http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/ne...-first-terrorist-registry-and-its-horrifying/ Talk about it WF. Good, bad, rightfully interpreted, wrongfully interpreted, hogwash? (Posting from my phone, so doing more than a link is annoying. Someone can post the article if they need to)
It's a disgrace. By all means the intelligence services should have a watch list. But making it public? Guilty until proven innocent now it seems. Nothing should interfere with the opposite. Still, after Gitmo and the amount of people voting for Trunp's racial profiling, nothing in America surprises me anymore. I wish I could get all pompous and sneer at you all, but the disgusting racism that has come out en masse after Brexit tells me it's not a uniquely American problem.
Very much what Chup said. But the no-fly lists, not least Gitmo, and also the sex offender lists all fall into the same category -- the last one requires a conviction, but it shouldn't apply to people who have served their time; it just locks them into their role as criminals and prevents rehabilitation. In all of these cases, the US has turned its back on due process, and given various groups within its governments and security services unprecedented power to blackmail and torment innocent citizens.
I think it's great. A lot of people want to kill terrorists but are put off by having to join the military and fly to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, or anywhere else that Hillary has touched. With New York's list they can just pop a Haji on the way to work.
Damn....first California (guns) & now New York with this our Constitutional rights are getting flushed right on down the toilet coming at us from both directions! I hope that shit doesn't spread too far across our once great & free nation. The terrorists have won. No offense if any of you are on this list, I mean the bad terrorists of course. Check out this comment on the news site: "This list will only be if you are a white male and considered far right. If you are a minority or of Muslim faith then you have nothing to fear as evident by the fact the terrorist in Orlando was on the FBI terror list 3 times but then this presidents political correctness towards all things Islam said to take him off and delete the information." Oh yeah, this can't miss!
That is really, really, really bad and has the potential to be very damaging. I mean if someone's been tried and convicted, then by all means add them to the list. But just because the government says you're a terrorist? Hell no. What kind of fucking idiot says this is ok, apart from @gturner ?
Oh, like the New York list really tells anyone what they didn't already know. It's going to be a list of everyone who has worn a turban or joined the Tea Party.
I think we've got a new litmus test for government power: would you trust Donald Trump trying to use it against his enemies? If not, the government shouldn't have it.
Too low. I wouldn't trust anyone with this power, including myself. I wouldn't trust Trump with a pair of scissors.
Yet the government already has these lists. All the New York bill does is make them public. And what could be more convenient after a terrorist attack than having access to a list of terrorist sympathizers? Think how many Sikhs it will probably save!
Not only is it not remotely comparable, but unfortunately for you I come from a country where we've grown up a bit and don't need to advance spurious arguments as to why we need to to be armed just in case of a 0.001% chance of an incident. Soz.
The big problem I have with sex offender lists is that they (at least all of them I've heard of) lump EVERY type of possible offense together as though they were equal. They treat a 19 year old guy who got caught having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend........the same as the 50 year old man who got caught molesting several 11 year olds. And lets be honest, most people aren't worried about something the 19 year old did back in 2011.
So why don't you encourage gun ownership by the average person in the UK? What's the worst that could happen, since the odds are only 0.001 % of there being an incident of any type? Ruminate on this - if there is only a 0.001% chance of a criminal gun incident, wouldn't the odds of a law-abiding gun owner having an incident be even less? I assume your armed criminals are more violent than your non-criminals, right? Just asking.....
I don't encourage it because I think it has had an negative impact on the US in comparison to all other first world nations. Plus, I just don't care.
I think this is great! Really. Why? Because it might finally expose the stupidity of these type of lists. Especially if any kids on the no fly list end up on the public list in New York.
You try to warn people. You try and try and try, but because "their" side is in power or it's the "wrong" issue, it's okay. Then hey presto!
I wonder if that is the thought behind introducing the legislation. It reminds me somewhat of those bills to reintroduce the draft, intended only to point out the growing disparity between those who serve and those who do not. But from the article's presentation, this seems like a legitimate effort to publish and use the list, so no, not an effort to make what should be an obvious point.
I support the list whole heartedly. After a terrorist attack many Americans are reluctant to beat the shit out of Muslims because there's a chance they might target an innocent Muslim who for some personal reason doesn't support terrorism. With these public lists of suspected terrorists, that uncertainty goes away and we can just wail on them. Of course given the DHS insistence that right-wing patriots and Tea Party supporters are a huge domestic terrorism threat, no doubt half the people on the list will be right-wing patriots. But when the American justice posses show up at one of their houses and sea the Gadsden Flag, we can just say "Hey, we're going to lynch some Muslim terrorists! Grab a rope and a beer cooler and pile in!"
