Why not, a No Fly List Compromise?

[dblack]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

Because the basic idea of a no-fly list is an attempt to avoid due process.

".... no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane."

This gets right to the core of the problem. How do we know who's a terrorist, and who isn't? And if we know someone is a terrorist, why are we dicking around with petty travel restrictions? We should just kill them.

The problem is that the no-fly list isn't a list of people who are terrorists. It's a list of people that our government thinks might be terrorists.

We do that for search warrants already. Why can we not do it for no-fly lists? We have reasonable suspicion that there will be evidence of a crime in a person's residence, we prove it to a judge we get that warrant. I'm not trying to argue, you seem to know, I'm just asking because I don't understand.

A request by government to infringe on someone's right to privacy may be granted by a judge if they determine that there is sufficient reason to warrant such an exception. But it's a temporary exception and a necessary one to allow police investigators to do their jobs. Once the investigation is complete, the suspects aren't deprived of their rights in perpetuity unless they are found guilty by due process - they get their day in court.

The no-fly list isn't an investigation. It's a judgement that strips its victims of the right to air travel without due process. This is exactly the kind of thing the Constitution's due process provisions were designed to prevent. We should not tolerate a government that maintains secret lists of 'enemies' who are deprived of their rights on mere suspicion.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. And one of the sad ironies of all this is that one of the reasons for the Second Amendment in the first place was to give people a chance to protect themselves from a rogue government that might keep secret black-list of 'enemies of the state'.

No, it was to give people a chance to protect themselves from rogue governments like ISIS. Which side are you on, anyway?

Not yours.

 

[OKTexas]

Would a separate No-Gun list by the FBI, with the evidence of why signed off on by a judge, make sense to you?
BTW, what makes you think people are put on the existing lists for personal vendetta? Show me one.

Only if the 5th and 6th amendments aren't violated like they are now. A person must know what they are being accused of and have the ability to defend themselves before being placed on any list.

 

[Grizz]

The Left keeps throwing in Bans along with these Bills. Cornyn's Bill would have given them that compromise, they said no.

 

[OKTexas]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

The government likes operating in secrecy

Secrecy is necessary; shall we tell the bad guys we're watching them so they can go underground? Think about what you're advocating for.

If they have adequate proof to deny a persons liberty, they should do it in a court of law where the person has the right to defend themselves.

 

[tinydancer]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

The government likes operating in secrecy

Secrecy is necessary; shall we tell the bad guys we're watching them so they can go underground? Think about what you're advocating for.

If they have adequate proof to deny a persons liberty, they should do it in a court of law where the person has the right to defend themselves.

Murmers are out there Ted is super considered I would not want one man on this planet ever

 

[PredFan]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

if the known terrorist makes a no fly list

why the hell is he/she allowed to walk the streets

You cannot be arrested for pledging your allegiance to ISIS. In this case you could and should be watched.

there is a difference in being "watched"

vs

having your "due process"rights stripped away

i would think that you would agree with that

Of course, but as soon as you are prevented from flying or buying a gun, the difference vanishes, correct?

 

[PredFan]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

Because the basic idea of a no-fly list is an attempt to avoid due process.

".... no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane."

This gets right to the core of the problem. How do we know who's a terrorist, and who isn't? And if we know someone is a terrorist, why are we dicking around with petty travel restrictions? We should just kill them.

The problem is that the no-fly list isn't a list of people who are terrorists. It's a list of people that our government thinks might be terrorists.

We do that for search warrants already. Why can we not do it for no-fly lists? We have reasonable suspicion that there will be evidence of a crime in a person's residence, we prove it to a judge we get that warrant. I'm not trying to argue, you seem to know, I'm just asking because I don't understand.

A request by government to infringe on someone's right to privacy may be granted by a judge if they determine that there is sufficient reason to warrant such an exception. But it's a temporary exception and a necessary one to allow police investigators to do their jobs. Once the investigation is complete, the suspects aren't deprived of their rights in perpetuity unless they are found guilty by due process - they get their day in court.

