Do You Support Obama's Call To Deny Purchasing A Firearm To Someone On The No-Fly List

[Revoltingest]

I respect your opinion.
What rights does being placed on a No-Fly list are being denied? (Today, one can still buy any kind of gun they want, and still travel, just not by air.)
You would be comfortable flying on the same plane as someone who was on the list?

Perhaps you don't value air travel as much as others.
It was once a luxury for the jet set, rich & powerful.
But now it's so affordable that planes are just flying Greyhound buses.
Flown lately?
It's like being in Walmart, but but with narrower aisles & pricier sammiches.

Let me illustrate.....
Suppose you live in NYC, & want to visit your kid in LA.
If you drive instead of fly, you're looking at 4 or 5 days of travel, instead of a few hours.
So I'd say that prohibition from air travel is pretty severe infringement of the right to travel.

What next?
Ban your right to travel by car if your name ends up on some secret list?
You could still walk.

 

[McBell]

I think it's a useful tool that absolutely should be discarded. At least in its current form. There needs to be more transparency, accountability, and due process for those added. It's not the possible threats that it catches that bother me, it's the non-threats that it catches that are the problem. These are innocent men, women, and even children arbitrarily placed on the list that revokes basic rights without notification or due process and with an inadequate system to challenge it.

Just because a tool works, doesn't mean we should use it.

Define "works"....

 

[averageJOE]

Perhaps you don't value air travel as much as others.
It was once a luxury for the jet set, rich & powerful.
But now it's so affordable that planes are just flying Greyhound buses.
Suppose you live in NYC, & want to visit your kid in LA.
If you drive instead of fly, you're looking at 4 or 5 days of travel, instead of a few hours.
So I'd say that prohibition from air travel is pretty severe infringement of the right to travel.
What next?
Ban your right to travel by car if your name ends up on some secret list?
You could still walk.

Yeah, I know it sucks. It will obviously take longer, but their freedom of movement is not being denied. They are just being forced to look at other means.

 

[McBell]

I respect your opinion.

What rights does being placed on a No-Fly list are being denied? (Today, one can still buy any kind of gun they want, and still travel, just not by air.)

You would be comfortable flying on the same plane as someone who was on the list?

Are you not the least bit concerned over the "process" of getting put on the list?
I know several people who never been in trouble with the law and are on the "no-fly" list simply because their name shows up on it.
One being a five year old....

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, I know it sucks. It will obviously take longer, but their freedom of movement is not being denied. They are just being forced to look at other means.

There's no question that one may still travel.
But constitutional liberties aren't merely about the possibility to exercise them.
If restrictions against exercising them are onerous, then this is effectively denial.
It's why we don't have.....
- Poll tax
- Separate but equal

Suppose your job had you travel to Australiastan.
(You live in Edmonton, Albertastan. The secret is out!)
Is it reasonable to expect that you'd take a ship there?
If gov is able to restrict our movement so severely, then we should....
- Know how this list is created.
- Be able to challenge it.
Without due process, what can't government impose upon us?

 

[averageJOE]

Are you not the least bit concerned over the "process" of getting put on the list?
I know several people who never been in trouble with the law and are on the "no-fly" list simply because their name shows up on it.
One being a five year old....

I am very concerned with the process. I will never argue that. There are people who are on it who shouldn't be. The No-Fly list is a relatively new program (is that the right word?) that is constantly being updated and reworked. Much like the "Selectee" program (again, right word?). When it first rolled out people were being given that mark on their Boarding Pass at high numbers. Today, seeing that mark on a boarding pass is rare. The Selectee program itself is still being worked on.

It will get to a time where nearly 100% of people who are on that list will be on there for a legitimate reason. I know it will never be 100%. I'm just on the side of; if that person is too dangerous to board a plane then they are probably too dangerous to buy any kind of gun they want.

 

[McBell]

I am very concerned with the process. I will never argue that. There are people who are on it who shouldn't be. The No-Fly list is a relatively new program (is that the right word?) that is constantly being updated and reworked. Much like the "Selectee" program (again, right word?). When it first rolled out people were being given that mark on their Boarding Pass at high numbers. Today, seeing that mark on a boarding pass is rare. The Selectee program itself is still being worked on.

