Reply With Quote
"mass" shootings are a tiny percentage of annual US gun homicides, accidents.
no they didnt, they were all French/Belgian born.
"mass" shootings are a tiny percentage of annual US gun homicides, accidents.
Most of which are done with handguns, not AR-15's.
Belgian is not France.
I hope chumpdumper is safe though
Isn't that what the backslash acknowledged?
You need to educate yourself more on what exactly the terrorist watch list is and how it's compiled before you call anyone an idiot.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-09/thousands-are-us-terrorist-watch-lists-rightly-or-wrongly-and-theres-nothing-they
Thousands are on US terrorist watch lists, rightly or wrongly, and there's nothing they can do about it
At least 700,000 are on the US terrorist watch list currently — though it's hard for anyone to know for sure.
The government doesn't reveal who they are, or why they've been marked as a potential threat, but we know the number of people who've been marked has grown considerably over the last few years. It rose sharply after the failed Christmas Day bombing in 2009, eventually peaking at nearly 1,000,000 travelers.
For many individuals branded with the terrorist label, it's nearly impossible to challenge the designation and regain the right to fly — or at least to fly with less hassle. It's a watch list that very few people are actually watching.
Anya Bernstein, associate professor at the SUNY Buffalo Law School and author of “The Hidden Costs of Terrorist Watch Lists,” says there's no indication law enforcement is ever evaluating the accuracy of the names they add to the list.
"They're making predictions about people's likelihood of engaging in terrorist acts, but there's no retrospective review. So you can get on a list by being su ious to someone, but you can't get off," she says.
And there's really nothing anyone can do if they think they're on the list. They can't even get official confirmation from the government that they were put on the list in the first place, Bernstein says.
The terrorist watch list is different from the much smaller US government "no fly" list. The no fly list has tens of thousands of people, rather than the hundreds of thousands on the suspected terrorist list.
"There's a case on the no-fly list that is at trial right now and the government refuses to diclose whether the person is on the no-fly list," Bernstein says. "It's completely agency internal. It's all law enforcement."
You can ask the government to review any information it has on you and possibly reconsider its judgment. No other lists have any process that's even that inclusive. But sometimes people do get removed — just not usually through any action of their own, she says.
In 2006, about 71,000 people were on the no-fly list, prompting criticism from the Department of Justice. Within a year, the terrorist screening center had cut the list to 34,000 — a step they seemingly weren't interested in taking until prompted by the Justice Department, Bernstein said.
Short of a lengthy court battle, there's no administrative way to get yourself off the list. And it's not the only list. While the no-fly list is the most well-known, Bernstein says there are many other government watch lists that can have other impacts on your life.
In a trial a few years ago, a judge ruled that someone's inclusion on a watch list isn't in and of itself grounds for arrest, but it can be a piece of the probable cause police use when determining if an arrest is warranted.
"It counts as a strike against you," Bernstein says.
He had hostages. They set up a perimeter and organized a SWAT team. After he started calling them they tried to get him to stand down and when he wouldn't they went in and killed him. Look I am the last person to support the cops, I loathe their organizations but I cannot complain. The hostages in the bathroom were freed to boot.
red/slave Floria allowing Christian Sharia
any gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender survivors of the deadliest mass shooting by a lone gunman on U.S. soil could show up at work on Monday morning, only to be fired from their jobs for their iden y and find themselves without any protection from their state’s laws.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/06/13/3787664/lgbt-protection-orlando-shooting/
Debate over guns, terror watch list to begin anew
the Floridian legally bought an AR-15-style weapon and a semiautomatic pistol recently, despite the fact that the FBI was aware of him and looked into him twice.
It was not immediately clear what if any watch list [the apparent shooter] was on at the time of the Orlando massacre – though he had come across the FBI’s radar on more than one occasion.
He first came to the FBI’s attention in 2013 after co-workers reported he’d made “inflammatory” comments to them about radical Islamic propaganda. A year later the FBI looked into him again because of his ties to an American who traveled to the Middle East to become a suicide bomber.
Information is still coming together as part of the investigation. There’s more than one terrorist watch list and we don’t yet know if the Orlando shooter was on any of them.
“That suspected terrorists can legally purchase weapons in the U.S. has been a fierce point of contention in Congress and among gun-control advocates.”
