Should a person have the right* to know if they're on the "no fly" list?

[radcen]

There is no inconsistency privileges and rights are different and should be treated differently. Just because I support denying a privilege does not mean that I support denying a right because a right by its very definition can not be denied. So there is no "mindset" problem, except for yours in which you can only see things in black and white.

Fair enough. You support treating people as "guilty until proven innocent". That's your mindset. Thank you for finally being honest.

ETA: And worse, not only are you ok with presuming people guilty, you don't want to give innocent people a chance to prove their innocence.

 

[Hatuey]

The "no fly" list has nothing to do with constitutional rights as there is no right to fly on a plane

I didn't know the federal government had the power to restrict the means by which a person can travel.

 

[Crovax]

Unfortunately, the government tends to suck and in addition to "terror cells" they're also putting toddlers, Armed Services members, Senators, 80-year-old women, and hundreds of ordinary, hard-working businessmen on the list.

And in so doing they're infringing on innocent American citizen's freedom of movement, which is protected by the Constitution as much as the right to bear arms (and not as an amendment, as part of the original body).

If the government isn't allowed (and it should not be allowed) to arbitrarily and through shady extrajudicial means decide who can and cannot own a firearm they they have no business deciding who can or cannot freely move about the country, and then keep the fact that they've decided that you "made the list" a secret from you.

The right to travel doesn't gaurentee a specific ways of travel, otherwise drivers licenses would be unconstitutional. Wait you're not one of "those" people are you?

 

[Crovax]

I didn't know the federal government had the power to restrict the means by which a person can travel.

Drive a car without a license and find out

 

[Hatuey]

Drive a car without a license and find out

If I have a passport, why shouldn't I be able to fly?

 

[Crovax]

Fair enough. You support treating people as "guilty until proven innocent". That's your mindset. Thank you for finally being honest.

ETA: And worse, not only are you ok with presuming people guilty, you don't want to give innocent people a chance to prove their innocence.

Actually I don't but you obviously can't resist a stawman

 

[radcen]

Actually I don't but you obviously can't resist a stawman

You do. Your words have meaning and you said as much. It's just inconvenient to admit.

 

[Crovax]

If I have a passport, why shouldn't I be able to fly?

As long as it's reasonable to conclude you expected destination isn't the 93rd floor of a building you can fly all you want.

 

[soot]

The right to travel doesn't gaurentee a specific ways of travel, otherwise drivers licenses would be unconstitutional.

Agreed.

Neither does the Constitution guarantee specific ways of coming in to possession of a firearm.

What you're arguing for is the exact same thing as a secret "no gun list".

The Constitution doesn't explicitly protect some assumed right to walk in to a store and buy a firearm, it just says that you can keep and bear arms.

Wait you're not one of "those" people are you?

Those people who hold our Constitutional rights sacred?

Yeah, I'm one of those nut jobs.

:roll:

 

[Crovax]

You do. Your words have meaning and you said as much. It's just inconvenient to admit.

No I don't. In fact I have said now, explicitly, that I don't.

Continue to make up lies all you want at your own peril.

 

[Crovax]

Agreed.

Neither does the Constitution guarantee specific ways of coming in to possession of a firearm.

What you're arguing for is the exact same thing as a secret "no gun list".

The Constitution doesn't explicitly protect some assumed right to walk in to a store and buy a firearm, it just says that you can keep and bear arms.

Buying a gun is a necessity to exercising the right to keep and bear arms. The same argument can not be made with airplanes and the right to travel.

Those people who hold our Constitutional rights sacred?

Yeah, I'm one of those nut jobs.

:roll:

The ones who booed Gary Johnson for supporting the idea of drivers licenses?

 

[radcen]

No I don't. In fact I have said now, explicitly, that I don't.

Continue to make up lies all you want at your own peril.

Your previous words betray your protests.

Buying a gun is a necessity to exercising the right to keep and bear arms. The same argument can not be made with airplanes and the right to travel.

No, it's not. The gun could be a gift. Or, you could steal it. Or, you could find it on the side of the road. Or, you could make your own.

