If you want to bar someone from buying a gun, go to court and present evidence that the accused is bad.
Before the bodies were removed from the Pulse nightclub in Orlando last week, Democrats began eagerly exploiting that atrocity to demand a new, secret “terrorist watchlist”: something that was once the domestic centerpiece of the Bush/Cheney war-on-terror mentality. Led by their propaganda outlet, Center for American Progress (CAP), Democrats now want to empower the Justice Department — without any judicial adjudication — to unilaterally bar citizens who have not been charged with (let alone convicted of) any crime from purchasing guns.
Worse than the measure itself is the rancid rhetoric they are using. To justify this new list, Democrats, in unison, are actually arguing that the U.S. government must constrain people whom they are now calling “potential terrorists.” Just spend a moment pondering how creepy and Orwellian that phrase is in the context of government designations.
What is a “potential terrorist”? Isn’t everyone that? And who wants the U.S. government empowered to unilaterally restrict what citizens can do based on predictions or guesses about what they might become or do in the future? Does anyone have any doubt that this will fall disproportionately on certain groups and types of people?
The Democrats’ most extreme attack on due process comes, unsurprisingly, from that party’s supremely authoritarian Terror Warrior, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose bill would “give the attorney general the discretion to block a sale to a given individual suspected of involvement of some kind in terrorism.” In their effort to exploit Orlando and other recent mass shootings, Feinstein and the Democrats encountered a serious problem: Neither Omar Mateen, nor the racist Charleston killer Dylann Roof, nor numerous other mass shooters, were on any terrorist watchlist (Mateen was investigated by the FBI, which — rightly — closed its file on him in 2014 after it found no evidence of wrongdoing). So Feinstein wrote a special provision in her bill to obviate this objection, one empowering the attorney general to put anyone on the banned list “who has been investigated in the last five years for ‘conduct related to a Federal crime of terrorism’” — even if they were ultimately found to have done nothing wrong.
After Feinstein’s bill was rejected last night on a largely party-line vote by the Senate, the Democrats unleashed a fearmongering messaging campaign so exploitative and deceitful that it would have made Karl Rove blush with embarrassment, or at least seethe with envy.
So now, in the lexicon of the leading liberal lights of the Democratic Party, someone deemed by the U.S. government to be suspicious — placed in secret on a list, with no evidence presented and no court process — is the equivalent of “ISIS.” And to demand due process be accorded — says this Harvard Law Professor — is to arm ISIS.
To see how deep down the authoritarian hole Democrats reside, consider this 1987 New York Times editorial raging against Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese for arguing that criminal suspects don’t deserve Miranda warnings. Meese’s rationale: “You don’t have many suspects who are innocent of crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.” Said the NYT editors in response: “In other words, guilty until proven guilty.” That’s exactly what Elizabeth Warren and Chris Murphy believe: If the U.S. government views you as suspicious, that is proof of your guilt. Thus, a “suspect” is the same as “ISIS.”
Even worse was the messaging that came from an operative with CAP, who has become a little Twitter star among the Democratic faithful for his endless Cheneyite exploitation of terrorism fears to attack Republicans and justify gun watchlists. This is how he described Feinstein’s bill:
It’s hard to put into words how appalling that is. This CAP official is not only outright lying about Feinstein’s bill: pretending that it bars “terrorists” — rather than people placed on a suspicion watchlist — from buying guns. Worse than rank dishonesty, he is literally, explicitly equating people who will be deemed suspicious by the U.S. government — overwhelmingly Muslim, needless to say — with “terrorists.” As Sam Adler-Bell put it about this tweet, “Referring to all people on the DOJ’s watchlist as ‘terrorists’ is legally incorrect and ethically ugly.” In Volsky’s mind, or at least in his propaganda, anyone deemed by the government to be suspicious is now a “terrorist” — no evidence needed, no trial held, no due process accorded.
For eight years, this mentality was the driving force behind the worst Bush/Cheney war-on-terror abuses. No matter what the extremist policy was — indefinite detention, warrantless eavesdropping, torture, no-fly lists, Guantánamo, rendition, CIA black sites — Republicans would justify it by saying it was merely being done to “terrorists” and would accuse their due process-advocating critics of wanting to “protect terrorists.” What they actually meant was that all of this was being done to people accused by the U.S. government of involvement in terrorism. But in their mind, “government accusations of terrorism” were synonymous with “proof of guilt.”
That is exactly the warped, Orwellian formulation Democrats embrace: As is extremely obvious, the Democrats’ definition of “terrorist” is “anyone whom the U.S. government suspects of being a terrorist.” Just as was true of all those GOP abuses, what makes these Democratic proposals so dangerous is that they constitute a war on the most basic right of due process. As Vox’s Dara Lind explained, “If you give the government more power to ban terrorists from having guns, you’re reinforcing the power it has to define who counts as a terrorist.” That’s why the ACLU yesterday wrote to the Senate and denounced Feinstein’s bill:
It’s tempting for some Democratic faithful to believe that their party leaders do not really believe in this blatant attack on due process, but instead are just doing this as a political tactic, a form of trolling to place Republicans in an uncomfortable position on gun control. Though believing that might make Democrats feel better, it is pure fantasy, utterly unsustainable by looking at the naked reality of the Democratic Party.
That theory might have some viability if Democrats had spent the last eight years fighting against the Bush/Cheney no-fly list and other forms of due process-free “terrorism” punishments. But the opposite is true: They have aggressively defended and expanded those policies. As The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux reported in 2014 after they obtained (and published) the U.S. government’s 166-page secret watchlist guidelines, “The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system” — ushering in massive increases in both the number of people on those lists and the ease of placing them on it.
It’s not just that there are huge numbers of people on the watchlist who have done nothing wrong. It’s much worse than that: People who are acquitted of the charges against them can and do remain on the watchlist if the FBI wants them to. As an ACLU report this year documented:
So it’s not that the Democrats have tried but were thwarted by the Big, Bad Republicans to get rid of secret watchlists, and are now using that against the GOP as some sort of genius rhetorical move. Just like George Bush and Dick Cheney did, Democrats love secret, due process-free terror watchlists. They have aggressively expanded their usage — overwhelmingly against American Muslims — and are now seeking to create a whole new list for an entirely different purpose. They’re doing this because they believe in it, and because they do not believe in due process.
But none of this should be surprising. This is who the Democratic Party is. They have proven over and over that they believe that the definition of “terrorist” is “someone whom the U.S. government suggests, in secret, might be a terrorist.”
Thus they have cheered all sorts of attacks on due process in the name of fearmongering over terrorism. Obama presided over a significant increase in mass surveillance. He has gone around the world, in at least seven predominantly Muslim countries, killing people with bombs and missiles shot by drones, then justifying it on the ground that the people he wanted to kill were terrorists. Democrats even stood and cheered as the Obama administration asserted (and exercised) the right to target U.S. citizens for execution via drone, based on nothing more than suspicion and government accusations; they even went to court to deny a father the right to have his American son have his day in court before being killed by the U.S. government.
[It should go without saying that Republicans here are no better. They watched approvingly for years as Bush and Cheney implemented this due process-free system of watchlists and secret punishments for terror suspects because it was predominantly affecting Muslims, and only began caring this year when their system (predictably) expanded, now to include gun rights. As I discussed last night with the ACLU’s Hina Shamsi:
Indeed, this is the 2003 document that created these secret, due process-free watchlists that Democrats have embraced and are now seeking to expand:
Moreover, for years, fearmongering about terrorism and accusing due process-advocating liberals of loving al Qaeda were staples of the GOP’s rhetoric. And GOP leaders still have not lost their touch when it comes to exploiting terror fears; just this week, Mitch McConnell plans to introduce a bill to expand secret, warrantless domestic surveillance by invoking Orlando.]
The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of “due process” is really not that complicated: It provides that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This is not some ancillary luxury; it’s one of the few genuine safeguards against tyranny. If you want to ban someone from buying a gun because you believe they’re a Terrorist or otherwise a Bad Person, then go create a procedure where the government must go to an actual court, present evidence, the accused can respond, and then a judicial ruling is issued. What kind of a person opposes that?
Steine or Johnson!
Stein or Johnson would do.
If anyone thinks Hillary marches by the beat of her own drum they are mistaken. She will be a tyrant to the extreme if she gets into the Oval Office. She will combine the unConstitutional beliefs of Congressional Democrats with her own to perfect the smashing of everything great this country stands for. Look at what Hillary tried to do to Nixon during his scandal that got her fired.
I think Congress has flare ups of pseudo spontaneous lawmaking. It’s lawmaking action that doesn’t make law. All 4 of those bills died as precipitously as they appeared.
Gun bills following a mass shooting have a lifespan of a Mayfly. You have the Dems dead-to-rights. They sign off on a hell of a lot of surveillance bureau initiatives and they greenlight a lot of secret funding for secret-police junk and no checks and balances to keep it from being corrupted nearly immediately. The lists have always been a bypass for due process.
Bernie isn’t necessarily the end of the golden age of surveillance. Nor Hillary. Definitely not Trump. So who does that leave? Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.
I can’t believe anyone still listens to one of the biggest thieves in Congress. How many millions has Feinstein and her husband made off the blood of humans around the world?
Feinstein should be on trial as a terrorist just like the rest of the USA government. The slaves making more rules to run their dog and pony show.
I wish that COWARDLY Finstein was sitting behind bars with all the rest of the murdering terrorist that sit in our congress. USA government is full of them.
It sucks to be an American. Wish one of our cowardly government drones would drop on Feinstein’s head, giving her back what she has dished out to so many millions of people. Feinstein should be stood before a firing squad for her TREASON and selling of the USA.
This woman supposedly represents CA. That is total BS, this thief only steps foot in CA to shovel more corrupt money into her pockets. She does not represent CA except in her out of touch brain. This terrorist has done NOTHING for the people of CA except bring us more shame! RETIRE or be put on trial, I don’t care which. The American people need relief from this 83 year old terrorist hag! How many drugs does she take each day? I don’t like the idea of drug addicts running the country. That is what we got though, read it and weep. America the F**Ked!
The administration, the congress, and the Supreme Court, have all become the enemy of democracy. It is all about wealth and power now because none of these elected officials are legally allowed to represent their constituents. They only represent those who put them into power. Obama supported the Insurance Industry and Wall Street because their cash put him over the top! The people have never mattered to dictators and strongmen like Obama.
Good article.
Absolutely stunning, Jewish Nazi tactics. According to The Forward,
“A new website is publicizing the identities of pro-Palestinian student activists to prevent them from getting jobs after they graduate from college. But the website is keeping its own backers’ identity a secret.
“It is your duty to ensure that today’s radicals are not tomorrow’s employees,” a female narrator intones in a slick video posted to the website’s YouTube account.”
>Jewish Nazi tactics
Wait, are you one of those people who think the Holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy or something?
Thank you for a well constructed article on this matter – real journalism.
Nice picture of Feinstein – if you put a black cloak over her head she’d pass for Darth Sidious, the Emperor in “The Empire Strikes Back”.
BTW, does anyone see any similarity between Hillary Clinton and Angela Lansbury in “The Manchurian Candidate”.
I liked it when Greenwald compared not being able to buy a rooty tooty point-n-shooty to torture and not informing the less educated about their rights against self-incrimination. This is probably the worst-structured take I’ve seen from GG.
Glenn G. right on once again, and for all the right reasons. The Dems are blowing smoke instead of proposing real gun control legislation. Instead of a ban on assault rifles or common sense background checks, let’s keep Laura Poitras from buying a gun and see how that works…
President Bush said “either you are for us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by this nation as a hostile regime,”
Those on the no-fly list are known terrorist suspects. By insisting they should be able to buy weapons, the GOP is, by its own definition, a regime hostile to the USA.
Really? How far up your ass did you have to reach for that pile of crap. Yusuf Islam is on the no fly list. He is Cat Stevens. Several members of Congress have been on it. A six month old baby was on it. So you are telling me that they are known terrorists? Known by whom? Did you even read this article or did you like so many other people who were home schooled by middle school drop-outs read the headline, first sentence and then rearranged the priorities of all the prejudices you learned by age 14 and wrote this stupid comment based on it? The Dems and the Rethugs are both wrong and you aren’t even well educated enough to understand why even tho Glen just explained it very clearly and concisely!
lol
I’m for any law that prevents any citizen from buying an assault rifle. You gotta take your defeats over the NRA where you can.
Hey GG, just what does “Well Regulated” mean to you?
Excellent article put into perspective with fair reporting & no bias. Nice work, Glenn Greenwald. Thank you!
The turning of our land into an armed camp only promotes more and more violence to be used by those that profit from arms to further benefit from what they have promoted by turning our land into a shooting gallery. It is long past time for public safety with gun control that is as effective as it is in lands that in an entire year have fewer gun tragedies than the American people suffer in one day. The idea that one can protect a loved one with a gun in such a place of violence is absurd to the point that such a dysfunctional thinker will not be able to go everyplace at all times with those who he fantasizes he would be protecting. Such fear-filled individuals are a danger unto themselves and everyone around them and when one such frightened gun packer would bump into another how soon will one of them start firing away without taking time to ask and trust, “Are you a good guy with a gun?”
While I agree with everything Mr Greenwald says about the “Terrorist” watchlist, I’m not with him in his implication that the Dems must not be allowed to succeed. Indeed, getting “No Fly, No Buy” passed would be the best thing for due process.
As long as the the target suspects of terrorist watch list are the “Mohammad’s” and “Abdula’s” or the world, the GOP will remain full-throated supports of the list. But once you get the “Cliven’s” and “Wayne’s” involved…well…if there is one organization that can curtail “constitutionality,” (perceived or real) it’s the NRA.
Very well-rounded article that a included counter arguments and viewed both sides of the spectrum.
Thanks Glenn, your article is a breath of fresh air. I’m progressive on most issues and believe _all_ amendments in our Bill of Rights are important including the 2nd amendment. The hysteria and authoritarian tendencies of the Democrats on gun rights is over the top. “Gun control” would not have helped the victims from the Boston Marathon massacre, and did not help the 130+ victims in Paris which has tight gun restriction. If people want to harm other people they will find a way – gun or no gun. What we need to do is take away the reason people want to retaliate: Omar Mateen plainly stated to Orlando victims that he was doing this to make America stop bombing Afghanistan. He told the 911 operator he was doing this to make America stop bombing Syria and Iraq. Instead of running around taking away everybody’s guns, why don’t the Democrats attack the real issue that has caused so many deaths… U.S. foreign policy? Or would that hurt their pocketbooks too much?