In December, the Senate voted on a measure to prohibit those on a terror watch list from legally purchasing guns. Senate Republicans defeated the measure, and some vulnerable GOP in bents – including New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte, Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, and Ohio’s Rob Portman – voted with the NRA and the far-right to protect the suspected terrorists’ gun rights.
Florida’s Marco Rubio, who’s reportedly getting ready to run for re-election after having promised not to, went to pretty extraordinary lengths during his failed presidential campaign to insist that those on terror watch lists must be able to buy firearms.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
for you gun fellators, the NRA/gun industry and their Repug s in Congres, gun industry profits have a higher priority than human life.
Maddow is such a hack
Why does the ACLU side with the NRA on this uncons utional list?
U.S. Government Watchlisting: Unfair Process and Devastating Consequences
The U.S. government today maintains a massive watchlisting system that risks stigmatizing hundreds of thousands of people, including American citizens, as “known or suspected terrorists” based on secret standards and secret evidence, without a meaningful process to challenge error and clear their names. The watchlists in this system are shared widely within the federal government, with state and local law enforcement agencies, and even with foreign governments, heightening the negative consequences for listed individuals. Being placed on a U.S. government watchlist can mean an inability to travel by air or sea; invasive screening at airports; denial of a U.S. visa or permission to enter to the United States; and detention and questioning by U.S. or foreign authorities—to say nothing of shame, fear, uncertainty, and denigration as a terrorism suspect. Watchlisting can prevent disabled military veterans from obtaining needed benefits, separate family members for months or years, ruin employment prospects, and isolate an individual from friends and associates.
Given the gravity of these consequences, it is vital that if the government blacklists people, the standards it uses are appropriately narrow, the information it relies on is accurate and credible, and the manner in which watchlists are used is consistent with the presumption of innocence and the right to a hearing before punishment—legal principles older than our nation itself. Yet the government fails these basic tests of fairness. It has placed individuals on watchlists, and left them there for years, as a result of blatant errors. It has expanded its master terrorist watchlist to include as many as a million names, based on information that is often stale, poorly reviewed, or of questionable reliability. It has adopted a standard for inclusion on the master watchlist that gives agencies and analysts near-unfettered discretion. And it has refused to disclose the standards by which it places individuals on other watchlists, such as the No Fly List.
Compounding this unfairness is the fact that the “redress” procedures the U.S. government provides for those who have been wrongly or mistakenly included on a watchlist are wholly inadequate. Even after people know the government has placed them on a watchlist—including after they are publicly denied boarding on a plane, or subjected to additional and invasive screening at the airport, or told by federal agents that they will be removed from a list if they agree to become a government informant—the government’s official policy is to refuse to confirm or deny watchlist status. Nor is there any meaningful way to contest one’s designation as a potential terrorist and ensure that the U.S. government, and all other users of the information, removes or corrects inaccurate records. The result is that innocent people can languish on the watchlists indefinitely, without real recourse.
A bloated and unfair watchlist system does not make us secure, and the ACLU has long called for fundamental reform. If the government is to use watchlists, it must ins ute narrow, specific criteria for placing individuals on them; apply rigorous procedures for reviewing, updating, and removing erroneous entries; and limit the use of such lists such that they do not amount to punishment without charge. Individuals must be provided with a meaningful, participatory process by which they can challenge their inclusion on a watchlist before a neutral decision-maker. Ultimately, Congress and the Obama administration must rein in what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has called “a vast, multi-agency, counterterrorism bureaucracy that tracks hundreds of thousands of individuals”—a bureaucracy that remains secret and unaccountable to the public or the individuals that it targets for blacklisting.
https://www.aclu.org/us-government-w...g-consequences
Repugs voted to allow watch list people to have guns.
Arbitrary list with no due process and 700,000+ people on it that takes years to get off. Fix the list and then put it to vote.
Wonder what else was in the bill?
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 06-13-2016 at 05:37 PM.
guns for everybody, everywhere, all the time is the Repugs' highest priority. Gun industry owns them.
TSA wants terrorists to have guns
I see you still haven't read up on the terrorist watch list and are still spewing drivel. No one wants a terrorist to have access to a gun, but this list isn't just full of terrorists, quite the opposite actually.
educate yourself
https://theintercept.com/2014/08/05/watch-commander/
Nearly half of the people on the U.S. government’s widely shared database of terrorist suspects are not connected to any known terrorist group, according to classified government do ents obtained by The Intercept.
