Poster Aquilla was right.....

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

I am using my head. As ND already stated, who decides when someone ends up on those lists? There's no official methodology for the process, there's very little (if any) recourse if you end up on there on accident. Someone just decides you shouldn't fly, and you're on the list.

Most of the time it is due to someone using the same name you have as an alias. This happened to me at my last job, which required that my information be compared to the lists. My name showed up on the list. Apparently I was in Egypt in 1998. LOL I was able to provide verifiable data from the military that I was actually at Fort Huachuca, AZ at the time. I was cleared.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The odds of being on the list by mistake are rather slim. However, there is a process in place by which one can have their name removed from the list. It isn't permanent.

Even the Daily Beast, the lib rag standard, says the No Fly lists are bad.

"""Rahinah Ibrahim, a Malaysian architect with a doctorate from Stanford, knows from personal experience that they have a compelling point. Ibrahim is the only person since the 9/11 attacks to file a court challenge that ultimately removed her name from the watch lists. It took her almost a decade to prevail in court and even that victory has proved pyrrhic for her. While a federal judge agreed that her inclusion on the no-fly list was groundless, she remains unable to obtain a visa that would allow her to visit the United States even to attend academic conferences. A close look at her case by ProPublica provides dramatic evidence of what was argued this month in Washington: It is indeed remarkably easy to get on the list and nearly impossible to get off."""

"'''The odds against Ibrahim were beyond astronomical. No one had ever prevailed in a legal challenge of the watch lists."""

"""The judges were troubled by the watch list system. The Terrorist Screening Database had grown by over 700 percent since its inception, and 20,000 records were being added a month, the court noted. The judges found that the implementation of the no-fly list was problematic. “Tens of thousands of travelers have been misidentified because of misspellings and transcription errors in the nomination process, and because of computer algorithms that imperfectly match travelers against the names on the list,” the majority wrote."""

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-fly-list.html

And you whine about Trump's ban on people from countries in which islamic terrorists are a threat??

Originally Posted by Aquila

Where in the Constitution is the government prohibited from keeping a list of potential threats to the United States?

Seriously? Oh I dunno, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th amendments. Now, where do you believe the Constitution ALLOWS citizens to lose their liberties without any due process?

"""The U.S. government's no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled"""

""""Accordingly, on this record the court concludes plaintiffs inclusion on the no-fly list constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel,"""

Originally Posted by Aquila

However, for those on the lists (known terrorists, suspects, associates, and financiers of terrorism), do you advocate that they be allowed to purchase "assault weapons" freely? I think the inconvenience over being on the list and having to be cleared isn't too much to ask.

There's something called a background check. I hear it connects to some kind of database in which the bad guys are listed. And if they're (as you say) "known" bad guys, I doubt they're actually able to purchase a gun.

But even so, I would still be 100% against using the unconstitutional No Fly/Watch list to ban people from buying guns.

Because if you libs get an inch and get your ability to deny due process rights by using No Fly/No Gun Purchase, soon you'll be trampling on the 2nd as well.

[n david]

The No Fly list fails:

"""The man who tried to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight in 2009 AND the man convicted of planting a car bomb in Times Square in 2010 both were on the no-fly list (they were able to board planes anyway)."""

Oops.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Most of the time it is due to someone using the same name you have as an alias. This happened to me at my last job, which required that my information be compared to the lists. My name showed up on the list. Apparently I was in Egypt in 1998. LOL I was able to provide verifiable data from the military that I was actually at Fort Huachuca, AZ at the time. I was cleared.

The No Fly list was post-9/11 . . . Not sure what list you're talking about from 1998.

[n david]

The ACLU is even against the No Fly list. I thought the ACLU and libs stuck together like glue. But even they say it's unconstitutional, and have sued the government on behalf of people who were on the list.

"""Many people are on the No Fly List, and the criteria for inclusion are so broad and vague that they inevitably ensnare innocent people engaged in First Amendment-protected speech, activity, or association. The process the government has established for people on the No Fly List to challenge their blacklisting is grossly insufficient and violates the U.S. Constitution's due process guarantee. The ACLU and its affiliates in Oregon, Southern California, Northern California, and New Mexico are challenging that process in court.