Yes, We can’t expect our government to pass and practice effective gun control to stop violence while our government itself is spreading weapons and violence world wide.
“Democrats” (including the unpressed icon of the moment) and “hypocrisy” have far more in common than mere word length, wouldn’t you say?
Greenwald does great public service as an outspoken watchdog against government overreach. When it comes to preventing terrorism suspects from purchasing firearms, however, he is wrong to say that such a law would violate the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. The clause says that no person should be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Purchasing a firearm does not fall under any of those three categories: deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Instead, the ability to purchase a firearm is comparable to the purchase of a car or of medication, both of which are highly regulated. The former cannot be done without insurance, the latter without a prescription, because there is reasonable risk that the purchaser may have an accident or be self-medicating. Similarly, one can constitutionally restrict the accessibility of firearms if there is sufficient risk that the potential purchaser intends to do harm.
No Escaping Truth..!
No Hillary, Not Ever ? #NeverHillary
Senior Veteran for #Bernie2016 or Bust.
Thanks, Glen, you have outlined the actions that disproves the herbage.
Our problem is that we are being railroaded by the powers that have been put in place by the corporate coup to watch the Queen of the empire enthroned. The corporate media tries to keep up the facade of democracy, so I suppose that means “we the people” must still possess some power.
I hope we find where that power lies before the climate activists are on terrorist watch lists and locked up in little cages everywhere, or privatized prisons.
all of this is futile as long as the US continues to arm terrorist . in the Mideast. Leaves guns weapons all over the world.
The Second Amendment got created to protect the institution of slavery. Read the article on Truthout.
The US constitution itself was created to protect the minority ruling class from the peasants. And it applies to peasants also. What’s your point?
Regulation of firearms can come under the police powers of the constitution. In the US constitution is Article 1, sec. 8 in the Proper and Necessary Clause and for the states it is under the 10th amendment.Doesn’t the amendment itself say: A WELL REGULATED MILITIA? What does “regulated” mean? Check it out.
The Supreme Court looked at all that and ruled quite a while ago… against your view.
I don’t know how many gun-ophiles watch Colbert….It’s hard for them to get wifi reception down in the bunker, where they are waiting, pistol in hand, to repel a government black ops team that is standing ready to swoop in and sign them up for Obama-Care.
“Since when does 8 percent of the population get to have total control of an issue? ” I dunno… since 0.5% got total control over who uses public school restrooms?
those pesky minorities and their views. how dare they exist under a system of governance setup to thwart mob rule democracy.
If Colbert was correct that 92% of Americans supported that move, then senators opposing it could not possibly be re-elected. Gerrymandering doesn’t work as an excuse, as Senator is a statewide vote. After Manchin-Toomey failed to expand background checks, one of the bills supporters said “When 90 percent of the people want something, and the senator votes against them, the next election, we’re going to take care of those senators, because they’re not representing the people.”
In the next election, in 2014, the Republicans increased the number of Senate seats they held.
Which means either the polls waved around by Colbert, Obama, and others are wrong, or they’re being misinterpreted. Results speak for themselves. If 92% of Americans were *genuinely* being ignored, the Republicans would end as a political party.
The truth is that the anti-gun left is trying desperately to make it look as though they have more support than exists in the real world. It’s a propaganda tactic. It’s not working.
JFC, I just saw this tweet to Elizabeth Warren:
“Thank you SenEW. #GOP #obstructionism is literally killing us.”
Warren’s tweet says:
“Back in DC & ready to vote to #disarmhate by expanding background checks & stopping terrorists from buying guns.”
https://twitter.com/OleHippieChick/status/745028763881189376
“$206 Mn. to Hate Groups to Promote anti-Muslim Sentiment” at http://www.juancole.com/2016/06/groups-promote-sentiment.html
Excerpt:
“If we had 33 influential organizations funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars whose express purpose was to spread hatred of Jews, there’d be a big outcry. But this is no different.”
—–
Whether this report is true or false, or exaggerated, the Muslims nevertheless need to re-act with love, kindness, generosity, serving others with no expectations, forgiveness, peace, humility, etc.
Love connects and unites different people, who are from diverse roots and cultures.
That would be the ….”utilitarian” argument for hate, I suppose. You don’t actually have to be a bigot, in your heart, to see the usefulness, of bigotry, in support of wars of aggression,(Iraq), colonialism (Israel’s occupation of Palestine), or, simply to win the next US election (Trump/Clinton)
Nah, they’re not that calculating, for the most part. They really do hate Muslims.
haha. I agree.
The main point of this article should really be that there really isn’t a smidgen of difference between the two ruling parties. You can find plenty of examples of each literally trying to take your rights away. How about this week when Senator Manchin said that “due process” was the main hurdle with the pending legislation. They don’t even try to hide it anymore. They know most people will subjugate themselves when the dreaded fear mongering reaches its peak. Can you say “V” for Vendetta? Though a little over the top- the movie really says it all about how easily people can be manipulated. So sad.
Exactly. The two party system is dead in the water, and has been for quite sometime. Both severely lack any depth or rigor in their analysis of ANY issue. They just use the same old vocabulary over and over again.
In this case, who cares? Guns may kill some 2000 people a year in America. Pharmaceuticals kill some 100,000. Pharmaceutical companies rake in billions a year prescribing extremely potent drugs to children, and use their own funded research to bypass the FDA regulations. Where is the outcry about that? Oh right, I forgot once a massive amount of money is involved politicians are silent.
There is also the mental illness clause. Anyone who has ever been prescribed Adderall, Ritalin, Xanax, Prozac, Zoloft etc. could automatically be added to the gun restriction list. This could be used to disarm Americans en masse. The only evidence needed is a prescription which would obviate the whole due process argument.
The no fly list has an interesting history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
So much for privacy of a person’s medical records, huh?
Next up, anyone meeting to discuss opposing any of this with their lawyer to be deemed a potential threat. As officers of the court, lawyers will be required to inform on their clients so as to create mistrust and effectively nullify legal assistance.
It’s just GREAT to be an AMERICAN.
Thanks, Glenn, for saying what needs to be said – apparently, needing to be repeated, over and over again.
So many posts way off point ; but sorry Glenn, while I agree with you on nearly all issues, your position is wrong here. After having another 49 souls massacred by the another MONSTER who had EASY ACCESS to an ASSAULT WEAPON, the time has got to be here to try to end this sick madness. And I guess as an educator and gay man I may be feeling doubly vulnerable. I don’t believe requiring a “suspected terrorist” go through extra due-process in order to purchase a weapon is depriving him or her of any legal rights. I am sick & tired of peoples (gun nuts) supposed 2nd Amendment rights superseding all peoples rights to LIVE in (again) supposedly modern society.
“extra due-process”
Oooh! That’s a good one. Authoritarians and hysterical cowards who refuse to (or who are unable to) understand simple statistics say the darnedest things.
You and Eric Holder must be buddies:
~Your friend, the former attorney general, explaining why the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen was legal and constitutional.
I am sick and tired of cowards who can’t count (or think) ignorantly aligning themselves with the forces of authoritarianism that have been galloping across the American landscape, imprisoning all in their path.
What Doug said.
Just watch Glenn’s explanation of civil liberties under the US constitution, and you’ll understand the reasons for his article. It’s a long one, but it’s one of the best videos on the Internet. Watch at your leisure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikCUHh3Ge_k
Because of my inclusion in Washington’s “terrorists list”, the terrorist government of the USA has twice in the last six months sent the NYPD to raid my apartment at gun point without a search warrant.
Who are the terrorists ?
Really? that is awful. Can you tell me more? WTF?
“If you want to ban someone from buying a gun because you believe they’re a Terrorist or otherwise a Bad Person, then go create a procedure where the government must go to an actual court, present evidence, the accused can respond, and then a judicial ruling is issued. What kind of a person opposes that?”
Villainous, obsequious, oath breaking traitors
To go this far in lieu of a ban on assault rifles, which I would wholeheartedly support, is breathtaking to me.
I feel like Giles Corey, being pressed with stones.
No one would take this path unless they hated their own people.
Assault rifles have already been largely prohibited from public sale and use for decades.
Are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that ‘look cool’?
No, I’m sure he’s referring to actual assault rifles. It’s the pro-gun loonies in this argument that are turning to semantics and pretending otherwise. The Sig Sauer semi-automatic rifle used by Mateen was developed partially in response to U.S. Special Forces requests and specifications. So tell us – what do the U.S. Special Forces do, and does a civilian need a rifle used by the military to conduct “assaults”?
here’s some information for you regarding the ASSAULT RIFLE used by the Orlando shooter:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/assault-rifle-used-by-orlando-mass-shooter
Yeah, Mother Jones is a great source for unbiased gun reporting. /s
If I weren’t the peace-loving, antiwar activist I am and have been for decades, I’d be tempted to send these hysterical ignoramuses (who think a weapon’s fitness for purpose is determined by its appearance) into combat with civilian versions of the AR 15 and the Sig Sauer MCX.
But it would be hard to work up any genuine schadenfreude over their likely last words:
“Oh! That’s why is isn’t really an assault weap. . .”
It is amazing how, when the Dems adopt the most vicious policies of their Republican predecessors, they so easily bring their followers along.
The danger with reformers like Warren and Sanders is that they have a very narrow view of reform and retain a view of the U.S. as a moral force in the world that is rightfully “defended” in any way possible. And that is one reason why we see them supporting these unconstitutional policies.
This signals that violence against citizens will continue to grow. The oligarchs have no intention of remedying the grotesque inequality in wealth we see in this country and elsewhere, and they are preparing for growing unrest, especially as critical resources such as water become more endangered. Anything that makes incarceration easier will help them.
I fear that people may be killed at the Dem convention. The “violence” charges against Sanders supporters that we saw during the primaries and that continue to be spread in the MSM and among Hillary supporters will be seen as justification for brutal repression in Philadelphia, I think.
This fearmongering against gun rights is married to the campaign against privacy rights. Sounds just like of Hillary Clinton, after the San Bernardino shooting (and now), targeting the powerful tool of end-to-end encryption and arguing that we have to accept more surveillance, more censorship, further restrictions on rights of privacy and free expression: “[W]e have to deny them [ISIS, et. al.] online space… we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating.” She has no problem “waving off” the concerns of those who insist on protecting those rights, with a dismissive: “You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera.”
Gun rights, free-speech rights, yada, yada.
It’s the off the same “War on Terror” template: No, really, Orlando, ISIS, c’mon now! We just must accept new restrictions on some of our fundamental rights (perfunctory nod to free speech, gun ownership). And even though, yeah, our government hasn’t always been so careful when we surrendered some of our rights in the past, and even though we’ve been criticizing the very programs and agencies we will be surrendering them to this time (the no-fly list, the NSA), we just have to trust it. It’s our government, out to protect us, after all — this imperial American state. It’s adequate enough.
See post covering the politics of this in depth, at:
Lawyers, Guns, and Twitter: Gun Battles and Class Struggle after San Bernardino
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2016/01/lawyers-guns-and-twitter-gun-battles.html
Huh? “fearmongering against gun rights.” OMG! No guns have been illegally confiscated, no assault weapons ban being considered, no rights taken away even after school kids massacred, theater goers murdered, gay club-goers cut down, etc, etc, On the contrary, gun-rights are expanded.. gun sales skyrocket. The ONLY fear-mongering has come from gun lovers/nuts like you!
Great, great job here, Glenn.
It’s very discouraging that these abuses are embraced by so many on “both sides of the aisle.” These lawmakers take an oath to defend our Constitution and it seems it is getting totally disrespected and ignored.
On top of this, TPTB want MORE surveillance powers. I’m not sure I want to follow the news any more. It’s just getting too depressing.
Update, they’re trying again:
“. . . were it proved they were put on the list by error.”
Just what the fuck might that mean?
Umm. . . “No, Your Honor, it wasn’t an error. I fully intended to put that individual on the list.”
Well, in the immor
tal words of Eric Holder:They just increased gun sales. I’m buying mine tomorrow since I’m on the selectee list. I get harassed every time I come into the US as does my spouse.
M sure after I buy it, it will only be a matter of months before a police officer shows up to demand I turn it over to the Govt.
Yup. And the proposed (very bad) legislation is unlikely to both pass and be upheld in the courts.
I don’t know how long they’ve had lists that we didn’t, previously, know about, but I’ve been harassed every time going back to the 80s.
Of course, I was a dangerous anti-war activist from the Vietnam era, and you can never be too careful about people who oppose war. And, of course, it would certainly be dangerous to let them have guns. ;^(
Its genius from the gov’t perspective because it allows them to abridge our constitutional right to gun ownership while effectively shifting the burden to the citizen to defend this right in a circumstance that is nearly impossible to prove. Most don’t know why they are on a no fly list. I mean if you are involved in a protest or march against gov’t oppression, fraudulent elections, police killings, environmental injustice you could potentially be labled a domestice terrorist. This is total BS.
Yup. You nailed it.
law***cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection
The Cornell law review says that the principle of strict scrutiny applies to any law “burdens one’s right to exercise a Fundamental Right” which they mention Travel specifically, Due Process & the Bill of Rights.
Where’s the Strict Scrutiny in the Watch listing process? And can the ACLU challenge the watch list under these concepts?
It’s apt Glenn that you referenced Orwell ,because THOUGHT CRIME is the next step with a Global Hive Mind connecting all of us and administering punishment when we step out of line.
Absolutely dead on, as usual. Thank you for your reporting. Perhaps one day Americans will stop treating principle and their hard fought liberties as though the stuff of two competing NFL football teams where they look no further than “my team” versus “the other team.” Perhaps one day they will realize both teams are playing the same exact game and, most importantly, are owned by the same small group of people.
Thanks for what you guys do, please keep it up.
Great article.
Such explicit statements (and their implicit assumptions and connotations) may have sounded, utterly irrational, incredibly “UnAmerican” some time ago. I wonder what may still sound utterly irrational, incredibly “UnAmerican” a few years from now (if anything) …
RCL
everything is to be redacted…..
I am Muslim, and I do not recognize the rights of homosexuals, but I would not support their murder either. This terrorism gives Islam a bad name.
