Oh Look!!! Look who is supporting bushes terrorist watch lists!!!

[beevul]

WASHINGTON - July 19 - The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will host a joint briefing for news media on Wednesday morning, July 20, at 9:15 AM in the Lisagor Room at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW in Washington, D.C., just before National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre speaks at the Press Club at 10 AM.

TERRORISTS AND GUNS
Do you believe that our government should keep a list of persons who are suspected of terrorist activity and, if so, do you believe those on the list should be permitted to buy guns?

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0720-06.htm

Legislation to Close the Terror Gap: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Terrorists
U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and U.S. Representatives Peter T. King (D-NY) have introduced common sense legislation to deny firearms and explosives to terrorists. Currently, federal authorities cannot stop sales of guns — including military-style assault weapons — by dealers to known or suspected terrorists. This gap in the law threatens our nation's safety.

A new GAO report finds that, from February 2004 to February 2009, there were 963 cases in which a known or suspected terrorist attempted to buy a gun. In 90 percent of those cases — a total of 865 times — they were cleared to proceed with that purchase. One of those cases involved the purchase of explosives.

Congress must pass the Terror Gap bill to stop known or suspected terrorists from buying guns.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/


A republican founded republican led organization carrying water for the policies of...a republican.

Nobody hereabouts - amongst we Democrats - would support such group, or such a list...


Oh...nevermind...

[sharesunited]

1. Lists of persons who shouldn't have guns seems perfectly sensible.

Many many long long lists.

[Hoopla Phil]

5. Just like lists of people that should not vote? Or get married?

[sharesunited]

9. Freedom to conveniently kill is NRA brainwashing, plain and simple.

It's ridiculous and obscene to equate it with civil liberties.

[Hoopla Phil]

10. Yet it is listed as #2 in the BILL OF RIGHTS. It's in there, please look it up.

[Euromutt]

13. No, that's "the right to keep and bear arms," not "the freedom to conveniently kill"

They're two rather different things, even though sharesunited over there would like to pretend they're not.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. Well yes you are technically correct but I see the 2A as very connected

to defense of oneself and others with lawful deadly force against unlawful deadly force. I believe that that is why it is there.

[Euromutt]

17. I understand, but it's a mistake to allow the other side to frame the issue

The term "freedom to kill" has very different connotations to the reader/listener than "the right to (effective) self-defense." Bear in mind, we shoot to stop, we don't shoot to kill, and the fact that we have to use lethal force is simply due to the fact that there is as yet no "less lethal" technology that will stop an assailant as effectively, and above all reliably as a firearm (which is why law enforcement continues to use them).

When you implicitly concede that what you want is the power to kill, you've lost one battle in the public relations war. Think of the term "assault weapon"; by introducing that into the vernacular, the VPC managed to cement the idea in most people's minds that the only purpose of ARs, Kalashnikov derivatives, etc. is to assault others, and that they are not of significant utility in a defensive role.

And we don't want the "freedom to kill"; that implies we don't want to accept the consequences of irresponsible firearms use, which is the point of sharesunited's using it in the first place. We accept that every bullet that leaves the barrel may have criminal charges and/or civil litigation attached to it. We acknowledge that risk, have taken it into account in our cost/benefit analysis, and accepted it as part of the price of wielding the power to inflict lethal force.

[Euromutt]

11. Who said anything about "freedom to kill"?

Is anyone agitating for the repealing of the various laws concerning homicide? Why, no. So why use that phrase? Could it be that you cant produce a cogent argument in favor of gun control without resorting to appeals to emotion based on utter fabrication?

[Hoopla Phil]

12. Freedom to lawfully employ deadly force in defense of unlawful deadly force is a bad thing why?

[Callisto32]

19. What is rediculous and obscene is to advocate using force against people.

Telling people they cannot own or use a certain item in ways that do not harm others or the property of others, and threatening them with punishment if they do, is just that. On several occasions I have asked you to explain why you think it is okay to actually use force, but not okay to simply allow people to have the means to use force. Please, please explain this.

[Statistical]

26. Sorry dude the second is a civil liberty.

Alan Gura sued under the civil rights act to collect attorney fees from city of DC for willfully violating the civil rights of his client.

[Raskolnik]

53. Who told you that the issue was the "freedom to coneniently kill?" n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

85. Humans have been conveniently

killing each at least since Cain caved in Abel's skull with a rock. If you were dictator of the planet and were somehow able to find and melt all the guns down into statues of unicorns do you imagine that all of a sudden every thug, bully, psychopath or lunatic would just meekly start basket-weaving instead of preying on those victims he perceives to be weaker?

Hell, they managed to kill folks with farm implements in Rwanda at a rate of a million people in a 100 days. There is no substitute for evil and hatred when it comes to killing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

Otherwise, explain how taking the car keys away from sober people stops drunk drivers?

[iverglas]

23. you're kidding, right?

Just like lists of people that should not vote?

Lists like that exist all over the US, I do believe.

Are you opposed to denying persons with (serious) criminal convictions the exercise of their right to vote?

If so, I congratulate you. If not, what are you bellyaching about?

And yes, sigh, just in case someone comes along with some hokey assertion that they aren't the same: they are. A criminal conviction just does not automatically bar someone from voting; there has to be legislation to that effect. It's a public policy decision. It's a denial of the exercise of a right, imposed without due process.

Granted, the equivalence would be more perfect if there were a formalized procedure for challenging a denial of a firearms purchase. Why should there not be? There's a completely open procedure in Canada for challenging a denial of a licence to purchase firearms, for instance ...

[Statistical]

27. Due Process.

You are deprived of your right to vote (and own a firearm) by due process.
You are aware of the penalties for a felony conviction in advance.
You are aware of the charges & evidence against you.
You are given due process to challenge those charges.

