Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

San Bernardino


Legacy Fan

Recommended Posts

what this sounds like is treasonous activity by certain members of our intelligence agencies who may have been cultivating isis all along unbeknownst to probably just about everyone in DC. So they cook the intel to make it sound like isis is contained and no biggie all the while they're supplying them, which gels with what people in the middle east are saying. Not a big stretch considering al of isis's leaders came from camp bucca which was run by military intelligence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

ObaMao's FBI is trying so desperately to not call it

an act of terrorism....

 

they won't let the terror happens on Obamao's watch happen.

But it did. I'm afraid we're going to see worse.

 

It's a very good time to get a license to carry, and carry it where

you legally can..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ObaMao's FBI is trying so desperately to not call it

an act of terrorism....

 

they won't let the terror happens on Obamao's watch happen.

But it did. I'm afraid we're going to see worse.

 

It's a very good time to get a license to carry, and carry it where

you legally can..

I got one, and I still think we should do some things about our gun laws - especially basic stuff like prohibition of the purchase for people on suspected terror lists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got one, and I still think we should do some things about our gun laws - especially basic stuff like prohibition of the purchase for people on suspected terror lists.

 

 

That might be the most ignorant thing I've ever read on a political forum..

 

And who makes up those lists? The fine people at the IRS like Lois Lerner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a variety of reasons that are rarely mistakes. For example, if I'm syed farook or whatever and its been confirmed I've been in contact with a wanted terrorist by the FBI (as he was)

 

That puts me on a terrorist watch list

 

And I can go buy an ar-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, let's give what ever political party that is in power the ability to put their political enemies on that list.. Despite the fact they've done nothing.. Give that administration the power to deny you your 2nd amendment rights on a whim, a suspicion.. Why stop there?

 

Great idea.. You really thought this thru didn't you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You are really dense aren't you...

Frankly I think it's the most Retarded thing in the world to want to give guns to suspected terrorists.

 

But that makes me anti-constitution and ignorant I guess.

 

---

 

I guess your belief is that Muslim Kenyan Obamao is trying to put everybody on the no fly list so nobody can buy guns in preparation for the upcoming Muslim invasion that he's championing.

 

I'm the dense one though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, the same drivel about the no fly list.

 

I'll list the content this time, since Chris and edw

won't admit it's a problem:

 

https://www.aclu.org/cases/latif-et-al-v-holder-et-al-aclu-challenge-government-no-fly-list

 

In June 2010, the ACLU and its affiliates in Oregon, Southern California, Northern California, and New Mexico filed a legal challenge on behalf of 10 U.S. citizens and permanent residents who could not fly to or from the U.S. or over American airspace because they are on the government’s secretive No Fly List (an additional three people later joined the suit). The plaintiffs, who include four U.S. military veterans, were never told why they were on the list or given a reasonable opportunity to get off it. Being unable to fly has severely affected their lives, including their ability to be with their families, go to school, and travel for work. In August 2013, the court agreed with the ACLU that constitutional rights are at stake when the government puts Americans on the No Fly List, and in June 2014, the court ruled the government’s system for challenging inclusion on the No Fly List is unconstitutional. As a result of our lawsuit, the government announced in April 2015 that it would tell U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents whether they are on the list and possibly offer some reasons. However, the government’s new redress process still falls far short of constitutional requirements because it denies our clients meaningful notice, evidence, and a hearing.

Several of our clients were originally stuck overseas, unable to return to their homes in the United States because they were on the No Fly List. In August 2010, the ACLU petitioned the court for preliminary relief so that the plaintiffs stranded abroad could fly back to the U.S. The government eventually let each of these plaintiffs return home. It also instituted arepatriation procedure by which U.S. citizens or green-card holders stranded outside of the United States due to apparent inclusion on the No Fly List can secure clearance to fly to the United States on an approved flight. Still, the government refused to tell our clients why they hadn’t been able to fly back in the first place or whether they would be able to fly in the future.

The lawsuit aims to remedy that failure. It was filed against officials at theJustice Department, the FBI, and the Terrorist Screening Center, which

creates and controls the No Fly List. In May 2011, the district court dismissedthe case for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the lawsuit should have been filed against the Transportation Security Administration, and that the relief the plaintiffs sought could only come from a federal appellate court. The ACLUappealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously reversed the district court’s decision and held that the case should go forward in district court, where it now proceeds.