The no-fly list isn't an investigation. It's a judgement that strips its victims of the right to air travel without due process. This is exactly the kind of thing the Constitution's due process provisions were designed to prevent. We should not tolerate a government that maintains secret lists of 'enemies' who are deprived of their rights on mere suspicion.

You just told me the difference between the two. I am full aware of that. What I am asking is if we can use the same protections and limitations we use for warrants for the no-fly list? I'm talking about scrapping the old list and starting it over within the confines of the constitution.

 

[dblack]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

Because the basic idea of a no-fly list is an attempt to avoid due process.

".... no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane."

This gets right to the core of the problem. How do we know who's a terrorist, and who isn't? And if we know someone is a terrorist, why are we dicking around with petty travel restrictions? We should just kill them.

The problem is that the no-fly list isn't a list of people who are terrorists. It's a list of people that our government thinks might be terrorists.

We do that for search warrants already. Why can we not do it for no-fly lists? We have reasonable suspicion that there will be evidence of a crime in a person's residence, we prove it to a judge we get that warrant. I'm not trying to argue, you seem to know, I'm just asking because I don't understand.

A request by government to infringe on someone's right to privacy may be granted by a judge if they determine that there is sufficient reason to warrant such an exception. But it's a temporary exception and a necessary one to allow police investigators to do their jobs. Once the investigation is complete, the suspects aren't deprived of their rights in perpetuity unless they are found guilty by due process - they get their day in court.

The no-fly list isn't an investigation. It's a judgement that strips its victims of the right to air travel without due process. This is exactly the kind of thing the Constitution's due process provisions were designed to prevent. We should not tolerate a government that maintains secret lists of 'enemies' who are deprived of their rights on mere suspicion.

You just told me the difference between the two. I am full aware of that. What I am asking is if we can use the same protections and limitations we use for warrants for the no-fly list? I'm talking about scrapping the old list and starting it over within the confines of the constitution.

I think I understand what you want to do here, but it would be a mistake. What you're talking about is short circuitting the justice system - allowing government to strip the rights of suspects without first proving that they are guilty. That's a very, very bad precedent to set.

 

[JBond]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

The first step is deporting any non citizen. Too dangerous to fly, too dangerous to be here. I recognize ongoing law enforcement efforts, investigations etc. and do not want to compromise them, but it's time to button things up.

 

[JBond]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

Because the basic idea of a no-fly list is an attempt to avoid due process.

".... no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane."

This gets right to the core of the problem. How do we know who's a terrorist, and who isn't? And if we know someone is a terrorist, why are we dicking around with petty travel restrictions? We should just kill them.

The problem is that the no-fly list isn't a list of people who are terrorists. It's a list of people that our government thinks might be terrorists.

We do that for search warrants already. Why can we not do it for no-fly lists? We have reasonable suspicion that there will be evidence of a crime in a person's residence, we prove it to a judge we get that warrant. I'm not trying to argue, you seem to know, I'm just asking because I don't understand.

A request by government to infringe on someone's right to privacy may be granted by a judge if they determine that there is sufficient reason to warrant such an exception. But it's a temporary exception and a necessary one to allow police investigators to do their jobs. Once the investigation is complete, the suspects aren't deprived of their rights in perpetuity unless they are found guilty by due process - they get their day in court.

The no-fly list isn't an investigation. It's a judgement that strips its victims of the right to air travel without due process. This is exactly the kind of thing the Constitution's due process provisions were designed to prevent. We should not tolerate a government that maintains secret lists of 'enemies' who are deprived of their rights on mere suspicion.

You just told me the difference between the two. I am full aware of that. What I am asking is if we can use the same protections and limitations we use for warrants for the no-fly list? I'm talking about scrapping the old list and starting it over within the confines of the constitution.

I think I understand what you want to do here, but it would be a mistake. What you're talking about is short circuitting the justice system - allowing government to strip the rights of suspects without first proving that they are guilty. That's a very, very bad precedent to set.

We do that now.

 

[flacaltenn]

Would a separate No-Gun list by the FBI, with the evidence of why signed off on by a judge, make sense to you?
BTW, what makes you think people are put on the existing lists for personal vendetta? Show me one.