There is no due process with the "secret terra" lists.
Nobody can tell you how you get on it, how to get off, or even allow you to check if you are on it.
You can file a dispute but there is nothing requiring the FBI or anyone to do anything with it.

So someone can place your name on the list either maliciously, accidentally, or without proper evidence (due process) and you have no way to restore your rights.

[iverglas]

29. go to law school, 'k?

You are deprived of your right to vote (and own a firearm) by due process.
You are aware of the penalties for a felony conviction in advance.
You are aware of the charges & evidence against you.
You are given due process to challenge those charges.


So when you are denied the exercise of your right to buy a newspaper because you have acquired 5 speeding tickets, you won't be complaining.

[Statistical]

32. IF...

1) There was a demonstrated link between violent by speeders & buying a newpaper
2) There were existing statutes in place
3) The entire process was open to public scrutiny
4) The law was found constitutional
5) I continued to speed despite the obvious risk to my newspaper buying abilities...

then yes I would understand it was a consequence for my actions.

However none of those apply.

The prohibition on firearms by felons has been found constitution, there is a demonstrated public safety issue, the statutes are already in places, and the process is open to public scrutiny.

None of that applies to the terra secret lists.

Felons not having guns = right restricted by due process
Being on terra list (have not committed any crime) = no due process

To equate the two is just sad.
I support felons being deprived of some rights.
I do not support people on a "Secret list" being deprived of their rights.

[iverglas]

34. "it was a consequence for my actions"

You folks sure are big on those consequences, eh? Walk into the wrong house at night and get shot dead; hey, it's a consequence of your action.


1) There was a demonstrated link between violent by speeders & buying a newpaper
2) There were existing statutes in place
3) The entire process was open to public scrutiny
4) The law was found constitutional
5) I continued to speed despite the obvious risk to my newspaper buying abilities...

Some weak links there, eh?

"There was a demonstrated link between violent by speeders & buying a newpaper"
Where did this little premise come from? Are you suggesting it is the counterpart of the existing situation re denial of the exercise of the right to vote? A large number of people in the US who are currently denied the exercise of their right to vote have never been convicted of any crime of violence, as I understand it, just for starters.

The counterpart would go something like: "There was a demonstrated link between violence by persons with criminal convictions and voting." Hmmmmm. Did you forget we were talking about voting?

"The entire process was open to public scrutiny"
Basically: so? I wouldn't be relying on the public where you are too much these days, going on recent experience.

"The law was found constitutional"
And that would be: by ...? The Roberts Court?


All you've said is that you'd be perfectly happy to be denied the exercise of your own rights in a scenario where you know it will never happen.

As usual, you're all right, Jack. And fuck the rest of 'em.

[Euromutt]

39. You're overlooking one major detail

Such people as have been denied the right to vote as a result of having been convicted of a criminal offense (and that's a state-level thing, by the way, and only a small minority of states have it) have at least been convicted by due process in a court of law, as required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. I.e. they have to have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law to qualify for the removal of their right to vote.

The same applies to people stripped of the right to keep and bear arms due to a felony conviction, a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence, or having been adjudicated mentally deficient: they had to first be found guilty by a court of law, in accordance with due process.

For this scheme, there's no due process. You get put on some list by executive fiat, and on the basis of that, the same executive can deny you your freedoms, and out of the goodness of their hearts, the government will let you challenge that? You call that "due process"?

[iverglas]

45. "as a result of"

Yes, it's that "consequence" thang again.

Such people as have been denied the right to vote as a result of having been convicted of a criminal offense

Yours doesn't have weak links - it's missing links altogether.

As you note, the denial is the result of legislation.

Can anybody name some legislation that has denied the exercise of rights that they maybe don't like - or more importantly, that is pretty demonstrably contrary to constitutional guarantees? Class?

Oh, I know; there's no constitutional right to vote in the US. Poor you.


have at least been convicted by due process in a court of law

Indeed they have. Now, let us assume legislation that provides that people who have been convicted by due process in a court of law (as opposed to what, a court of equity? public opinion?) will have their hands cut off. Be exiled from the 50 states. Be prohibited from marrying. Cool?


to qualify for the removal of their right to vote

I swear, the blank verse around here is elegant.

So they would also "qualify for" the denial of their right to marry, to remain within their country of nationality ... to eat pizza for breakfast ... as long as that's what the law said. Eh? Due process!


The same applies to people stripped of the right to keep and bear arms due to a felony conviction, a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence, or having been adjudicated mentally deficient: they had to first be found guilty by a court of law, in accordance with due process.

I surely do know that.

And where I'm at, such provisions would be struck down by the courts as VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Yeesh. Just like the bar on inmates voting was some years ago.

"That's how it is" just is not an argument, you know?


For this scheme, there's no due process. You get put on some list by executive fiat, and on the basis of that, the same executive can deny you your freedoms, and out of the goodness of their hearts, the government will let you challenge that? You call that "due process"?

Well, since I DIDN'T SAY THAT, why would I call it anything?

I'll call it Charlie if you like, though.

[Euromutt]

56. What the point is that you are trying to convey?

I am frankly more than a little tired of your constant "that's not what I said" schtick, iverglas. See, the fact that I evidently can't divine what your argument is because you're failing to make clear what it actually is. As one XKCD cartoon (http://xkcd.com/169/) put it, "Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness."

[Deadric Damodred]

57. I'm totally going to keep that filed away.

That sums it all up: "Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness." That's the best characterization yet.

[Raskolnik]

59. Now *that* is fantastic.

I thought he topped out with the Race, but this one is quite good.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. Search videos of Manuchar Ghorbanifar for other examples of the style

[Raskolnik]

52. Do you understand that the names on the terrorist watch list are kept secret,

the criteria for inclusion are unknown, there is currently no judicial mechanism by which people can challenge their inclusion, and inclusion appears to be permanent? Now, if that list is being used by the state to restrict or significantly impede some some civil liberties (as it is with travel restrictions), that sounds like nearly the Platonic ideal of a denial of due process to me, but I didn't go to law school in Canada.