The "no-fly" list is currently an arbitrary list of names whose existence is to give a false sense of protection to the ignorant masses.

IF the "no-fly" list ever gets to a point where there is legitimatcy to it, then maybe we can have a serious discussion about extending the removal of other rights and privileges from those on the list.

It will get to a time where nearly 100% of people who are on that list will be on there for a legitimate reason. I know it will never be 100%. I'm just on the side of; if that person is too dangerous to board a plane then they are probably too dangerous to buy any kind of gun they want.

Ok, you really should stop with the "buy any gun they want".
It is just flat out not true, and makes you sound like a propagandist.
NO ONE can legally buy "any gun they want".

 

[Tumah]

Except it is not the Constitutional Amendment that is putting lives at risk.
It is the severe lack of politicians taking the issue seriously enough to actually do something that will work.
They talk a big game, but all they are really doing is proposing "solutions" that have already been proven to not do a damn thing in reducing gun crime.

Ever stop and wonder why politicians calling for arbitrary and worthless gun bans do not seem to understand what makes a criminal a criminal?
It is because they are merely propagandizing "support" based upon the ignorance of the population.

I'm not really sure what you mean by propagandizing support based on the ignorance of the population. It seems logical to me that if someone is put on a no fly list because he represents a danger to the country, then it would be in my best interest to make an effort to ensure that he doesn't get a gun, or at least make it harder for him.

 

[McBell]

I'm not really sure what you mean by propagandizing support based on the ignorance of the population. It seems logical to me that if someone is put on a no fly list because he represents a danger to the country, then it would be in my best interest to make an effort to ensure that he doesn't get a gun, or at least make it harder for him.

They are proposing laws they know are worthless to get support from people who only see they are proposing laws to make them feel safe.

IF it was a legitimate list, I would agree with you.
Problem is that there are five year olds on the "no-fly" list....
This shows they are merely putting names on the list and ANYONE, regardless of age, clean police record, etc. whose name is on the list is going to run into problems.

 

[Tumah]

They are proposing laws they know are worthless to get support from people who only see they are proposing laws to make them feel safe.

IF it was a legitimate list, I would agree with you.
Problem is that there are five year olds on the "no-fly" list....
This shows they are merely putting names on the list and ANYONE, regardless of age, clean police record, etc. whose name is on the list is going to run into problems.

To me that sounds like an argument to fix the no-fly list.

 

[columbus]

The "no-fly" list is currently an arbitrary list of names whose existence is to give a false sense of protection to the ignorant masses.

The "no fly" list doesn't matter to me personally. I don't use jet travel. So I've not given it much thought before. But the more I learn about it the more I oppose it as a concept.


If someone is so dangerous that they shouldn't be on a plane, what are they doing in the country at all?

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 it was obvious that passenger jets were low security missiles. That is no longer the case. If "Joe Ali" is under 24/7 surveillance and subject to really invasive boarding procedures (think @Nietzsche performs a leisurely cavity search in a soundproof room) how could he be more risk than any given suicidally crazy person?
What is the point to the list that outweighs the fundamental violation of rights, giving the government permission to keep violating rights as they see fit?
Tom

 

[freethinker44]

Define "works"....

It gets the job done. But there is a difference between using a tool that simply gets the job done and one that is the right tool for the job. The no-fly list may catch actual threats, but that doesn't mean we should use it simply because it works, we need to look at the damage it does as well.

It's like, I can do an engine swap on my car using only some vice grips and a hammer, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea, or even a viable solution. It will certainly work, but it's going to do a whole lot of damage in the process. And that's how I see the no-fly list.

 

[columbus]

The no-fly list may catch actual threats,

How can it do this?
Tom

 

[freethinker44]

How can it do this?
Tom

There's almost 100,000 people on the list, I'm betting at least one was a legitimate threat.

 

[columbus]

There's almost 100,000 people on the list, I'm betting at least one was a legitimate threat.

How does keeping 100,000 people too dangerous to fly in the country where they can shoot up Christmas parties improve security?
How about escorting them to the border?
Unconstitutional?
Tom

 

[McBell]

It gets the job done. But there is a difference between using a tool that simply gets the job done and one that is the right tool for the job. The no-fly list may catch actual threats, but that doesn't mean we should use it simply because it works, we need to look at the damage it does as well.

