It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dianne Feinstein says Americans must prove their innocence if they’re on a watch list

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Also, funny that even the ACLU has come out against this.


According to ACLU National Security Project director Hina Shamsi, "The standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error."


Every so often, something just stinks so bad that even the usual suspects can't hold their noses enough to pass it by.




posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Also, funny that even the ACLU has come out against this.


According to ACLU National Security Project director Hina Shamsi, "The standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error."


Every so often, something just stinks so bad that even the usual suspects can't hold their noses enough to pass it by.


I'm pretty sure that's what I said that you replied to. We just see it differently.
edit on 6/22/2016 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I chalk it up to the "you know you've gone round the bend when you've even lost the ACLU ..." file. Generally speaking, the ACLU would likely be all over this ... but this is just too blatant, even for them. They haven't suddenly become my ally in any real way; it's just too much, even for them.

And I won't make the mistake of thinking so.

But for those who are thinking this proposal is awesome sauce ... they ought to look at something like this and think twice. The ACLU is generally in their corner.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




Should we allow association, religious belief, or some other combination of non-criminal factors to sever a constitutionally protected right? Under Attorney General Eric Holder, the government argued that the No Fly List requires "predictive judgments about individuals who may pose threats to civil aviation and national security."




Predictive judgments."




That means the government takes actions based on its determination that someone might commit a crime in the future. Even if that's a highly educated and informed guess, we're still talking projections rather than realities. And because it's related to national security, individuals finding themselves on the No Fly List have a tough time responding to or even understanding the circumstances that landed them there in the first place.


Minority Report meets real life.

Precrime.

The LEFT has completely gone off the deep end if the ACLU is the voice of reason.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
She's been nuts for a while, but she's a Democrat so she's protected.
edit on 22-6-2016 by TheBulk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: enlightenedservant

On part one yes if we are talking overall gun violence. But if we are talking Muslim explosions with firearms then we should be able to have early warning antenna for getting ahead of that......without falling under the guilt trip that Muslims are being profiled. Primarily because we know for a fact that many are become radicalized against western culture.

If we wanted to talk about the leading demographic of gun violence in the US, well thats another can of warms that the Obama administration never really addressed making hay rather out of nut cases going off.


What Muslim explosions with firearms? There was one incident last year, the Boston Marathon bombing, and what else? 9/11, which happened 15 years ago?

So the issue here isn't to save American lives or to prevent killings in America? Because the stats I provided tell the full story. 6,374 actual gun related homicides vs 49-50 victims of Muslim terrorism this year. That means that 0.78% of these killings were caused by Muslim terrorists (1 guy in Orlando). Yes, that's less than 1%. And if you're talking about "explosion related incidences", there have been 0 in America this year.

So how is it not profiling to focus on several million American Muslims for the crime of 1 Muslim? According to that website I linked, there have been 77 more gun related deaths in the US just in the last 72 hours. And none of those were caused by Muslim terrorists or we would've seen it all over the news. So if we're actually trying to save lives here, who should really be profiled?



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Why is there even any debate?

Anyone who supports this crone is wrong.

just admit you're wrong and move on with your life!

sheesh!



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Why is there even any debate?

Anyone who supports this crone is wrong.

just admit you're wrong and move on with your life!

sheesh!


You know very well why. People are thoroughly convinced that NO ONE needs a gun, and if you think you do, then you might be a terrorist because the only reason you would want one is to either "compensate for no penis" or "to massacre people" because that's the overly simplistic thinking of people who support this.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

If freedoms and Rights are so abhorrent then there are plenty of countries to move to.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
Should people living in the US legally, who don't support freedoms and liberties be considered American?



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I know that ... You know that ... but for some reason, they feel they have some divine mandate to force us to comply rather than go to any of the fantastic Euro-paradises they constantly harp on about.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

How do you know if you're on a watch list?



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: xuenchen

How do you know if you're on a watch list?


That's the thing ... you don't until they mess with you and even then, you may not know if that's why they messed with you. So you may not know you need to fight it.

So basically, they just remove your rights and don't even tell you.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: xuenchen

How do you know if you're on a watch list?


redress




posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It's amazing a group of patriots don't commission a . . . . a . . .

Mafia family . . . to give such chronic and fierce traitors . . .

a one way trip to . . . somewhere very hard to return from . . .

I wouldn't want to pollute Mars with them . . . URANUS might do.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



If I could have gotten 51 votes Mr and Mrs America turn them all in!



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

I was busy and didn't have all my eggs in a row.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN



They might eventually get around to sending a probe.

edit on 22-6-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Dianne Feinstein and her husband once owned a lot of old railrood land in the calif desert that they bought for less then $5.00 a acre.

in 1997 Dianne Feinstein's desert protection bill passed turning most of this land into wilderness areas.

The government then bought up all these private holdings for over $100 A ACRE.

Dianne Feinstein and her husband MADE OVER A MILLION DOLLARS FROM THIS DESERT PROTECTION ACT.

This is while many mining claim owners lost millions when the government took there land under the desert protection act.
en.wikipedia.org...

in in the years since Dianne Feinstein and friends have been buying more of this old desert land and have put in a new DESERT PROTECTION ACT to increes the size on the old bill and likely make them more money.
www.pe.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So politicians who claim they govern only with the consent of the governed say stuff rule of law, we dont give two dobs of goat ..it about that.... but but but we respect the will of the people.

This kind of thing strikes me as the elite regarding themselves as the master and everyone else as the "free range sub human."

edit on 23-6-2016 by Azureblue because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join