Skip to main content

Where the rule of law meets the war on terror

You gotta love how the NYT starts this story about the FBI's Terror Watch List and firearm purchases:

WASHINGTON — People on the government’s terrorist watch list tried to buy guns nearly 1,000 times in the last five years, and federal authorities cleared the purchases 9 times out of 10 because they had no legal way to stop them, according to a new government report.

In one case, a person on the list was able to buy more than 50 pounds of explosives.

The new statistics, compiled in a report from the Government Accountability Office that is scheduled for public release next week, draw attention to an odd divergence in federal law: people placed on the government’s terrorist watch list can be stopped from getting on a plane or getting a visa, but they cannot be stopped from buying a gun.

Gun purchases must be approved unless federal officials can find some other disqualification of the would-be buyer, like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or a drug addict.

“This is a glaring omission, and it’s a security issue,” Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who requested the study, said in an interview.


You see, the supposed problem is that people on the FBI's terror watch list haven't committed any crimes (yet!) and therefore can't be prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights, even though the FBI has the unconstitutional ability to keep them from flying or acquiring a visa.

How do you get on the watch list?

You have to be suspected of links to known terrorists. That's it. The government does not have to prove anything, or present evidence to anybody, or even tell you that you are on the list.

There are now over 1,000,000 Americans on the FBI Terror Watch list.

Worse: a Justice Department report in May indicated that at least 24,000 people have been placed on the list by mistake, or through the use of outdated data.

All of those people are already required to undergo a three-day waiting period to see if the government can dig up any incriminating information that can be used under the law to deny them the purchase. Over the past five years, the FBI has been able to do so in 98 cases.

So what Senator Frank Lautenberg wants is the abiity of the US Attorney General to deny firearm sales to American citizens who have committed no crime and have no legal disqualifiers for owning a weapon.

This stinks on so many levels that it is difficult to elucidate them all.

But I'll try:

1) Association with known terrorists is an incredibly loose term (the kind that law enforcement prefers) that generally is focused on people who might frequent the same mosques, have similar mutual acquaintances, or send money to the same charities. If they were actually meeting with terrorists with outstanding warrants, they'd be doing something culpable--but in general they aren't. Instead, they are exercising their First Amendment rights to free association, which is apparently now grounds to violate other constitutionally guaranteed rights.

2) You don't get informed you are on the watch list until you try to fly or obtain a visa or purchase a weapon, and then there's relatively little if anything you can do about it. You cannot take the government to court, and you cannot demand to see the evidence that has condemned you.

3) Senator Lautenberg's intent is to create a completely new category of Americans who can be deprived of their civil rights: the suspected. If we can deny them travel, then why can't we deny them guns? If we can deny them guns, then why can't we deny them driver's licenses? If we can deny them driver's licenses.... This is not an imaginary slippery slope, it is one we've alread slid several feet down.

It does highlight a very interesting loophole in the Bill of Rights that needs some attention: along with Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of the Press, what about Freedom of Movement?

Should not the ability to move around freely in America and to access mass transit be a right and not a privilege?

Ah, but if you have taken your shoes off in airports as many times in the past two years as I have, you know the truth: we all travel only on the government's sufferance.

Comments

Townie 76 said…
The whole terror watch list reminds me of the scene in Animal House when the Delta House is told they are "double secret probation" and no one knows what it means, except it is an excuse for the University to get rid of the Deltas. There are some, on both sides of the aisle who believe merely making the list is reason to deny an individual of "inalienable" right.

Maybe what this means is Animal House wasn't fiction!
UNRR said…
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 6/22/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Anonymous said…
one in a million purchased explosives...

he wasn't arrested, so he must have had the proper liscenses to buy them.

just wondering, is that a million Americans on the watch list.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...