In a motion for partial summary judgment, the ACLU asked the court to rule that the inadequate redress process for people on the list violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. The court partially granted that motion in August 2013, holding that the Constitution applies when the government bans Americans from air travel. In June 2014, the court struck down the government’s redress process as unconstitutional, and it ordered the government to tell the ACLU’s clients why they are on the No Fly List and give them the opportunity to challenge their inclusion on the list before the court. In October 2014, the government finally informed seven of the 13 plaintiffs that they were not on the list, and it then provided the remaining six plaintiffs with unclassified “summaries” of the reasons for their placement on the list. However, the government still keeps its full reasons secret. It also withholds evidence and exculpatory information from our clients and refuses to give them a live hearing to establish their credibility or cross-examine witnesses. Because of these and other serious problems, the ACLU has challenged the revised process as unconstitutional.

Until the government fixes its unconstitutional new process, people on the No Fly List are barred from commercial air travel with no meaningful chance to clear their names, resulting in a vast and growing group of individuals whom the government deems too dangerous to fly but too harmless to arrest.

Stranded Outside of the United States Due to Denial of Boarding on a Flight? Follow these instructions to Get Home

Survey: Denial of Boarding Outside the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/us/no-fly-list/index.html

 

The U.S. government's "no fly" list violates constitutional protections by depriving travelers of a meaningful way to have their names removed, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown of Portland, Oregon, ordered the Justice Department to redraft procedures "with the requisite due process" and without jeopardizing national security.

Thirteen plaintiffs, mostly Muslim-Americans, challenged their inclusion on the list. They said they were denied boarding on flights without explanation and were not allowed to present evidence to show they were no threat to public safety.

"A traveler who has not been given any indication of the information that may be in the record does not have any way to correct that information," Brown wrote in her 65-page opinion and order.

The "no-fly" list produced by the FBI was created after the 9/11 al Qaeda hijacking of four airliners as an anti-terror measure. It has been expanded over the years and includes thousands of names.

130709183943-exp-no-fly-list-marsh-00025
On the no-fly list? 03:36
120511012310-dnt-jet-blue-toddler-no-fly
No-fly toddler? Girl removed from flight 01:50

It also has been the subject of controversy at times over its size, the criteria for selecting names, and claims that it unfairly singled out Muslims.

The American Civil Liberties Union cheered the decision on Tuesday.

"For years, in the name of national security the government has argued for blanket secrecy and judicial deference to its profoundly unfair No Fly List procedures, and those arguments have now been resoundingly rejected by the court," ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi, one of the attorneys who argued the case, said in a statement.

"This excellent decision also benefits other people wrongly stuck on the No Fly List, with the promise of a way out from a Kafkaesque bureaucracy causing them no end of grief and hardship. We hope this serves as a wake-up call for the government to fix its broken watch-list system, which has swept up so many innocent people," Shamsi said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worse by far?

 

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/on-air/as-seen-on/Mistakes-on-No-Fly-List-Keeping-Travelers-Grounded-69337037.html

 

There are about one million names on the combined government watch list for airline travelers, according to the Public Education Center, a Washington DC-based non-profit group that tracks airline security. However, the problem is that even the government admits that most of those people shouldn't be on the list.

Unfortunately for investigative reporter Ana Garcia, she is one in a million, and has been on this list for several years, and can't get removed. Whether it's at the curb, online or at the kiosk, problems checking-in persist for Garcia and many other Americans who have been erroneously placed on the watch list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, go back and read what ObaMao's regime says about veterans, ss members, the tea party,

the NRA and all gun owners....

 

with a flip of the "swtich".... Obamao and co could put an extra million names on the no fly list

unjustifiably, based on their leftist political bigotry.

 

Look how their political bigotry has caused corruption in the IRS, state dept,

and INJustice dept.

 

Obamao put those czars in place. Fix it all you want - but this renegade pres will just issue some

executive order making it his own controlled personal political weapon - "a no fly list" with only those

folks he doesn't like.

 

For instance, Syed and his Pakistani wife went to Saudi Arabla, had all sorts of dubious

connentions over there, etc etc ....

 

and they were not on the no fly list. go figure.

 

But Obamao and Holder and Napolitano etc... think veterans, tea partiers, gun owners, the NRA....seniors on ss, etc etc....

should be suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/08/cnn-poll-trust-in-government-at-all-time-low-2/

 

The poll also indicates that the public's trust in government is at an all-time low.

