November 25, 2015

Yeah, just like those 'terrorists' at the ACLU, and Mother Jones...

who have pointed out that the Bush watchlists are full of innocent people, and have no accountability and no due process.

"We can't have terrorist watch lists that affect people's rights without due process -- the right of innocent people to challenge their inclusion through an adversarial proceeding and get off the lists. But no such system has been created. A September 2009 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security found that the process for clearing innocent travelers from the list is a complete mess. The consequences of being mistakenly added to a terror watch list can be more severe than simply missing a plane. Law enforcement routinely run names against the watchlists for matters as mundane as traffic stops, and innocent individuals may be harassed even if they don’t attempt to fly." ---American Civil Liberties Union

More from the ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/watch-lists
http://www.aclu.org/unlikely-suspects?redirect=technology-and-liberty/unlikely-suspects

Mother Jones: Nine years on the no-fly list because an agent checked the wrong box

Washington Post: Senator Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List

San Francisco Chronicle: No-fly blacklist snares political activists

Geez, 'terrorists' everywhere.

Marshals: Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota

Infants on the Terrorist Watch List

How YOU could end up on the no-fly list

Various blacklist absurdities

SecMo, do you think 'terrorists' (as you define them) should be allowed to work in medical facilities? Schools? Drive gasoline tankers? Pilot aircraft or ships? Participate in unions? Work for the Federal government? Adopt children? If you think someone is a 'terrorist' simply because their name is on a list of people to check out...

As I've pointed out before, "No Fly, No Buy" is a 2005 Bush admin proposal, and a favorite cause of Muslim-despisers like Peter King.

November 23, 2015

I think a key component of any UBC

would be felony prison time and lifetime debarment from government service for any official who uses or assists in using UBC to compile a registry of lawful owners. I'd also like to see a cessation of all attempts to restrict rifle aesthetics/ergonomics or mandate silly magazine capacity restrictions, given that all rifles combined kill fewer people than bicycles. Those things might help restore some of the trust that has been broken, stomped, and ground in the dirt by Bloomberg's sockpuppets over the past few years.

November 22, 2015

Is the ACLU a terrorist organization too?

http://www.aclu.org/watch-lists
http://www.aclu.org/unlikely-suspects?redirect=technology-and-liberty/unlikely-suspects

Is Mother Jones a terrorist magazine?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/02/nine-years-no-fly-list-because-fbi-agent-checked-wrong-box

And those pesky terrorists at the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html

This guy would approve:

November 22, 2015

Yep.

Which is a good reason why the blacklist bullcrap should be stripped out of the bill so it doesn't poison-pill it.

You raise one of the biggest points against the "fear Syrian refugees" argument, and that is that the French attackers could have legally traveled here without raising any eyebrows, so they wouldn't have needed to pose as Syrians.

November 22, 2015

Yes, things change over time. They have gotten *SAFER*.

And the watchlists have been filled with more and more completely innocent victims of the bloated and unaccountable process (1.5 million people, now?), and have been publicly exposed as same.

And what you're saying is that Alberto Gonzales, Dianne Feinstein, Peter King, Dick Cheney, and their cheerleaders at the New York Times are "Good Dems" on the issue of revoking civil liberties based on secret watchlists, whereas critics of the watchlists such as Mother Jones, the American Civil Liberties Union (which opposes using the Bush watchlists to revoke civil liberties, and has filed numerous lawsuits to help innocent victims of the watchlisting process), etc. aren't.

Answer me this: What aspects of the Bush Administration's war on civil liberties post-9/11 did the New York Times *not* support? Weren't they one of the biggest boosters of the Patriot Act?

November 22, 2015

Feinstein's proposal is a Bush/Cheney proposal from 2005 that was roundly rejected.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33011.pdf

She is a huge fan of the Bush excesses during the War On Terrah (from the Patriot Act to limitless warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens), which often puts her at odds with the ACLU and other more liberal civil rights organizations.