I don’t believe gun ownership, with the exception of hunting rifles in rural settings, should be a right for anyone. The law is outdated and wrong. The right not to live in danger should be fundamental but isn’t. The right to travel should be fundamental but isn’t, yet somehow the right to own military equipment is. Should people have the right to any military equipment, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, helicopters, missiles? The logical conclusion is that if gun ownership shouldn’t be a right, then denying any group this is not a denial of anyone’s rights. From the backwards legal starting point the US finds itself in, legally speaking it is wrong to deny rights to one group and not others. This isn’t a legal argument I’m making but a philosophical and moral one. No one should have the right to own handguns or assault weapons. With roughly 70,000 gun deaths excluding suicides per year, the right not to live in fear should absolutely supersede the second amendment.
“With roughly 70,000 gun deaths excluding suicides . . .”
You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
In 2013, according to CDC, there were a total of 33,169 firearms-related deaths. 21,175 were suicides. I’m going to let you look it up yourself, because you clearly need research practice.
“. . . the right not to live in fear should absolutely supersede the second amendment.”
There is no “right not to live in fear” and there never could be, because, among other things various people are afraid of any- and/or everything, real, reasonable or otherwise. It’s a ridiculous idea on its face.
I have bad news for you: in a nation governed by law (would you prefer some other basis for governance?), where the basis for the law is a written constitution, that constitution is superseded by nothing, except amendment or revolution.
There are plenty of places where gun ownership isn’t a right. Some of them are very nice, in many ways nicer places than the US. If this is a central issue in your life, I suggest you look into living in one of those places, because there is simply no realistic possibility that the situation in the US is going to change to align with your preferences.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/21/gun-control-debate-mass-shootings-gun-violence
The link above suggests 20,000 suicides and 80,000 more gun deaths.
Right not to live in fear, I clarified that point below already.
As for living in the US. I have never even visited the US, and I wouldn’t want to either. I live in Taiwan, a country of 25 million which had I believe zero gun murders last year.
People less dogmatic than yourself understand that laws can be changed, often are changed and are very often wrong.
If I misquoted the article and included serious injuries in that statistic that was an error, nevertheless the numbers are still enormously high. That is undeniable.
No, they are not. In comparison with other causes of death they are trivial.
Now, you have no idea what you’re talking about, you are statistically illiterate, and I’m finished with you.
Doug, you’re a moron. Morally illiterate. Clearly socially illiterate as well. 10.4 per 100,000 is ridiculously high and you know it. Go back to the gun range.
“Is superseded by nothing, except amendment or revolution”
Constitutional Convention
Included in “amendment.” See Article V.
And don’t hold your breath, unless such a convention is successfully called. In that case, hold your breath, cross your fingers, knock on wood and pray.
Just to clarify, the right not to live in fear is a vague statement with obvious potential for abuse. I mean specifically the right not to live in a society made dangerous because people have the right to own military equipment.
Perhaps, because the client is always right? and because guns don’t kill people …?
The Swiss with one of the highest Guns per capita (children learn to shoot in primary school) has the lowest crime rate in the world. Do you know who is Switzerland’s President or Prime Minister? I guess you don’t, neither do I, because even though they benefited greatly from the love affair with Nazi during WWII, they have been able to retain the old Germanic societal ways as part of their democracy. Their president walks around even in gun fairs without any kind of “protection” from their secret service or guns himself.
The Swiss aren’t really multicultural for speaking three languages and having keine Amtssprache (contrary to English in the U.S., Europeans have always seen being multilingual as entirely natural (they give a sh!t about it, but minimally)). Do they have problems? Sure they do! But I’d wish we had their problems.
// __ Guns in Switzerland [Al Jazeera]
youtube.com/watch?v=cCxjzIjx5aI&t=1014
~
RCL
I would still agree with you. “Guns”, “freedoms”, “The (supposedly sacrosanct) U.S. Constitution”, … “good, bad and evil” … meant something entirely different centuries ago. Laws should be accordingly changed, but I think Glenn’s point is that the law should apply to everybody if it is supposed to be what is meant to be.
RCL
Some good points you make. I would argue however that guns do kill people as that is what they are designed to do. Apart from hunting weapons that’s their sole purpose. Switzerland is an interesting example, I admit I don’t know a great deal about the country. A quick Wikipedia search and there were around 45 gun murders last year in a population of 8 million. As I mentioned I live in Taiwan with 25 million, a country with very tight gun control, and almost no gun murders per year. I’m from the UK, a country with 8 times the population of Switzerland but still fewer total gun murders.
Juan Cole mentions Israel and Switzerland in this article… http://www.juancole.com/2014/05/murders-firearm-england.html
I understand Mr Greenwald is by no means expressing support for gun ownership. I agree with him for the most part, laws should be applied equally, I just think that in a practical sense taking away someone’s right to own a gun is not doing anyone any disservice. Unlike of course removing someone’s right to travel.
Your proposition that broad swathes of human thought and construction undergo vast, chronological changes in nature and definition is exactly why nations create constitutions – the aim (if not the result) is relative stability against generational caprice. That some generations lack the wisdom of others, past and future, seems to be your justification for ever-increasing State control.
The thing about constantly making new laws is, the old ones are not constantly unmade. Constantly ‘changed’ laws ultimately necessitate more collective State power at the individual’s expense. Your equivocal stance regarding “good, bad and evil” aside, many laws made by ‘good’ governments can and are used effectively by ‘bad’ governments, to do as they wish.
If you value civil liberties, you view is short-sighted.
The bill of rights lays out those conditions necessary for people to live free of government tyranny. Given the social historical context in which they were written it is understandable why they may have been fearful of unreasonable search & seizure, the necessity of freedom of religion, a free press as the fourth estate, the right to due process, bail, speedy trial, protection from double jeopardy, cruel and unusual punishment, and most certainly our right to arm ourselves. Our criminal law acts as a scale balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of society. In other words, freedom vs safety. The USSC just ruled on a case further eroding of 4th Amend protection against unreasonable search & seizure, thus tilting in favor of the state. I’m not even the slightest bit hopeful that this continuual erosion will be corrected in my lifetime as it grows more orwellian everyday. But hey you can live free or you can live safe but you will never have both. BTW I don’t own a gun but I may want to some day.
Are you serious? A ‘Right to Not Live in Danger or Fear’?! Really?? That’s found absolutely nowhere in the philosophy of human rights.
“What kind of a person opposes that?”
A fascist.
Once they more deeply break down due process relating to the likes of placing people on no fly and no gun lists they have legal precedent to vastly expand a lack of due process to better protect their fort of oppression.
If guns are the issue guns need to be the issue.
Gun related restrictions are only being used, as a tool by those that see what could be coming, to keep the masses under control when the corporate state goes too far and the people’s rebellion unleashes in full force.
This is just another way to extend their reign of economic slavery, which complements their facial scans, eye scans, militarized police, drones, “sound cannons” to blast the ears of protesters, and infiltration that becomes stimulated entrapment.
I’m really sick of selfish assholes like you and your fucking mega loaded rounds of semi-automatic bullshit. It’s because of oblivion-addicted masturbators like you that this kind of legislation is even being considered because a ban on certain guns is considered impossible to pass politically. You suck. It’s facilitating tyranny, not preserving your weapon against it, you world class idiot. People are being hurt by this expanding list, really hurt so you can suck your own fucking nose.
“A ban on certain guns”, you say. Which ones? Machine guns (assault rifles)? Already banned. How about those shooting BIG bullets? Oh, semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 use .223’s – not all that big. OK, how about all semi-automatics, big and small? Of course, that would include all manner of pistols and hunting rifles, many of which aren’t ‘military-style’. Ohhh, I see, you just wanna ban badass-looking rifles less powerful than grandpa’s .30-30, just like the last time around in 90s. Oh, not that superficial? Is it the high-capacity clips, which can be had with rudimentary machining skills in garages and basements? Oh it’s all so complicated! Let’s just blanket-ban everything, including Big Gulps!
You are hardly speechless or classy, but you do have passion.
look up Fabian socialism it’s history and the Fabian society itself you will understand what i am talking about once you do.
Obviously you are right. What is it that can be done? That has a chance of actually getting passed? A quote comes to my mind that says, “don’t confuse activity with accomplishment.”
It’s begun! I’ve been saying for many years, “what happens when they expand on the definition of terrorist. After Muslims, who’s next? Activists?
look up Fabian society and it’s history you will understand.
i have looked into some of this and suspect that we have Fabian socialist parading around as Democrats they are not a good bunch and are on the sly look up Fabian society and it’s history and see for yourself.
From Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s platform:
http://www.jill2016.com/platform
(scroll down to “Justice for All” section)
“Terminate unconstitutional surveillance and unwarranted spying, close Guantanamo, and repeal indefinite detention without charge or trial. Repeal the unconstitutional provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that give the president the power to indefinitely imprison and even assassinate American citizens without due process.”
@Greenwald:
“anyone deemed by the government to be suspicious is now a “terrorist” — no evidence needed, no trial held, no due process accorded”
You’ve spoke a lot about Due Process under the law (for years) and how people on WatchLists (among other things) are denied Due Process.
But aren’t people also denied Equal Protection under the law as well if they are not given Due Process? The fact that a ‘Secret’ list exists with no right to redress constitutes an inequality of every citizen, doesn’t it?
What kind of a person? A fascist.
It seems a good idea to me to scrutinise those who want to create these “due process free ” lists.
Let’s call them the pre-crime supporters. (PCS)
In fairness the PCS should be identified and automatically placed on the pre-crime lists. However the system should be fair and there should then be a due process, and probably some decent academic analysis, to decide whether they stay on the list. When moved off that list, I’d recommend not putting them on the “were once suspected of pre-crime list” provided that nobody else is put there either.
@DOUG SALZMANN
The reply function doesn’t work on my phone for some reason, so I’ll just put this here.
Thanks for the link to the polling data regarding American perceptions of crime. That was educational for me.
With that acknowledged, I have more questions. Why do some people get all worked up when the Israeli military kills a few Palestinians? Surely the IDF is a statistically minor cause of death, even among Palestinians. Are people who let these deaths upset them a bunch of irrational hysterics, or is it possible that this sort of thing rightly involves more than a purely statistical analysis?
Mr. Greenwald
In any war – especially one where civilian areas in the US are the primary targets of terrorism linked to the “war on terror” – there is going to be a rollback of some civil rights and civil liberties. Does anyone believe that US Congressmen/women after 911, Charlie Hebdo, Madrid, Brussels, Orlando, Boston and the 5000 Muslims that have traveled from Europe to Syria to join ISIS, is going to support less surveillance – and a rollback of the no fly list? It is just common sense that most Americans are going to accept the trade-off for increased security and safety.
Good police work and intelligence can prevent some attacks. Just this week, 12 (probable) Muslims were detained and three arrested accused of planning attacks at the World soccer championships in France (or local pubs carrying the games on TV in Brussels):
“……..Twelve people suspected of planning to carry out attacks were arrested in Belgium on Friday night after police carried out dozens of raids across the country, federal prosecutors said on Saturday……Among the areas searched, including several linked to the November and March attacks, were 152 garage lockups, they said. No arms or explosives have been found, they said, but declined to identify seized items…….”
At this point, it is impossible to determine what led to the arrest of the suspects, but likely, there was some profiling involved. At least three of the 12 detained were Muslims. That is not blind luck. ISIS has threatened and carried out attacks against the west because the west is bombing them in Iraq and Syria. Additionally, a significant amount of innocent lives may have been saved (or the suspects are innocent of the charges).
“…….Worse than rank dishonesty, he is literally, explicitly equating people who will be deemed suspicious by the U.S. government — overwhelmingly Muslim, needless to say — with “terrorists.”…..”
That is true, in general, of course. No group in the world today commits more acts of terrorism than Sunni Muslims – and no group is at the receiving end of terrorism more than Muslims. Your statement is clearly suggesting that the US “profiles” Muslims. Most definitely, you are right. Trump suggests that we should profile more, but I suspect that the US and EU governments already profile Muslims a great deal, but it just wouldn’t be politically correct to say as much publicly.
You must be dreaming, Mr. Summers. I didn’t think there was anyone left in America that still believed 911 was not a black flag operation. Where and what is the real “ware on terror”?
“In any war”
It’s not a war, it’s just criminal activity, and the way to deal with criminal activity is how the 1993 WTC bombing by Ramsi Yousef was dealt with – capture and prosecution in open court in the United States.
But I’m sure you’d rather have the million people on the ‘terrorism watch list’ rounded up and sent to camps in the desert, modelled on the Japanese internment camps of World War II, right? All while calling for more support for ISIS in Syria.
Something seems wrong with your mental processes, craigsummers. Cognitive dissonance much?
photo
“…….But I’m sure you’d rather have the million people on the ‘terrorism watch list’ rounded up and sent to camps in the desert, modelled on the Japanese internment camps of World War II, right?…..”
That the terrorist watch list includes one million people seems a little shy of reality in my opinion. Pakistan alone probably exceeds that total – and those are just the ones on their government payroll.
CraigSummers v CraigSummers
. . .denying a connection between attacks from the west and attacks against the west:
. . .drawing a connection between attacks from the west and attacks against the west:
There is a difference Doc. The US is directly bombing ISIS positions in Iraq and Syria and ISIS is responding with attacks of their own (when they can). Here is what Bin Laden said:
“……Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians…….”
“……..The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates…….”
Here is what Greenwald said,
“….spending decades bombing, invading, occupying, droning, interfering in, imposing tyranny on, and creating lawless prisons in other countries generates intense anti-American and anti-western rage (for obvious reasons) and ensures that those western nations will be attacked as well…..”
“……That study concluded that “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies”: specifically “American direct intervention in the Muslim world” — through the US’s “one sided support in favor of Israel”; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, “the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan”……”
What Bin Laden and Greenwald repeated was simply propaganda. At least ISIS is far more honest about their goals which is to recreate the Islamic empire and subjugate Muslims under Sharia law. Of course, al-Qaeda has the same goal – and they are just as brutal killing as many Muslims (al-Zarqawi in Iraq comes to mind, al-Qaeda support for the Taliban, the TTP etc) – but they winged out the propaganda gobbled up by radical leftists like Greenwald and yourself that it was our policies in the Middle East. Of course, the far left takes the policies much further back to the colonial period. Jon Schwarz goes all the way to 1492 – world Nakba day.
When it comes down to it, terrorist organizations like ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram etc. will kill as many Muslims as necessary to gain power. Terrorism is mostly about power, not revenge.
…….as an aside, Senator Feinstein should retire as is Senator Boxer…..both are out of touch, have been in D.C. for too long…..
