PacManDreaming
Haven't seen that pic in a long time!

But really, is there any more decrepit pit of scum and douchery than the legislature?

tl;dr

torch: But really, is there any more decrepit pit of scum and douchery than the legislature?

Mos Eisley, perhaps?

You would think that with all that is going on in Iran the past couple of weeks, the puffed up blowhards in Washington would be doing more for personal freedoms than trying to tighten the screws even more. Even the most dimwitted of them should realize that they're going to be the first up against the wall if our turn comes.

/not that I'm advocating that
//perhaps a little good old fashioned tar & feathering
///nah, not even that yet (probably)

Terrorist watch lists are bad, and Orwellian, because they're full of mistakes and put together without due process.

They may be a necessary evil, but the no due process part is scary. One more thing left over from the past administration that I hope Obama will fix.

In pointing out the hypocrisy, isn't Instapundit admitting their own hypocrisy? Sure, it's dumb to not trust a watch list for some things but support it for gun purchases. But by being for it in some cases and not for buying a gun, how are they any better?

Here is a video of Rahm Emmanuel stating the following (at around 1:10):

"That is, if you are on the no-fly list, because you are known as maybe a possible terrorist, you cannot buy a handgun in America.

This is from the President's Chief of Staff, not some random functionary. Due process doesn't seem to be very high on Emmanuel's list of priorities.

St_Francis_P: I hope Obama will fix.

Here's a fun activity: hope into one hand and sh*t into the other and see which fills up first.

Number41: In pointing out the hypocrisy, isn't Instapundit admitting their own hypocrisy? Sure, it's dumb to not trust a watch list for some things but support it for gun purchases. But by being for it in some cases and not for buying a gun, how are they any better?

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

State_College_Arsonist Quote 2009-06-20 01:32:20 PM
Here is a video of Rahm Emmanuel stating the following (at around 1:10):

"That is, if you are on the no-fly list, because you are known as maybe a possible terrorist, you cannot buy a handgun in America.

This is from the President's Chief of Staff, not some random functionary. Due process doesn't seem to be very high on Emmanuel's list of priorities.


ne2d [TotalFark] Quote . 2009-06-20 01:32:48 PM
St_Francis_P: I hope Obama will fix.

Here's a fun activity: hope into one hand and sh*t into the other and see which fills up first.

Both of you guys are spot on. Bravo. We have much more to fear from Obama's administration regarding personal freedoms than we ever did under Bush's

Yah. I'm really pissed that the New York Times and Sen. Lautenberg instituted that watch list.

/wait... wut?

happydude45Both of you guys are spot on. Bravo. We have much more to fear from Obama's administration regarding personal freedoms than we ever did under Bush's

Yuh-huh.

Me, I'm just waiting for the Obama administration to try and put due process into play on these terrorist watch lists, and then watch the wingers cry "OH TEH NOES!!! TERRORIST LOVER!!!!11" It would be the natural progression from their current cry of "OH TEH NOES!!! GUN GRABBER!!!!11"

Call me in 2016, and if we less freedoms than we do now, you can go all Internet Tough Guy on me. If we have the same or more, you can proclaim your douchbagginess to the world (though statements like that kind-of belie that point already).

Was Lautenberg appointed this time or was he actually elected?

God. Jesus. God. That blog post made me want to burn down an orphanage. I hereby bestow upon it the "Pope RanDomino Award for Failure in Writing and Composition". There is no cash prize, but one day, when the author is least expecting it, he will be kicked in the nuts.

I probably even sympathize with what they're thinking, but, christ, THEM LIE-BER-ULZ IS-A TAKIN AHR GUNS is just... aaaaarrrghh (*sounds of ripping fabric, shattering, gunshots, a cat yowling, sirens, screaming*)

How about we have giant protest marches over the damn airport security crap, in addition to the

no-fly list. Shouldn't that have been eased up by now?

= I can't think up proper perjorative adjectives to describe the no-fly list. Maybe indicates the entire series of all perjorative words in the English language.

So, people who hold grudges get higher to remove their enemies. Not unlike those we hold in GITMO.

Yet, the same people who believe this system is valid believe that finance is self-regulating.

It's nice to see that Special Ed kids have controlled things for the past three decades.

happydude45: We have much more to fear from Obama's administration regarding personal freedoms than we ever did under Bush's

I see what you're saying, and to add to it I would just like to point out that under president Bush, we had one of the worst acts of terrorism committed against the United States. So far, under Obama, nothing.

Just throwing that out there.

pajamas media = instapundit?

MuadDib: Number41: In pointing out the hypocrisy, isn't Instapundit admitting their own hypocrisy? Sure, it's dumb to not trust a watch list for some things but support it for gun purchases. But by being for it in some cases and not for buying a gun, how are they any better?

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

I went looking for evidence of the article's author supporting the Bush administration's many desecrations of the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, including both the creation of the No Fly List, its unbridled growth, and their subsequent political abuse of it.