Just because some people (like Lautenberg, for example) see a golden opportunity to use this particularly silly piece of Bush-era detritus to futher their existing agendas doesn't make it right, whatever your interpretation of the 2A.


edit spelling

[iverglas]

55. and you understand I don't give a shit, right?

I mean, you DID READ the post of mine you replied to?

Granted, the equivalence would be more perfect if there were a formalized procedure for challenging a denial of a firearms purchase. Why should there not be? There's a completely open procedure in Canada for challenging a denial of a licence to purchase firearms, for instance ...

And you HAVE READ the post of mine in this thread in which I offer Canada's (imperfect) system for dealing with people alleged to be terrorist threats?

We don't got no stinking "watch lists", you see; not so as would be used to interfere in people's liberty or other rights w/o due process anyhow. (Obviously a nation's security and intelligence services keep lists of people who pose potential threats.)

If somebody here applies for a firearms acquisition and possession licence and is denied it, they have access to the procedure for seeking review of that decision.

You too can have the rule of law, if you want it bad enough.

[Raskolnik]

58. You can't have it both ways, iverglas. Either you care enough to post hundreds (thousands?)

of words on a subject, or you don't give a shit. Pick one.

The "terrorist watch list" is a worse than useless pile of garbage left over from Bush era, and it deserves to die a swift death. Agree or disagree?

Using such an imperfect (in my opinion, fundamentally unjust) tool to further the broader goal of stricter gun control is inappropriate, whether or not one believes that the goal of stricter gun control is advisable. Agree or disagree?

[iverglas]

60. aw, c'mon, now

A proper narcissist knows very well that what I didn't give a shit about was what s/he said.

I guess a proper narcissist just couldn't admit that, though.


The "terrorist watch list" is a worse than useless pile of garbage left over from Bush era, and it deserves to die a swift death. Agree or disagree?

What, and express an opinion about what the USofA should do about a domestic policy???

Heavens to Betsy, why don't you just ask me to shoot myself in the head???

I will NOT express an opinion about what you should do.

I will feel perfectly free to critique what you-all do based on your own asserted values, principles and rules, of course.


Using such an imperfect (in my opinion, fundamentally unjust) tool to further the broader goal of stricter gun control is inappropriate, whether or not one believes that the goal of stricter gun control is advisable. Agree or disagree?

Purple.

No, wait. Maybe hyperactive. Expeditious? Am I getting close? There must be a key to answering that loaded question somewhere, but I just don't seem to be able to get around the unproved false premise in it ...

[Raskolnik]

61. Direct questions that require making a declarative statement = iverglas' kryptonite

Good to see nothing's changed in that department.

[iverglas]

63. demanding answers to loaded questions = the demagogue's favourite trick

Using such an imperfect (in my opinion, fundamentally unjust) tool to further the broader goal of stricter gun control is inappropriate, whether or not one believes that the goal of stricter gun control is advisable. Agree or disagree?

You know your question is loaded with a false premise.
I know your question is loaded with a false premise.

Somewhere in your attic, you have a portrait of yourself growing old and ugly with shame.


more html fixed

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. For someone who "doesn't give a shit", you sure do reply a lot.

I was wrong. You are not quite like Manuchar Ghorbanifar.

You (apparently) aren't constantly scheming to extract money from gullible, high-placed right wingers
in the US military-industrial complex.

He, in turn, spends little time in rhetorical war with his ideological enemies, acting as if the sheer
word count of his statements prove something.

[iverglas]

69. fascinating

not.

If I go home and smoke something green and come back, will I be able to fathom this burbling?

[Raskolnik]

67. Tell me again what the op was about?

That's what I thought.

[Euromutt]

7. Yeah, who cares about that "due process" crap?

What do you for an encore? Warrantless searches and seizures? Suspension of habeas corpus? "Re-education" camps?

[slackmaster]

16. We already have that

A list of people who have BY DUE PROCESS had their right to keep and bear arms taken away.

[provis99]

2. I don't see where it says the Brady Campaign supports Bush's terrorist list.

Oh, wait. This is in the guns forum, where the factchecking is as common as freepers having sex.

[beevul]

4. Right...

And you think they're going to use what list exactly, where the "Terror Gap bill" is concerned, were it passed?

People on what list exactly would be prevented from buying firearms?

Yeah, they sure don't support it...

Oh...


:rofl:

[Euromutt]

6. Try the Brady Campaign's own site

http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/terrorgap/index.php

PROBLEM: There is a gaping hole in our nation's firearm laws that terrorists can exploit. Federal authorities can't stop sales of guns - including military-style assault weapons - by federally licensed gun dealers to known or suspected terrorists because of gaps in current law.

Better known as "presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Except most people don't consider that a "gap." Most people who aren't supporters of a police state, anyway.

SOLUTION: Congress must pass the bill to close the Terror Gap to stop known or suspected terrorists from buying guns.

That sounds like support to me. But clinch it, on the FAQs page (http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/terrorgap/faq.php):

In order to close the terror gap, Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ) and Representative Peter King (NY) have introduced the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act." Based on a Bush Administration proposal, this legislation would:

Provide the Attorney General (AG) with discretionary authority to deny the transfer of a firearm or an explosives license or permit when a background check reveals that the purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist and the AG reasonably believes that the person may use a firearm or explosives in connection with terrorism;

Implement due process safeguards so an affected person would have an opportunity to challenge a denial by the AG; and

Protect the sensitive information providing the basis for terrorist watch lists.

"Based on a Bush administration proposal." That says it all right there. To quote Pogo: "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us."