Just 13% of Americans say the government can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time, with just over three-quarters saying only some of the time and one in 10 saying they never trust the government, according to the poll.

"The number who trust the government all or most of the time has sunk so low that it is hard to remember that there was ever a time when Americans routinely trusted the government," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fight like hell to keep em out. Build wall, NO refugees, no H1Bs, ship out all the illegals.

 

But if they manage to slip through the cracks, f*ck it give them all the guns they want.

 

---

 

Relevant update is the San Bernandino couple is confirmed "radicalized" as if there was any doubt before (hint: there wasn't)

 

Apparently they were in contact with known terrorists on the FBI watch list. Which if you didn't know, happens to qualify you for the terrorist watch list/no fly list yourself ;) Making Syed and his wife WhateverthenameIs candidates for said lists.

Ugh.

 

NO ONE is making this argument.

People's concern (justifiably I might add based on the govts handling of these types of things) is *how* people are added to this list seemingly arbitrarily (best case) or often nefariously (worst case).

 

Handgun purchases in *every* state have a national background check run (NICS - which is managed/maintained by the FBI). California makes the purchaser wait an extra 10 days so that check can be as thorough as possible.

The FBI fucked up here. Surprise! But MOAR laws! How about fixing the fucking ones already in the books?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I think it's the most Retard thing in the world to want to give guns to suspected terrorists.

 

But that makes me anti-constitution and ignorant I guess.

 

---

 

I guess your belief is that Muslim Kenyan Obamao is trying to put everybody on the no fly list so nobody can buy guns in preparation for the upcoming Muslim invasion that he's championing.

 

I'm the dense one though.

Nobody wants "suspected terrorists" to be able to buy guns. But here's the thing, right? No one can be sure the arbitrary reasons they might end up on a list of "suspected terrorists" and it would be all too easy, since the DHS is so secretive, to start putting political enemies on the list. At some point Ted Kennedy wound up on the no fly list and he was both a career senator and American royalty. So what's to stop the government spooks from putting you or I on it for no reason?

 

Furthermore if they have this list of suspected terrorists why are they not detaining them already? Terrorism is a pretty heavy charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You already suspend your constitution plenty. Prisoners, drug addicts, mental patients, and a bunch of other groups of people aren't allowed to buy guns.

 

So, given that the 'suspending the constitution = terrorists winning' argument doesn't hold much water, why should suspected terrorists be allowed to buy guns exactly?

Because denying them that right would be racist?

 

Or maybe because the administration wont even utter the words? So how would you classify them?

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea I got it, we don't trust the government so we don't trust the red flags lists.

 

A reform bill could include a national gun registry, reforms to homeland lists - maybe we could use bmv records to inform people when they are placed on said list with instructions how to clear it (online form which already exists), and we could include people on suspected terror watch list in background checks to bar them from buying guns.

 

There's all kinds of reasonable things you could do, but generally the NRA opposes all of those things - even though they don't hinder 2nd amendment rights.

 

There's all kinds of things we could do that even though they may not curb most mass shootings - they would curb the homicides of opportunity which is much higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old there are a lot of things we could do but I don't particularly have a problem with. I don't mind if they register every firearm in the United States, I don't care if they do a background check on everybody that owns one or wants to buy one. I would hope they would suspend the HIPAA law but I'd be surprised. And still I don't think there would be any change whatsoever in crazy people getting a hold of a weapon and making headlines.

 

But those things would piss off the NRA and that's what the left wants to do.

Everybody has an agenda.

 

I am guessing one of the reasons the NRA opposes these seemingly small changes is that as soon as it becomes apparent the left will want more concessions and confiscation is right down the road.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So those changes are only be asked for because they piss the NRA off?

 

Does this type of logic work both ways?

Usually. Why would you ask? I think I was pretty clear but I don't think those changes would make a dent in the rash of shootings. Reason being is because none of them seem to be preventable by a background check or registration.

But, as the advocates of a British system should admit, it's a step forward. Anyone disagree with that?

 

So if they give in and allow these measures soon enough it will become apparent that they don't work at all and much stronger measures will be demanded. Do you seriously disagree with my take?

 

This is just logic, I'm not a gun nut and I don't care if they register mine.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...