• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should a person have the right* to know if they're on the "no fly" list?

Should a person have the right* to know if they're on the "no fly" list?

  • Total voters
    71
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure how you can support Johnson and still think that the government can be trusted with extra Constitutional powers in the name of keeping us safe from terrorists.
Click to expand...
I do not support him, but I support the alternatives even less:

Donald Trump is a worldrecordassshole, and priority #1 is keeping him out of office. But...

...but Hillary Clinton is aserialfvckup, she can't stay out of trouble, and two ofherfvckups have been real whales- health care during Bill's first term, probably the worst policy mistake of his administration, where Hillary might have been be termed his point guard, and Benghazi, which Obama recently picked as the worst policy mistake of his administration, where Hillary was again playing point guard. Then of course there is the ongoing issue of her flagrant State Department security breaches, which she probably lied about, which will attain superwhale status if she is indicted. And of course there are a host of other items besides the 2-3 whales above which will receive extensive coverage in her biographies-to-be. I will only vote for her under conditions explained in my last post, meaning- yuk!- she will probably get my vote.


Dittohead not! said:
The government is much more dangerous to liberty than the Jihadis ever were.
Click to expand...
The bat is out of the belfry and onto the PC again.


Dittohead not! said:
Seriously, the Fifth Amendment needs someone as committed to protecting it as the NRA is to the Second. It's being ignored and eroded at our peril.
Click to expand...
Ibid. Or should I say ditto?
 
USViking said:
I do not support him, but I support the alternatives even less:

Donald Trump is a worldrecordassshole, and priority #1 is keeping him out of office. But...

...but Hillary Clinton is aserialfvckup, she can't stay out of trouble, and two ofherfvckups have been real whales- health care during Bill's first term, probably the worst policy mistake of his administration, where Hillary might have been be termed his point guard, and Benghazi, which Obama recently picked as the worst policy mistake of his administration, where Hillary was again playing point guard. Then of course there is the ongoing issue of her flagrant State Department security breaches, which she probably lied about, which will attain superwhale status if she is indicted. And of course there are a host of other items besides the 2-3 whales above which will receive extensive coverage in her biographies-to-be. I will only vote for her under conditions explained in my last post, meaning- yuk!- she will probably get my vote.



The bat is out of the belfry and onto the PC again.



Ibid. Or should I say ditto?
Click to expand...

Other than your misplaced trust in government, I think we're in agreement.
 
eohrnberger said:
Wasn't this the era when the US placed a large number of innocent Japanese and their descendants into what was essentially prison camps? No appeal. No due process?

Err, not sure that's an admirable goal or end state to arrive at.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the relocation of persons of Japanese ancestry away from the West Coast. The FBI list I mentioned apparently named persons the Bureau was suggesting other authorities should consider detaining--for how long would have been those other authorities' decision--in case of a national emergency. The one-page document I saw placed Robert Oppenheimer on that list, presumably because he was a member of the Communist Party USA and had had considerable contact with a circle of Communists which the FBI had reason to believe included foreign agents. The question was whether the FBI or some other federal security agency should have to publish the names of the people they have on a list of suspected subversives. I don't see what constitutional issue would be raised by not publishing them.

As for the relocation, I believe President Roosevelt did the right thing. I haven't heard anyone talking seriously about doing anything like that today. In Hirabayashi and Korematsu, the Supreme Court upheld depriving the detained persons of their liberty solely on the basis on their ethnicity. It did not formally apply the "strict scrutiny" standard it uses today to evaluate that sort of discrimination--that standard had not been clearly established yet--but it did more or less the same thing.

In due process and equal protection claims where strict scrutiny applies, government is not absolutely forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, etc. IF the government can prove--and short of a wartime emergency like that was, it is next to impossible to do--that its action was necessary for a compelling government purpose, the action will not be unconstitutional. Of course no government purpose is more compelling than national security, and our military authorities had determined that in the interests of that security, it was necessary to move everyone of Japanese ancestry away from the West Coast.

