Saturday, June 18, 2016

Lack of Due Process Makes Terrorist List Unusable to Deny Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

It sounds like an obvious thing thing.  Anyone who is a suspected terrorist such that they land on the U.S. government's Terrorist Watch List should not be able to buy a gun.   The problem though is how people end up on that list and how that list is maintained. ABC News explains:
The process for placing an individual on watch lists begins with “originators,” who range from everyday citizens to federal agents. Social media posts can also trigger a process for placing individuals on the list. Once an originator passes along a name to law enforcement, counterterrorism officials rely on an elastic set of guidelines in order to add an individual.
Appearing in the Intercept
Agencies must have “reasonable suspicion” or “articulable evidence” that the person is a “known or suspected terrorist,” according to a document detailing watch listing guidance compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center in March of 2013 and first obtained by the Intercept. The document admits that “irrefutable evidence and concrete facts are not necessary.”
Information about immediate family members and known associates of “known or suspected terrorists” can also be added to the watch list without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorism.
It should be emphasized that we only know about how the terrorist watch list works because of a leak.  The federal government didn't voluntarily disclose this information.   And there is absolutely no court oversight to how names added to the list or how the lists are maintained. 

What if you find out you have been wrongly added to the the list?  Can you get your name removed?  Yes...but.  ABC News notes that the problem with this process:
Individuals who believe they have been wrongfully added to a watch list can file a complaint through a redress program, which launches an internal review not subject to oversight by any court or entity outside the counterterrorism community, according to the documents.
Further, during the review you are not permitted to examine witnesses or evidence against you.

But even if you succeed, you may not know it:
The review can result in a removal of an individual’s name, but the individual won’t necessarily be notified because the government maintains a general policy to “neither confirm nor deny an individual’s watch list status,” according to the documents.
Individuals can even be kept on the list after being acquitted of a terrorism charge if authorities still have “reasonable suspicion.”
Several news reports report that the list is only a few thousand people, thus suggesting the ban would affect few people wanting to buy a gun.  But that's wrong.  Those reports are confusing the No Fly List, which only consists of 47,000 people and is simply a subset of the Terrorist Watch List, which list has over one million people listed on it, including 280,000 people who have no known affiliation with terrorist organizations.

Although some liberals are okay with people being stripped of constitutional rights simply based on the arbitrary decision reached by a government official, the Constitution is not.  That document mandates that people be provided due process before they are denied a constitutional right, a fact that even the ACLU understands. 

If you're going to deny people rights based on being on a terrorist list, people need to know they are being added to the list and have the right to contest that decision in a court of law.   They need to be provided the evidence against them and given the right to refute that evidence.  If those due process safeguards are not provided, the person on the list cannot be denied his constitutional right to buy and possess a gun.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why do conservatives swear that the parts of the Constitution they like are God given rights, but the parts they don't they can just change? Why is it conservatives think their interpretation of the Constitution is the interpretation everyone must follow? What was the difference between the Orlando shooter and the Planned Parenthood shooter?

Eric Morris said...

People commit murder for a myriad of reasons, but Prof. Robert Pape at U of Chicago has shown that suicide terrorism is a reaction to perceived occupation. It's why Osama unleashed 9/11 and what Mateen said when shooting: "Quit bombing my country" (Afghanistan, I assume). How to help prevent Charleston or Sandy Hook, I have no idea--except a generally more armed populace, which would have its own drawbacks. Bataclan, Brussels, Ft Hood, 9/11, Orlando, San Bernardino, on the other hand, can be stopped by US stopping the bombing in the Muslim would. Then we could get rid of TSA, NSA, and Terror Watch List. Here's what I wrote on Memorial Day, as a combat vet.

http://currentincarmel.com/letter-remembering-soldiers-on-memorial-day-is-not-enough

Anonymous said...

For one Anon 3:14 the Orlando shooter was selectively aborting people based on orientation treating them like inviable tissue masses.

Anonymous said...

If you are on a No Fly or terrorist list I'd imagine you could find that out when you go to purchase a weapon then the law provides for legal representation.
Try to enter a 'gun show', NRA or RNC convention with a gun and you will see what hypocrites these 2nd amendment interpreters be. OH, I can't own a gun. Well try being a real man instead of a wimpy little complainer who can only defend himself by flexing a dopey little finger. What a woman would see in these faux men, I really don't know.

Anonymous said...

Nice spin job. The Orlando shooter and the Planned Parenthood shooter were both radicalized by religious ideology. The Planned Parenthood shooter was brainwashed by GOP politician's false claims about selling baby parts. All of them should be treated like terrorists. Including Paul Ogden that wrote propaganda on the matter.

Eric Morris said...

Plus 1,000 Anon 5:43. Hilarious takedown! Thank you.

Anonymous said...

To answer the question, lower courts have affirmed the right of states to limit the open carrying of weapons outside of the home. Appeals were made to appellate court rulings affecting the states of Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, California, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Illinois and the results were the same i.e. that gun control laws were to be the prerogative of states and locales. In keeping with Heller, appeals to the Supreme Court were denied affirming that the second amendment applies only to arms possessed within the home. In deference to points made by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court has refused to entertain and left in place Connecticut's ban on assault rifles. Courts have invalidated the premise of unlimited rights to bare arms and rightly acknowledge the issue of public safety.

Anonymous said...

Sorry people, abortion is a Constitutional right whether you like it or not. Killing innocent people is not, nor is it funny, Eric Morris. You people prove that Christians are just as bad and hateful as the Muslims.

Anonymous said...

The Conservatives on the SCOTUS just destroyed the 4th amendment. Where is the outrage about rights being taken away? Hypocrites.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Anon 12:12,

The problem is the due process clauses in the U.S. and state constitutions. Yes, the right to own and possess a gun inside and outside the home can be limited. But you can't have a system where government officials can arbitrarily decide who is banned from buying guns simply by adding people's names to a list. There has to be some sort of due process involved, and some right to challenge inclusion on the list.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Anon 3:24,

You're simply begging the question. You're answering "but it's a constitutional right" in opposition to people who oppose abortion and don't believe (with good justification) that nothing in the Constitution protects abortion rights...that it's a matter that should have been left to the states.

Anonymous said...

If we left everything to the states slavery would still be legal.

Anonymous said...

The Decision to Have an Abortion is Protected under the Constitutional Right to Privacy. In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied this core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a woman's ability to terminate a pregnancy.


Remember that one, Paul? Right to privacy?


You god damn Christians aren't any better than our supposed enemy.

Anonymous said...

Today it was the conservatives on the Supreme Court that just stripped Constitutional rights, the 4th amendment was killed by CONSERVATIVES.

Anonymous said...

Right to privacy? Why is it any of your business what my doctor and I discuss? Do you really think it's the government's business? You sir are a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

Hint 1 for Anon 3:40 is the Gosnell acknowledged selling of baby parts. Hint 2 is an inviable tissue mass is not a catholic service. Hint 3 is that Islam is a totalitarian political scheme passed off as religion.

Anonymous said...

You really sound pro-life anon 5:40 and Eric Morris. You two sickened me.

Anonymous said...

Ooh, let's talk about rights! What about an innocent citizen's right not to be a victim of a mass murder in a church, a movie theater, or a nightclub?

Anonymous said...

Those goddamn liberals just destroyed the 4th amendment. Where is your blog about that? Oh wait, it was the conservatives taking away rights so you're cool with it, right?