Next up: suspending the 4th and 5th Amendment "rights" of suspected terrorists. After all, the "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure" and "due process" is getting in the way of stopping terrorists! Do you want the terrorists to win?! Don't you know we're at war?! Why do you hate America?!

[iverglas]

24. miss something?

"Implement due process safeguards so an affected person would have an opportunity to challenge a denial by the AG"

Just what I was saying in my post upthread a bit.

[Statistical]

28. How about...

we implement due process standard and public scrutiny of the "Secret lists" kept by the government

THEN use said lists to deprive people of there rights?

I mean the logic is:
we know the lists will be broken so we will use the broken lists to deprive rights but throw in a vague sentence about due process and everything will be ok.

[iverglas]

30. sure

Dear Sir/Madam:

We have determined that you are an individual likely to engage in terroristic violence.

This is therefore to notify you that you are prohibited from acquiring firearms.

If you wish to challenge this determination/prohibition, please complete the form you will find enclosed and return it to the address below.

Thank you for your cooperation, and best wishes.



Will that do for a start?

The hell with ongoing investigations, etc. etc.

I know, I know. There really is no difference between being locked up in Guantanamo for 8 years and being denied the purchase of a firearm ...

[Statistical]

33. So you do support Bushes policies. Learned something new everday.

BTW:
If we could collect evidence without a warrant we would find more suspects.
If we could coerce confessions it would make police work easier.
If we could force someone to testify against themselves it would make convictions at trial more likely.

We accept that criminals will not be caught due to protections of our civil liberties.
It is a price we pay for not living in a Police State.

There are "about" 3 million people on the terra list.
Do you think there are 3 million terrorist in the US? Really?

If not then innocent people will have their rights deprived without due process.

Bush is ok with that.
You obviously are ok with that.
I am not ok with that.

Nothing more to say except I heard Jeb might run in 2012 so maybe you can donate to your favorite ruling families campaign.

Never thought I would see a so called progressive support Bush Co terra tactics.

[iverglas]

35. I don't actually give a crap about Bush's policies

They're yours. Do something about them if you don't like them.

Want to see what the Canadian courts have been doing recently with government security/terrorism policies they don't like? You'd be amazed.

In today's news:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jkt7fojEwKNgheTggRDxfKruBkew

OTTAWA — Federal lawyers are appealing a court ruling that ordered the government to seek Omar Khadr's return from Guantanamo Bay.

The federal government has filed an appeal of a Federal Court ruling that it seek the return of Khadr, 22, from the U.S. military prison in Cuba. Judge James O'Reilly ruled in April that the Conservative government's refusal to demand repatriation of Khadr offends fundamental justice.

The judge ruled that the government must ask the United States "as soon as practicable" to send Khadr home.

... The government said last week it would follow the Federal Court's order to let Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Montreal man <a Canadian citizen> jailed in Sudan, return to Canada.

Abdelrazik was arrested but not charged during a 2003 visit to see his mother in Sudan. He says CSIS and American FBI officers interrogated him over purported terrorist links.

Huh. Now there's some due process (up here, we have not just due process, but the principles of fundamental justice), and there are some courts worth listening to.

[Statistical]

37. However you are ok with denying civil rights based on secret lists.

Your opinion regardless of the actions of your country are hardly progressive.

The sad thing is if you replaced guns with anything else you would be up in arms.
I am going to paraphrase your "logic" here:
"I support denying right to own a gun based on secret lists complied by the govt without due process".

Somehow you hatred of an inanimate object clouds all reasoning.
It allows you to support oppressive policies and somehow still claim to be progressive.

Sad. At one point you were infuriating, then annoying, now you have made so many concessions in your "faith" of banning guns that you come off as just sad.

A self defense shooting - iverglas against it.
A civil rights case involving firearms - iverglas against it.
A story about crime - iverglas blames guns.
A story where guns prevented crime - iverglas still against guns.
......

Now Bush policies pushed by Democrats under the guise of keeping guns from terrorist - iverglass for it.

Predictable but still sad.

[iverglas]

41. and we all know where I put posts that make filthy false allegations like that

However you are ok with denying civil rights based on secret lists.

[Euromutt]

44. Except that once again, the allegations are actually true

You are busily defending stripping people of their freedoms on the basis of some arbitrary list compiled by the massively flawed previous executive without judicial review, after all.

But I guess the end justifies the means in your book, eh?

[Statistical]

46. Only thing that is filthy is your regressive attitude towards civil right.

The fact that your beliefs are limited to only one civil right doesn't make it progressive.

It would be like saying you support all religions and that makes up for believing slavery is ok.
All civil rights is all civil rights even ones you are personally opposed to.

Thankfully you are a minority.

[iverglas]

48. "civil right"

More blank verse.

I've often hoped you people would make up your minds.

Is this a civil right or a fundamental/human (often "constitutional") right, eh?

You know they're different things?


The fact that your beliefs are limited to only one civil right doesn't make it progressive.

The fact that you can't engage in discourse without spewing falsehoods does make you something.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Your indignation is duly noted, and will be given all proper consideration

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. I see your chauvinism is appearing again

Huh. Now there's some due process (up here, we have not just due process, but the principles of fundamental justice), and there are some courts worth listening to.

See, their courts are better!

So, if this dog's breakfast of a law were (theoretically) enacted into law, and subsequently tossed by
the Supremes as violating Heller, you'd:

A. Approve

B. Disapprove

C. Say you don't give a shit, just as you don't give a shit in all the other posts here where you say you
don't give a shit.

D. Refuse to answer, as direct questions are are just so phallocentric!

[Euromutt]

36. I didn't miss it; I just don't buy it

Here's an idea: how about we let the executive branch of government incarcerate, by fiat, people suspected of possibly planning to commit some unspecified crime at some unspecified point in the future. Then, we can "implement due process safeguards" so that anyone thus convicted "would have an opportunity to challenge" the incarceration. Doesn't that seem reasonable? After all, "presumed innocent until proven guilty" and "presumed guilty until proven innocent" are the same words, just in a different order, so they mean the same, right?

