labeled ‘extremist’ or ‘terrorist’ then ‘left wing’ groups.
Maybe those people in Congress are aware of that fact and making sure people’s rights aren’t being trampled, eh.
Glad we are finding things to agree about; now if I can just get you to give up the fantasy about it being a privilege to purchase a firearm.
67.172.251.22#36 by Shane on February 6, 2012 - 6:41 pm
Oh I don’t think we want to get into what groups are labeled extremist. When a left wing group is labeled extremist it is because they chain themselves to trees. When rightwing groups are extremist it is because they kill doctors and shoot congressmen. That isn’t a good direction for you.
I do appreciate the definitions. You are right, pretty basic.
So working with those, on two of the three current popular readings, gun ownership is a privilege unless you are a member of a state or national militia. Which you define as something that can be removed or restricted for the governments own reasons. Mobility is not similarly considered a privilege.
Thus under two readings of the constitution restricting gun ownership is much less contentious than air travel.
Interestingly both of those readings actually use the wording of the amendment. Your prefered reading ignores a large part of the actual sentence. If you have some reason that we want to take one part of the sentence as right that we should protect despite the enormous gun death numbers yet ignore the entire begining of the sentence, please feel free to make that argument.
Or, alternatively, give up on the fantasy that half the sentence is eternal law while the other half doesn’t exist.
Personally, I am fine with people owning guns. I also wish they could consider the simple laws proposed to help make them safer without behaving like reactionaries each time the topic comes up. That doesn’t change the fact that the amendment is phrased such that citizens who are not militia members have a privilege and not a right. I am happy to extend the privilege.
76.184.21.215#37 by Bob S. on February 7, 2012 - 4:19 am
Shane,
Please cite your sources for considering firearm ownership and mobility a privilege.
I’ll cite just 3 for now.
The Heller Decision, the McDonald Decision and the 9th Amendment.