In the meantime, if you think you're on the No Fly List, the constitutionally-inadequate process described below is currently your only recourse. Because there is no other alternative available at this time, we generally advise people to follow the process in the hope that the government corrects error or changes its mind. We also describe below the procedures that the government established — after the ACLU filed its lawsuit — to permit U.S. persons to fly home after their apparent inclusion on the No Fly List."""


"""What to do if you have been denied boarding

If you are denied boarding on a flight, you can submit a standard form to the Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (“DHS TRIP”). DHS TRIP transmits complaints and any supporting information you provide to the Terrorist Screening Center (“TSC”), which determines whether any action should be taken.

If you are a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, and the TSC determines that you are on the No Fly List, DHS TRIP will send you a letter informing you of your status on the No Fly List and providing the option to submit and receive additional information. If you choose that option, DHS TRIP will provide a second letter identifying the general criterion under which you have been placed on the No Fly List and possibly including an unclassified summary of the reasons for your inclusion on the List. You should know that the government’s summary likely will not include all of its reasons for your placement on the List, and in some cases the government will choose not to provide any summary at all. The government also will not provide you any of the evidence it relied upon in deciding to place you on the List, and it may also withhold information in its possession that undercuts its basis for putting you on the list. Finally, the government does not provide a live hearing at which you could testify, or give you an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against you.

You may submit a written response to the second letter, along with any exhibits or other materials you think are relevant. The government will review your response submission and inform you of its final determination.

If you are not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, TSC will review your submission, and DHS TRIP will send you a letter that purports to explain how the complaint was resolved. You should know that the letter does not confirm or deny whether you have been included on the No Fly List, whether you remain on it, or whether you can fly in the future. The government also refuses to provide any notice or reason for inclusion on the No Fly List or a meaningful hearing at which you can clear your name. Unfortunately, currently, the only way for a non-citizen to discover if they have been removed from the No Fly List or not after following this procedure is by purchasing an airline ticket and attempting to board."""

The bold is blatantly unconstitutional.

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-right...re-no-fly-list

[n david]

8 ways to end up on the No Fly list:

1. Being suspected of direct terrorist activity
2. Travel to certain countries
3. Something you said in the past
4. Have a similar name to someone on the no-fly list
5. Not becoming an informant
6. Clerical error
7. Law enforcement issues
8. Controversial Tweets

“Tens of thousands of travelers have been misidentified because of misspellings and transcription errors in the nomination process, and because of computer algorithms that imperfectly match travelers against the names on the list,”

"the government does not provide a live hearing at which you could testify, or give you an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against you."

Again, this is unconstitutional! It should never be used to ban someone from owning or purchasing a weapon.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Even the Daily Beast, the lib rag standard, says the No Fly lists are bad.

"""Rahinah Ibrahim, a Malaysian architect with a doctorate from Stanford, knows from personal experience that they have a compelling point. Ibrahim is the only person since the 9/11 attacks to file a court challenge that ultimately removed her name from the watch lists. It took her almost a decade to prevail in court and even that victory has proved pyrrhic for her. While a federal judge agreed that her inclusion on the no-fly list was groundless, she remains unable to obtain a visa that would allow her to visit the United States even to attend academic conferences. A close look at her case by ProPublica provides dramatic evidence of what was argued this month in Washington: It is indeed remarkably easy to get on the list and nearly impossible to get off."""

"'''The odds against Ibrahim were beyond astronomical. No one had ever prevailed in a legal challenge of the watch lists."""

"""The judges were troubled by the watch list system. The Terrorist Screening Database had grown by over 700 percent since its inception, and 20,000 records were being added a month, the court noted. The judges found that the implementation of the no-fly list was problematic. “Tens of thousands of travelers have been misidentified because of misspellings and transcription errors in the nomination process, and because of computer algorithms that imperfectly match travelers against the names on the list,” the majority wrote."""

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-fly-list.html

You offered an article from 2015. Today these things are addressed far more quickly over the internet:

DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP)
https://www.dhs.gov/dhs-trip#

If you're on the list, go ahead, submit your redress. Tell us how fast it takes compared to the news article you posted.

