San Bernardino

The Times used to editorialize agains the no-fly list and the terror watch list.

This was from April of last year:

Welcome to the shadowy, self-contradictory world of American terror watch lists, which operate under a veil of secrecy so thick that it is virtually impossible to pierce it when mistakes are made. A 2007 audit found that more than half of the 71,000 names then on the no-fly list were wrongly included.

In a recently unredacted portion of his January ruling, Judge Alsup noted that in 2009 the government added Dr. Ibrahim back to its central terrorist-screening database under a “secret exception” to its own standard of proof. This would be laughable if it weren’t such a violation of basic rights. A democratic society premised on due process and open courts cannot tolerate such behavior.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/opinion/terror-watch-lists-run-amok.html?_r=0&referer=

Now, you're a terrible person if you don't use these lists to further strip people of their Constitutional tights:

While the nation suffered through the shock of another bloody massacre, on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-cowardly-vote-on-terrorism.html

 

They didn't editorialize against the no-fly list. They editorialized against the lack of transparency and accuracy.

 

Right. And now, they want to use these same lists, which still lack transparency and accuracy, to strip away Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

 

I again reject your premise.

 

Well, you got one thing right.

 

But, just for fun, here's the former editorial page editor, writing under her own name:

The No-Fly List Is Unconstitutional
By DOROTHY J. SAMUELS JUNE 25, 2014 11:22 AM June 25, 2014 11:22 am

The federal government’s no-fly list, which prevents those suspected of terrorist ties from boarding flights in the United States or flying through American airspace, is reported to include more than 20,000 names—a number that metastasized after the Sept. 11 attacks. There’s a low evidentiary standard for getting on the list. Once on, it’s not only difficult to get off but almost impossible to find out why, exactly, one was added in the first place.

In a ruling on Tuesday, a federal judge recognized that the shadowy procedures surrounding the list are unconstitutional. Judge Anna Brown of the U.S. District Court in Oregon found that the government’s failure to provide any notice, explanation or meaningful way to challenge a no-fly designation violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, as well as Congress’s instruction to provide a chance to appeal one’s inclusion on the list and correct inaccurate information.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...-list-is-unconstitutional/?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

I don't think your vote carries quite that much weight.

 

The Fifth (and Fourth) Amendment isn't as important as other Amendments.

 

It's simple, obvious even. [/ragu]

 

While I am sure that there are people on that list I would gladly strip of their tights, I suppose that in a general sense I am a terrible person.

 

Get verbal consent first.