RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process?

RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 10:23:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Alleged terroist attacks? Alleged? You don't seem to want to admit to terrorism, but you have no problem penalizing people to fight a proplem you seem to have doubts even exists. Oh Jeez, is that all you have? [sm=rofl.gif] Hardly. I have explained that these lists require no actualy proof. As such penalizing people in any way based on them means that suspicion=guilt the lack of a trial mean no due process. If they had actual evidence why are they prosecuting the few that they would have evidence rather than casting a net over anyone that someone has said might possibly have a connection to someone who might be connected in some unspecified way to terror. Now you want to cast the net over thousands of innocent people who once they find out that they are being penalized might gain the ability to go to Federal court and prove they are innocent, not demand that the government prove anything. This turns due process on it's head. At the same time you want to assume the innocence (At least of terrorism) of people who murder 49 innocent victims. Don't you see a problem there? How can you pretend that there aren't terrorist and at the same time violate peoples rights to fight that which you don't believe in.

BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/26/2016 10:33:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Your rights can be, with this taken away with no notification Do you actually have a right to fly on a commercial flight? Keep in mind that they establish the pricipal that they can use a worthless list to penalize people without even telling the person they are doing it. Now they are trying to expand this to deprive people of rights specifically protected by the constitution. People do have the right of travel. If they aren't allowed to fly how do they go to, Europe? Or are you going to tell me that it is ok to assume that it would be bad if they killed people on a plane but not so bad it they kill people on a cruise? What is ok with a presumption of guilt? That is what we are dealing with here, a presumption of guilt even without proof.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 1:52:47 AM)
So no actual right to fly then. Therefore there is no infringement of a right. As for knowing you are on the list, well one can just check to see if they are on the list: http://www.no-fly-list.com/ So check it and if you find yourself then start the appeal process.

BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 2:41:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick So no actual right to fly then. Therefore there is no infringement of a right. As for knowing you are on the list, well one can just check to see if they are on the list: http://www.no-fly-list.com/ So check it and if you find yourself then start the appeal process. So you thinkit is just fine for the government to deprive you of anything not specified as protected by the consyitution. We do have the right of free movement. You never would tell me why it is safe for people to ride trains but not airplanes. You can try to prove you are innocent but they don't have to prove anything. Don't you see that penalizing people without a chance to defend themselves before moving on to sentancing is a reversal of due process. Don't you see that doing so without true evidence is the sort of thing that isn't ever suposed to happen in our legal system?

Musicmystery -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 4:25:51 AM)
By your definition, arresting someone would be un-Constitutional, because they haven't been convicted yet.

mnottertail -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 6:31:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick So no actual right to fly then. Therefore there is no infringement of a right. As for knowing you are on the list, well one can just check to see if they are on the list: http://www.no-fly-list.com/ So check it and if you find yourself then start the appeal process. There is something at that site that is not kosher, I dont believe it is on the level.

JeffBC -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 10:17:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick So no actual right to fly then. Therefore there is no infringement of a right. As for knowing you are on the list, well one can just check to see if they are on the list: http://www.no-fly-list.com/ So check it and if you find yourself then start the appeal process. There is something at that site that is not kosher, I dont believe it is on the level. ... and my concerns about the lists are demonstrated in action :)

Musicmystery -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 10:29:14 AM)
OK. So at what point IS it permissible to begin to restrain a suspect?

vincentML -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 10:58:52 AM)
Bama quote: Now you want to cast the net over thousands of innocent people who once they find out that they are being penalized might gain the ability to go to Federal court and prove they are innocent, not demand that the government prove anything. This turns due process on it's head. At the same time you want to assume the innocence (At least of terrorism) of people who murder 49 innocent victims. Don't you see a problem there? How can you pretend that there aren't terrorist and at the same time violate peoples rights to fight that which you don't believe in. I do not pretend there are no terrorists. I merely used a common communications protocol when I employed "alleged" as a descriptor. You are making too much of it. So, who is a potential terrorist anyway? Can you profile a potential by his/her ethnicity, by their travels, by their social media comments? What warrants an investigation? Yes, mistakes are made. The Terrorist Screening Center has their guidelines. I know that sounds very big-brotherish but the ACLU and others have filed FOI requests and appealed to the courts. The question remains, given a number of attacks dating back to 1993, does the government have a compelling interest in maintaining an investigative list keeping suspected terrorists off airplanes to protect a large number of citizens? I presented that issue in some detail but you completely ignored it. What is your alternative plan? As to your question: are trains safer than airplanes? Be careful what you wish for lest the NF List apply there as well. So, you rant on about due process but you do not address the issues I presented. What can I say? Rant on.