Of the 680,000 people caught up in the government’s Terrorist Screening Database—a watchlist of “known or suspected terrorists” that is shared with local law enforcement agencies, private contractors, and foreign governments—more than 40 percent are described by the government as having “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” That category—280,000 people—dwarfs the number of watchlisted people suspected of ties to al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah combined.
The do ents, obtained from a source in the intelligence community, also reveal that the Obama Administration has presided over an unprecedented expansion of the terrorist screening system. Since taking office, Obama has boosted the number of people on the no fly list more than ten-fold, to an all-time high of 47,000—surpassing the number of people barred from flying under George W. Bush.
“If everything is terrorism, then nothing is terrorism,” says David Gomez, a former senior FBI special agent. The watchlisting system, he adds, is “revving out of control.”
The classified do ents were prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center, the lead agency for tracking individuals with suspected links to international terrorism. Stamped “SECRET” and “NOFORN” (indicating they are not to be shared with foreign governments), they offer the most complete numerical picture of the watchlisting system to date. Among the revelations:
• The second-highest concentration of people designated as “known or suspected terrorists” by the government is in Dearborn, Mich.—a city of 96,000 that has the largest percentage of Arab-American residents in the country.
• The government adds names to its databases, or adds information on existing subjects, at a rate of 900 records each day.
• The CIA uses a previously unknown program, code-named Hydra, to secretly access databases maintained by foreign countries and extract data to add to the watchlists.
A U.S. counterterrorism official familiar with watchlisting data told The Intercept that as of November 2013, there were approximately 700,000 people in the Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB, but declined to provide the current numbers. Last month, the Associated Press, citing federal court filings by government lawyers, reported that there have been 1.5 million names added to the watchlist over the past five years. The government official told The Intercept that was a misinterpretation of the data. “The list has grown somewhat since that time, but is nowhere near the 1.5 million figure cited in recent news reports,” he said. He added that the statistics cited by the Associated Press do not just include nominations of individuals, but also bits of intelligence or biographical information obtained on watchlisted persons.
When U.S. officials refer to “the watchlist,” they typically mean the TSDB, an unclassified pool of information shared across the intelligence community and the military, as well as local law enforcement, foreign governments, and private contractors. According to the government’s watchlisting guidelines, published by The Intercept last month, officials don’t need “concrete facts” or “irrefutable evidence” to secretly place someone on the list—only a vague and elastic standard of “reasonable su ion.”
“You need some fact-basis to say a guy is a terrorist, that you know to a probable-cause standard that he is a terrorist,” says Gomez, the former FBI agent. “Then I say, ‘Build as big a file as you can on him.’ But if you just suspect that somebody is a terrorist? Not so much.”
The National Counterterrorism Center did not respond to questions about its terrorist screening system. Instead, in a statement, it praised the watchlisting system as a “critical layer in our counterrorism defenses” and described it as superior to the pre-9/11 process for tracking threats, which relied on lists that were “typed or hand-written in card catalogues and ledgers.” The White House declined to comment.
You liberals need to make up your minds...you either want to target Muslims or you don't. Pick a side.
For all the ing boutons does about the over reaching and unstoppable NSA I'm shocked he supports this list.
“You might as well have a blue wand and just pretend there’s magic in it, because that’s what we’re doing with this—pretending that it works,” says former FBI agent Michael German, now a fellow at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. “These agencies see terrorism as a winning card for them. They get more resources. They know that they can wave that card around and the American public will be very afraid and Congress and the courts will allow them to get away with whatever they’re doing under the national security umbrella.”
Terrorists still get guns, yet they were still on the list.
All this talk about guns.
When is the govt going to turn a large team of high level hackers loose to find terrorist assholes on the web? Be it the light or dark web.
What crimes did they commit? Charge them a with crime and then they won't pass background checks. Furthermore "Nearly half of the people on the U.S. government’s widely shared database of terrorist suspects are not connected to any known terrorist group, according to classified government do ents obtained by The Intercept."
There are other ways, sure. But they're not as effective--for most people. For different reasons. When they get it right, it wrecks havoc (eg Baston Marathon). But a whole lot have been thwarted or weren't made properly.
I have an idea.
If you can't meet an agreed upon IQ score, can't pass a mental health evaluation, or have a criminal record, then you can't own a gun.
I'm not suggesting at all this one law would end gun violence--it wouldn't--but it's a start. It'd weed out some of them from happening, I believe.
That law would have to work in conjunction with other laws to have a serious effect. It's a complicated problem with no easy solution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