Of course most of these people were innocent, and of course they got shafted. But unpleasant things are part of war, even for civilians in as free a country as this one. Several thousand of those people held dual Japanese and American citizenship. That obviously made their loyalty to the U.S. questionable during a war between the two nations. There were other reasons, too, to suspect the loyalty of Japanese living on U.S. territory. Read about the "Niihau incident," for example, in which a Japanese couple on a remote Hawaiian island took up arms to try to help a pilot who had crash-landed after attacking Pearl Harbor escape. I've also seen film of a large group of men in one of the camps, dressed in samurai gear, carrying banners, and performing warlike dances. They were angry because one of the chief troublemakers among them had just been moved to another camp. We also know now that Japan had agents among the Japanese farmers who had been living on Terminal Island, in Los Angeles harbor.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
I wasn't referring to the relocation of persons of Japanese ancestry away from the West Coast. The FBI list I mentioned apparently named persons the Bureau was suggesting other authorities should consider detaining--for how long would have been those other authorities' decision--in case of a national emergency. The one-page document I saw placed Robert Oppenheimer on that list, presumably because he was a member of the Communist Party USA and had had considerable contact with a circle of Communists which the FBI had reason to believe included foreign agents. The question was whether the FBI or some other federal security agency should have to publish the names of the people they have on a list of suspected subversives. I don't see what constitutional issue would be raised by not publishing them.

As for the relocation, I believe President Roosevelt did the right thing. I haven't heard anyone talking seriously about doing anything like that today. In Hirabayashi and Korematsu, the Supreme Court upheld depriving the detained persons of their liberty solely on the basis on their ethnicity. It did not formally apply the "strict scrutiny" standard it uses today to evaluate that sort of discrimination--that standard had not been clearly established yet--but it did more or less the same thing.

In due process and equal protection claims where strict scrutiny applies, government is not absolutely forbidden to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, etc. IF the government can prove--and short of a wartime emergency like that was, it is next to impossible to do--that its action was necessary for a compelling government purpose, the action will not be unconstitutional. Of course no government purpose is more compelling than national security, and our military authorities had determined that in the interests of that security, it was necessary to move everyone of Japanese ancestry away from the West Coast.

Of course most of these people were innocent, and of course they got shafted. But unpleasant things are part of war, even for civilians in as free a country as this one. Several thousand of those people held dual Japanese and American citizenship. That obviously made their loyalty to the U.S. questionable during a war between the two nations. There were other reasons, too, to suspect the loyalty of Japanese living on U.S. territory. Read about the "Niihau incident," for example, in which a Japanese couple on a remote Hawaiian island took up arms to try to help a pilot who had crash-landed after attacking Pearl Harbor escape. I've also seen film of a large group of men in one of the camps, dressed in samurai gear, carrying banners, and performing warlike dances. They were angry because one of the chief troublemakers among them had just been moved to another camp. We also know now that Japan had agents among the Japanese farmers who had been living on Terminal Island, in Los Angeles harbor.
Click to expand...

The society in the US 60 some years ago was much different than the society in the US today, so it's not surprising that SCOTUS ruled the way it did back then. I don't believe that they'd rule that way today.

To extend that SCOTUS decision, historic as it may be, onto the society of today, onto the secret government no fly list which has due process problems even existing and being used to infringe on the constitutional rights seems quite a bit of a stretch to me. While yes, in times of declared war, there are additional powers extended to the federal government, I don't believe that there exists a formally declared state of war.

On the other hand, how useful would a 'suspected terrorist no fly / no buy list be if it were public? All the typical LEO advantages of not having the suspect know they are user suspicion would be lost, and wouldn't this cripple the investigation they'd be conducting? However, the end result might curb the suspect's activities, which would be desired result wouldn't it? That the terrorist act be thwarted?

Tis an interesting question here, the rights of the individual, the power of the federal government, and due process limitations.
 
eohrnberger said:
The society in the US 60 some years ago was much different than the society in the US today, so it's not surprising that SCOTUS ruled the way it did back then. I don't believe that they'd rule that way today.

To extend that SCOTUS decision, historic as it may be, onto the society of today, onto the secret government no fly list which has due process problems even existing and being used to infringe on the constitutional rights seems quite a bit of a stretch to me. While yes, in times of declared war, there are additional powers extended to the federal government, I don't believe that there exists a formally declared state of war.

On the other hand, how useful would a 'suspected terrorist no fly / no buy list be if it were public? All the typical LEO advantages of not having the suspect know they are user suspicion would be lost, and wouldn't this cripple the investigation they'd be conducting? However, the end result might curb the suspect's activities, which would be desired result wouldn't it? That the terrorist act be thwarted?

Tis an interesting question here, the rights of the individual, the power of the federal government, and due process limitations.
Click to expand...

I was not trying to compare anything about the Japanese internment to the current discussion about the so-called "no-fly list," nor do I see any comparison. I discussed the internment only because you had brought it up. How the Supreme Court would call such a wartime decision today is anyone's guess, but it's just as irrelevant as it was then. The Court was upholding FDR's action long after he took it, and it could have done nothing to prevent it at the time in any case. Nor could it today. Many people seem to overrate the power of the Court--by a lot. It is by far the weakest of the three branches, and when a president--especially in wartime, and especially if he has Congress behind him--takes action to protect our national security, the Court stays quiet and stands aside.