It's like, I can do an engine swap on my car using only some vice grips and a hammer, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea, or even a viable solution. It will certainly work, but it's going to do a whole lot of damage in the process. And that's how I see the no-fly list.

Fair enough.
it is my opinion that since it has not been shown to do more good than harm, it is not working.

 

[McBell]

There's almost 100,000 people on the list, I'm betting at least one was a legitimate threat.

The false positives alone is enough to argue that the list and the "process" of being put on the list is in serious need of a work over:

False positives and abuses that have been in the news include:

• Numerous children (including many under the age of five, and some under the age of one) have generated false positives.[24][25][26]
• Daniel Brown, a United States Marine returning from Iraq, was prevented from boarding a flight home in April 2006 because his name matched one on the No Fly List.[27]
• Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as aDemocrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, "This could just be a government screw-up, but I don't know, and they won't tell me."[33] Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple in Toronto.[4]
• In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name "T Kennedy" was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to "T Kennedy". (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom "Ted" was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of "ordinary citizens": "How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?"[34] Former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani pointed to this incident as an example for the necessity to "rethink aviation security" in an essay on homeland security published while he was seeking the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[35]
• U.S. Representative, former Freedom Rider, and Chairman of SNCC John Lewis (politician) (D-GA) has been stopped many times.[36]
• Canadian journalist Patrick Martin has been frequently interrogated while traveling, because of a suspicious individual, believed to be a former Provisional Irish Republican Army bomb-maker, with the same name.[37][38]
• Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass "because I [Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list." The airline employee asked, "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." Replied Murphy, "I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution." To which the airline employee responded, "That'll do it."[39]
• Michael Migliore, a 23-year-old Muslim convert and dual citizen of the United States and Italy, was detained in the United Kingdom after traveling there from the U.S. by train and then cruise ship because he was not permitted to fly. He said that he believes he was placed on the no-fly list because he refused to answer questions about a 2010 Portland car bomb plot without his lawyer present.[54] He was released eight or ten hours later, but authorities confiscated his electronic media items including a cell phone and media player.[55]
• Abe Mashal, a 31-year-old Muslim and United States Marine Veteran, found himself on the No Fly List in April 2010 while attempting to board a plane out of Midway Airport. He was questioned by the TSA, FBI and Chicago Police at the airport and was told they had no clue why he was on the No Fly List. Once he arrived at home that day two other FBI agents came to his home and used a Do Not Fly question-and-answer sheet to question him. They informed him they had no idea why he was on the No Fly List. In June 2010 those same two FBI agents summoned Mashal to a local hotel and invited him to a private room. They told him that he was in no trouble and the reason he ended up on the No Fly List was because of possibly sending emails to an American imam they may have been monitoring. They then informed him that if he would go undercover at various local mosques, they could get him off the No Fly List immediately and he would be compensated for such actions. Mashal refused to answer any additional questions without a lawyer present and was told to leave the hotel. Mashal then contacted the ACLU and is now being represented in a class-action lawsuit filed against the TSA, FBI and DHS concerning the legality of the No Fly List and how people end up on it. Mashal feels as if he was blackmailed into becoming an informant by being placed on the No Fly List. Mashal has since appeared on ABC, NBC, PBS and Al Jazeera concerning his inclusion on the No Fly List. He has also written a book about his experience titled "No Spy No Fly." [56]
• In November 2002 Salon reported that the No-Fly program seemed "to be netting mostly priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups." Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader’s Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2000, was prevented from flying to Europe on business in October 2002. He was repeatedly pulled out of line, held for questioning until his flight left, then told falsely he could take a later flight or depart from a different airport. Barbara Olshansky, then Assistant Legal Director for theCenter for Constitutional Rights, noted that she and several of her colleagues received special attention on numerous occasions. On at least one occasion, she was ordered to pull her trousers down in view of other passengers.[57]
• Source and rest of list....