If there are options to how one travels, there are also option to how one obtains a firearm. Or, are you cherry-picking again which aspects you like and which ones you don't like?

 

[Gaius46]

try to board a plane
you'll find out

Worst time to find out. Kiss your travel plans and potentially a fair amount of money in cancellation fees goodbye. Not to mention wasted vacation time, upset and disappointed spouse and kids etc etc if you happened to be on your way to Disney World.

 

[Gaius46]

You don't understand the difference between a constitutional right and a privilege.

Noted.

The SC has held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause grants a fundamental right to travel. Placing someone on a no-fly list infringes that right. The government is therefore denying a right without due process.

 

[Hatuey]

As long as it's reasonable to conclude you expected destination isn't the 93rd floor of a building you can fly all you want.

So then a license is not analogous to having a passport?

 

[Gaius46]

The right to travel doesn't gaurentee a specific ways of travel, otherwise drivers licenses would be unconstitutional. Wait you're not one of "those" people are you?

International travel is impossible without planes - ship board travel is both too long and too expensive in many cases. Travel between many points within the country is impractical by any means other than aircraft.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Should a person have the right* to know if they're on the "no fly" list?

In other words, should an individual be able to call or somehow submit a request to find out if they're on the list and have it answered honestly? (And in a timely manner, of course.)

The questions regards the list in general, not specifically or limited to the current debate relating to guns, etc.

*- Or, legal ability, if you want to quibble over the word "right".

Yes, but there shouldn't be a list, at least with citizens on it.
If you have a problem with me, charge me with my alleged crime.

 

[Ahlevah]

The "no fly" list has nothing to do with constitutional rights as there is no right to fly on a plane

So driving is a privilege; flying on a plane is a privilege; taking a boat, bus, or train is a privilege; buying a pair of shoes, a motorcycle, or a bike is a privilege.... I guess if you want to exercise your right to travel in this country from, say, Los Angeles to New York you'd better have a solid set of gams or be handy with tools so you can make yourself a covered wagon.

 

[radcen]

So driving is a privilege; flying on a plane is a privilege; taking a boat, bus, or train is a privilege; buying a pair of shoes, a motorcycle, or a bike is a privilege.... I guess if you want to exercise your right to travel in this country from, say, Los Angeles to New York you'd better have a solid set of gams or be handy with tools so you can make yourself a covered wagon.

Owning tools is a privilege, too, I'm sure.

 

[matchlight]

I don't see what gives anyone a legal right to know the U.S. government suspects him of being subversive or dangerous. By 1941, the FBI had compiled a "custodial detention" list of persons it had reason to suspect were subversives. It suggested these were persons the government should consider detaining in case of a national emergency. I don't believe the Bureau was ever required to make that list public, nor do I think it should have been.

 

[radcen]

I don't see what gives anyone a legal right to know the U.S. government suspects him of being subversive or dangerous. By 1941, the FBI had compiled a "custodial detention" list of persons it had reason to suspect were subversives. It suggested these were persons the government should consider detaining in case of a national emergency. I don't believe the Bureau was ever required to make that list public, nor do I think it should have been.

Did the government hinder these people from going about their daily business simply because they were on said list?

I am presuming you are not speaking of Japanese internment, btw.

 

[Mr Person]

Yes of course you should know.

Seems pointlessly malicious to have people find out only after they're standing at the security line with their ticket; especially so with all the people on it mistakenly.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

Of course.
and the right to challenge it.
and the right to sue if it's based on false information.

this^

if not, then we would have a tyranny. or do we already?

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Yes, but there shouldn't be a list, at least with citizens on it.
If you have a problem with me, charge me with my alleged crime.

Absolutely. There is no dearth of laws, or courts. A government that arbitrarily removes rights secretly can no longer be considered one suitable for a free people.

Ok, one may argue that "flying on a plane isn't a right". Free (as in speech not beer) travel is a right, and if the government wants to restrict your movement, there is a process and prisons for that.

 

[Dittohead not!]

this^

if not, then we would have a tyranny. or do we already?

Not yet, but we're working on it. As long as people are willing to trade liberty for the illusion of security, we'll stay on the same path.