Not vendettas.. Just incompetence. the same way Mohammed Attah got his VISA renewed after flying an airplane into the WTC. THAT kind of incompetence. Or the incompetence of having Ted Kennedy REPEATEDLY denied boarding.

You covered the secrecy part later on the thread which is why having a judge sign off is not a fix. THere may BE cases where the FBI doesn't WANT a suspect to KNOW they are on the list. In which case, ALLOWING them the purchase might be key to seeing who and what is involved in the plot..

As a matter of fact --- there have been MANY FBI sting operations where the FREAKING BUREAU has provided money and weapons to suspects.. Isn't THAT --- arming terrorists as well?

((and some of those stings barely pass the smell test and read much more like entrapment))

 

[flacaltenn]

Would a separate No-Gun list by the FBI, with the evidence of why signed off on by a judge, make sense to you?
BTW, what makes you think people are put on the existing lists for personal vendetta? Show me one.

We already have that, it's called background checks.

Background checks that don't include the Terrorist Watch List or No Fly List. Some people feel it is stupid to leave them out.

Well it's obviously stupid to RELY on them -- if the FBI interviews the Orlando shooter 3 times and just REMOVES him from such a list KNOWING that his Dad has delusions of being the next Taliban Leader of Afghan !!!!!

Here's the deal.. The FBI SUCKS at intelligence. Even tho they have a Counter Terrorism Center. So does Homeland and NOW the NSA is in on the deal..

How about this? If you're stupid enough to chuck the Orlando shooter off of your own FBI lists -- then why don't you allow the Intelligence agencies (the whole lot of them) to SURVEIL this person for 2 or 4 years? Better than listening in on Old Lady emails and phone./banking records right? They would KNOW about an attempted weapons buy because the FBI who OWNS the insta-check would TELL them..

People like that should NEVER just have "active criminal cases" dropped. They should be be monitored. The FBI deals only in criminal matters --- not in "watching" anyone in particular. TOO many agencies that do that job better.

 

[tinydancer]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

The government likes operating in secrecy

Secrecy is necessary; shall we tell the bad guys we're watching them so they can go underground? Think about what you're advocating for.

If they have adequate proof to deny a persons liberty, they should do it in a court of law where the person has the right to defend themselves.

Murmers are out there Ted is super considered I would not want one man on this planet ever

holy freaking toledo what the hell is this shit not again aussies too funny

 

[tinydancer]

Would a separate No-Gun list by the FBI, with the evidence of why signed off on by a judge, make sense to you?
BTW, what makes you think people are put on the existing lists for personal vendetta? Show me one.

We already have that, it's called background checks.

Background checks that don't include the Terrorist Watch List or No Fly List. Some people feel it is stupid to leave them out.

Well it's obviously stupid to RELY on them -- if the FBI interviews the Orlando shooter 3 times and just REMOVES him from such a list KNOWING that his Dad has delusions of being the next Taliban Leader of Afghan !!!!!

Here's the deal.. The FBI SUCKS at intelligence. Even tho they have a Counter Terrorism Center. So does Homeland and NOW the NSA is in on the deal..

How about this? If you're stupid enough to chuck the Orlando shooter off of your own FBI lists -- then why don't you allow the Intelligence agencies (the whole lot of them) to SURVEIL this person for 2 or 4 years? Better than listening in on Old Lady emails and phone./banking records right? They would KNOW about an attempted weapons buy because the FBI who OWNS the insta-check would TELL them..

People like that should NEVER just have "active criminal cases" dropped. They should be be monitored. The FBI deals only in criminal matters --- not in "watching" anyone in particular. TOO many agencies that do that job better.

Live action and it better be good.

 

[PredFan]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

Because the basic idea of a no-fly list is an attempt to avoid due process.

".... no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane."

This gets right to the core of the problem. How do we know who's a terrorist, and who isn't? And if we know someone is a terrorist, why are we dicking around with petty travel restrictions? We should just kill them.

The problem is that the no-fly list isn't a list of people who are terrorists. It's a list of people that our government thinks might be terrorists.