And the watchlist is not a list of "terror suspects". Unless you consider the late Senator Edward Kennedy to be a "terror suspect".

November 22, 2015

Would you listen to the ACLU?

http://www.aclu.org/unlikely-suspects?redirect=technology-and-liberty/unlikely-suspects

Senator Edward Kennedy's name was on the watchlist. Nelson Mandela. The President of Bolivia. Rep. John Lewis (D, GA). U.S. Attorneys. U.S. soldiers. Airline pilots. Peace activists. Muslims. Toddlers. Infants. Over a million people, and climbing.

You're saying that those people should be denied civil rights for the rest of their lives because someone put their name on a secret list of people to keep an eye on, for any reason.

The ACLU says you are wrong.

"We can't have terrorist watch lists that affect people's rights without due process -- the right of innocent people to challenge their inclusion through an adversarial proceeding and get off the lists. But no such system has been created. A September 2009 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security found that the process for clearing innocent travelers from the list is a complete mess. The consequences of being mistakenly added to a terror watch list can be more severe than simply missing a plane. Law enforcement routinely run names against the watchlists for matters as mundane as traffic stops, and innocent individuals may be harassed even if they don’t attempt to fly.

--American Civil Liberties Union, at http://www.aclu.org/watch-lists

November 22, 2015

You're defending the Bush/Cheney position. He's defending the ACLU position.

The watchlists are NOT a list of terrorists. They are a list of people who were assigned extra scrutiny to make sure they AREN'T terrorists.

Attending an anti-war rally can get you on the list. A tweet can get you on the list. Attending the same place of worship as another watchlisted person can get you on the list. Simply having the same name as a watchlisted person means you are on the list. There are plenty of people on the list who were put there simply to meet quotas.

There is a reason why the ACLU and other liberals shot down this Bush/Cheney proposal, but some "progressives" didn't get the memo.

https://www.aclu.org/unlikely-suspects?redirect=technology-and-liberty/unlikely-suspects

November 21, 2015

Revoking civil liberties because you were put on a list to be checked out?

Senator Edward Kennedy's name was on that list for a while. There have been U.S. Attorneys with security clearances on that list. Also soldiers, anti-war activists, airline pilots, human rights activists, law enforcement officers, infants and toddlers, you name it.

The ACLU has opposed this ever since the Bush Administration first proposed it, and with good reason.

November 21, 2015

For those who have forgotten why this Bush/Cheney proposal was a bad idea...

here are some reminders:

Unlikely Suspects (ACLU)

No-fly blacklist snares political activists

Marshals: Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota

Infants on the Terrorist Watch List

Nine years on the no-fly list because an agent checked the wrong box

How YOU could end up on the no-fly list

Various blacklist absurdities

Senator Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List

Question: If you think being placed on a secret surveillance list without being charged with even the most minuscule crime makes you so dangerous that you need to be barred from something as mundane as owning a gun, do you think that "watchlisted" individuals should be able to drive a tanker carrying 30,000 pounds of gasoline other hazardous chemicals through populated areas? Work at a school, sports stadium, chemical factory, or hospital? Serve as a police officer or security guard? Work for the Federal government? If you are willing to consider someone that dangerous simply because their name is on a list of people to check out, how far do you want to take it?

"So use the National Rifle Association's & repubs own logic."

"No Fly, No Buy" is a Republican proposal dating to 2005, and a mixed bag of "Tough On Civil Liberties" legislators, both (R) and (D), have been pushing this crap since the Bush Admin proposed it. One of the most prominent advocates is Republican Peter King, whose views on Muslim-Americans are well known and widely criticized.

It's been well demonstrated that if you yell "GUNNNZ!!" instead of "TERRAH!!", then there are plenty of people who will lose their collective minds and endorse all kinds of authoritarian crap (remember stop-and-frisk? warrantless searches of public housing?), and it appears to me that this is the case here as well.