Forget it. A single private citizen is no match against the state, in court or elsewhere; that's why the Constitution stacks the deck against the state. "Due process" isn't satisfied by giving the accused an "opportunity to challenge" the arbitrary denial of his civil rights ex post facto.

And let's not pretend the "Terrorist Watch List" isn't utterly arbitrary. By the ACLU's reckoning, the "Terrorist Watch List" could include up to more than 1.2 million people by now (http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/watchlistcounter.html). And people who are genuinely suspected of being terrorists aren't on the list, because the government doesn't want the suspects to be able to find out that they're suspects (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/27013res20061006.html). Frankly, the fact that the list even still exists is a mark against the Obama administration; it should have been scrapped five months ago.

Just what I was saying in my post upthread a bit.

You mean post #23? Yeah, funny how I missed that, seeing as how the post of mine to which you responded was post #6.

[iverglas]

47. la di da

Here's an idea: how about we let the executive branch of government incarcerate, by fiat, people suspected of possibly planning to commit some unspecified crime at some unspecified point in the future. Then, we can "implement due process safeguards" so that anyone thus convicted "would have an opportunity to challenge" the incarceration. Doesn't that seem reasonable? After all, "presumed innocent until proven guilty" and "presumed guilty until proven innocent" are the same words, just in a different order, so they mean the same, right?

Google "security certificate" at google.ca.

http://www.adilinfo.org/en/what-is-a-security-certificate
(a critique of the current process here)

... Charkaoui's constitutional challenge to the process was heard by the Supreme Court in June 2006. In February 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the certificate process violated sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Accordingly, it struck down that section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (articles 33 and 77 to 85 of the old law).

However, the Supreme Court gave the government one year before the ruling entered into force. This meant that all detainees were held in situations of arbitrary, indefinite detention, under a law recognized as illegal for an additional year.

The government introduced Bill C3 on 22 October 2007, new security certificate legislation. This was enacted into law on 22 February 2008. The new security certificate process relies on a government-appointed and paid special advocate, cleared by CSIS, who has access to the secret information given to the judge, but is prevented from disclosing it to the person named in the certificate or to the public. This reform neither meets the concerns about secrecy nor a broad range of other concerns about the certificate, including the use of illegal evidence, a low standard of proof, lack of precise charges, and particularly the equal treatment of non-citizens. It continues the practice of indefinite detention under threat of deportation to torture.

There are currently multiple proceedings going on in the Charkaoui case. The judge is not particularly happy with the federal government's doings. As you see, the feds have already amended the legislation, and the process of constitutional scrutiny of its legislation and its actions will continue.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/search.do?language=en&searchTitle=Federal&searchPage=eliisa%2FjurisdictionSearch.vm&jurisdiction=ca&text=&id=charkaoui&startDate=2009&endDate=2009&legislation=legislation&caselaw=courts&boardTribunal=tribunals

I have no idea whether that link to search results for decisions about Charkaoui will work, but since the English versions of the French reasons of the Federal Court aren't available yet, and not all recent decisions are there yet, it wouldn't help anyway.


But hey, there really are no people in your country or mine who there are reasonable grounds to believe are planning or will commit serious acts of violence. Why, if there had been reasonable grounds to believe that those guys who flew those planes in 2001 were planning just that, and an investigation had actually been underway, there would have been absolutely no justification for prohibiting them from buying all the guns they could eat ... (And I don't really care if the case is that they could not have purchased firearms if their status in the US was only temporary; maybe we could just this once avoid the concrete thinking.)



Oops. I meant to ask. You guys keep people incarcerated pending trial ever? Any of those people ever not convicted?

Presumed guilty until found not guilty much?

[Euromutt]

72. And doop de doop

Well, I looked up the Canadian security certificate process. I do not like the sound of that at all. It's seriously scary, and there's way too much wiggle room for abuse; I can see why the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch are against it. But even given all that, it comes closer to meeting standards of due process than Lautenberg & King's proposed legislation, in that the security certificate is subject to some measure of judicial review before it's imposed.

But hey, there really are no people in your country or mine who there are reasonable grounds to believe are planning or will commit serious acts of violence.

Maybe there are, but I doubt there's 400,000 of them. That's how many individuals are currently on the list, represented by over a million entries (see: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-10-watchlist_N.htm).

Why, if there had been reasonable grounds to believe that those guys who flew those planes in 2001 were planning just that, and an investigation had actually been underway, there would have been absolutely no justification for prohibiting them from buying all the guns they could eat ...

It wouldn't have mattered if the 9/11 hijackers had been able to acquire firearms, because even if they'd been US citizens or permanent residents, they still wouldn't have been allowed to bring them onto the plane (except as checked luggage in the cargo hold). That's why they used box cutters; there was no prohibition on bringing those on board.

Oops. I meant to ask. You guys keep people incarcerated pending trial ever? Any of those people ever not convicted?

I don't need to explain this, do I?
Precise lengths of time vary by state, but the law imposes time limits on how long a suspect can be held prior to trial without a court order. Generally, the state has to file charges within 48-72 hours, and the suspect has to get a bail hearing or an arraignment within 5 days. The executive cannot unilaterally decide to hold a suspect until trial; that has to be approved by a judge.

There are judges who set excessive bail to prevent a suspect from being released from pre-trial detention. And frankly, I don't approve of that.

There's another major difference between "terrorist suspects" and criminal suspects, in that the latter are suspected of an offense that has actually taken place, whereas "suspected terrorists" aren't suspected of having done anything illegal; it is thought they might do something illegal at some unspecified future date. If there were concrete evidence of whatthey were supposedly planning to do, well, we have laws on criminal conspiracy for that. But that doesn't apply to the overwhelming majority of people on the "terrorist" watch list.