Don’t forget Pelosi……
….ditto!….thanks for the reminder…..all have lost their mojo….
Glenn,
Can’t thank you enough for so effectively communicating the arguments of Civil Libertarianism, especially when it doesn’t seem to fit into a neat little partisan box that most people would like to place arguments. I find myself constantly sharing your articles and Youtube videos on Facebook trying to raise awareness of the importance of at least understanding civil liberties arguments.
I guess I’m curious, though…
1) given your interpretation (or perhaps more importantly, your interpretation of the Supreme Court’s interpretation) of what the 2nd Amendment truly means, what would an effective gun control policy or set of policies look like?
2) could you please explain a bit more on how to build an argument for the unconstitutionality of no-fly lists, given the fact that “boarding a plane is not a constitutional right,” as some would argue, and
3) do you ever find yourself exploring economic libertarianism, as I think many would love to hear your take on it?
Thanks for any time you’re willing to dedicate to a response.
When dreamboats turn out to be footnotes;bubbleheads united.(BS,EW)
This what I like about GG;No party line.
The answer is obvious and perhaps a bit less Orwellian: Firearms are too easily available, to the point where the ‘right to life’ is far outweighed by the right to own a firearm. For reasons that are political rather than rational, it is impossible to regulate firearms without invoking the fear of whatever bogeyman Americans are most afraid of. Fretting about the impingement of a 2nd Amendment “right” which does not actually exist but was condoned by activist, radical far-right jurists is non-sense. Especially when that “right” was not created at the point of a barrel, but mindless, gun&violence worshiping zealots at the voting booth. #irony
Years ago,
it became obvious to me
that when people identify as “democrat”
they are actually “republicans who lie about what they support”
in order to dominate over the other republicans.
Different words are used by democrats and republicans
in order to dominate and feel superior.
Unless you have enormous amounts of money,
the democrats and the republicans are out to screw you.
So, it’s obvious to you that everyone’s a Republican??
No.
There are people who do not identify as republican or democrat.
È vero.
È vero!
JLocke, below:
I had no idea that, instead of noticing that gun crime, along with violent crime of all kinds, is at historic lows, Americans would embark on a years-long, utterly irrational national freakout, based upon the false impression, that said crime is increasing — a false impression fueled by mass media to sell clicks and eyeballs, by politicians to garner votes, and by charlatans of every sort for nefarious and misguided purposes too numerous to count.
Well, actually, I’m lying: I knew damned good and well, at the very beginning of this nonsense that it would feed a long-lasting culture war of enormous magnitude; it’s perfect dog-whistle behavioral manipulation for all parties involved and Americans are so pathetically innumerate that lying to them with statistics is easier than stealing candy from babies.
Violent Crime in America Over Time
Omitted from the above: citation to anyone saying gun crime or violent crime is increasing.
It is, of course, far from nonexistent, and there is a certain type of gun crime, namely the mass shooting, that would appear to be on the rise in recent years. Is it irrational to be concerned about this? To want to do somethng about it? What is your point, exactly?
Chicago differs.
Aww, I’m so sorry. I didn’t realize that we had people among us here who were so out of touch with American opinion.
More Americans Say Crime Is Rising in U.S.
Let me know if you need more.
Yeah, and so is nearly everything but the Tooth Fairy.
Leaving the Tooth Fairy aside, however, all firearm-related deaths (two-thirds of which are suicides) don’t amount to even ten percent (10%) of the deaths caused by preventable medical errors (in-hospital errors only).
Yes, I agree, that would appear to be true. However, victims of mass shootings made up less than one-half of one percent of all people shot to death last year, and we’ve already established that the total shot to death is relatively insignificant in the context of all-cause mortality, so the hysteria seems more than a little overwrought, IMHO.
It is certainly irrational to be more concerned about this relatively tiny problem than to be concerned about the 250,000 to 400,000 people killed every year by mistakes made in hospitals (among many other causes of death that exceed gun violence by enormous numbers) — you bet your ass that’s irrational.
Do you still not understand?
Citations available. Including them all here would send the post to TI limbo.
Damn, I’m having a bad night. First the Gators get rudely ejected from the College World Series, then you go and make me look stupid with your new-fangled “polling data” thingy.
But I have another question. (I tried to respond to you earlier but my comment did not appear, so my apologies for the redundancy if it appears later.) What do you make of people who get all upset when a few Palestinians die violently at the hands of Israel? The IDF is doubtless a relatively minor cause of death as a statistical matter, even among Palestinians. So what’s the big deal?
You just walk right into them don’t you?
During just one Israeli “operation,” the 2014 invasion of Gaza, charmingly referred to by Israel as “Operation Protective Edge,” about 2,200 Palestinians were killed.
About 1.8 million people live in Gaza, compared to about 318 million in the US. Therefore, if a proportional number of Americans were killed by gun violence (in a whole year), there would be a total of 2,200 x 177 = 388,667 gun deaths in America. In fact, in 2013, there were 32,383 gun-related deaths in the US, two-thirds of them suicides.
Of course, if we were really examining the problem properly, we wouldn’t just count the Palestinians shot and killed by Israeli forces, we’d also calculate what demographers refer to as “excess mortality” caused by the conditions of the occupation — shortages of food and medicine, economic deprivation, restricted access to medical facilities, etc. I assure you that doing that would make the numbers much, much, worse. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children, alone, have died prematurely under Israeli occupation.
Basically, you suck at this and you should stop.
Funny how you restricted your sample to a single year that was extremely unusual in terms of Palestinian casualties (as I assume you know).
You’re not arguing honestly; you’re tossing about statistics as cavalierly as you sling juvenile insults.
Answer me this, Stat Man. How many Palestinians have died in the West Bank and Gaza since (let’s just pick a year at random) 1967? Of those, how many died violently from Israeli military action? And yet, some people insist on getting all bent out of shape when it happens. Are they irrational hysterics?
No more for you tonight.
And I don’t sling juvenile insults, I sling carefully-considered insults that I believes are both deserved and accurate.
You are depressingly ignorant and innumerate and you aren’t even bright enough to recognize it. Your emotional attachment to your ill-founded beliefs makes it impossible to argue with you productively, because you are constitutionally unable to process what you don’t want to believe. <<< Like that.
Sure, toss some more insults over your shoulder as you run away….
But I guess that’s what some people do when they can’t answer simple questions or otherwise defend their positions.
Thanks for dropping all the necessary fact bombs…you’ve dispelled all the myths with the same info I have gotten tired of responding with over and over. It is really exhausting trying to argue with willful ignorance. If people want to know the truth, it is easy to find, but unfortunately D and R partisans are only interested in party lines, emotional appeals and reactionary nonsense :( Kudos to you.
Thanks, Louise.
Sometimes I think it’s funny that I (whose only firearm is an old shotgun that hasn’t been fired since I lived far out in the woods, many years ago) am endlessly excoriated as a gun nut by the mindless hysterics who are so happily ensconced in their permanent freakout that reality has no chance of reaching them — and at other time it seriously pisses me off.
And the fact that all of these people who think they are progressive, civil libertarian, anti-authoritarian are all scrambling to get into bed with the crypto-fascists who are overrunning our culture . . . too depressing for words.
Thanks as always GG.
Spot on.
The Democratic Party’s elected and faithful actively working against the ACLU is not something that is discussed in “polite” company. Bernie and Lizzie jumping on the bandwagon is a particularly verboten topic.
More please.
These ideologues hiding in plain sight because the corporate media won’t challenge them is sickening.
It was a little late in the comment thread in your article, but I requested a follow-up or series of follow-up articles about Cuomo’s BDS blacklist.
Any chance there is something along those lines in the works?
I can’t help thinking there is a coming convergence of these lists… and that 1st Amendment rights will be lost without due process or because of the loss of due process from a similar bill that actually passes.
That’s kind of a legal leap, but channeling my inner authoritarian, it seems like these baby steps are being made with larger goals in mind.
It’s not hard to imagine BDS activists being called terrorists.
Though I think that too is secondary to a general crushing of dissent on the horizon.
But, instead of following that tangent, I really would appreciate those follow up articles.
Interviews with legal scholars and historians, business people who could lose contracts for exercising their 1st Amendment rights, rabbi’s and Jewish BDS supporters, etc.
Cuomo’s executive order is being implemented and there is too much silence.
Thanks
A
Dead men don’t talk. Alwaqi was assassinated to get him to shut up. Why restrict freedom of speech when you’re legally justified in putting a bullet in their skull?
Do you always post off-topic comments due to a head injury or are you fearful of the discussion at hand?
@Greenwald
Your whole article assumes that the actual people on the WatchList are only there because of some relation to Terrorism.
I contend that the government’s WatchList program is made up of people who pose a threat to the U.S. Government not only from terrorism, but from whistleblowing or exposing government secrets.
Think about how many relationships the government has with Silicon Valley companies and that these companies are working with the government. Just the other day, TI reported a list of companies that the Government doesn’t want people to know about.
With so many private citizens operating within these companies, wouldn’t it be practical to believe that if private citizens were working on something so secret, that they would need to be monitored,ESPECIALLY after the Snowden revelations? And even after they left their jobs at these companies?
Perhaps some of the other commenters could provide analysis of how the Watchlists have grown after the Snowden revelations.
I looked at this recently, and it was noted by news agencies that the reason for the huge uptick from 2012-2014 was due to a ‘change’ in the definition of those who should be considered for Watchlisting.
so, now, those folks can also look forward to an infringement of their constitutional rights and whose only crime was, they got hired by the wrong Silicon Valley company.
More to the point, why doesn’t the public have access to this watchlist? It’s like the FBI under Hoover, making lists of ‘suspicious American citizens’ for political purposes – if these people are really so dangerous, shouldn’t everyone be aware of who they are?
What would likely happen is that many people would be outraged about their inclusion and would sue the government for libel; so the government keeps the list secret as a means of harassment of anyone who causes too many problems for this corrupt government.
When Lindsey Graham says this, it’s nothing but libel:
Really? In all cases? Just because some official somewhere made some ‘personal decision’ to put someone on it? No legal process, no evidence introduced in court, just some FBI-STASI ‘determination’? It’s a bad joke as well as another step, like the domestic mass surveillance program, on the slippery slope towards authoritarian repression.
Notice how Diane Feinstein, with that expression of hers, could have fit right in with the East German STASI, the Nazi Gestapo, the Chinese Politburo, the Soviet Central Committee, or any number of similar regimes?
“making lists of ‘suspicious American citizens’ for political purposes”
This is just a pre-cursor to mass roundups, ankle bracelets or imposition of curfews or house arrests.
Just give it another 10 years. The only way to fight these sorts of things for the everyday person is sending money to the ACLU or NRA or whichever big group can fight on your behalf.
I can tell you from experience, surveillance is NOT the only things these people are up to.
veeeeeeeeeeeeeery int-resting.
The woman shown at the top of the article reminds me of
this guy:
https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/ea32efae-c290-4880-a510-aaa64f569920/aa30802c-6e19-49b3-8225-9605e34cd759jpeg
It doesn’t assume any such thing. We just happen, here, to be talking about a particular form/instance of watch list that the government claims targets terrorists and “potential” terrorists.
I’m pretty sure Glenn Greenwald is one of the least likely guys around to argue that the US government isn’t watching/surveilling all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons — and for no reason at all except that they can.
point taken. agreed. Thanks for bringing down my blood-pressure. ;)
Exactly. It assumes nothing of the kind. But it’s a good point and I’m glad he raised it: as I said on Twitter last night, the US Govt regards a wide range of behavior as “terrorism,” including even things like animal rights and environmental activism.
Senate repubs turn down all gun bills, KKK dodges a listing bullet.
The Democrats have a problem – they want to support the POTUS, and that means going along with the extrajudicial assassination program, aka, drone strikes, and it also means not pointing a finger at his (and Clinton’s) utterly disastrous policies in Libya and Syria, which have facilitated the rise of ISIS and played a central role in the mass exodus of Syrian and North African refugees into Europe.
Talking about this undermines Clinton, and being Party loyalists, they want to avoid doing that. So Bernie Sanders goes along with the drone strikes, and doesn’t attack Clinton on her foreign policy disasters (Honduras, Haiti, Libya, Syria), even though they point to a neocon-style militaristic agenda; the only Democrat of any stature who raised those issues was Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii (who would make a far better president than any of the others, really).
Thankfully, she’s continuing to press Clinton to drop the idiotic neocon game plan (July 16, CNN:)
Hillary Clinton’s militaristic agenda is a huge problem for the Democrats, . If she pursues it, it will be just like Lyndon Johnson sacrificing his “Great Society” on the altar of the Vietnam War in the 1960s – but with Clinton pointing to Vietnam war criminal Kissinger as her idol for foreign policy, some serious pressure will have to be brought to bear to change this agenda.
The entire Democratic response to the Orlando killer is becoming more and more farcical as a result – the last thing they want to talk about is the killer’s central motivation, which was clearly U.S. foreign policy; that could lead into a discussion of how Obama and Clinton’s disastrous Libya/Syria policy aided the rise of ISIS, and could also lead to questions about the U.S. refusal to coordinate with Russia to fight ISIS, and what the real agenda behind these disastrous regime change efforts is.
So instead it’s terrorist watch list BS, is it?
I’ve been looking for a pair of rose colored glasses(Gabbard)all my life,where did you find them?
You gotta be shiteing me.Gabbard?The Hindu nationalist?Bobby Jindal left?
Your first couple of paragraphs were fine btw,but Gabbard?
Can you name any other politician who continues to point out the disasters created by idiotic American foreign policy in Iraq & Afghanistan (under Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld) and Libya and Syria (under Obama & Clinton)? If so, please let me know who that is.
And don’t say Trump, he looks set to continue the Bush-Obama policies, as far as I can tell, what with his bedrock support for Israel and Saudi Arabia – the Saudi Royals being the one group of Muslims he’s not going to try top persecute.
Me.
The problem is the government can’t present evidence, since the evidence only exists in the future, when the crime is committed. So the government – to be safe – places people on the watch list now. However, this prevents the crime from being committed, which means there is no evidence. So either way, there is no evidence, which means that due process – which relies on evidence – is basically useless for combating terrorism.
Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote: “There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” So there you have it – if a Supreme Court Justice says the Fourth Amendment is a suicide pact, that ends the debate. As George Bush said: “You are either with us or with the terrorists”. The framers of the Constitution were with the terrorists. This is a hard pill to swallow, but it is true.
