Democrats push to prevent gun sales to those on terror list

[Vyxn]

See to me that seems like you priority is in the wrong places, if someone is on the terror watch list they shouldn't have access to a gun, if people who should still have that right is one the watch list they shouldn't be.

you need to read post #34 by damajin how you can get put on the terrorist watch list it is so broad. one way to get on the list is anyone reporting you as suspicious it doesn't require any evidence or concrete facts

[Deleted]

you need to read post #34 by damajin how you can get put on the terrorist watch list it is so broad. one way to get on the list is anyone reporting you as suspicious it doesn't require any evidence or concrete facts

sounds like you are making assumptions that people actually are you know drawing conclusions without any evidence or concrete facts

[Manabomb]

I'm saying it needs to go through the courts before you get put on the list. law enforcement needs to make the case in front of a judge or jury why you need to be placed on the list and they better have enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt why you belong on that list. especially if a constitutional right is going to be taken away being on that list

- - - Updated - - -



you rights are sacred they are inalienable

As soon as rights are so sacred they are no longer able to be called into question, that is stepping into the realm of fanaticism. Believing that rights are so infallible pushes these rights into a belief system that seems almost religious with its zeal.

[Notshauna]

you need to read post #34 by damajin how you can get put on the terrorist watch list it is so broad. one way to get on the list is anyone reporting you as suspicious it doesn't require any evidence or concrete facts

And that's putting the cart before the horse, the terror watch list would need to be fixed so it's not incredibly awful and arbitrary. The issue isn't removing the rights of people who are on the terror watch list, rather that the terror watch list is populated by people who don't belong there.

[Damajin]

Here's more insight into why this is a totally wrong and completely batshit crazy idea:

From the https://theintercept.com/2014/07/23/blacklisted/ link:

The heart of the document revolves around the rules for placing individuals on a watchlist. “All executive departments and agencies,” the document says, are responsible for collecting and sharing information on terrorist suspects with the National Counterterrorism Center. It sets a low standard—”reasonable suspicion“—for placing names on the watchlists, and offers a multitude of vague, confusing, or contradictory instructions for gauging it. In the chapter on “Minimum Substantive Derogatory Criteria”—even the title is hard to digest—the key sentence on reasonable suspicion offers little clarity:

“To meet the REASONABLE SUSPICION standard, the NOMINATOR, based on the totality of the circumstances, must rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrants a determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been knowingly engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to TERRORISM and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.”

The rulebook makes no effort to define an essential phrase in the passage—”articulable intelligence or information.” After stressing that hunches are not reasonable suspicion and that “there must be an objective factual basis” for labeling someone a terrorist, it goes on to state that no actual facts are required:

“In determining whether a REASONABLE SUSPICION exists, due weight should be given to the specific reasonable inferences that a NOMINATOR is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his/her experience and not on unfounded suspicions or hunches. Although irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary, to be reasonable, suspicion should be as clear and as fully developed as circumstances permit.”

While the guidelines nominally prohibit nominations based on unreliable information, they explicitly regard “uncorroborated” Facebook or Twitter posts as sufficient grounds for putting an individual on one of the watchlists. “Single source information,” the guidelines state, “including but not limited to ‘walk-in,’ ‘write-in,’ or postings on social media sites, however, should not automatically be discounted … the NOMINATING AGENCY should evaluate the credibility of the source, as well as the nature and specificity of the information, and nominate even if that source is uncorroborated.”

There are a number of loopholes for putting people onto the watchlists even if reasonable suspicion cannot be met.

One is clearly defined: The immediate family of suspected terrorists—their spouses, children, parents, or siblings—may be watchlisted without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity. But another loophole is quite broad—”associates” who have a defined relationship with a suspected terrorist, but whose involvement in terrorist activity is not known. A third loophole is broader still—individuals with “a possible nexus” to terrorism, but for whom there is not enough “derogatory information” to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.

Americans and foreigners can be nominated for the watchlists if they are associated with a terrorist group, even if that group has not been designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. They can also be treated as “representatives” of a terrorist group even if they have “neither membership in nor association with the organization.” The guidelines do helpfully note that certain associations, such as providing janitorial services or delivering packages, are not grounds for being watchlisted.

The nomination system appears to lack meaningful checks and balances. Although government officials have repeatedly said there is a rigorous process for making sure no one is unfairly placed in the databases, the guidelines acknowledge that all nominations of “known terrorists” are considered justified unless the National Counterterrorism Center has evidence to the contrary. In a recent court filing, the government disclosed that there were 468,749 KST nominations in 2013, of which only 4,915 were rejected–a rate of about one percent. The rulebook appears to invert the legal principle of due process, defining nominations as “presumptively valid.”