[gorfle]

51. And that's it in a nutshell.

Once again, Euromutt, I bow to your skillz.

The fact is, the terror watch list is a sick, abysmal joke in and of itself, and to use it as an excuse to deprive people of any Constitutionally enumerated right is preposterous.

But, since iverglas hates guns, she's all for it. I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend and all that.

[iverglas]

54. you're so entertaining

You clap along with this idiocy about denying someone the ability to acquire a firearm (subject, as I of course said at the outset, to a method of challenging the bar -- I'm not bound by whatever loony thing your government might be doing at any point in time, you know) being exactly just like locking somebody up without charge or trial.

Yes, the ability to possess a firearm and the ability to walk freely in the world, they really are just exactly the same thing.

And yet when it comes to other people's interests being impaired so that firearms owners get what they want all the time, there's no consideration whatsoever of the interests of those other people. Them having their interests impaired so that firearms owners get what they want all the time, that's just the minor inconvenience they get to enjoy.

One person's "minor inconvenience" is another person's "impairment of an important right", ain't it just?

You don't give a shit about other people's privacy and all the harms that can result from violations of privacy. But let anybody - anybody at all - have an impediment to firearms ownership placed in their path, and the wrath of Zeus will be visited upon them.

Me, I say that being denied the ability to acquire a firearm, and having the opportunity to challenge that action, is a minor inconvenience. Smoke that.


Forgive me, of course I don't mean "firearms owners". Not all firearms owners are self-absorbed, self-centred jerks. I'm referring to gun militants, of course.

[Euromutt]

77. Ah, once again, iverglas fails to practice what she preaches

And also, once again, she hasn't got the gumption to actually direct her post at anyone personally.

You don't give a shit about other people's privacy and all the harms that can result from violations of privacy.

See, I don't know who you think you're talking about, but every firearms owner ("gun militant" or not) who's posted in this thread has condemned the "Terrorist Watch" and "No Fly" lists in general terms. As things stand, Lautenberg & King's proposed legislation hasn't gone anywhere yet, and beevul, Raskolnik, Statistical, gorfle and myself (plus some others) have said that these lists are garbage in their present form and need to be seriously overhauled or (preferably) scrapped, and we will continue to adhere to that opinion even if Lautenberg & King's bills never get anywhere.

So exactly where you get off asserting that some unspecified "you" doesn't care about civil and political rights except as they pertain to private ownership of firearms is unclear to me. Such claims are specious at best, and at worst "a filthy false allegation" of the kind you decry so loudly when it's supposedly directed at you (I say "supposedly" because so far, the allegations you describe as such don't actually appear to be false).

Forgive me, of course I don't mean "firearms owners". Not all firearms owners are self-absorbed, self-centred jerks. I'm referring to gun militants, of course.

I think I detect a "No True Scotsman" fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

[iverglas]

78. what's wrong with you?

You don't give a shit about other people's privacy and all the harms that can result from violations of privacy.
And also, once again, she hasn't got the gumption to actually direct her post at anyone personally.

You actually can't follow the thread of a simple internet discussion board?

I directed my post at the person to whose post it was a reply.

Is this really difficult to understand?

Why don't you go find something you KNOW something about to yammer about?

This:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=201139&mesg_id=201233

wasn't even the first instalment.

The fact that YOU had yet to see the light of DU when it all went down is not MY problem. Get it?


See, I don't know who you think you're talking about

I pity you. Attention deficit disorder, maybe?

Of course, I was talking TO someone, not ABOUT anyone.


So exactly where you get off asserting that some unspecified "you" doesn't care about civil and political rights except as they pertain to private ownership of firearms is unclear to me.

And where YOU get off claiming I asserted any such fucking thing is RIGHT HERE.

If you want to butt into somebody else's conversation when you have no idea what it's about, you feel free. You'll make yourself look like a total ass much of the time, but that's your choice. Just don't be making false assertions about the actual participants. 'K?

Now, what fun it will be if somebody comes along and claims I'm claiming to be "misunderstooood" on this one.

Fucking hell. I direct a clear, plain statement directly at a unique, identified poster -- and I'm told I'm making vague allegations about/against some unspecified somebody.

Can it get any, uh, weirder? I'll just use that as a stand-in for what I mean.


Forgive me, of course I don't mean "firearms owners". Not all firearms owners are self-absorbed, self-centred jerks. I'm referring to gun militants, of course.
I think I detect a "No True Scotsman" fallacy

Well thank dawg I'm not responsible for your thought processes. I'd have a lot to answer for if I were.

Not all firearms owners are self-absorbed, self-centred jerks. You're calling that fallacious??? Hee haw. You're funny.

[Euromutt]

83. Don't give me that crap

You actually can't follow the thread of a simple internet discussion board?

Usually, I can. But given your consistent tactic of saying something that appears to be intended to be interpreted one way, and then denying that that's the way it should be interpreted when someone does, I've become a little wary of stating what I understand you to have said at any given moment.

But now I see my wariness is grounds for scorn on your part as well. On reflection, I think it's perfectly reasonable to get confused when you constantly rewrite the rules at your whim (usually for the purpose of getting a smug dig in at your interlocutor).

I directed my post at the person to whose post it was a reply.

Gorfle, then. The person who said, in the very post to which you were responding, "the terror watch list is a sick, abysmal joke in and of itself." Call me strange, but such as sentiment does not strike me as indicative of a person who doesn't "give a shit about other people's privacy and all the harms that can result from violations of privacy."

Actually (also reading the thread to which you linked), I think I see where the problem lies, and it's one of political culture. Gorfle, being American, reserves most of his distrust for his government (though after eight years of Bush, who wouldn't?) whereas as you, iverglas, are more distrustful of private entities that don't answer to you at the polls. It's not that anybody doesn't care about protecting privacy; it's just a difference of priorities in whom the privacy needs to be protected from.