I do accept Mr. Greenwald’s argument that the Democrats should be consistent. They should introduce a constitutional amendment to annul the Bill of Rights. With all due respect to Justice Jackson, it is not enough to apply a little practical wisdom; the government should also follow the law. So if the Fourth Amendment is duly repealed, then I have no problem with a terrorist watchlist to restrict the sale of guns.
The Fifth Amendment is, of course, the one which most needs to be repealed. But the entire Bill of Rights hampers the war on terror, so it’s better to be safe and annul the entire thing.
Better to live a day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep!
That was before the day ended. Subsequent opinions may differ.
Honesty and logic is hard to find, but a thin vapor occaisionally seeps out of an elderly fascist now and then. It is a rare and pleasant breath of fresh air.
The law firm of Clinton, Obama, Sanders, & Warren should move on this. Remember, those annoying rules concerning Congress’ right and responsibility to declare war and the Glass-Steagall Act died without a whimper. Taking down Amendments Four + Five should be just as easy. Afterwards, Democrats could claim to be honest about something… Anything. Ratings would go up and PR strategists would be freed up to spend cycles on more pressing matters such as planning that attack on Russia (a sure winner), and spend fewer worrying about how to represent their totalitarian mugs as something else, which makes them look ridiculous.
As for the other Amendments, consider them a political capital piggy bank for emergencies.
I hate agreeing with any toff who calls himself a Duke but I can’t argue with getting it right and getting shit done, as the firm’s secretary Ms. Power would put it.
The founders were used to anointing presidential candidates among themselves. They couldn’t possibly have conceived of the present enlightened and democratic process for choosing major party candidates, which ensures that the nominees are endowed with exceptional wisdom and forbearance. So there is no longer any need to limit the powers of the government, over a misguided fear that it could devolve into a tyranny.
People, when polled, will say they support the Bill of Rights because it sounds important and official. But if you actually explain it to them – restrictions that prevent government from effectively combating terrorism – you will see that support evaporate.
This isn’t The Onion..
My thing is raw garlic. I am entirely OK with onions, too.
It seems some people’s mental powers find challenging higher order “interpretations”. At some point we have stopped understanding anything that doesn’t fit as a one liner on a cell phone. Politicians have made interpretations of laws secret, effectively illegal (whatever that could possibly mean (are they doing us a favor?))
~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
Understanding the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker’s or writer’s intentions;
~
Last week they were asking teachers for well wishes to write in banners for graduation date. Someone wrote some b#llsh!t from one of the greatest bullsh!tters who has ever walked the earth:
“If you’re walking down the right path and you’re willing to keep walking, eventually you’ll make progress”. –Barack Obama
I couldn’t help but include my own: “Yes we/you can” –Barack Obama
in seconds, one of the school police they have there (who has been “watching” me), cell phone in hand, showed up in a classroom where we were having a discussion and angrily stared at me, then later started monkeying me … (without actually saying anything concrete ;-))
I was able to check my laughters! Which seemed to be the case with other teachers, as well ;-)
RCL
And it points out the danger of letting another WOT moron on the SC,Garland.
Thanks Glenn.
“What kind of a person opposes that?”
a person who trusts the govt to keep him safe and values his safety more than due process* and doesn’t expect to be put on the list. can’t be more than millions like that despicable so not a problem
*thinks it’s a hair treatment
This is hilarious, instead of dealing with the gun violence in the US, Americans are making their three year olds do “lockdown drills”:
I wonder, do they even do those in Israel?
Almost as much fun as the Cold War ‘duck and cover’ drills, I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_1jkLxhh20
“We must be ready for a new danger – the atomic bomb!”
Now, about that $1 trillion nuclear weapons program Obama is promoting. . . or his reckless arms sales to the Saudis, which they use for bombing Yemen and supplying ISIS in Syria with, for example TOW-II anti-tank missiles – what does that look like in comparison to his domestic political posturing on gun sales?
Is he going to visit Yemen and exchange hugs with the families of people killed in Saudi cluster bomb attacks? Make speeches declaring his solidarity with the victims of this horrendous violence? Demand that Congress pass legislation banning him from selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and every other tinpot dictator from Africa to Central Asia?
Israel is the foremost dealer in terror ideas,weapons,motivation etc and is also at the forefront of counter terror efforts.
Business is booming!
Like nails on the road near the gas station,or exterminators releasing termites on customers who refuse their services.
The question is whether they do them in Occupied Palestine. They probably ought to.
I had no idea, but, given the choice of restricting deadly weapons,…and training three-year-olds to hide in toilet stalls…It kind of makes sense that America would choose the latter:
Ah yes, the delicate balance schools in the US have to weigh..between providing knowledge….and inciting fear!!!!
Shit. As a parent I strive for that balance every damn day.
Why do people kill people they don’t even know, my daughter asked me last week. Er… look over there sweetie! Shiny object!
I can only imagine how difficult having those conversations with children must be. :-(
Just explain to her that human beings are killer apes which have become the top predator the world has ever known and will eventually destroy the world and everything it in. When she starts crying, comfort her by telling her it’s a good thing.
Benito. That was exactly right. Except the last sentence should have read:
Now that should totally blow her mind and comfort her in equal measure. At least it gives her a magical lollipop in the sky to look forward too to soften the blow of the reality of her earthly existence. Which is equally comforting near as I can tell to about 6 billion of the world’s 6 + billion inhabitants because they appear believe precisely that kind of nonsense which makes it possible for those 6 billion to largely ignore their earthly responsibility not to be environment destroying killer apes for the blink of an eye that we actually exist.
And it probably puts her in such a daze for a couple of hours that Gator90 can beat her at video games. So just sayin, not a bad move for a parent to give it to ’em bluntly so to speak.
That will work for now. I do however believe in the heeling, healthy effect of truth. At some point she will be able to listen to the fact (even without understanding it) that USG pulverizes people all the time even kids her age, “without knowing them”, just based on “statistics” … and that, of course, is not terrorism, but “freedom loving”
RCL
So much of this dates back to 80’s & 90’s when our Psychiatric Centers and Mental Hospitals were emptied out in what was called “mainstreaming”. Funds for housing the mentally ill were attacked by our “fiscally responsible Congress” and they were dumped onto the streets.
Now we are paying the price because when someone who shouldn’t own a gun, let alone be out on the streets, acts out the Fatherland Dept goes equally crazy and conficates more of our rights.
Sure, all those mentally ill people were let out of the Psychiatric Centers and Mental Hospitals and went right into the US State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA and Congress, where they supported an insane program of military interventionism in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, a program which involved arming and training a bunch of radical Islamists as proxy force to fight the Soviet Union, eventually leading to the formation of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda in the 1990s.
Now these insane escapees from the asylum, having failed to learn their lesson back then, have done it again in Iraq (2003-2008) under Bush and the Republicans, leading to the rise of terrorist groups in Iraq.
Not to be outdone by Bush’s neocon lunatics, the Obama-Clinton neoliberals applied this insane policy in Syria from 2011 onwards, i.e. they funneled arms and money to radical terrorist groups as proxy forces to fight Assad as part of their ‘geostrategic effort’, and that’s what led to the rise of ISIS, who inspired the Orlando killer.
Yes, you are right, these lunatics should never have been let out of the asylum; then much of this could have been prevented.
Every bullet fired,every bomb,every fund for war that should go to our infrastructure is all directly related to Zion,the war of terror,and their goddamn globalization feudalism.
Take it to the f*cking bank.
Yes, but we did manage to get manage of them back into an institutional setting: Prison.
You mean GG only NOW gets that the democrats and republicans are two halves of the same coin?
You must not read much by GG if you really think this.
God I wish that the moment Dan White came in shooting, Harvey Milk had been standing where Feinstein was, and Dianne Feinstein had been standing where Milk was.
I’m actually shocked by how effective their rhetoric on this issue is. I read many tweets from Dems and the use of “suspected terrorists” or similar phrases flew right below my radar. I normally catch these Orwellian phrases but here is a time that I didn’t have my guard up and if it were not for excellent journalism then I would still be ignorant to it. It just goes to show that you really have to be the toughest critic on the people who you respect the most. It’s easy fault the republicans but trickier to fault “champions of liberal values”. Stay vigilant my friends.
There are two terrible senators who should face primary in their reelection.
They are Dianne Finestein and Chuck Schumer.
Absolutely horrible senators. They agree more with Dick Chenney than with their party on the issue of foreign policy and military use.
Senator Sanders should challenge Schumer for senate leadership.
His 12 million primary voters will each contact their state senator to cast his/her vote for Sanders. I believe it is very doable and Sanders should win easily. And save the party from two Newyork Wall Street centrists having all the power in the Democratic Party. Hillary and schummer.
I absolutely guarantee Sanders holds Shomer in the highest regard,and are good friends.
Breaking news: Anderson Cooper too gay to cover Orlando shooting, says Fox News!!!
Thank you, Glenn for a thought provoking article. I read between the lines when I read articles. Seems to me, one of the “between’s” you’re stating is that there isn’t any substantial difference between the Repubcrat of Demoplican parties. Only the rhetoric is different.
“What kind of a person opposes that?”
Not Donald Trump and apparently not Bill O’Reilly.
DJT was on Fox News last night talking it up about NRA this and that and how he was the first one endorsed the quickest ever by NRA.. or at least he thought he was…. then said how he was gonna have a discussion with NRA over “the list”… Of course papa bear Bill O didn’t have anything to say about 5th Am or due process.
DJT is a bit incomprehensible when he speaks; it’s akin to a kind of caveman speak, I imagine.
Your expositions on partisan opportunism are always useful.
What kind of person opposses that? you ask.
Why, a terrorist against Due Process kind of person opposes Due Process.
I almost hate to say it, but i did bet that no gun legis would pass. It’s a no brainer. The price of liberty is ungodly high. But the real terrorists don’t have guns. The real terrorists don’t gurantee life support to their population. The real terrorists falsify evidence, make war, invade other countries, rob their own population, and allow the criminals to pass laws to make life a bigger liability with all manner of tricks and traps. Yeah, the real terrorists want to be elected and work for the other terrorists who threaten you with “grow or die”.
Well, we all know we are going to die, but wouldn’t it be nice to not live to serve the lord of usury?
Excellent article Mr. Greenwald, thank you. Short of one of the nutjob parties (Libertarian etc.) getting the Presidency and majorities of both houses and throwing all this off, its hard to see a way where we walk all this stuff back – as both parties are full speed ahead on this stuff.
Time to quote some Star Wars – “How does democracy end? To thunderous applause…” as we watch our rights being melted away “to make us safer”, piece by piece.
I am so grateful to you for writing this. I have been drafting a letter for the past few days – attempting to point out the extreme hypocrisy at work.
Regardless of intentions, the whole idea is crazy and cynical. It is an attempt to legislate denial of rights based on what someone is deemed to be inclined to do in the future. It is three levels or more removed from anything someone may do.
Let’s try to get the word out there and try to get this wider circulation.
Yes, “Heller”.
Not being an American constitutional expert, I have to fall back on my common-sense, that tells me that it’s better to have, say… any other advanced democracy’s gun violence death rate, than America’s. And if that means grown men have to find something other than deadly weapons to play with, then so be it.
But it is amusing to see how corrupt America has allowed their high court to become. You would think it unwise to allow the Democrats and Republicans to appoint such dangerous clowns.
Might I suggest America replace the soulless morons on the court with smart people that care about saving lives?
” , being necessary to the security of a free State, ”
Are you aware of what role the comma plays within a sentence?
“Might I suggest America replace the soulless morons on the court with smart people that care about saving lives?”
You’re getting a unicorn for your next birthday, aren’t you …
Yes, that’s a funny one, the ‘well-regulated militia’ line. I like to think of it in terms of the Hezbollah militia of southern Lebanon, which is a militia force with the explicit aim of fighting any Israeli military incursion into southern Lebanon.
But what kind of armaments do they have? Hezbollah members live ordinary lives in peacetime but each has a cache consisting of rocket-propelled grenade launchers, fully automatic AK-47s, and other weapons of war. If Israel invades, they’re supposed to run, grab their weapons, and use them to attack tanks, etc.
Now, I’m sure there are many thousands of fantasist military-fetish types in the United States who just salivate at having access to that kind of weaponry; but not even the NRA thinks this would be a good idea.
So ultimately the question comes down to,
a) What kind of guns should be allowed?
b) Who should be allowed to buy and own them?
This is a complex question. It also touches on what kind of armaments the police forces of the United States should have access to – not many would argue in favor of domestic Hellfire drone strikes from your local police department as a means of “taking out the terrorists,” even though that is happily accepted by Bernie Sanders and other ‘leading Democrats’ in ‘specific instances’ in foreign countries. WTF?
For example, should semi-automatics with removable clips really be allowed? Would it be better to only allow semi-automatics that have to be loaded by hand? Should people only have access to bolt-action rifles that fire one bullet at a time? Should ammunition be strictly limited?
Any such questions bring the gun fanatics out in force; it’s just not going to happen any time soon.
So what about licensing and registration of firearms? After all, that’s how vehicles – which still kill a good deal more people than guns – are handled; everyone must take a test – written and practical – to get a driver’s license, and their vehicle must be registered (including a registration fee) at the DMV; licenses can be suspended for drunk driving, etc, and there is a clear legal process for challenging suspensions.
Realistically, there might be more support for this latter approach, a licensing and registration approach, than for any effort to limit current laws on gun types.
Wouldn’t they have added an addendum or whatever if they didn’t mean the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?
These were very intelligent people,and confusion about it is probably yours.
Do they state a State militia?A free state is really one run by its people,not a central govt entity,and as Jefferson said,the tree of liberty needs some new blood sometimes(Sic)
I don’t own any myself,but I don’t infringe on others,if I can help it.
Me crazy injun with the flips,I might use one.:)
The Statute of Winchester (1285) contained clauses giving all adult males the right to bear arms in order to police their communities.
This is the ancient legal basis of the Second Amendment and, it should not be forgotten, it not only allows citizens to arm themselves but does so in order that they may defend their communities from criminals.
This was pretty well the situation when the Bill of Rights was passed: there were no police forces, there was no standing army (in time of peace). Constitutional tradition and libertarian theories were opposed to both. What makes the Second Amendment ‘quaint’ and anachronistic is not the fact that it allows citizens to buy guns but that, apart from millions of armed soldiers, there are massive, well armed police forces crawling all over the country. Instead of supplying the place of militias- relieving citizens of the need to police their own communities- these politically powerful organisations, which long since fled the control of the mere electorate, act with almost total impunity.