JeffBC -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 11:06:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery OK. So at what point IS it permissible to begin to restrain a suspect? For how long? I would say that it's permissible at the same times it normally is. When is it permissable to detain someone under suspicion of... say... white collar finance crimes? I would put a strict upper cap on the length of that detention in the absence of formal charges being pressed. You know.... the way our legal system works.

Musicmystery -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 11:11:44 AM)
So that seems to mean that when there's reasonable suspicion, you shouldn't be allowed on planes while the investigation makes a determination. And it seems reasonable not to sell you weapons either during that time. Bizarrely, some of the same people crying "due process" also support detaining/deporting all Muslims as inherent terrorists.

JeffBC -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 11:31:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So that seems to mean that when there's reasonable suspicion, you shouldn't be allowed on planes while the investigation makes a determination. Fair enough, but in that you and I will never agree because in this case, who's defining "reasonable suspicion" is the US Government and they are doing so secretly. quote: Bizarrely, some of the same people crying "due process" also support detaining/deporting all Muslims as inherent terrorists. Surely it isn't any surprise to you that in American politics people's position on pretty much any issue and any side is wildly incoherent? In general people seem much more interested in "winning" than in holding some set of principles which are defensible and consistent. For me personally, I'm also against the detaining and deporting of Muslims... or anyone else without due process. I simply don't happen to think that "due process" is some cute phrase to toss around as if it were a quaint little anachronism that we should put up on our curio knickknack shelf and admire from time to time. In my mind that phrase gets right to the heart of "rule of law" and the ultimate legitimacy of the government. As an aside, you'll note that the conservatives are also not crying "due process" when it comes to abortion rights despite (just as in gun control) the clear ruling of the Supreme Court on the topic. As I said, few people act from a stance of principles. Most are just trying to win whatever points "their side" barfs up.

Musicmystery -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 11:38:13 AM)
And that, my friend, is the point of this thread.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 12:40:58 PM)
quote: So you thinkit is just fine for the government to deprive you of anything not specified as protected by the consyitution. Nope, but they are free to do so. Don't like it? Change the Constitution.

JeffBC -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 12:44:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery And that, my friend, is the point of this thread. nod I certainly understood that. But let's remember that sort of hypocritical bullshit is hardly restricted to the right. Honestly, if pretty much our entire society hadn't give up on concepts like honesty and principles and, for that matter, the rule of law... then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

Musicmystery -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 1:01:39 PM)
Exactly.

BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 2:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bama quote: Now you want to cast the net over thousands of innocent people who once they find out that they are being penalized might gain the ability to go to Federal court and prove they are innocent, not demand that the government prove anything. This turns due process on it's head. At the same time you want to assume the innocence (At least of terrorism) of people who murder 49 innocent victims. Don't you see a problem there? How can you pretend that there aren't terrorist and at the same time violate peoples rights to fight that which you don't believe in. I do not pretend there are no terrorists. I merely used a common communications protocol when I employed "alleged" as a descriptor. You are making too much of it. So, who is a potential terrorist anyway? Can you profile a potential by his/her ethnicity, by their travels, by their social media comments? What warrants an investigation? Yes, mistakes are made. The Terrorist Screening Center has their guidelines. I know that sounds very big-brotherish but the ACLU and others have filed FOI requests and appealed to the courts. The question remains, given a number of attacks dating back to 1993, does the government have a compelling interest in maintaining an investigative list keeping suspected terrorists off airplanes to protect a large number of citizens? I presented that issue in some detail but you completely ignored it. What is your alternative plan? As to your question: are trains safer than airplanes? Be careful what you wish for lest the NF List apply there as well. So, you rant on about due process but you do not address the issues I presented. What can I say? Rant on. You are missing the point. I have no problem with the authorities conducting investigations. I have a major problem with people being penalized because they took two business trips to Turkey. Once he found he was on the list it took him over a year to get his name off the list. If they put everyone on the list that does no more than that or that thier name is close to someone else's name they create a maze that gets in the way of investigation. I object to penalizing people because they are on the list. True they don't convict them. They skip the indictment phase, they skip the trial phase, they go right to sentancing, you know like Klan supporting sheriffs did to blacks at one time.