But we are not talking about interning Muslims, at least not yet. I don't claim to know all the details of the no-fly list, but I can't see how the mere fact it exists raises any due process problem. That problem would arise if government prevented persons on it from having guns without a hearing of some kind, and without proper notice. Notice and hearing are the two major concerns of procedural due process, and when laws are too vague, they give no notice. Put another way, a person has no way of knowing exactly what he has to do to avoid being denied a gun, if the simple fact some unidentified group of bureaucrats put him on the list is all it takes.

Making this list public probably would make it less useful, for the reasons you give. One suggestion I saw--I think it was Cornyn's--seemed to make some sense. It was to use the list to put a hold of three days or so on an attempt by anyone on it to buy a gun. That time would be used for the Attorney General to investigate the person to see if there was any indication he was involved with any jihadist group. If not, the transaction could go ahead. I think there was also something in it that allowed the person to be detained and questioned if any involvement was found. If a person is communicating with jihadist groups, there may be probable cause to arrest him.

Sometimes there may be evidence a person conspired with someone else to commit terrorism. If it can be shown that even two people agreed to levy war against this country by doing things like engaging in surveillance of targets, particularly ones like military recruiting offices, or taking firearms training, or obtaining funds for a terrorist act, then any attempt to recruit other people, or the preparation of a hit list--or the purchase of a firearm itself--could be enough to prosecute them for a serious federal crime. Not much more is needed than to agree with someone else to commit a terrorist act and then to buy a gun, or even try to buy one.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
I was not trying to compare anything about the Japanese internment to the current discussion about the so-called "no-fly list," nor do I see any comparison. I discussed the internment only because you had brought it up. How the Supreme Court would call such a wartime decision today is anyone's guess, but it's just as irrelevant as it was then. The Court was upholding FDR's action long after he took it, and it could have done nothing to prevent it at the time in any case. Nor could it today. Many people seem to overrate the power of the Court--by a lot. It is by far the weakest of the three branches, and when a president--especially in wartime, and especially if he has Congress behind him--takes action to protect our national security, the Court stays quiet and stands aside.

But we are not talking about interning Muslims, at least not yet. I don't claim to know all the details of the no-fly list, but I can't see how the mere fact it exists raises any due process problem. That problem would arise if government prevented persons on it from having guns without a hearing of some kind, and without proper notice. Notice and hearing are the two major concerns of procedural due process, and when laws are too vague, they give no notice. Put another way, a person has no way of knowing exactly what he has to do to avoid being denied a gun, if the simple fact some unidentified group of bureaucrats put him on the list is all it takes.

Making this list public probably would make it less useful, for the reasons you give. One suggestion I saw--I think it was Cornyn's--seemed to make some sense. It was to use the list to put a hold of three days or so on an attempt by anyone on it to buy a gun. That time would be used for the Attorney General to investigate the person to see if there was any indication he was involved with any jihadist group. If not, the transaction could go ahead. I think there was also something in it that allowed the person to be detained and questioned if any involvement was found. If a person is communicating with jihadist groups, there may be probable cause to arrest him.

Sometimes there may be evidence a person conspired with someone else to commit terrorism. If it can be shown that even two people agreed to levy war against this country by doing things like engaging in surveillance of targets, particularly ones like military recruiting offices, or taking firearms training, or obtaining funds for a terrorist act, then any attempt to recruit other people, or the preparation of a hit list--or the purchase of a firearm itself--could be enough to prosecute them for a serious federal crime. Not much more is needed than to agree with someone else to commit a terrorist act and then to buy a gun, or even try to buy one.
Click to expand...

I only include the Japanese interment as a possible due process from history. Given it's all been done and resolved by now, I suppose we can drop it from consideration in this thread.

If we walk through the 'no fly list' process, I think it goes something like this:
  1. For some unknown reason (assumed to be an error in this example), some bureaucrat determines that John Doe might be involved in terrorist
  2. The bureaucrat puts John Doe on the no fly list, and John Doe is none the wiser
  3. John Doe tries to board a flight, and TSA detains him, causing him to miss his flight
  4. John Doe is denied his liberty, freedom of movement by legal means
  5. Even though John Doe now knows that he's on the no fly list (or perhaps not), what recourse does he have to remove himself?
Points where I see due process issues
  • John Doe is not informed that he's been placed in the no fly list (may or may not be a due process issue)
  • John Doe cannot dispute his being placed on the no fly list
  • John Doe cannot work to resolve his being on the no fly list, i.e. having himself removed
I see all of the above bullet points (and there may be some I've missed) as due process issues.