It was not assault rifles that the Founders failed to anticipate but the massive militarisation of the state and states.
How many die each year in these Orlando style massacres?
How many die at the hands of police forces?
Well stated. This country hopeless.
Great article, Glenn. The most eye-opening part for me was the Warren twitter about the Republican vote being the equivalent of authorizing the sale of weapons to ISIS. Of course, as the article points out, the equating of “potential terrorists” with ISIS is idiotic, but the fun, deep Orwellian part is does Warren, notoriously weak on foreign policy knowledge, realize who actually does sell real weapons to the real ISIS? Why it’s the Obama Administration allies in the Middle East and especially the “moderate rebels” to whom we provide lots & lots of weapons and who turn around & sell a good portion of them to ISIS. So in real world terms Warren is complaining about Republicans wanting to cut out the middle man in this transaction.
Warren is the epitome of the Democratic Party’s rot and its supporters’ gullibility. Same goes for Sanders. They could not be Party members if they were uncorrupted and trustworthy.
As usual, voting for the Democratic ticket will do just as much violence to oneself as voting for the Republican ticket.
You have excessive faith in the meaningfulness of parties. The only reason third parties are relatively “uncorrupted and trustworthy” is that they don’t have any power.
“You have excessive faith in the meaningfulness of parties.”
Don’t know what induced you to infer that. Do you know more about me than I do?
Fair point, I was working with what you gave me, and was likely wrong. My apologies for the mischaracterization.
I too “joined” the Democratic Party this year, just so that I could support Bernie Sanders in the primary. The resulting “rot” in my system ought to be palpable now, perhaps I could smell it in my urine or something?….
& I will “leave” the Democratic Party shortly, about the time they confirm their idiocy by officially nominating Hillary Clinton, and then go back to my usual status as an “independent.” And then my body will be pure again, I will pee rosewater.
Use parties. Parties don’t mean shit unless you let them. True believer partisans of parties are fucking morons in THAT regard, even though they might be not only intelligent but lovable people in every other way.
If the Green Party ever became powerful enough to actually control some seats in Congress, the lobbyists would head that way, and the Green Party would come to deal with the possibility of corruption, probably by coming to have actual corrupt politicians.
I’m all for building up the power of third parties, but not because of some notion that somehow that act alone will escape “rot” or “supporter gullibility”. But by the same token, I don’t see any reason not to get whatever we can out of the power structures that already exist.
The Bernie Sanders campaign was only interesting because he ran as a Democrat. Nobody would have cared otherwise. Nothing would have been revealed otherwise. It was fantastic. The party partisans acted like complete shits – I mean, I could not have foreseen that their primary mode of rhetorical attack would be ON THE VOTERS!! – and they made loads of enemies out of people who might have just gone along with them otherwise. It was great. I hope for even more outrageous behavior from all those assholes around the convention.
Civil points, Vic. Thanks. And I understand your offense at having your pee’s integrity besmirched. I assume my pee and other stuff stinks too.
I just don’t see what anyone but plutocrats’ lackeys and mercenaries can get out of the power structures that already exist, and I was quite offended by their violence even before it touched me.
Parties, organizations, movements, or whatever the appropriate term, I think new platforms need to be organized independently of the existing structures. Small groups of people can meet and discuss for free, then coallesce into larger groups — pooling change to rent meeting spaces where candidates can be developed in an open setting. It’s supposed to be legal. The hard part is filtering out obstructing Stasi informers and convincing people that photogenic qualities and BS skills are not appropriate criteria for any round of candidate selection.
Instead of voting for the candidates representing these existing compromised structures, the next election could be skipped as people gather to work out platforms of their own in preparation for the next national election.
A few of the issues to consider and discuss are suggested below.
* Ending the wildly provocative posturing towards Russia. Dismantling and vacating NATO bases in former Warsaw Pact Countries. Making good on promises made not to encroach. (And don’t move NATO into Kiev, the birthplace of Rus culture. This could go next to the ‘don’t be insane’ bullet point.)
* Ditching expensive plans to upgrade the US’ nuclear arsenal. Alternatively, spending money to reduce the chance existing weapons malfunction, and working out new arsenal securing and reduction treaties instead of violating old ones.
* Stop assuming the US can win an offensive nuclear war with mini-nukes.
* Negotiation of political settlements where possible and with Russia at the table, in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Libya. (Apologies to some of the US bombing targets I have neglected to mention.)
* Termination of the arms to Al Qaeda program(s)
* Termination of the arms to ISIS program(s)
* Cooperation with Russia in military and diplomatic areas with regards to Al Qaeda and ISIS.
* Overhauling of Iran / Saudi / US / Israeli relations, plus payment of reparations to a new Palestinian State (in various ways).
* Gradual repatriation of the US’s manufacturing base. And even though robots do so much of the work now, robots have to be built and maintained too. Why not build them in the USA?
* Reinstatement of the Glass-Stegall Act
* Charging and prosecuting those found guilty of torture. (They do exist.)
* Charging and prosecuting those found guilty of serious financial fraud. (They do exist.)
* Stop behaving so provocatively towards China. Picking fights with both Russia and China while losing multiple, simultaneous wars in smaller, non-nuclear armed countries is not rational.
* Stop behaving so provocatively towards Iran. There have been fits and starts in this direction. Keep moving in that direction.
* Dismantle the criminal Stasi and reserve surveillance / trade-craft for defense, not offense. Don’t lie all the time to everyone. Don’t spy on everyone all the time.
* Focusing on defense, not offense (for purely practical, Machiavellian reasons if that is your preference, simply because it didn’t work).
* Spending money saved from not blowing up other countries on crash programs to mitigate the climate changes. Surely, someone could make some dosh finding a way to save London, Shanghai, San Franciso, LA, NYC, and Rio from drowning in salt water, even if they fail. Indeed, there was money to be made from invading Iraq but that went under the category of not even trying.
* Demilitarization of civilian police departments. Enforce existing civil rights laws.
* Enforce existing voting rights laws, except where Jim Crow has slithered back. (Repealing Jim Crow voting laws in places like Florida would be reasonable.)
* Changing the existing attitude that conflates money with speech, and the idea that a corporation has more civil rights than a human citizen.
* Making some effort to at least pay lip service to the concept of equal application of the law.
* Defining and enforcing a sensible, progressive tax code. (During WWI and WWII, the top marginal rates were in 88% – 90% range and stayed up there through the Eisenhower admin, when the currently rotting public education and transportation systems were built. I think Mr. and Ms. Sachs deserve and can afford a light soaking.)
* In general, don’t be so self destructive and insane.
I realize a few would assert I have no right to pay attention to anything that matters, or make any suggestions, because I quit voting and don’t think right, but I went ahead and broke a taboo because the existing structures have forfeit any right to claim they have reasonable positions and track records on almost all of the matters mentioned above. I also think American voters have had decades to figure out they’ve been duped. There is a point at which stupidity becomes evil and I think that point was traversed some time ago.
Respectfully, everyone, including you and The Party have their own subjective opinions and narratives, I’ll have mine too. But I’m not intentionally conflating you with The Party, Vic. Taking your post at face value, I can tell you are annoyed at some of the same things annoying me, and I want you to know that I expressed my opinions here with some respect for you even if it doesn’t seem to be apparent.
Thanks, your list of issues is great.
I think alternate platforms should be constructed, as you do, but I also don’t see any reason not to try to hijack the current ones as well. One might even suggest we would be un-hijacking them….
But I’d like to see both approaches prosper: they are complementary efforts.
cheers!
Might I point out the reality of the rethuglican Party establishment trying to torpedo the peoples choice,Donald Trump,so maybe your crystal ball has a fracture.
The people who have led America to disaster after disaster,domestic and foreign,an economy in shambles(despite the goebelian prop)hate Trump .
I guess their serial lying is to you like Ulysses tied to the mast,a siren song of truth.holy shite.Go vote for Alfalfa.(hey,he was a bit like the HB,couldn’t sing (politic)a lick,but called golden voiced.OY)
Pathetic liberal voters.
— “The people who have led America to disaster after disaster, domestic and foreign, and an economy in shambles (despite the goebelian prop) hate Trump.”
Trump or Clinton: either way, those who have repeatedly endorsed America’s self-inflicted economic and military disasters at the polls are letting themselves be goaded into harming themselves again. And it’s going to be far worse for those on the exploding end of the ordnance.
— “Pathetic liberal voters.”
Guilty. But I did break the habit some time ago. Not voting for the evil lesser does not make me more deadly and less informed than the zombies headed for the polls in November.
Your web site is right about so much, how can you be so wrong about this?
Keeping someone from purchasing guns–especially military-grade weapons–does not “constrain” anyone from their liberty. It’s sad to see that you ascribe to the extremist view of the 2nd Amendment — that every citizen should have unfettered access to guns and not that citizens have a right to form WELL-REGULATED militias.
Yes, there should be laws that require law enforcement to follow due-process judicial procedures to put people on terrorist watch-lists and they should be more transparent. But can you seriously say that the man –or anyone like him– who did the Pulse shooting shouldn’t have been denied the right to own guns? A wife beater? A man with serious anger issues? A man who was fired from a previous job for behavioral issues? How can a rational human being say that?
We should have laws that allow law enforcement to classifly certain individuals as dangerous.
The problem is, we don’t live in a country where rationality holds sway. We have a country that allows the inmates out of the insane asylum and they are running the country.
P.S. You may have made my point by the end of the post, but I couldn’t finish the whole post because you seemed to lead off with an extremist pro-gun-for-everybody view and my head exploded. Sorry. But 49 people shot to death does that to people.
This is what I was told for years during the Bush/Cheney reign whenever I’d argue for due process against them: “sorry, 3,000 of my fellow citizens were killed, so I don’t have much tolerance for your abstract legal arguments.”
Yes, if it is about guns make it about guns.
Don’t make it about taking away civil liberties, which just becomes a precedent to take away more civil liberties
Well, I certainly can, and I am rational and you are not. Since the shooting there is hearsay. Before the shooting there was nothing. On the basis of nothing you would ban OM from buying a gun? Nonsense. Obviously the right thing to do is to ban everyone from owning this type of gun, one that has no purpose in private ownership but that which OM used it for. Well, that and making adolescent idiots of all ages feel oh so much bigger.
That’s really my only practical problem with the 2nd Amendment–the type of guns people are allowed to own.
I believe hand guns and military style/grade weapons should be available for law enforcement and the military purposes only. They are weapons whose singular designed purpose is the killing of other human beings (which is not to say they cannot be used for other “sporting” purposes). And no automatic weapons of any design.
Shotguns, limited capacity magazine hunting rifles etc. are designed for “sporting” purposes and hunting and people should be able to own them in the amounts and types as they choose. If people want to “collect” military style/grade weapons already on the market, they should have to be permanently disabled.
And if we are going to permit ownership of handguns and military style/grade weapons with high magazine capacity, then the sensible change to the law at the very very least should be that any owner of such weapons must establish and obtain “gun insurance”, and as a condition of obtaining that insurance demonstrate they have the capability to keep guns in a locked safe and/or trigger locks. All other uninsured gun possession or ownership should constitute an escalating series of fines and convictions until insurance is established, or you have your right to gun ownership revoked (just like automobiles generally). The pool of gun owners is so large in America an insurance market could be easily created and the attendant premiums would be incredibly low.
But it makes zero sense to me that you have to insure for the harm your automobile could potentially cause self and others, but you don’t have to do so in the case of gun ownership. That strikes me as incredibly absurd and incoherent.
There should also be no “concealed carry” permitted to civilians. Open carry only. And that should be restricted in urban environments as each city or urban area democratically chooses (to both prevent the (un)reasonable fear that some of us have of guns, and to cut down on accidental discharges).
Just my $0.02 as an Oregonian who grew up owning and using guns (although I no longer do and haven’t for a long time) for sporting purposes.
“I believe hand guns and military style/grade weapons should be available for law enforcement and the military purposes only.”
That’s a strange position for someone who, I know, trusts the police and military we actually have as little as you do, rr.
With a little addition to the slogan, the gun nuts are absolutely correct: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws, and the government, will have guns.” There is absolutely nothing you can practicably do to change that reality.
Notwithstanding the endless debates and uproars and hand-wringing, this is, effectively, a settled issue in the US. No gun control measures that would result in the situation you prefer have the slightest chance of passing our legislative bodies or withstanding judicial scrutiny. Even if they did, they wouldn’t have any meaningful effect on the availability of guns of all types, to anyone who wants them, in a nation with 300 million weapons already in private hands.
Just to clarify: 1) the only thing worse from my perspective than the military and police having military grade weapons, is everyone having those types of weapons, 2) the fact the government and military have military grade weapons vis a vis civilians does not concern me in protecting “civilian” liberties at least not in America–because I would never argue that “armed” rebellion or resistance is practical or effective. Peaceful mass resistance is where true power lies. There simply isn’t enough guns in the hands of US law enforcement, or law enforcement agents for that matter, to ever pacify 300 million motivated people with the same peaceful agenda of resistance. And I’m not overly concerned with the circumstance ever arising in America that the US military would ever en masse be deployed against the US people.
I didn’t argue that guns should be outlawed. I said certain kinds of firearms should be prohibited from ownership or use by civilians. And I stand by that whether it is practically achievable at present or not. Things change and the future is contingent. The US Constitution is not an impermeable edifice that can never be altered or re-interpreted. So I will continue to advocate for what I believe to be reasonable and sane change to the gun ownership legal framework that is prevalent in this nation at present.
I guess we’ll see, which is not to say I disagree with you about the current lay of the land generally speaking, particularly with regard to legislative bodies. Judicial scrutiny might be different in the future as may legislative bodies thus the possibility for change to the status quo.
Fair enough. See above. It is my understanding that those who own guns in America own lots of guns generally speaking. Most people in America don’t own guns. Given that reality I believe there is always a possibility that opinions, legislative bodies and “the law” could change in the future to represent something more sane i.e. no weapons of war and insurance requirements for gun ownership. I personally don’t find those two positions to be unreasoned, unreasonable or impossible at some time in the future and that’s why I advocate for them in the present because I believe they are the only ones possible that may change the “gun dynamic” in this nation that theoretically have a chance of gaining national traction at some point in the future.
Is it correct to interpret your wishes to ban handguns and “military grade” weapons, and also concealed carry, as meaning you do not view self-defense as a legitimate reason for gun ownership? That would be a very hard sell.
