11-21-2015, 07:12 PM
(11-21-2015, 06:07 PM)6andcounting Wrote: If the government has correctly identified somebody as a terrorist, then the evidence they have should be given to a grand jury so the appropriate charges can be filed. The criteria to be on the list is "reasonable suspicion" and that is solely in the opinion of the person filling out the paperwork to add someone to the list. No court or 3rd party oversight even ensures that reasonable suspicion actually exists. 99% of people suggested for the list get added. That's the actually statistic, not a hyperbole on my part. More than 1% of inmates convicted and put on death row are eventually acquitted, and they originally got actual due process, a judge, jury and a defense counsel.
Are putting put on this list for "no reason at all"? For most people I'm sure this is some sort of reason, but that reason hardly means you're a terrorist.
A person's rights can only be taken away if they are found guilty of something. Putting the burden of proving yourself off the list is the exact opposite of how the judicial system works. There's no effective way for an innocent person to get off the list, and they shouldn't have limited rights until this inefficient and ineffective process works.
It is a national security issue. There have always been exceptions for national security issues because the source of the information is often classified and can not be released.
It may not be 100% efficient, but when you balance the risk against the limitation of freedoms it is better to deny the people on this lists weapons than say Abu al-Baghdadi should be allowed to buy guns and fly on commercial flights.
There currently is an appeal process to get removed from the list, and the way the courts are leaning it looks like there will be even more due process guaranteed to these people in the near future. But as long as there is classified information dealing with national security there will be no public hearings on this subject.