Leveraging this process with these gaps for the next liberty, i.e. 2nd amendment rights, should cause everyone to pause and think if it's a wise move, IMHO.
[/list]
 
eohrnberger said:
I only include the Japanese interment as a possible due process from history. Given it's all been done and resolved by now, I suppose we can drop it from consideration in this thread.

If we walk through the 'no fly list' process, I think it goes something like this:
  1. For some unknown reason (assumed to be an error in this example), some bureaucrat determines that John Doe might be involved in terrorist
  2. The bureaucrat puts John Doe on the no fly list, and John Doe is none the wiser
  3. John Doe tries to board a flight, and TSA detains him, causing him to miss his flight
  4. John Doe is denied his liberty, freedom of movement by legal means
  5. Even though John Doe now knows that he's on the no fly list (or perhaps not), what recourse does he have to remove himself?
Points where I see due process issues
  • John Doe is not informed that he's been placed in the no fly list (may or may not be a due process issue)
  • John Doe cannot dispute his being placed on the no fly list
  • John Doe cannot work to resolve his being on the no fly list, i.e. having himself removed
I see all of the above bullet points (and there may be some I've missed) as due process issues.

Leveraging this process with these gaps for the next liberty, i.e. 2nd amendment rights, should cause everyone to pause and think if it's a wise move, IMHO.
[/list]
Click to expand...

I don't see any due process problem with the simple act of placing a person on a list that would prevent him from taking a commercial flight if he were to try.

I also don't see a due process violation in inconveniencing a person by detaining him, where there is good reason. You don't have a due process claim against the state because its vehicle statute required you to wait a couple minutes at a red light, instead of being free to go where you wanted.

There is an obvious due process problem with not providing a hearing procedure to challenge your listing. And using the listing, by itself, to deny a person who otherwise would be qualified to own a firearm from getting one would be even worse. Imagine if a government agency had drawn up a list of people who could be denied a permit, on the grounds of fighting terrorism, for any demonstration in support of any Muslim nation or group, without providing any means for the people listed to challenge their listing.

There are ways to go after would-be jihadists in the U.S. that would not violate their right to due process. The first line of defense is to be far more serious about which aliens get admitted to U.S. territory. B. Hussein Obama's immigration "policy" has made this country a much softer target for terrorists than it might be. I don't see why aliens who wanted to enter U.S. territory could not be required, as a condition of being admitted here, to wear some signalling device which activated itself as soon as the term of the visa had expired. Exceptions could be made for temporary tourists from certain countries, etc. As it is now, of course, any measures like that would be useless, because so many aliens are just sneaking into this country.
 
eohrnberger said:
I only include the Japanese interment as a possible due process from history. Given it's all been done and resolved by now, I suppose we can drop it from consideration in this thread.

If we walk through the 'no fly list' process, I think it goes something like this:
  1. For some unknown reason (assumed to be an error in this example), some bureaucrat determines that John Doe might be involved in terrorist
  2. The bureaucrat puts John Doe on the no fly list, and John Doe is none the wiser
  3. John Doe tries to board a flight, and TSA detains him, causing him to miss his flight
  4. John Doe is denied his liberty, freedom of movement by legal means
  5. Even though John Doe now knows that he's on the no fly list (or perhaps not), what recourse does he have to remove himself?
Points where I see due process issues
  • John Doe is not informed that he's been placed in the no fly list (may or may not be a due process issue)
  • John Doe cannot dispute his being placed on the no fly list
  • John Doe cannot work to resolve his being on the no fly list, i.e. having himself removed
I see all of the above bullet points (and there may be some I've missed) as due process issues.

Leveraging this process with these gaps for the next liberty, i.e. 2nd amendment rights, should cause everyone to pause and think if it's a wise move, IMHO.
[/list]
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, Erik. :2wave:

:agree: I definitely have mixed feelings on this, and the negatives far outweigh the positives!

1). How many more people will have to be hired just to keep track of additions and subtractions to the list?
2). Along with that, unless you receive written confirmation, which I would insist upon since humans make mistakes, how are you going to know if you were "removed" from said list? They are sometimes taking months, according to what I have read, just to verify where someone is and if they are here legally or not, let alone on some list somewhere, and what about someone having a similar name to yours!
3. Why has it become so important to have a "no fly" list in the first place - people can still drive their car if they are planning on causing a catastrophic event somewhere!

This does not make sense to me, but little our government is doing lately does! :shock:
 
matchlight said:
I don't see any due process problem with the simple act of placing a person on a list that would prevent him from taking a commercial flight if he were to try.
Click to expand...