I pity you.

Don't you fucking patronize me.

And where YOU get off claiming I asserted any such fucking thing is RIGHT HERE.

And we're back to that. What the hell else is this supposed to mean?

And yet when it comes to other people's interests being impaired so that firearms owners get what they want all the time, there's no consideration whatsoever of the interests of those other people.
<...>
You don't give a shit about other people's privacy and all the harms that can result from violations of privacy. But let anybody - anybody at all - have an impediment to firearms ownership placed in their path, and the wrath of Zeus will be visited upon them.

And, from another post (directed at me):

(given that I obviously don't care when they come for my democratic process or for anybody else, if I pretend I'm one of you people for a moment)

Bloody hell, I feel like I've walked into the Monty Python argument sketch.

I'll just use that as a stand-in for what I mean.

You mean, you're deliberately not saying what you mean. But it's somebody else's fault when you're not understood. And then you can act mug and tell yourself how clever you are.

Not all firearms owners are self-absorbed, self-centred jerks. You're calling that fallacious??? Hee haw. You're funny.

No, I'm calling your use of the term "gun militants" a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, i.e. you're leaving open the option of "equivocating in an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion" (to quote the Wikipedia page). After all, the term just means what you want it to mean, and that can change from second to second. Much like everything else that you write.

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. provis99 seems to have gone missing

Probably off trying to have sex with a freeper...

[rrneck]

8. I could have done without that image. nt

[DonP]

21. That's an official snarky, unfounded and undefended drive by post ntxt

[peacetalksforall]

3. No guns for Luis Posada Carriles - just his paintbrushes and his freedom thanks to us.

Only wanted on an Immigration violation. Still living comfortably in the U.S.

[Caliman73]

15. He cannot legally own a firearm in the US anyway...

If he is wanted on an immigration violation, then he is not a citizen or legal resident and thus he could not pass a NICS background check. "Suspected terrorists" can be anyone who because they have a common name that is put on the database even though they have no criminal record. It can be groups like the one in "Fahrenheit 9/11" in Fresno, that was infiltrated by the local authorities because they opposed the war in Iraq. There is no "Terror gap". People who have criminal records that would prohibit them from owning a firearm do not get them without someone breaking the laws that are already in place.

[peacetalksforall]

25. He's an old man now, but I cannot hear the word terrorist without thinking about him and

how our government has protected him. He doesn't need a gun. US of A - the country that creates, pays for, protects, defends, diverts attention away from - home grown terrorists. He has an entire structure behind him. He is the banner name for U.S. government sponsored terrorism. His name will live in infamy.

[iverglas]

31. Ew

Being a foreigner, I actually didn't know of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles#Cubana_Flight_455.2C_1976

Cubana Flight 455 was a Cubana de Aviación flight departing from Barbados, via Trinidad, to Cuba. On 6 October 1976 two timebombs variously described as dynamite or C-4 planted on the Douglas DC-8 aircraft exploded, killing all 73 people on board.

Declassified FBI report that reads " all but admitted that Posada and Bosch had engineered the bombing of the airline."

Investigators from Cuba, Venezuela and the United States traced the planting of the bombs to two Venezuelan passengers, Freddy Lugo and Hernán Ricardo Lozano. Both men were employed by Posada at his private detective agency based in Venezuela, and they both subsequently admitted to the crime.
A week after the men's confessions, Luis Posada and Orlando Bosch were arrested on charges of masterminding the attack, and were jailed in Venezuela. Declassified FBI and CIA reports show that the agencies suspected his involvement in the airline bombing within days of its occurrence.

What a vile piece of filth.

I flew Cubana to Havana about 3 months before that flight was bombed ...

[peacetalksforall]

40. Keep reading. He continued his filthy false hero work for a long time after. But,,

the absolute worst part of this is his CIA and Republican Party protection. Government intervention has kept him out of jail for ALL OF MANY terrorist crimes..

Then, there is the next worst part. The Republican Party should not be singled out. Democrats took plenty of money from Cuban-Americans and nothing got straightene out during eight years of Pres. Clinton.

Editied to add 'alledged crimes'.

[pkdu]

50. On his CIA pension presumably. n/t

[benEzra]

18. Those "terrah-ists" can also teach at elementary schools...

drive school buses, manage daycares, fly airliners for a living, work as police officers and firefighters, work in chemical plants and oil refineries, and have access to the U.S. Capitol, the Smithsonian, the National Mall, the Mall of America, and the Washington Post building.

We are talking about Bushco's secret blacklists, people. NOT lists of actual terrorists.

[Callisto32]

20. Brady's first "question for Wayne LaPierre" indicates

at the very least a total disregard for the limited nature of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution.

I don't know enough about the second piece of legislation they speak of to comment effectively.

The third part, about Florida's law, uses a single anecdote in an attempt to discredit an entire population's ability to make sound judgments, and then claims that they will believe that this law allows them to use deadly force to "settle disputes." They seem to be implying that people will think it is legal to shot someone over something that is not self defense because of this law and provide no example except for a man who was actually attacked. This requires a logical leap I don't think people are ready to make.

The part about the terrorist lists, implies that "people suspected of terrorism" should not be allowed to buy guns because they are not allowed on ships or planes. Really, it should go the other way. They are not convicted of anything, and thus should be restored their ability to travel freely by whatever means they choose.
Also note the "military style, semiautomatic assault weapons" language. So at least they admit it is all about looking scary.

The "political matters" section is just plain childish. It would be like expecting the Brady group to bring business into a town that just said "anybody can own any weapon they like." Simply ludicrous.

[Tim01]

22. I wonder of any DUers are on Bushes list. Wouldn't surprise me.

I'll bet Obamas list and Bushes list are different.