@ muntaba
What’s wrong with a shotgun for home defense?
As far as “concealed carry” as a form of self-defense I dismiss such arguments on the basis of statistical evidence that it is ineffective if not entirely rare that such permissive carrying actually is a meaningful preventative.
I understand it’s a hard sell. That doesn’t mean I’m not correct, it only means that millions of people hold lots of “beliefs” about a great many things that aren’t born out by empirical evidence and/or reason.
I believe hand guns and military style/grade weapons should be available for law enforcement and the military purposes only.
I have a problem with law enforcement having those kinds of weapons. When you arm a force like a military then you shouldn’t be surprised when the tenets of good law enforcement become subsumed by and turned into those used by the military. There was a reason for the Posse ComitatusAct. And even GW Bush wasn’t able to alter that permanently, though he tried in 2006.
What’s wrong with a shotgun for home defense?
My sister’s partner had a single-shot squirrel rifle in his hands when the police – whom he thought were home invaders – shot and killed him as he defended his home.
I never saw the guns those cops used, but they left holes that went through a refrigerator, two walls and had to be dug out of the third wall they hit. The ones that killed him went through him, the kitchen floor, a subfloor and had to be dug out of the concrete floor of the basement.
I was raised in a household that had guns, my father is a hunter and collector. I know my way around guns and have them in my house. Military weapons are just that, military. Or they should be. But that cat’s out of the bag and never going back so while I subscribe to much of what you laid out above I doubt I’ll ever see the day when we actually license, train and test people before they can own a gun.
Nothing is going to stop these, or even worse, weapons from getting into the hands of people in our society. Why? Because the weapons dealers need new markets and more money. It’s not enough for them to arm our military, nor law enforcement. We arm our allies, hell, even insurgents we’re supposed to be fighting use our own weapons against us.
Pandora’s Box was really a weapons cache. It’s a damn shame she gets blamed for being too curious and opening something given to her by that asshole Zeus. She ought to be praised for sticking around long enough to get that fucker shut again before hope escaped too.
@ Pedinska
Again, I guess I should clarify: 1) I would prefer only a limited number of law enforcement to possess military grade weapons, and be able to deploy and use them only in limited circumstances (i.e. SWAT type units and under very narrow circumstances); 2) I don’t have any guns in my home for precisely the reason you family experienced (and of course not that I believe you sister’s SO did anything wrong to precipitate what happened to him.
The rest of what you said I agree with.
Well, rr, I think the gap between our positions may come down to age and relative cynicism.
I’m a lot older and my cynicism has increased and hardened over the decades.
Also, I’ve spend a fair amount of time living in situations where, when seconds count, law enforcement help might be an hour or or more away. I expect that changes perceptions quite a bit.
I hope that your hopes are realized, someday, although I’m quite certain I won’t be around to see that. And my reading of the history of our violent culture leaves me in grave doubt that we will end, or even meaningfully reduce, our acceptance of, and eagerness to participate in, bloodshed at home and abroad.
@ Doug
Fair enough. I’m fairly cynical myself particularly about the American people and its legislative bodies. Being a lawyer, I find the US Constitution to be good in some respects and fundamentally flawed in many many others.
I seriously doubt I will be around to see the world change in the direction I envision is best for the most, but we advocate and fight the good fight nonetheless.
I believe these ideas to the core of my being. Although I know I’m imperfect and too weak to ever manifest them perfectly in all circumstances. But I try nonetheless.
Not that I believe in God, but I think we can all grasp Gandhi’s general points.
I personally think Gandhi, despite his many human imperfections (and there were some biggies), was the wisest human being to ever walk the surface of the earth. I can’t think of another human being other than MLK Jr. that is even in the Gandhi’s ballpark and I consider MLK Jr. to have barely entered the stadium by comparison to Gandhi.
The funny thing about Gandhi today is that BDS, his weapon of choice, is getting banned.
Oh boy, more government mandated insurance to buy! I can’t wait!
@ muntaba
Do you have a problem with mandated auto insurance? I don’t. And for very good reasons. Would you like me to enumerate them? And if I can defend the necessity of forced insurance as a privilege to drive a dangerous object on public roads, I can most assuredly defend the necessity of forced insurance as a condition of lawful gun ownership.
You of course are entitled to your opinion, but I will never agree with you that auto insurance (or the equivalent bond) is oppressive or liberty curtailing in any way that is meaningful to my conception of liberty in a nation of 300+ million people.
I have no issue with mandatory auto insurance, though I am not entirely thrilled with mandatory private health insurance. I suppose my vagueness may have made you leap to conclusions.
@rrheard-separating civilians, ” the government ” into groups where the ” the government ” has authority the civilians don’t have is NOT AMERICAN.
For the amount of schooling the members of the BAR go through it appears the “law degree” failed to teach that the authority of law restricts our, the people who follow the law, our freedoms, our life. The law doesn’t restrict those who don’t follow it and as a result they have the advantage over most of the population. That’s completely un-American.
Stop restricting me from the things I want/need to survive.
You can have every fucking code, regulation, directive, law on the books currently that restricts the choices of yourself and those in your home while in your home. see how long that lasts? You would go insane. If you don’t want to live under that tyranny then stay home in a unrestrictive life and do what ever you want as long as it is in your home if leaving scares you. Tyranny at home is just the same for all of us.
Why do you care if I carry a .38 snub nose in my pant leg?
Lawyers have become a liability to our way of life.
The “it’s just guns” argument is not convincing because abuses of power set a precedent.
I believe that Glenn’s point–and he stated it very clearly a number of times–is that we can’t allow our law enforcement and homeland security to be based primary on finger-pointing. Don’t you see the potential for abuse inherent in a terrorist watch system predicated on simply saying someone is a terrorist or potential terrorist, without providing evidence or proof of any kind, or even knowing who labelled you or why? You just point your finger and say, “It’s them,” and they are instantly–and forever–considered a terrorist. That scares the living fucking crap out of me.
That’s Nazi Germany, not the America I know and love.
Glad you hear you are offended by the possibility, but it is the America you know and love today, not Nazi Germany. And by the way, like war and torture, finger pointing has been outsourced too.
1) The ultimate arbiter of the Constitution’s meaning is the Supreme Court, which has ruled exactly the opposite of what you just said.
You don’t get to ignore Court rulings you dislike – that’s why anti-abortion citizens who disagree with Roe are still required to treat abortion as a constitutional right, even though they don’t think it is one.
2) Your argument is exactly the one the Bush/Cheney crowd used to justify their no-fly list against Muslims: well, boarding a plane isn’t a Constitutional right, so we can deny them this without violating the Constitution.
3) Any time the government allows one group of people to do something, while barring another arbitrarily, that’s a deprivation of liberty. That’s true even if you hope that, one day, the Supreme Court rules the way you hope it does.
Okay, can I vote people onto this list without due process? Here are just a few of my candidates for dangerous people who should be banned from holding any government positions:
Hillary Clinton, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, James Woolsey, the entire Bush crime family, Keith Alexander, James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, Dianne Feinstein, Lindsey Graham. . .
I’m sorry, that list could go on for a full page. . .
Come on, your argument is nonsense. Classify as dangerous? There’s something called due process, and something else called libel, and both apply in this case. As in other repressive countries, “dangerous” will immediately be applied to label political dissidents who threaten the positions of politicians and government leaders.
I mean, you know who Lindsey Graham calls “dangerous”?
Yes, CodePink’s Medea Benjamin. . . the pinkshirts are coming! They have, err… petitions? Duck and Cover!
As far as denial of the right to own guns, there has to be a legal process – just as with the denial of the right to drive cars, which killed ~32,000 people in 2014 (down from a peak of ~51,000 people in 1980) – licenses are suspended by the court system, and repeated driving on a suspended license results in jail time, etc.
So why are you calling for the suspension of legal due process specifically for guns, but not for vehicles, which are clearly just as dangerous in an unstable person’s hands?
The kind that likes easy feel-good solutions that let them feel they are supporting people who are doing something in the wake of tragedy, and the people who knowingly peddle such solutions.
Democrats have the DUTY to reverse the Bush Administration’s un-American, unChristian and ungodly practices and need to do it soon.
All members of Congress, including Democrats, took a supreme loyalty oath to follow the U.S. Constitution – which includes our Bill of Rights.
They have no authority at all over Americans unless they agree to that supreme loyalty oath – they need to follow it!
Un-Christian? Find a history book, (written by a historian and not some Christian propagandist) and read about the Founders. They were deeply steeped in the pursuit of Reason, not religion. The Founders made sure to leave religion out of the Constitution.
Actually agree with you but the pro-surveillance crowd seems to think so for some reason -was addressing those guys!
RB – the Dems did have a chance to undo all this (that we were given by the GOP and Bush) when Obama came into office and they had veto proof majorities in both houses. Obama pledged to “get rid of all this illegal surveillance..” prior to the election. But they didn’t, the Dems let this all become the “new normal” and then expanded it.
U.S. citizens who don’t want to see their government melt away their “rights” have no party…and the whole process seems to be self reinforcing. Its actually quite difficult to see a way out of this as opposed to just progressively worse.
(Emphasis added.)
Perfectly put and a gentle reminder to those innocent bombing survivors that saw their innocent loved ones blown to bits that intentions matter.
Most people think they know who should own guns and fly, what the income distribution should be, what healthcare should cost, etc. For those in power, who face a big political risk from terror attacks (for example, Bush was…nevermind), the incentive to further erode gun rights is strong. The government is well armed, and taking guns from everyone else and scoring political points with anti-gun voters is a no-brainer for Democrats.
The attacks on the US citizens for removal of rights has been relentless of late and gun rights are squarely in the sights these days. I’ve often wondered how one acquires the ‘status’ of the terror or no fly lists, secret of course, and then the removal from said list. Everyone is turned into potential terrorists and spys against fellow citizens. Yes do be vigilant and let authorities know for obvious activity that’s not normal for your neighborhood but little items don’t make one a terrorist. There are no good answers, yet, for keeping guns out of the hands of deranged killers that effectively become suicide bombers with guns blazing instead of an actual bomb, that then conveniently, are dispatched by the police. This country is slowly, steadily sliding toward fascism with the government into everyone’s face and rights taken away one small piece at a time until there aren’t any freedoms left, and watch happy images on the all powerful TV screen.
So well said Ol’Hippy.
There is a seven year old kid in Toronto who cannot go to Florida on vacation because he is on a US “no fly” list.
And if anyone knows why they aren’t saying.
It’s interesting. You see the usual spike in profits from gun sales after this Orlando shooting. But maybe there is something new, the LGBT community, is also joining the long list of other communities that have learned first-hand, the cost is of misinterpreting the 2nd amendment.
Not sure I follow. Gun sales spiked because more LGBT are buying guns but then you link to George Takei preaching unilateral disarmament?
“If you want to ban someone from buying a gun because you believe they’re a Terrorist or otherwise a Bad Person, then go create a procedure where the government must go to an actual court, present evidence, the accused can respond, and then a judicial ruling is issued. What kind of a person opposes that?”
I might oppose it because FISA is secretive also. The government would not likely have a hearing like this in open court… government may even deny allowing the accused to see the evidence due to “national security” threats.
“Democrats, in unison, are actually arguing that the U.S. Government must constrain people whom they are now calling “potential terrorists.””
Good deal. They will now, no doubt, stop Obama from conducting his “Terror Tuesday” attacks, as he could be given the “potential terrorist” label, and tarnish his peaceful legacy.
“The Senate GOP has decided to sell weapons to ISIS”.
What a bunch of chumps! Democrats know that the proper thing to do is to give the weapons to “friendly militias” who will promptly run away, leaving the weapons for ISIS, without having to endure the stigma of seeming war profiteering.
Yawn. The difference between Jennifer Rubin and Diane Feinstein? About 30 years.
Too many leftovers in the Democratic Party from the Jim Crow days.
You know what all these “secret lists” and due-process free “suspected of terrorism” restrictions on certain individuals reminds me of–21st century due process free interment camps of disfavored groups or individuals.
Eerily similar to what was done to Japanese Americans during WWII but without the need and obvious transparency of physical camps. Or maybe akin to due-process free “home detention” without an actual court conviction i.e. constantly surveilled, restricted movements (no fly etc.), stripping or prevention of ownership of property . . . .
Seems the USG understands actual interment of disfavored groups would likely never fly again (legally or politically) in a nation radically more demographically diverse than in the 40s, but nevertheless they feel the need to approximate that level of surveillance and control over disfavored groups.
And to do things like this that is why it is absolutely necessary to convince the American people, or at the very least use the propagandistic language of, that “we are at war against X boogeyman”. Glenn has written extensively about this idea that the “war” linguistic frame is the linchpin/sin qua non of the USG having any chance whatsoever to expand and embrace these sorts of draconian policies.
And Glenn is 100% correct–the 5th Amendment is very simple–if someone is suspected of committing a crime, provide them due process, put your evidence on the table in an adversarial manner in open court, and obtain a conviction if you can. Short of that a person is legally “innocent” by definition and should be able to get on with his/her life. That’s as good as it gets in a “system of justice”. This idea that we can “prevent” crime based on suspicions is absurd and Orwellian in the extreme subject to levels of abuse that even low IQ human being should be able to predict and comprehend.
I’ve written many times that many of enumerated Amendments to the US Constitution were basically nullities particularly where there is an insinuation or allegation of “terrorism”. The 4th is basically dead. The 5th and 6th are on their way. The 1st is under constant threat. The 7th has been neutered by administrative state and its procedures. The 8th is sadly twisted to permit both excessive bails and the death penalty. And the 9th and 10th are sort of non-amendments.
The only one that seems to be holding its ground is the 2nd even though it is arguable that it is the one which popular democratic sentiment (statistically speaking) seeks to have cabined democratically but which largely never is. Which sets up the weirdest of conflicts and potential allies–staunch gun owners having to potentially defend the 2nd Amendment rights even for those despised minorities or “out-groups” they generally fear-monger most against.
This really is a screwy nonsensical nation at times.
If the government truly believes these people are dangerous, what logical sense does it make to stop at taking away only their right to fly and right to own guns?
Fun game: Guess what right gets stripped away next. Opening bank accounts? Owning property?
American Citizens residing abroad (expats) can no longer have bank accounts or investment accounts in the US.
The really great thing about getting rid of due process, is that none of the other rights matter anymore, and you can punish anyone for anything at any time for any reason.
I’m all for due process, but even due process can be discriminatory.