Termyn8or -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 2:41:13 PM)
FR At what point is it right to detain ? When a grand just hands won an indictment. They don't bother with that part of the process much anymore unless you are rich. But there was a solution to all this put forth many years ago that makes total sense. Arm the pilots. The pilots have been vetted and passed not only background checks but drug tests. They are sober and healthy and have good eyesight. Teach them like they teach the cops. (the ones who actually learn anyway and don't need 41 rounds for a guy with a knife) The problem is making it a requirement but only one in the cockpit need be armed. They just pair them up properly. and many pilots are ex-military anyway so are not gunshy. And there have been armed robberies on buses. What's more you can simply get off the bus and disappear into the crowd in a hurry. You hijack a plane you better have a plan, or a parachute. If you rob a cruise ship you need a boat. And not to forget, if you want to rob a police station you better want to die. And of course lock the cabin door so nobody can get the drop on them. Problems with policy may arise when the flight goes to countries where guns are illegal, but there are very few places where they are totally illegal. If the pilots want to go out on the town because they have time to spare, with proper security the guns could be left in the cockpit. This could bring up issues of course. Since the plane is subject to US jurisdiction that make make it a territory. What's more, what if someone on the no-fly list boards a plane and comes here ? They have to swim home or what ? What about people who get deported ? Usually deportation is for good reason so if anyone belongs on such a list it would be they. The whole idea stinks, as does the ACA and PATRIOT ACT. Very poor lawmaking, no other country is worse as far as I can tell. I doubt Leviticus or Hamurabi could fuck it up worse. The problem is the people who write the bills, congress doesn't know WTF they're voting for half the time. Ron Paul introduced a bill to require a waiting period because these bills are so lengthy but that did not pass. If I was in congress I would tell them flat out if it is more than 12 pages double spaced in 12 point font I am voting against it. Part off that though is because I believe we have too many laws already. There are thousands of words regulating the sale of a head of cabbage FFS. Making them literally TLDR is obfuscation and I see it as an impediment to congress actually representing the people because they just get told what to vote for, either by the party or the lobbyists. That is not the way to do it. If I could find another country where they would accept me, and I could have a half decent job and my guns I would be the fuck outta here before you could say adios. I would almost be willing to give up the guns if I am sure almost nobody had them either. I don't mean to sound like I hate this country, I don't. I just think it is turning into more of a shithole every day. They are letting the wrong people in, they are putting the wrong people in jail and they are giving money away to the wrong people. And now, the government controls who can use a private service like an airline ? Why don't they decide that certain Gay couples cannot buy a cake ? THAT is the issue with The Civil Rights Act, compelling performance even for money is slavery. Hey, slaves got fed and clothed and housed, even doctored for free. But it was still mandatory work, the fact that you get paid means nothing. So what. It is over. The country I knew is gone. There is just nowhere to go. T^T

BamaD -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 2:42:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So that seems to mean that when there's reasonable suspicion, you shouldn't be allowed on planes while the investigation makes a determination. Fair enough, but in that you and I will never agree because in this case, who's defining "reasonable suspicion" is the US Government and they are doing so secretly. quote: Bizarrely, some of the same people crying "due process" also support detaining/deporting all Muslims as inherent terrorists. Surely it isn't any surprise to you that in American politics people's position on pretty much any issue and any side is wildly incoherent? In general people seem much more interested in "winning" than in holding some set of principles which are defensible and consistent. For me personally, I'm also against the detaining and deporting of Muslims... or anyone else without due process. I simply don't happen to think that "due process" is some cute phrase to toss around as if it were a quaint little anachronism that we should put up on our curio knickknack shelf and admire from time to time. In my mind that phrase gets right to the heart of "rule of law" and the ultimate legitimacy of the government. As an aside, you'll note that the conservatives are also not crying "due process" when it comes to abortion rights despite (just as in gun control) the clear ruling of the Supreme Court on the topic. As I said, few people act from a stance of principles. Most are just trying to win whatever points "their side" barfs up. I do not say to ban all Moslem, but I do say to vet them better. The woman in San Bernidito was not vetted to the level current law requires, had she been she would never have gotten into the country. Due process concerning abortions, that would be very dificult, who pays for the baby's lawyer.

JeffBC -> RE: Why isn't no fly a denial of due process? (6/27/2016 2:58:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Due process concerning abortions, that would be very difficult, who pays for the baby's lawyer. You mistake my meaning. The supreme court has decided that within some constraints, abortions are legal. The baby doesn't need a lawyer. The decision is already made. Whether you agree with that decision or not, there it stands.... much like gun rights. If someone wants to change that, they need to do so at the constitutional or supreme court level. In the mean time, every single one of these jack assed things like Texas HB2 are contemptible on a great many levels including their deceptiveness and the fact that they are, again, impeding someone's rights. My point here is that pretty much everyone is totally and utterly willing to get their way by trying to do various end-runs, lies, and related bullshit. Few are interested in the rule of law when that rule currently goes against their own beliefs.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625