I didn't find any. Instead I found this article (new window), from four days after 9/11, warning and arguing against exactly such measures.

Absent any additional evidence, and despite his quoting Rush Limbaugh (and my prejudicial opinions of some of his past writings, and the awfulness of frothmitter's feverish, tumbling headline), I deem the author exonerated of the countercharge of hypocrisy in this case.

SlothB77: pajamas media = instapundit?

pajamas media ≠ instapundit

instapundit ⊆ pajamas media

Fifth Amendment - due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [snarfed from Wikipedia]

The "Terrorist watch lists" and their ilk, are all grossly unconstitutional. Unless a mindless bureaucrat, with a political axe to grind, filling out paperwork (without judicial oversight) meets the current definition of 'due process.'

I don't like terrorist watch lists any more than anyone else...but they don't violate due process rules. They didn't when Bush was in office; they don't now. They're just bad policy is all.

Terrorist watch lists are bad, and Orwellian, because they're full of mistakes and put together without due process.

...and you were supporting them for 7 1/2 years.

And now that 2 of your'n have committed terrorist acts, that makes you rather suspicious...

IlGreven: Terrorist watch lists are bad, and Orwellian, because they're full of mistakes and put together without due process.

...and you were supporting them for 7 1/2 years.

And now that 2 of your'n have committed terrorist acts, that makes you rather suspicious...

Maybe one, Von dunn (sp?) is a self proclaimed socialist, bush hater, jew hater and anti christian. Sounds more like one of yours. Your'n makes you sound even more retarded.

holmer: IlGreven: Terrorist watch lists are bad, and Orwellian, because they're full of mistakes and put together without due process.

...and you were supporting them for 7 1/2 years.

And now that 2 of your'n have committed terrorist acts, that makes you rather suspicious...

Maybe one, Von dunn (sp?) is a self proclaimed socialist, bush hater, jew hater and anti christian. Sounds more like one of yours. Your'n makes you sound even more retarded.

...aaand ignore.

/Stop listening to Rush.

Here's the thing

I would be willing to bet that a large majority of those who oppose using the terrorist watch list to prevent people on it from buying guns (because of all the mistakes, etc. inherent in the system and the lack of due process) are the same people arguing that all those captured and held in Gitmo were most assuredly there for perfectly valid reasons and due process does not apply to them.

You see, when it comes to them - the government is a big ol' blundering, buffoonish leviathan that is steamrolling their rights for no good reason. But, when the government is dealing with others, the government is without fault and the other people brought their troubles upon themselves. That there's no question about their guilt or innocence and we shouldn't bother trying to tell the difference, just keep them locked up forever (or put a bullet in their brain) because the government doesn't make mistakes.

The news site that hired Joe the Not Really A Plumber and thinks people don't deserve due process if they are imprisoned over being accused of terrorism are up in arms (yuk yuk) over people accused of being terrorist not getting due process. . .

It boggles the mind.

lawboy87: Here's the thing

I would be willing to bet that a large majority of those who oppose using the terrorist watch list to prevent people on it from buying guns (because of all the mistakes, etc. inherent in the system and the lack of due process) are the same people arguing that all those captured and held in Gitmo were most assuredly there for perfectly valid reasons and due process does not apply to them.

You see, when it comes to them - the government is a big ol' blundering, buffoonish leviathan that is steamrolling their rights for no good reason. But, when the government is dealing with others, the government is without fault and the other people brought their troubles upon themselves. That there's no question about their guilt or innocence and we shouldn't bother trying to tell the difference, just keep them locked up forever (or put a bullet in their brain) because the government doesn't make mistakes.

THIS I've never understood the ability to hold those two fundamentally opposite views at the same time. It really doesn't make sense. I've known people who assume that if the police arrest someone they're automatically guilty and deserve no rights - unless, of course, they themselves have been accused of something (which they may very well have done), in which case the cops are a bunch of bumbling incompetents and/or fascists.

Cozret: The news site that hired Joe the Not Really A Plumber and thinks people don't deserve due process if they are imprisoned over being accused of terrorism are up in arms (yuk yuk) over people accused of being terrorist not getting due process. . .

It boggles the mind.

Clearly you either didn't bother to click the link or you're a complete moron. My guess is it's both.

eraser8: I don't like terrorist watch lists any more than anyone else...but they don't violate due process rules. They didn't when Bush was in office; they don't now. They're just bad policy is all.

This is just completely wrong. If being on one of these lists (the no-fly list, for instance), restricts your ability to travel (your LIBERTY, if you will), and placing an individual on such a list is done without DUE PROCESS OF LAW, it is unconstitutional. The same holds true if being on the list restricts your activities or freedom in any other manner.

This stupidity was unconstitutional from the moment of conception. Having a bunch of hand-picked whores in the JD rubber stamp administration actions does not make those actions magically compliant with the constitutional strictures the government is bound by.