And you whine about Trump's ban on people from countries in which islamic terrorists are a threat??

Actually, I find it problematic that support the President's banning millions of people who are not on a single selectee list strictly based on their nationality.... but you have no problem with someone on the selectee lists purchasing high powered assault rifles.

Let me break it down:

- The travel ban is based strictly on nationality.

- The adding selectees to mandatory background checks is based on an individual's history.

Draw backs:

- The travel ban has denied entry or access to upstanding individuals (even citizens) who have traveled abroad. Ban doesn't include nations from which the 9/11 terrorists originated.

- Selectee lists have on a rare occasion had an alias used by a terrorist suspect that matches an individual's name and identifiers.

Expanding background checks to include selectee lists is small potatoes.

Seriously? Oh I dunno, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th amendments. Now, where do you believe the Constitution ALLOWS citizens to lose their liberties without any due process?

You haven't provided a single bit of evidence that the Constitution prohibits the government from compiling a list of potential threats to the United States.

As it relates to flying, no one has a constitutional right to fly. Especially when corporate policies of the airlines agree with federal security directives. If you are on a selectee list, and Delta refuses to allow you to board, tough luck. You don't have a constitutional right to fly. Just like you don't have a constitutional right to a driver's license or even to drive if the state has a running record of traffic offenses that call for your license to be revoked.

No liberties are being violated. And the federal government is simply maintaining a list of potential threats to the United States. Defense of our boarders and the welfare of our citizens from foreign attackers or those who are in collusion with foreign enemies is well within the federal government's constitutional power.

There's something called a background check. I hear it connects to some kind of database in which the bad guys are listed. And if they're (as you say) "known" bad guys, I doubt they're actually able to purchase a gun.

Actually the CHRC process only connects to criminal records. Any criminal record containing a felony offense that would disqualify an individual from purchasing a firearm will prohibit the sale of said firearm to the individual in question.

It doesn't connect to a "database" of suspected terrorists...unless those terrorists have a criminal record in the United States. Many on the selectee lists DO have criminal records, pending charges, or are listed as wanted for questioning in relation to terrorism in other countries. That's why the lists would be a valuable tool for gun dealers concerned about selling arms to terrorists.

But even so, I would still be 100% against using the unconstitutional No Fly/Watch list to ban people from buying guns.

Of course you don't care if a terrorist purchases a high powered assault rifle. Conservatives hate the United States government. If there was ever someone who shared that hatred, it would be a terrorist.

Because if you libs get an inch and get your ability to deny due process rights by using No Fly/No Gun Purchase, soon you'll be trampling on the 2nd as well.

The no-fly/no-buy policy would only affect assault rifles. Not hand guns. I don't even think the legislation would affect hunting rifles. The Constitution doesn't specify that anyone has a right to an "assault rifle". Nor does it specify that one has the right to have a charged nuclear warhead in their garage to defend themselves from a would be car thief.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

The No Fly list fails:

"""The man who tried to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight in 2009 AND the man convicted of planting a car bomb in Times Square in 2010 both were on the no-fly list (they were able to board planes anyway)."""

Oops.

No human system is perfect.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

The No Fly list was post-9/11 . . . Not sure what list you're talking about from 1998.

The list was post 9/11. I was screened in 2004 for the position of a security access coordinator. They had a hit when running my name. However, the name on the list was an alias that a suspect (or suspects) had been using on and off as far back as the early 90's. The fact that this individual had used this alias while in Egypt in 1998 helped draw a clear distinction between him and myself. Because military records showed that I wasn't in Egypt in 1998. So, I was clearly a different person.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You offered an article from 2015. Today these things are addressed far more quickly over the internet:

DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP)
https://www.dhs.gov/dhs-trip#

If you're on the list, go ahead, submit your redress. Tell us how fast it takes compared to the news article you posted.

Doesn't matter the timeframe. What matters is due process of American citizens are being violated.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, I find it problematic that support the President's banning millions of people who are not on a single selectee list strictly based on their nationality.... but you have no problem with someone on the selectee lists purchasing high powered assault rifles.

