Presumably, expecting Donald Trump to react in a newsworthy fashion to FBI Director Comey’s exoneration/condemnation of Hillary Clinton, the three major cable news channels showed nearly the entire 30 minutes of Trump’s speech in Cincinnati. (NY Times, July 7, P A16)
What we got instead, was a chilling insight, in real time, into the unbalanced, obsessively self-centered mind of the presumed Republican nominee for the presidency. Trump’s rambling, unhinged vituperative rant was appalling and recalled nothing so much as the cringe worthy performance of Captain Queeg of the Caine Mutiny as he testified neurotically about the stolen strawberries. Queeg was removed from command of his ship. We must not put Trump in command of the nation.
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Friday, July 1, 2016
Keep Guns Away From Terrorists
Some gun advocates, in the name of protecting a sacred constitutional right to bear arms, oppose restrictions on the ability of persons on a terrorist watch list or no-fly list to purchase weaponry. Their objection, they say, is not to keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists, but to the government's unfettered discretion in compiling such lists without a corresponding right of persons so listed to effectively challenge their inclusion.
With this as their basic premise, the gun advocates find it easy to resist proposed laws that prohibit the sale of weapons to persons on the suspect lists even when such laws include due process remedies for those who dispute the propriety of their listing.
So, for example, Professor Jeffrey Kahn, in his op-ed piece in the New York Times (" A 'No Buy' List For Guns Is a Bad Idea", July 1, 2016) rejects the claim that search and wiretap warrants procedures would adequately protect the rights of persons unjustly included on a watch list. Even if such procedures would require a court to find reasonable cause, as is now required before a search or seizure may be made, Kahn argues that a suspected terrorist would not enjoy equivalent protection. That is because persons whose property has been seized with judicial approval would be entitled to a follow up trial at which their guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt whereas suspected terrorists, even if accorded such a procedure, would be unable to prove that they are unjustly under suspicion.
Professor Kahn's arguments are fundamentally flawed in several respects. First, an approved search which results in the seizure of contraband (eg; illegal guns or drugs) has performed an important function even if the accused is not subsequently found guilty at trial. The dangerous contraband has been taken out of circulation and great harm has likely been prevented, just as a warrant that prevents the immediate sale of an assault rifle to a suspected terrorist and defer such sale until the suspect's status can be resolved at a hearing, is likely to provide an important measure of protection to the public.
A law which gives a listed person the right to challenge his suspect status at a hearing or trial would not be a meaningless remedy, as Kahn suggests, because the burden of proving a reasonable basis for the listing would presumably be placed upon the government, not the challenger. Thus, someone put on a terrorist watch list would be able to test the reasonableness of such suspicion and gain adequate relief from the court if the government fails to make its case.
Finally, it simply seems offensive to commonsense to equate the constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by the government with the recently court-expanded right to bear arms. Even the slim majority of the Supreme Court which found that right to be granted to individuals, recognized that it was subject to regulation.
With this as their basic premise, the gun advocates find it easy to resist proposed laws that prohibit the sale of weapons to persons on the suspect lists even when such laws include due process remedies for those who dispute the propriety of their listing.
So, for example, Professor Jeffrey Kahn, in his op-ed piece in the New York Times (" A 'No Buy' List For Guns Is a Bad Idea", July 1, 2016) rejects the claim that search and wiretap warrants procedures would adequately protect the rights of persons unjustly included on a watch list. Even if such procedures would require a court to find reasonable cause, as is now required before a search or seizure may be made, Kahn argues that a suspected terrorist would not enjoy equivalent protection. That is because persons whose property has been seized with judicial approval would be entitled to a follow up trial at which their guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt whereas suspected terrorists, even if accorded such a procedure, would be unable to prove that they are unjustly under suspicion.
Professor Kahn's arguments are fundamentally flawed in several respects. First, an approved search which results in the seizure of contraband (eg; illegal guns or drugs) has performed an important function even if the accused is not subsequently found guilty at trial. The dangerous contraband has been taken out of circulation and great harm has likely been prevented, just as a warrant that prevents the immediate sale of an assault rifle to a suspected terrorist and defer such sale until the suspect's status can be resolved at a hearing, is likely to provide an important measure of protection to the public.
A law which gives a listed person the right to challenge his suspect status at a hearing or trial would not be a meaningless remedy, as Kahn suggests, because the burden of proving a reasonable basis for the listing would presumably be placed upon the government, not the challenger. Thus, someone put on a terrorist watch list would be able to test the reasonableness of such suspicion and gain adequate relief from the court if the government fails to make its case.
Finally, it simply seems offensive to commonsense to equate the constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by the government with the recently court-expanded right to bear arms. Even the slim majority of the Supreme Court which found that right to be granted to individuals, recognized that it was subject to regulation.