 

[freethinker44]

How does keeping 100,000 people too dangerous to fly in the country where they can shoot up Christmas parties improve security?
How about escorting them to the border?
Unconstitutional?
Tom

The goal should be to reduce rights violations, not double down on them. All 100,000 people on the list should be given a hearing where the GOVERNMENT should have to prove their guilt. And there should be total transparency. Sources or it didn't happen.

 

[freethinker44]

The false positives alone is enough to argue that the list and the "process" of being put on the list is in serious need of a work over:

False positives and abuses that have been in the news include:

• Numerous children (including many under the age of five, and some under the age of one) have generated false positives.[24][25][26]
• Daniel Brown, a United States Marine returning from Iraq, was prevented from boarding a flight home in April 2006 because his name matched one on the No Fly List.[27]
• Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as aDemocrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, "This could just be a government screw-up, but I don't know, and they won't tell me."[33] Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple in Toronto.[4]
• In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name "T Kennedy" was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to "T Kennedy". (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom "Ted" was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of "ordinary citizens": "How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?"[34] Former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani pointed to this incident as an example for the necessity to "rethink aviation security" in an essay on homeland security published while he was seeking the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[35]
• U.S. Representative, former Freedom Rider, and Chairman of SNCC John Lewis (politician) (D-GA) has been stopped many times.[36]
• Canadian journalist Patrick Martin has been frequently interrogated while traveling, because of a suspicious individual, believed to be a former Provisional Irish Republican Army bomb-maker, with the same name.[37][38]
• Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass "because I [Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list." The airline employee asked, "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." Replied Murphy, "I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution." To which the airline employee responded, "That'll do it."[39]
• Michael Migliore, a 23-year-old Muslim convert and dual citizen of the United States and Italy, was detained in the United Kingdom after traveling there from the U.S. by train and then cruise ship because he was not permitted to fly. He said that he believes he was placed on the no-fly list because he refused to answer questions about a 2010 Portland car bomb plot without his lawyer present.[54] He was released eight or ten hours later, but authorities confiscated his electronic media items including a cell phone and media player.[55]
• Abe Mashal, a 31-year-old Muslim and United States Marine Veteran, found himself on the No Fly List in April 2010 while attempting to board a plane out of Midway Airport. He was questioned by the TSA, FBI and Chicago Police at the airport and was told they had no clue why he was on the No Fly List. Once he arrived at home that day two other FBI agents came to his home and used a Do Not Fly question-and-answer sheet to question him. They informed him they had no idea why he was on the No Fly List. In June 2010 those same two FBI agents summoned Mashal to a local hotel and invited him to a private room. They told him that he was in no trouble and the reason he ended up on the No Fly List was because of possibly sending emails to an American imam they may have been monitoring. They then informed him that if he would go undercover at various local mosques, they could get him off the No Fly List immediately and he would be compensated for such actions. Mashal refused to answer any additional questions without a lawyer present and was told to leave the hotel. Mashal then contacted the ACLU and is now being represented in a class-action lawsuit filed against the TSA, FBI and DHS concerning the legality of the No Fly List and how people end up on it. Mashal feels as if he was blackmailed into becoming an informant by being placed on the No Fly List. Mashal has since appeared on ABC, NBC, PBS and Al Jazeera concerning his inclusion on the No Fly List. He has also written a book about his experience titled "No Spy No Fly." [56]
• In November 2002 Salon reported that the No-Fly program seemed "to be netting mostly priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups." Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader’s Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2000, was prevented from flying to Europe on business in October 2002. He was repeatedly pulled out of line, held for questioning until his flight left, then told falsely he could take a later flight or depart from a different airport. Barbara Olshansky, then Assistant Legal Director for theCenter for Constitutional Rights, noted that she and several of her colleagues received special attention on numerous occasions. On at least one occasion, she was ordered to pull her trousers down in view of other passengers.[57]
• Source and rest of list....

I'm with you 100%. I'm not against the idea of a no-fly list, but the current implementation is garbage.

 

[columbus]

The goal should be to reduce rights violations, not double down on them.

We could eliminate them by eliminating the no fly list. I see no way it improves security particularly. A "intense and thorough screening before boarding" list would make perfect sense. Deporting dangerous non citizens and thoroughly surveillance on the citizens would too.

But how does letting people who should not board an aircraft run loose buying weapons and whatever else make sense?
Tom