Terrorist Watch List unConstitutional-Finally

Might want to check the NYT. Seems a judge has ruled the Terrorism Watch List unConstitutional.

Here it is from Lester Holt’s House:

violates the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens who were added to the list by denying them due process.

and that the process for adding names is overbroad and riddled with errors.

they have a right to due process when their constitutional rights are infringed.

He also said the concerns about erroneous placement on the list are legitimate.

Trenga added that “an individual’s placement into the [watch list] does not require any evidence that the person engaged in criminal activity, committed a crime, or will commit a crime in the future,” and “individuals who have been acquitted of a terrorism-related crime may still be listed.”

Government lists. Do you see it now? Helen Keller can.

As we say in the corral, now we’re down to the nut cuttin’.

Is due process done on a collective or individual basis? What are the requirements for due process?

Careful not to confuse this with petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances as in the cited case.

This judge made a good ruling. Not a great one, but good.

The right the judge used is an individual right (just like was affirmed in Heller). Just like all our rights. We do not have to belong to a “group” of anything except being citizens of this country, and not even that in most cases.

Due process is a process to remove, infringe or abridge a right or rights of an individual and based on their own actions already committed, not something they may or may not do in the future that may or may not be illegal.

And then there is that pesky wording in the 2nd.

Heller was a half-assed ruling. Scalia hedged. McDonald shouldn’t have been necessary (for example). The only purpose Heller served was to lay to rest the militia nonsense.

Now can an individual’s rights be limited or even removed through due process? Of course they can, if the individual’s actions warrant it and the state can prove it.

Scalia gave some specific examples in his hedging:

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

Both of which must be proven by the state in individual cases through due process.

It is my opinion that Scalia was negotiating when he hedged. That this is another case of the Constitution getting in the way of a desired outcome; which is exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to do.

The 14th also confirms due process requirements:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again, individual. Case. Not trends. Not groups. Actions committed, not prior restraint. The Constitution is clear.

And burden of proof.

See also Staples v. US concerning semiautomatic arms.

If we allow our individual rights to become collective, if we allow them to be taken as prior restraint, if we allow due process to become a poll result, if if we allow the state to put the burden of proof on us for “worthiness”; we are lost.

By the way, the Heller in Heller ? A DC special police officer.

Individualism. Due Process. Freedom from. No prior restraint.

That’s American Exceptionalism.

1 Like


Now if we can get rid of the TSA… and the entire homeland security department. What was Bush thinking! Making a new department. Geez!

Taking away our liberty lets the terrorists win.

yes… and The height of the enlightenment!

What does being on this list do to you?

1 Like


I think the issue is not what being on the list does to you…but how BEING PUT ON SOME GOVERNMENT WATCH LIST VIOLATES AN AMERICANS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS. I think that is a huuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggeeeeely Important Issue. Don’t you?


Can’t see it. Can’t know how you got on it. Can’t get off it. Don’t even know if you’re on it.

What an abomination.


That’s not the correct question.

I will be honest with you. At first, I was all for it. Then about a year into it…You started hearing stories about people being detained, not being able to fly home from someplace, because some how they got put on a terrorist watch list. And we kept being told if you aren’t doing anything wrong don’t worry about the watch list.

Well I quickly learned it was a violation of our rights…mostly from my sister who is an attorney. But I should have been smarter. After 9-11 I was more afraid than logical. Thankfully I am different now. And Thankfully this ruling has been made.

1 Like

Good news. :statue_of_liberty: :us:

1 Like

I am absolutely in your boat. I trusted them too.

Glad to know I am not the only one. I am glad we agree on this…And that we admit it. I know many who will not.

1 Like

Smart sister!

1 Like

@conan was a voice in the wilderness here on this back then.

1 Like

You want to shut down the Department of Homeland Security?

Does that include ICE?

He wasn’t the only one.

To be honest, I didn’t care. I just wanted to kill somebody.