While the nomination process appears methodical on paper, in practice there is a shortcut around the entire system. Known as a “threat-based expedited upgrade,” it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to elevate entire “categories of people” whose names appear in the larger databases onto the no fly or selectee lists. This can occur, the guidelines state, when there is a “particular threat stream” indicating that a certain type of individual may commit a terrorist act.

This extraordinary power for “categorical watchlisting”—otherwise known as profiling—is vested in the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, a position formerly held by CIA Director John Brennan that does not require Senate confirmation.

The rulebook does not indicate what “categories of people” have been subjected to threat-based upgrades. It is not clear, for example, whether a category might be as broad as military-age males from Yemen. The guidelines do make clear that American citizens and green card holders are subject to such upgrades, though government officials are required to review their status in an “expedited” procedure. Upgrades can remain in effect for 72 hours before being reviewed by a small committee of senior officials. If approved, they can remain in place for 30 days before a renewal is required, and can continue “until the threat no longer exists.”

“In a set of watchlisting criteria riddled with exceptions that swallow rules, this exception is perhaps the most expansive and certainly one of the most troubling,” Shamsi, the ACLU attorney, says. “It’s reminiscent of the Bush administration’s heavily criticized color-coded threat alerts, except that here, bureaucrats can exercise virtually standard-less authority in secret with specific negative consequences for entire categories of people.”

With all this in mind, making it impossible for those on the terror list to purchase guns is just a runaround attempt at gun control, and has little to nothing to do with fighting actual terror. Like criminals terrorists will get weapons regardless and with how loose and subjective the criteria is to put someone on the list it's ripe for abuse and political game playing. We have enough of that already.

[Vyxn]

And that's putting the cart before the horse, the terror watch list would need to be fixed so it's not incredibly awful and arbitrary. The issue isn't removing the rights of people who are on the terror watch list, rather that the terror watch list is populated by people who don't belong there.

and that is what I am advocating. they need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt argued in the courts to be put on the terrorist watch list if getting placed on the list cause you to lose rights

[Poopymonster]

See to me that seems like you priority is in the wrong places, if someone is on the terror watch list they shouldn't have access to a gun, if people who should still have that right is one the watch list they shouldn't be.

Let me explain, no there is no time.
Let me sum up.

Terrorists should have guns. American's should have guns. Everyone should have guns. Blind quadruple amuptees need guns.

That way, when someone goes apeshit and starts mowing down a busload of kids, you have tons of people to gun them down, hitting no one else, no PITABS shot due to their perfect marksmanship and god almighty himself aiming the bullets. Domestic terrorist, I mean, caucasian extremist gets a high score, tons of people get an HK, but only one gets the killing blow. Leaving a massive body count.

While the other side wants to remove all guns from everyone, everywhere, forever, so Satan can come up and make Glenn Beck's chalkboard wet dreams come true. With a body count of 0. Which is damn unamerican.

[Vyxn]

Let me explain, no there is no time.
Let me sum up.

Terrorists should have guns. American's should have guns. Everyone should have guns. Blind quadruple amuptees need guns.

That way, when someone goes apeshit and starts mowing down a busload of kids, you have tons of people to gun them down, hitting no one else, no PITABS shot due to their perfect marksmanship and god almighty himself aiming the bullets. Domestic terrorist, I mean, caucasian extremist gets a high score, tons of people get an HK, but only one gets the killing blow. Leaving a massive body count.

While the other side wants to remove all guns from everyone, everywhere, forever, so Satan can come up and make Glenn Beck's chalkboard wet dreams come true. With a body count of 0. Which is damn unamerican.

so you want law enforcement to have the power to take ones rights away with out due process with out the courts involved or is it just the rights you don't agree with?
so then you should agree with law enforcement to be able to tap your phone line, search your residence, go through your emails with out a warrant if you are on the terrorist watch list?

[Deleted]

so you want law enforcement to have the power to take ones rights away with out due process with out the courts involved or is it just the rights you don't agree with?
so then you should agree with law enforcement to be able to tap your phone line, search your residence, go through your emails with out a warrant if you are on the terrorist watch list?

the whole 'rights' bell stopped ringing at least two pages ago

[Alvito]

What gets you on the list and what can get you off?

I am sure some would like to use it like old Jim Crow voting laws, find a group you don't want to have access to something and trump up charges.

[Deleted]

I'd be worried about how easy it might be to get on one of these lists. It's not too hard to imagine a government that would find it expedient to put its political enemies on a list and have then disarmed.