It seems to me that the Democratic Party is gearing up for the type of Presidency they know Hillary Clinton will create. Sad that not many people are seeing her for the establishment war hawk and control freak she really is.
I’m either voting for Jill Stein or writing in Bernie Sanders; I haven’t decided which yet.
I’m going with Stein I think. I do like Bernie but his tweet about potential terrorists and his love of drones has given me pause. But who are we kidding, a candidate like Stein might win some local elections but not the presidency. Our country is not ready for that.
I think our country actually is ready for it, if only the mass media would give 3rd party candidates equal attention. MSM perpetuates the duopoly and, funny thing, it financially benefits them. Surprise. Registered voters= 26% Republican, 29% Democrat, 44% Independent. Even of those in the 2 big parties there is a lot of dissatisfaction with their own party, but they don’t feel there is anywhere else to go. Maybe if everyone started demanding MSM include 3rd parties in reporting and polls…
Impeccable, again, Glenn.
As I read it, I thought, “God, Greenwald has saved me so much writing and talking over the years; I so often just have to say, ‘Here, read this!'”
Well said, and agreed.
Good article. Precise with a great summation. I’m all for keeping guns away from dangerous people and if we had more transparency and a fair way to make these determinations less arbitrary, gun control measures might get more support. I’m all for UBC but if that system is going to rely on arbitrary lists made in secret I can see why someone would vote against it. The problems of democracy are solved by more democracy, not less.
I’m ok with it. In fact, they should keep increasing this list until everyone is on the no-gun-list. No need for due process to prevent people from getting guns, unless you believe the libertarian horseshit of gun ownership being an individual right.
Aside from the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled expressly that gun ownership is an individual right under the Constitution, you’re indulging fantasy. “Everyone” will not be on the list. We already have these kinds of lists and we know who goes on it: Muslims and other minorities.
In the abstract, it takes a warped, authoritarian mind to favor the government having this sort of power. But given what we know about how these lists are used, something worse than that is needed to want to create new ones.
“This sort of power” to decide who should not have a gun?! No, that’s not authoritarian, that is the most obvious and mundane power for the government to have. You have legitimate concerns about how they can be discriminatory, but you reveal how the typically-american libertarian faulty mindset (“everything is sliperry slope toward totalitarianism”) dictates your views when you condemn the government having this sort of power.
I agree with you 100%, the “watch-list” is not to watch but to persecute and assassinate those named. As a person in the list because of my political views I am subjected to the most outrageous acts of terrorism by the United States government while the courts refuse to take action against the true terrorists perpetrating these attacks.
In the last six months alone the New York City Police Department has raided my apartment at gun-point twice without a search-warrant after breaking its door.
Who are the terrorists ?
You’re OK with undermining the 2nd Amendment . One of the reasons that Democrats are pushing this in the wake of Orlando is that they know much of their base despises the 2nd.
Do you like the 4th better, or are you a little soft on that one?
“. . . unless you believe the libertarian horseshit of gun ownership being an individual right.”
As Glenn has told you, the Supreme Court agrees with that libertarian horseshit. You shouldn’t need reminding, since the case was decided in 1803 and should have been taught in every high school government or civics class since public schooling began, but here we go:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”
That’s John Marshall, for the unanimous Court, in Marbury v. Madison.
One more little tidbit for you to consider: “First they came for the guns . . .”
Yes, the Supreme Court agrees. And that’s the tragedy.
The Supreme Court has said many things that were profoundly wrong (in both the legal and moral sense), has it not? “The Supreme Court said so” is pretty weak sauce, really.
Another thing the Court said in the Heller opinion was that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill….”
Isn’t the Court saying here that the government can restrict the right to gun ownership based on the potential danger posed by guns in the possession of certain categories of citizens without offending the Second Amendment?
I’d agree with the above. Historically the Supreme Court is a reflection of our nation’s collective biases, present “culture” and values, and is oftentimes hamstrung by a, at times, unreasoning devotion to the principal of stare decisis (which has both positive and negative attributes). Notwithstanding that, what the Supreme Court “says” on a particular issue is “authority” so it is not necessarily an appeal to authority fallacy when in fact and reality the Supreme Court is the singular “legal authority” in this nation until it decides to reverse or revise a doctrine or ruling/holding(s).
Now I may be a weird “liberal” or “leftists” but I’ve always felt that most felons should have the opportunity to re-establish all their Constitutional rights once they’ve fulfilled their sentences. Moreover, felons lose their 2nd Amendment rights only as a function of a due-process obtained conviction.
As far as the “mentally ill” status goes for revoking someone’s Constitutional rights, it is my understanding that (notwithstanding secret lists of the mentally ill) a person can only have his/her 2nd Amendment rights curtailed if there is due process and expert medical opinion establishing that the individual is “a danger to self or others” as a function of their “mental illness” which is actually a very small statistical subset of this nation’s “mentally ill” (whatever that means). Point being I don’t think we should be restricting people’s Constitutional rights because they have been diagnostically established to have OCD, or an eating disorder, or depression, biplor or anxiety disorders, . . . . point being how do you define “mental illness” such that an individual should have their Constitutional rights taken away? That’s a very slippery slope.
I think it is saying that so long as those “certain categories” of people are afforded sufficient due process (again notwithstanding secret lists being compiled to remove Constitutional rights which I oppose and without drilling into the idea practically of what constitutes “sufficient due process” substantively and procedurally) and it is determined the USG or state government has a compelling reason to revoke someone’s Constitutional rights, then and only then should such revocation be possible or appropriate.
At least that’s what I hope the Supremes should be “saying” even thought they may not be–which brings you back to your point in your first paragraph.
The American system of “justice” has many positive attributes worth defending. But after nearly 10 years of being an attorney, more and more every day I realize how blunt of a tool it is, and how often it is profoundly arbitrary and unreasoning.
“Isn’t the Court saying here that the government can restrict the right to gun ownership …”
Yes, based upon an adjudicated event or medical determination.
Even felons may petition the court for restoration of full rights.
“much of their base despises the 2nd.”
No, much of their base despises the Heller interpretation of the 2A, which is the illiterate, illogical, and achronistic interpretation.
An American can hate all the right people, constantly talk about killing them in bulk, and never be molested or denied as many military assault weapons as his or her heart desires. Spend a few decades in Texas and you might understand what I am talking about.
If one speaks up for people being demonized by your culture he may be subjected to 24×7 harassment for decades while being allowed to fly. Putting a target on a no-fly list gives that target legal standing to challenge the violation of rights in court. Covert stalking, harassment, and torture, with death of the target being the objective, happens to those on the can-fly lists, while the perpetrators never need to trouble themselves with legal paperwork as they ply their trade — in airports and planes too, especially in airports and planes.
This article and thread focuses on the gun issue and deflects from an equally serious issue: routine domestic torture and extra judicial killings.
No-fly and no-gun lists are in the same category from this Zersetzung target’s perspective. They are synonymous to me. We are deliberately left off these lists so America’s torture community may continue enjoying impunity.
You may well suffer from mental illness– many of your fellow Targeted Individuals do. Yesterday, you carried your delusions further still, writing about me that I had “expressed an intense desire for [your] death.”
That’s very offensives and libelous, but no one is likely to take it seriously as long as they understand the nature of your profound affliction.
Hmmm . . . we know that truth is a defense to a libel charge, but that doesn’t apply here. And I don’t think “batshit crazy” usually works as a tort defense.
However, If I were in charge of the forum, it would be reason enough for moderation — at least in the form of editing before posting.
@Doug Hmmm . . . What is your own defense? One minute you say “I’m pretty sure Glenn Greenwald is one of the least likely guys around to argue that the US government isn’t watching/surveilling all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons — and for no reason at all except that they can.” Then in the very same thread you all but parrot Mona’s response to an actual target’s posting. American, what’s wrong with you?
Do you assume an irate target who knows TI has a stash of the Stasi’s data suppliers’ documents would not post comments about the topic on TI, so, his comment(s) should be edited? If you are going to contradict yourself at least try to spread it around.
You would improve your optics and credibility if you again posted that link to the recent NYT article next to your own drivel on the subject. It might double your credibility.
And no Mona… no delusions on my part. My grip on reality is quite healthy. You posted, as though you are privy to intimate knowledge about me, that I had lived a tragic life and it will end tragically, again, next to your disifno link. You are American torturers’ hyperactive little errand girl, Mona. They are killers and you have repeatedly shown an intense support for their activities, which logically means you enthusiastically support their objective: murder.
And Doug, you are being gullible.
Mona, the only person with mental health problems is you, as you are a quack. If slandering people with absolutely no research or fact based evidence of a persons claim is your version of research or you think you are some kind of online psychiatric evaluator then you seriously are the one who needs mental help.
According to you, if a crime is alleged, you gather absolutely no evidence and parrot your favorite phrase mental illness as quick as possible. Absolutely makes perfect sense. Screaming LIAR, LIAR or mental illness everytime someone makes a claim about abuse from an ever growing secret police state accross this country is just disgustingly laughable. Such hard hitting evidence you obtain before you slander someone.
I remember this story about a guy, i think his name was Edward, or Ed, something like that. Anyway he “claimed” to have secrets he took from the NSA. No one believed him, even this guy named Glenn. He was just dismissed because… we’ll you can look this story up yourself. I’m sure if he would have come to you, your first words to him would be to berate him, call him delusional, slander him with mental illness and needs to seek help.
You’re being researched at this time Mona and i assure you, you will be exposed for the shill you really are. You will never again have any standing credibility, if you have any now. Until then, please seek mental health treatment and you also seem to have foot and mouth disease which you should also get checked out.
Mona is herself, proof that the phenomenon of sadistic treatment of individuals who speak about the FBI/disruption scheme/community policing victims is indeed real and demonstrated here once again.
Put another way-Mona is likely involved in the phenomenon on some level.
I wonder if she has anything substantive to say about institutional sociopathy-or her role in sadistically stigmatizing entire groups of human beings like “the mentally ill?'”
Mona comes to us straight from a disinformation manual.
Glenn Greenwald said most things better than I could. He’s great at calling out those on both sides who ignore the clear constitutional mandate for an end to watchlists.
Now, I would also put more blame on the media, who ignore the clearly documented cases of people being put on watch lists for religion, political reasons and error. (I’d also single out the infamous Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who took a copy of the US no-fly list from Wikileaks, and, instead of publishing it so all could see it, decided to destroy it, denying the public access to the information.)
Well from my perspective, the Democrats care about the cost of gun violence as much as they care about due process. If they thought that their bill had any chance of even minutely constricting the sales of guns, they wouldn’t have introduced it. And the Republicans also care about due process, just as much as they care about reducing gun violence, which is to say…about as much as the Democrats.
It’s hard to take the US debate seriously. Imagine any other threat that was taking the lives of thirty thousand a year. People dying in car crashes? Should we look to see what works? Here and abroad? No!, lets put Mexican drivers on a secret watch list!!! Or maybe raise the penalty for getting into a crash to life in prison! (it’s not a lack of seat-belts that kill people, it’s people that kill people)
So as usual, instead of restricting war weapons, and making everybody safer…Obama’s Dems want to be trying to predict who will go postal in the future. Sort of like encouraging everyone to get AIDS then trying to predict when and where the next person will become infected.
My favourite myth is the one Trump repeated recently. If even more guns had been distributed in the US, one of the drinking, partying in the dark, club goers at Pulse could have outdrawn Mateen, and shot him between the eyes. It’s as if America, with all their familiarity with gun violence, …gets their understanding how shootings occur, from black and white Hollywood movies.
In real life, this guy Mateen, the bad guy, is ready, trained, better armed, not drinking, doesn’t have to avoid shooting innocent bystanders.
Instead of trying to magically predict where the next shooter is going to pop up, and unconstitutionally take away their “right” to a machine gun…
…maybe the US could stop avoiding the obvious solutions. For example, don’t let just anybody buy weapons that can kill fifty people at a pop.
Hi Glenn
Great article, criminals should be in prison and people with serious mental health issues should receive treatment and neither grouping would then have access to guns, but potential terrorists? What does that even mean?
I would also like to link back to your previous article talking about how terrorism is defined and how the definition is so malleable as to have no real meaning anymore.
From https://theintercept.com/2016/06/17/why-is-the-killer-of-british-mp-jo-cox-not-being-called-a-terrorist/
In the West, functionally speaking, it’s now a propaganda term with little meaning other than “a Muslim who engages in violence against Westerners or their allies.” It’s even used for Muslims who attack soldiers of an army occupying their country.
*** As an aside I notice user craigsummers was talking about the situation in Venezuela, any coverage of the situation would be welcomed as there is a chance a humanitarian crisis is evolving there right now. But I could say that about many places in the world right now, anyways thanks again for the above.
Outstanding article. I don’t always agree with Glenn Greenwald, but his willingness to take on the corrupt people in his own party (I assume he has been or was a democrat) is deserving of respect. Finally a journalist who does not practice conditional ethics (its only bad when other groups do it because my group is good).
Indeed.
It’s been pretty obvious that The Intercept prefers Bernie over Hillary (or at least dislikes Hillary a lot more), but luckily they haven’t shied away from criticizing him on several issues, also by including his inconsiderate tweet into this article.
Welcome to the American plantation, which is expanding as fast as possible to the Global Plantation.
The unhinged GOP is blatant about its depravity and viciousness and proud of it. The Democrats have the same feelings but try to make your think they feel bad about having them. FOX News is vulgar Right Wing propaganda. MSNBC tries to be snarky and clever and more PC sensitive but its still a Corporate mouthpiece.
America is a failed state. For the moment we just happen to be more comfy with it than other failed states .
Ralph Nader was correct: the last liberal President we had was Nixon.
“What kind of a person opposes that?” Authoritarians, Fascists, Democrats, Republicans… Americans! All the well-propagandized corporate “news” consumers fall in line with this kind of thinking. Thanks for your ongoing efforts to educate people about the disgusting nature of the spin-doctors and smily-faced liars who sheep-dog for the corporate media political charade.
The “Democratic” party should officially adopt the scare quotes.
Banksters and the rest of the parasitic elite are too big to jail. But the people who actually work for a living and contribute to society are too small to have rights.
The half a waffle shop party doesn’t need voters if it controls enough voting machines.
Hi Mike5000
Check this out I heard this is true, in India in the elections the votes are counted by hand. 1,251,000,000 people vs electronic voting for 315,000,000 people. To mis-quote Orwell, those who control the voting machines control the past etc.