General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo Fly Lists - ACLU Statement
Since this subject keeps popping up in several threads.
Here is the ACLUs statement from when this was discussed last fall:
" 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. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating."
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
LA Times editorial in opposition.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-terrorist-watch-list-20151207-story.html
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)if we are comfortable with arbitrary reasons to stop someone from flying to see Aunt Belle, why are we so uncomfortable with arbitrarily stopping someone from buying a machine which has as its only purpose killing-- perhaps even killing Aunt Belle?
NickB79
(20,278 posts)And the ACLU is right: it's a massive invasion of our civil liberties that no progressives should support.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)meaning that once again we have completely screwed things up.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)(fyi, I don't care for the nature of these lists for *any* removal of rights.)
jtx
(68 posts)It is not OK for that or any other purpose.
The government should not be using secret lists to restrict the right to travel, which is what the suit is about.
What comes after that - secret detention based on the list without indictment or conviction?
This is a huge step into the abyss of a police state.
Read both of the links for thoughtful discussion.
madinmaryland
(65,690 posts)Wouldn't it be ironic if he was put on the list. Not able to buy a gun.
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)