[Brubear]

where I stand is the media twisted his comments it has been proven that isn't what Trump implied

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...tabase-n466716
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/firs...s-to-register/

Really? Because this sure seems to show that that's exactly what he implied.

- - - Updated - - -

My only problem with this initiative is the large amount of people who have been mistakenly added to the list or added for stupid reasons. An example would be the infant who was added to the list so their parents weren't allowed to bring the child onto the plain.

If they made it so as a US citizen you could challenge being added to the list in court, preferably with the government paying for your defense since the burden of proof is on them, then I'm all for this since if you are actively trying to seek out terrorist cells then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun.

[Vyxn]

[

My only problem with this initiative is the large amount of people who have been mistakenly added to the list or added for stupid reasons. An example would be the infant who was added to the list so their parents weren't allowed to bring the child onto the plain.

If they made it so as a US citizen you could challenge being added to the list in court, preferably with the government paying for your defense since the burden of proof is on them, then I'm all for this since if you are actively trying to seek out terrorist cells then you sure as hell shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun.

and haven't i threw out the thread advocated just that? not allowing law enforcement putting American citizen on the terrorist watch list with out due process

[brimdog]

This is why the Law is not only Letter, but Spirit too!

[Kallisto]

and I have explained those at Gitmo aren't subject to constructional rights first because they aren't American citizens second they are prisoners of war a war that is still going on third because they never have set foot on American soil

90% of whome were picked up by random bounty hunter types in Afghanistan looking for a quick buck. This is shown that near enough all of them apart from a select view have been deemed as need to be released. Only problem is some of them are not going to be allowed into their own countries because their leaders are either in civil wars "Yemen, Iraq, Syria." or because it is known that their countries were known to use torture on these prisoners and would be in trouble if taken back.

[Brubear]

and haven't i threw out the thread advocated just that? not allowing law enforcement putting American citizen on the terrorist watch list with out due process

Dude, calm down. I didn't in any way attack your point on that. In fact the only part of my post that was directed at you was the one showing that, yes Trump meant exactly what people said he implied when he was asked to clarify. Which i find funny that you completely ignored, but man were you quick to act as if the rest of my post was about you.

[Poopymonster]

so you want law enforcement to have the power to take ones rights away with out due process with out the courts involved or is it just the rights you don't agree with?
so then you should agree with law enforcement to be able to tap your phone line, search your residence, go through your emails with out a warrant if you are on the terrorist watch list?

They already have that power. And while the Constitution was a good idea, it needs some updating. Being seen as infallible and revered like a religious text makes me uncomfortable, because then you stop questioning it, and view things as "inalienable". A theocracy we are not, nor ever should be. No matter what religion, whether Christian, Islam, Hindu, FSM, or Ancestor Worship of the Founding Fathers.

But your points: Go ahead, tap my phone lines. Pretty sure they do that already, or can if they want since I only have a cell phone. Search my residence? I rent a room. While I'd love to see a federal officer's face upon finding my "toy box", my lube assortment and other paraphenelia are nothing worthwhile. No opium filled diamond encrusted butt plugs. I'd be surprised if Emails weren't already monitored. Not wandering into conspiracy theory territory, but my old hotmail accounts for stupid shit probably were fair game years ago when the Patriot Act was passed, "or else the terrorists win".

I'm not on the terrorist watch list to my knowledge. I get searched almost every time I've flown, except for sure when I flew back from Brazil to the US. In the early/mid 2000s probably due to long black hair and a light beard. Don't look middle eastern, just Italian, but I get searched. Hair cut short, goatee. "Please step out of line sir".

[Puupi]

What gets you on the list and what can get you off?

I get off from many things.

[Rhine101]

I kinda agree here. Terror watch suspects should probably not be allowed to buy guns.

However, what is the criteria for being on such a list? These are not convicted terrorists since they are still allowed to roam free, so what are they? Does being a suspect alone warrant the loss of constitutional rights?

[araine]

If you are going to have your constitutional rights taken away by being on the list by law you need to be given the right to defend your self in a court of law

Doesnt apply to terrorism cases. And a law forbidding folks on the no fly list to get guns should be a gimme. really it is pathetic that it hasnt been past into law years ago

- - - Updated - - -

I kinda agree here. Terror watch suspects should probably not be allowed to buy guns.

However, what is the criteria for being on such a list? These are not convicted terrorists since they are still allowed to roam free, so what are they? Does being a suspect alone warrant the loss of constitutional rights?

Yes since even being a former criminal that have served the time you lose in many states the right to vote forever even when you have served the time for the crime. So i have no problem with forbidding these people to buy guns no problems at all with it infact it should have been done many years ago and i think it is a sign of weakness on national security when folks talk against it