We do that for search warrants already. Why can we not do it for no-fly lists? We have reasonable suspicion that there will be evidence of a crime in a person's residence, we prove it to a judge we get that warrant. I'm not trying to argue, you seem to know, I'm just asking because I don't understand.

A request by government to infringe on someone's right to privacy may be granted by a judge if they determine that there is sufficient reason to warrant such an exception. But it's a temporary exception and a necessary one to allow police investigators to do their jobs. Once the investigation is complete, the suspects aren't deprived of their rights in perpetuity unless they are found guilty by due process - they get their day in court.

The no-fly list isn't an investigation. It's a judgement that strips its victims of the right to air travel without due process. This is exactly the kind of thing the Constitution's due process provisions were designed to prevent. We should not tolerate a government that maintains secret lists of 'enemies' who are deprived of their rights on mere suspicion.

You just told me the difference between the two. I am full aware of that. What I am asking is if we can use the same protections and limitations we use for warrants for the no-fly list? I'm talking about scrapping the old list and starting it over within the confines of the constitution.

I think I understand what you want to do here, but it would be a mistake. What you're talking about is short circuitting the justice system - allowing government to strip the rights of suspects without first proving that they are guilty. That's a very, very bad precedent to set.

Why would the procedure for getting a warrant and using it, be OK, but using the same procedure to place someone on a NFL not be?

 

[PredFan]

Why not introduce a bill that designs a no fly list and a set of rules for it that make sure due process rights aren't lost?

I'm no legal expert, and I don't even know if it could be done, but there likely is no one here who wants a terrorist buying a gun or getting on a plane. We would also want their purchases and occasionally their travel looked at. But we can't trust our government, republican or democrat, to be able to list whatever person they despise that day.

If anyone knows why this can't be done, I'd like to hear it, or failing that, why it hasn't been done?

The first step is deporting any non citizen. Too dangerous to fly, too dangerous to be here. I recognize ongoing law enforcement efforts, investigations etc. and do not want to compromise them, but it's time to button things up.

You mean for committing a crime? Or just for being non-citizen?

 

[PredFan]

Would a separate No-Gun list by the FBI, with the evidence of why signed off on by a judge, make sense to you?
BTW, what makes you think people are put on the existing lists for personal vendetta? Show me one.

We already have that, it's called background checks.

Background checks that don't include the Terrorist Watch List or No Fly List. Some people feel it is stupid to leave them out.

Well it's obviously stupid to RELY on them -- if the FBI interviews the Orlando shooter 3 times and just REMOVES him from such a list KNOWING that his Dad has delusions of being the next Taliban Leader of Afghan !!!!!

Here's the deal.. The FBI SUCKS at intelligence. Even tho they have a Counter Terrorism Center. So does Homeland and NOW the NSA is in on the deal..

How about this? If you're stupid enough to chuck the Orlando shooter off of your own FBI lists -- then why don't you allow the Intelligence agencies (the whole lot of them) to SURVEIL this person for 2 or 4 years? Better than listening in on Old Lady emails and phone./banking records right? They would KNOW about an attempted weapons buy because the FBI who OWNS the insta-check would TELL them..

People like that should NEVER just have "active criminal cases" dropped. They should be be monitored. The FBI deals only in criminal matters --- not in "watching" anyone in particular. TOO many agencies that do that job better.

They kept taking him off the lists because they said that his accusers were islamophobes.

 

[BluesLegend]

Why not, a No Fly List Compromise?

Because you can't compromise with lying filth gun control advocates. Their strategy is death of the 2nd amendment by 1,000 cuts, you give those filth an inch and they will be back for more, much more.

 

[PredFan]

Why not, a No Fly List Compromise?

Because you can't compromise with lying filth gun control advocates. Their strategy is death of the 2nd amendment by 1,000 cuts, you give those filth an inch and they will be back for more, much more.

You are correct, but I personally wouldn't want a terrorist buying a gun. I'm FOR no fly lists in general IF we could figure out how to work it out constitutionally. And not just fly or buy a gun, but track their purchases, their contacts, and where they go.