Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:30 PM Jun 2016

I have thought is over, sorry the answer is still no.

When Bush brought out the various terrorist lists, I felt they were unconstitutional travesties. I was very disappointed that once Democrats had control they did not abolish them I continue to oppose their use to abridge any freedom.

If the FBI wants to keeps lists of suspected terrorists, fine. They can list Muhammad Omar Malinowski because he has a strange name and might be up to something. That list should have the same legal force as the post-it in the lunchroom that says 'Wash your own dishes'

If a person is suspected of terrorist links and the Government wants to limit their activities, be it buying a gun, travel, dancing the Electric Slide..., it needs to be done via the courts, not the bureaucracy. Establish a process similar to restraining orders. Present evidence, allow it to be contested, follow due process. If a person is such a high risk, an emergency order can be issued for a very limited time until a full hearing can be held. If the person is still too great of a risk, then there should be sufficient evidence to arrest and charge them.

If people think our Freedoms are too dangerous for the modern world, then we need to call a Constitutional Convention and make sweeping change. It would be better to respectfully roll up the Constitution, if it has become obsolete, and throw it in a fire than tear it up piecemeal and use it as asswipe.

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I have thought is over, sorry the answer is still no. (Original Post) sarisataka Jun 2016 OP
This message was self-deleted by its author uppityperson Jun 2016 #1
Your answer reads "yes" to me Dem2 Jun 2016 #2
I have no issue with restrictions sarisataka Jun 2016 #4
You're right PJMcK Jun 2016 #3
I wonder if those who say "fuck due process" catnhatnh Jun 2016 #5

Response to sarisataka (Original post)

Dem2

(8,166 posts)
2. Your answer reads "yes" to me
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:32 PM
Jun 2016
Establish a process similar to restraining orders. Present evidence, allow it to be contested, follow due process. If a person is such a high risk, an emergency order can be issued for a very limited time until a full hearing can be held. If the person is still too great of a risk, then there should be sufficient evidence to arrest and charge them.


Seems like a good place to start.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
4. I have no issue with restrictions
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:28 PM
Jun 2016

via due process. Secret bureaucratic actions with no oversight or appeal process is against all I believe in. I would rather take my chances with terrorists; they are less pervasive than a police state.

PJMcK

(21,921 posts)
3. You're right
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:43 PM
Jun 2016

Your ideas make sense. Our Constitution is designed to work as you've outlined it.

The hyper-surveillance that our society has slid into is a disastrous mix of laws, executive orders and lack of transparency. I especially agree with your last paragraph except that we don't have to discard the Constitution. Amend it if that's how We The People want our country to run.

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
5. I wonder if those who say "fuck due process"
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:37 PM
Jun 2016

realize that this would mean getting rid of the 5th amendment that lets people refuse to answer questions about a private server, not the 2nd amendment???

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I have thought is over, s...