Denying the freedom to move about freely in these United States? Isn't the no fly list just like travel documents (except in reverse - those not permitted to travel)? Weren't the USSR's travel documents requirements one of the things that infuriated the US electorate at that time? Yet now we are self inflicting essentially the same thing.

So agreed, not a due process issue, but potentially a rights issue.

matchlight said:
I also don't see a due process violation in inconveniencing a person by detaining him, where there is good reason. You don't have a due process claim against the state because its vehicle statute required you to wait a couple minutes at a red light, instead of being free to go where you wanted.
Click to expand...

Expected delay at a red light is much different than being detained by the authorities.

matchlight said:
There is an obvious due process problem with not providing a hearing procedure to challenge your listing. And using the listing, by itself, to deny a person who otherwise would be qualified to own a firearm from getting one would be even worse. Imagine if a government agency had drawn up a list of people who could be denied a permit, on the grounds of fighting terrorism, for any demonstration in support of any Muslim nation or group, without providing any means for the people listed to challenge their listing.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

matchlight said:
There are ways to go after would-be jihadists in the U.S. that would not violate their right to due process. The first line of defense is to be far more serious about which aliens get admitted to U.S. territory. B. Hussein Obama's immigration "policy" has made this country a much softer target for terrorists than it might be. I don't see why aliens who wanted to enter U.S. territory could not be required, as a condition of being admitted here, to wear some signalling device which activated itself as soon as the term of the visa had expired. Exceptions could be made for temporary tourists from certain countries, etc. As it is now, of course, any measures like that would be useless, because so many aliens are just sneaking into this country.
Click to expand...

I'd agree here as well, but the first scream from the left end of the political spectrum is that it's Islamophobia (a BS made up word no less), racist (but race isn't part of this), and xenophobia (which isn't applicable either, as most any other foreigners from other areas are more than welcome).

Each of these terms being used by the left, Islamophobia, racist, and xenophobia is being used to shutdown legitimate debate and discussion, because they are unable to defend their weak position any other way, and dam it, they want their way on this (with lower lip pouting outwards).
 
eohrnberger said:
Denying the freedom to move about freely in these United States? Isn't the no fly list just like travel documents (except in reverse - those not permitted to travel)? Weren't the USSR's travel documents requirements one of the things that infuriated the US electorate at that time? Yet now we are self inflicting essentially the same thing.

So agreed, not a due process issue, but potentially a rights issue.



Expected delay at a red light is much different than being detained by the authorities.

Agreed.



I'd agree here as well, but the first scream from the left end of the political spectrum is that it's Islamophobia (a BS made up word no less), racist (but race isn't part of this), and xenophobia (which isn't applicable either, as most any other foreigners from other areas are more than welcome).

Each of these terms being used by the left, Islamophobia, racist, and xenophobia is being used to shutdown legitimate debate and discussion, because they are unable to defend their weak position any other way, and dam it, they want their way on this (with lower lip pouting outwards).
Click to expand...

My question is the same as the other times I have asked it: When are we gong to start taking care of our infrastructure problems and other important business matters that need to be done here, and just stay the H*** out of other countries' business!? I doubt if the Brits even cared about our opinion on BREXIT - it's their country, and not our business! They were voting to keep their sovereignty that was being undermined by the NWO elite in Brussels, from what I've read, and being forced to accept conditions via directives they didn't agree with! WTH? Small wonder they voted to leave! So Cameron is disappointed and angry that it didn't go the way he wanted it to - millions of Brits have been angry about the direction their country was being forced to accept, and they voted to change it, doubtless knowing life wasn't going to be easy for them for a while! It will be interesting to see how many other countries do the same!

We have the Trump and Sanders phenomena here as an example of what can happen when the little people have had it with the status quo, and are showing how they feel, and look how the elites here are reacting! It might be better if they listened to the people who pay their salaries, IMO! Whatever....
 
I'd agree here as well, but the first scream from the left end of the political spectrum is that it's Islamophobia (a BS made up word no less), racist (but race isn't part of this), and xenophobia (which isn't applicable either, as most any other foreigners from other areas are more than welcome).

Each of these terms being used by the left, Islamophobia, racist, and xenophobia is being used to shutdown legitimate debate and discussion, because they are unable to defend their weak position any other way, and dam it, they want their way on this (with lower lip pouting outwards).
Click to expand...


You may not be able to imagine how little I care what that sort of unpatriotic drone likes. The thing is not to care a damn about what they like, and stick to your course. To let their shrieking and name-calling turn you aside is to let them win. They are no friends of this country or of our liberties, and we should all make it a point to discredit them and expose them for the nasty totalitarians they are whenever we can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom