Our guys are really pretty good at finding the bad guys but there seems to be a problem after that.
http://nypost.com/2009/12/27/bomber-was-on-us-watch-list/
Maybe we should just go back to the way it was? A lot cheaper.
But having said that, I have no idea how many times it has worked. Maybe someone has some info on that.

 

Remember, Ted Kennedy was placed on the list and it too him half a year to get his name off despite the fact that he was a U.S. Senator.

He should not have been removed from the list. A very dangerous person. This describes just a portion of the damage he is responsible for.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/explosions-reported-istanbul-airport/story?id=40197077

More terror.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/explosions-reported-istanbul-airport/story?id=40197077

More terror.

Perhaps Turkey will come to its senses and ban civilian ownership of both automatic and semi-automatic firearms and allow ownership of other firearms only after providing a genuine reason for needing one, passing a background check, becoming licensed to own a firearm, and registering all firearms with the government.

Oh, wait a second -- those ARE the current laws in Turkey. Well, obviously they must have filled out the proper paperwork and demonstrated a genuine need. Apparently, "Needed for suicide attack on airport," was considered a valid enough reason to even get a waiver so that they could use their AK-47s. I wonder what kind of paperwork they had to fill out to get their suicide vests authorized. Or perhaps those aren't regulated in Turkey.

Or maybe, just maybe, people that want to carry out these kinds of attacks don't care what the laws are and can still get their hands of weapons even if law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have them at all.

 

Notice the "look back".

Interesting. The FBI makes a mistake, so we need to create a new law. The FBI could have placed a "deny" on them while they continued their investigation and kept weapons out of a criminals hands. The creation of a "new" law to resolve a situation that can be handled by a current law is asinine, but I know we are talking about the political critters who must "act" like they are doing something.

Yes, I know hindsight is 20-20.

 

Interesting. The FBI makes a mistake, so we need to create a new law. The FBI could have placed a "deny" on them while they continued their investigation and kept weapons out of a criminals hands. The creation of a "new" law to resolve a situation that can be handled by a current law is asinine, but I know we are talking about the political critters who must "act" like they are doing something.

Yes, I know hindsight is 20-20.

They weren't trying to buy guns when the FBI was investigating them.
But your right, it is mostly theater but the public likes it.

 

Our guys are really pretty good at finding the bad guys but there seems to be a problem after that.
http://nypost.com/2009/12/27/bomber-was-on-us-watch-list/
Maybe we should just go back to the way it was? A lot cheaper.
But having said that, I have no idea how many times it has worked. Maybe someone has some info on that.

How would you feel about something like this:

Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed.

 

Joey, I heard about all fed agencies being armed back in the 70's in Pompano Beach,Fla.

All agencies having armed units..

 

They may have not been under a current investigation, but you can bet their name exists in the computer. Maybe it's time to turn over some cash to Facebook and Google. They have much more info on everyone than the FBI.

 

It would be interesting if you allowed the people that know an individual to "vote" on whether they get on the No-FLy list, or some other list. If the number of people suggesting you are a douchebag exceeds the up-votes, you get a look-at from the authorities.

More seriously, I'd be a lot happier with a government-hosted list if there was some form of civilian review. Not as full-blown as a jury trial, but just some mechanism to bring sanity to it. If nothing else, it would lend credibility to the list itself. Despite some newsworthy exceptions, the current No-Fly list might be a very good one, for all we know.

 

How would you feel about something like this:

Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed.

Actually I don't think any of them are very effective, but let's see why.

If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist.

You need to define activity or involvement. They can put you on a list and investigate you if you study bomb making for example, but can't arrest you. So the no buy list, as best I can tell, would just flag them to investigate you again if you go from bomb making to buying a gun.

These types of attacks are almost impossible to stop especially if the shooter doesn't care if he survives.

 

Actually I don't think any of them are very effective, but let's see why.


You need to define activity or involvement. They can put you on a list and investigate you if you study bomb making for example, but can't arrest you. So the no buy list, as best I can tell, would just flag them to investigate you again if you go from bomb making to buying a gun.

These types of attacks are almost impossible to stop especially if the shooter doesn't care if he survives.

"activity or involvement" would be defined as being sufficient to convince a judge to issue an arrest warrant.

If the attacks are almost impossible to stop (which I agree), then what is the point of putting people on a secret list, denying them their Constitutional rights, and denying them due process to clear their name?

 

"activity or involvement" would be defined as being sufficient to convince a judge to issue an arrest warrant.

If the attacks are almost impossible to stop (which I agree), then what is the point of putting people on a secret list, denying them their Constitutional rights, and denying them due process to clear their name?

Well, I don't think you usually tell criminals you have under surveillance that they are under surveillance.
Some might call it denying rights and others regulating the militia. It's for the courts to decide, not us.
There is a method to get off the list and it is being improved by adding birth dates to names.
My thing with the list if you check, is not that I care much either way. What I point out is politically your stance is a looser.

 

There's a difference between having a suspect under surveillance and denying that suspect their rights without due process.

That expecting our government to obey the law is a political loser is not a very promising commentary, is it?

 

There's a difference between having a suspect under surveillance and denying that suspect their rights without due process.

That expecting our government to obey the law is a political loser is not a very promising commentary, is it?

Please read above again.

 

Please read above again.

Okay, I read it again. And I have the same thing to say in response. If you believe I've misinterpreted what you said, please clarify.

And while adding birthdates is an improvement, just how many of the suspected terrorists have known birthdates. For that matter, many of the suspected terrorists don't even know their own birthdates. And I guess I can only hope that the other person that I know exists that has my same first, middle, and last name and was born on the same day that I was never does anything to get put on the list.

 

Okay, I read it again. And I have the same thing to say in response. If you believe I've misinterpreted what you said, please clarify.

Some might call it denying rights and others regulating the militia. It's for the courts to decide, not us.

And while adding birthdates is an improvement, just how many of the suspected terrorists have known birthdates. For that matter, many of the suspected terrorists don't even know their own birthdates.

I think all of the American ones probably know their birthday. I guess the others just have to take there chances that they will be stopped.

And I guess I can only hope that the other person that I know exists that has my same first, middle, and last name and was born on the same day that I was never does anything to get put on the list.

Yes, if I were you I would have a long talk with him.

 

If the attacks are almost impossible to stop (which I agree), then what is the point of putting people on a secret list, denying them their Constitutional rights, and denying them due process to clear their name?

And if the current administration did do away with the "list" (that the last administration started), I can just imagine the threads that would be started here and elsewhere. They have already been called "hypocrites" for keeping the "list" going.

 

Suggestion: Please don't put the material you are quoting outside of quotes and your responses in quotes -- makes it a pain to respond:

Some might call it denying rights and others regulating the militia. It's for the courts to decide, not us.

And so we shouldn't have and opinion or voice it? Well, maybe not, since Constitutional rights are passé.

I think all of the American ones probably know their birthday. I guess the others just have to take there chances that they will be stopped.

Whether the American ones know their birthday is not the point -- if someone reports that they overheard that Bob Smith has been plotting a terrorist attack, how does that give the government enough information to know Bob Smith's birthday so that they can include along with Bob Smith's name on the list. So would they NOT add Bob Smith's name to the list (assuming the information otherwise met whatever secret criteria is needed to add them to list) just because they don't have a birthday to go along with it? That would be quite a departure from present practice since many of the people on the list are only identifiable by a name and, in many cases, that name has turned out to be pretty common and numerous people have been caught up because they happened to have the same name as someone else that was on the list. Somehow I don't see them only putting people on the list for whom they can obtain a verified birthdate.

Yes, if I were you I would have a long talk with him.

I've actually tried to track him down a few times. I learned about his existence in 1985 while talking to the FAA Aeromedical Division when I was working on my Private Pilot's ticket -- it turned out that the official I was talking to pulled up his records by mistake and that he was also working on his Private Pilot's license at the same time. He took his medical exam the same week I did and took his written exam the same day that I did, so neither one of us knew that he was looking at the wrong records for quite a while. He finally said something that didn't jive at all (I think it might have been the name of the aeromedical examiner) and so the guy confirmed my full name and birthdate, which matched, and the date of the medical, which was close enough that I thought it was correct, and then finally my social security number, which of course was completely different. So then he pulled up my record based on my SSN and told me how close of a match they were. Then, to really cap off the coincidence, just a few weeks later while I was in Basic Training one of my squad mates asked me if I had relatives and Missouri and I told him that I didn't but that I know that there was someone there with my same name, to which the guy told me that he had gone to high school with him and that's why he was asking. All I know beyond that is that this guy went on to become a professional pilot.

 

Suggestion: Please don't put the material you are quoting outside of quotes and your responses in quotes -- makes it a pain to respond:

But you did read it that time.

And so we shouldn't have and opinion or voice it? Well, maybe not, since Constitutional rights are passé.

Sure you should have an opinion, but please don't tell me mine is no good. Like it or not we have a supreme court to decide such matters. They get to decide constitutional issues. We pay them quite a bit and they have great job security - Let's get our moneys worth from them.

Whether the American ones know their birthday is not the point -- if someone reports that they overheard that Bob Smith has been plotting a terrorist attack, how does that give the government enough information to know Bob Smith's birthday so that they can include along with Bob Smith's name on the list. So would they NOT add Bob Smith's name to the list (assuming the information otherwise met whatever secret criteria is needed to add them to list) just because they don't have a birthday to go along with it?

W, this is the FBI we are talking about. Are you kidding me? I was able to find you in about 30 seconds. I'm sure they could do one or two more searches and get your birth date (I only got the year).

That would be quite a departure from present practice since many of the people on the list are only identifiable by a name and, in many cases, that name has turned out to be pretty common and numerous people have been caught up because they happened to have the same name as someone else that was on the list.

I don't know how many are on the list by name only but the airlines have been adding birth dates since 2008 so I suspect this problem is pretty small now days.

[/QUOTE]