Let me break it down:

- The travel ban is based strictly on nationality.

- The adding selectees to mandatory background checks is based on an individual's history.

Draw backs:

- The travel ban has denied entry or access to upstanding individuals (even citizens) who have traveled abroad. Ban doesn't include nations from which the 9/11 terrorists originated.

- Selectee lists have on a rare occasion had an alias used by a terrorist suspect that matches an individual's name and identifiers.

Expanding background checks to include selectee lists is small potatoes.

Let me get this straight: You are all for denying constitutional due process for American Citizens, but you are against the POTUS using his constitutional powers to restrict non-citizens from entering the US? You make no sense.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You haven't provided a single bit of evidence that the Constitution prohibits the government from compiling a list of potential threats to the United States.

I have, you just don't like it. You have yet to show where in the Constitution the government is allowed to violate the due process of American citizens.

Originally Posted by Aquila

As it relates to flying, no one has a constitutional right to fly. Especially when corporate policies of the airlines agree with federal security directives. If you are on a selectee list, and Delta refuses to allow you to board, tough luck. You don't have a constitutional right to fly. Just like you don't have a constitutional right to a driver's license or even to drive if the state has a running record of traffic offenses that call for your license to be revoked.

No liberties are being violated. And the federal government is simply maintaining a list of potential threats to the United States. Defense of our boarders and the welfare of our citizens from foreign attackers or those who are in collusion with foreign enemies is well within the federal government's constitutional power.

Now this is just rich. On one hand, you complain about the travel ban EO the POTUS signed, but now you say, well the feds have the power to defend us. You're also against the border wall, but in the bold above acknowledge the government has power to defend the border.

Yes, the POTUS does have constitutional power to restrict entry to the US. That is not a matter of debate. obama restricted entry, W restricted entry, and so on.

However, neither the POTUS nor the feds have the constitutional power to violate due process and restrict due process rights.

You want to pretend this is just about boarding airplanes of private companies and how it's not a constitutional right to fly. I'm not arguing whether airlines can decide who boards or not. That's not the issue and you know it.

Furthermore, you're wanting to use this unconstitutional list to restrict the 2A constitutional rights of American citizens.

For the third time -- Where in the Constitution is power given to the feds to violate due process rights of US Citizens and restricting their 2A rights?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually the CHRC process only connects to criminal records. Any criminal record containing a felony offense that would disqualify an individual from purchasing a firearm will prohibit the sale of said firearm to the individual in question.

It doesn't connect to a "database" of suspected terrorists...unless those terrorists have a criminal record in the United States. Many on the selectee lists DO have criminal records, pending charges, or are listed as wanted for questioning in relation to terrorism in other countries. That's why the lists would be a valuable tool for gun dealers concerned about selling arms to terrorists.

NICS gathers info from the NICS database, the Interstate Identification Index and the NCIC. There are several reasons a buyer may be restricted from purchasing a weapon:

• Convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years
• Fugitive from Justice
• Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence Conviction
• Unlawful User/Addicted to a Controlled Substance
• State Prohibitor
• Protection/Restraining Order for Domestic Violence
• Under Indictment/Information
• Adjudicated Mental Health
• Illegal/Unlawful Alien
• Federally Denied Persons File
• Dishonorable Discharge
• Renounced U.S. Citizenship

As US citizens, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. We have due process rights, as citizens. You want to go beyond this list and restrict the 2A constitutional right of citizens who haven't committed a crime! Didn't you claim to be libertarian at one point?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Of course you don't care if a terrorist purchases a high powered assault rifle. Conservatives hate the United States government. If there was ever someone who shared that hatred, it would be a terrorist.

So now I'm a terrorist? God bless you, Aquila.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The no-fly/no-buy policy would only affect assault rifles. Not hand guns. I don't even think the legislation would affect hunting rifles. The Constitution doesn't specify that anyone has a right to an "assault rifle". Nor does it specify that one has the right to have a charged nuclear warhead in their garage to defend themselves from a would be car thief.

That's not what the House bill was about. The No Fly No Buy bill was an amendment added to a spending bill. It did NOT single out assault rifles only. It was a ban on firearms. Period.