[aikoaiko]

38. Is this list transparent? Is it clear how one gets on the list?

:shrug:

[TheWraith]

42. 1. No. 2. Because somebody thought your name belongs there.

Not even your whole name, or you specifically: even a partial match on a name is enough.

[Euromutt]

43. Some people sure are showing their true colors in this thread

Isn't it interesting how people like sharesunited and iverglas have no problem supporting police state tactics and the subversion of the rule of law, provided it serves their agenda? Not unlike Senator Lautenberg and Congressman King, for that matter.

Just remember that life is a jar of jalapenos, in that what you do today can burn your ass tomorrow, and that "when they came for the Communists, I remained silent, because I wasn't a Communist"...

[iverglas]

49. yeah, but I've always known what yours and theirs were

Colour y'all demagogues who wouldn't know a true thing if it fell on your head.


Just remember that life is a jar of jalapenos, in that what you do today can burn your ass tomorrow, and that "when they came for the Communists, I remained silent, because I wasn't a Communist"...

Actually, I like to remember that I live in a society under the rule of law, imperfect as it and any human society may be at any moment in time, and don't spend my time looking under the bed for bogeymen or amassing weapons so that one day when they do come for me (given that I obviously don't care when they come for my democratic process or for anybody else, if I pretend I'm one of you people for a moment) I can blow them away.


Now, why don't you tell me what my position is on who should be permitted to own firearms, who should not, and how the determination process should work?

I think I know the answer, but I might be wrong, so I should really wait until you've explained it for me.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. "Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness."

Nor is a clear, declarative sentence kryptonite.

[iverglas]

70. one seldom does see such smug self-impressed screeds, does one?

You really do take the cake.

I really wish someone would show me somewhere, just one somewhere, where I've claimed to be misunderstood.

Since nobody ever does, I'll just go with my current assumption: that nobody can, and so the numerous claims that I have done this are just the same old filthy false allegations.


Oh, and I always forget to mention:

Of course, I know that nobody here actually believes them any more than I do!

[Raskolnik]

71. With whom do you share this gift of martyrdom when you're not here?

That cross has got to be getting heavy by now, so don't feel like you have to carry it on account of anyone here.

[iverglas]

73. tsk

Way to diss an atheist, eh?

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. Au contraire, an excellent way to diss an atheist with a 'missionary' mindset

"I come from a better place, and I'm here to tell you your ways are wrong."

Preaching the Gospel According To Brady, (with readings from the Books of Sugarman and McCarthy) doesn't quite
seem to be getting a warm, receptive hearing from some of the violent, heathenish members of the Yank tribe.

Poor, poor you.

Spreading Truth and light is a difficult and thankless job, innit?

[iverglas]

79. oh, you do make yourself laugh, doncha?

I wonder why you'd think I give any more of a shit about Brady and Sugarman and McCarthy than I do about any of your other minor personages down there.

Yeesh. Somebody really does think the world revolves around them, don't they?

In multisyllabic words, we call that "ethnocentrism", you know.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Even though Brady, Sugarman, and McCarthy mostly agree with you on guns?

And appear to be the most publicly vocal of those follow your line?

I wonder why you'd think I give any more of a shit about Brady and Sugarman and McCarthy than I do about any of your other minor personages down there.

Ah, I see. Because they're *Americans*. I get it.

Can't go around ordaining members of the lesser race, can we Reverend Hale?

Seems my analogy was even more apt than I thought when I posted it

[Tim01]

82. Wow. Good call. nt

[Euromutt]

81. I very much doubt you do

Colour y'all demagogues who wouldn't know a true thing if it fell on your head.

You're entitled to your opinion, erroneous though it may be.

Actually, I like to remember that I live in a society under the rule of law, imperfect as it and any human society may be at any moment in time, and don't spend my time looking under the bed for bogeymen or amassing weapons so that one day when they do come for me (given that I obviously don't care when they come for my democratic process or for anybody else, if I pretend I'm one of you people for a moment) I can blow them away.

Ah, you misunderstand me (perhaps predictably). What I'm alluding to is that, once we set a precedent whereby we allow the executive to circumvent due process and create faits accomplis without prior judicial oversight, we undermine that rule of law. See, contrary to your opinion of me, I do care about the democratic process (which is one of the reasons I donate money to both the ACLU and Human Rights Watch), and my quoting the passage attributed to Niemöller is intended to raise the specter that, once we allow one constitutional right (one not popular in certain circles) to be eroded by removing the safeguard of due process, we open the door to having other ones infringed in similar fashion.

Now, why don't you tell me what my position is on who should be permitted to own firearms, who should not, and how the determination process should work?

You've spent so much time telling me what your opinion isn't that I'm having a hard time giving a rodent's posterior concerning your opinion on anything.

No, why don't you tell me what your opinions are? I understand that it's far safer to snipe at other people's opinion while not risking being exposed yourself, but wouldn't it make a change to commit to something?

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. They must have loved "preventative detention" back in 1970

Since the detainees had the right to challenge it afterward. By their lights, there must have been no problem
with that, as there were mechanisms in place to contest it.

[krispos42]

84. It's about using any excuse to keep people from owning guns

They just latch on to it and slap a "common-sense" label on it.


Of course, Ted Kennedy and Randi Rhodes made the terrorist watch list, as well as some active-duty military guys. You know, the ones flying back from Iraq or Afghanistan to spend a couple of weeks with their families.

There's no standard for getting on the list and the only way to get off is to harass your congresscritter. That doesn't sound reasonable to me at all.

Maybe people on the terrorist watch list also should not be allowed to rent vehicles. Or come with 500' of a school campus. Maybe all their credit card transactions and ATM withdraws should be immediately reported to the Treasury Department. Or borrow chemistry books from the library.