NY Times, Seizing on Fear, Pushes Civil Rights Restrictions
In the wake of the attempted Times Square bombing, the New York Times editorial board this week (5/6) lambasted the National Rifle Association and Congress for opposing further restrictions on the civil rights of U.S. citizens.
The Times wants Congress to deny a citizen his constitutional rights if the government suspects that the citizen has the potential to commit future illegal actions. In other words, if the government puts you on a so-called “watch list,” you can’t exercise your unalienable, natural, God-given right to keep and bear arms.
However, in its rambling, unfocused, and totally disingenuous editorial, the Times ignores several salient facts…
- The Times Square bombing suspect, Faisal Shahzad, was reportedly on the Department of Homeland Security’s watch list from 1999 through 2008. Then his name was removed from the list.
- Nine years on the watch list, and being tailed by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, apparently did not hinder Mr. Shahzad’s acquisition of U.S. citizenship in April 2009.
- The gun found in Mr. Shahzad’s car was purchased legally. Mr. Shahzad was on no watch list at the time of the purchase.
The Times notes that in the past six years some 1,100 “suspects” on the watch list purchased guns legally. Keep in mind that those citizens had NOT been arrested or charged, at the time of their purchases, and their locations were known to authorities. In fact, they were not “suspects” in the legal sense at all, merely persons about whom the government is suspicious.
Does the New York Times really crave a society in which the federal government can restrict the constitutional rights of citizens who have committed no crimes? During the Bush administration, the Times was outraged that the government might merely be keeping an eye on such people. During the Obama administration, the Times is willing to treat them as criminals without a trial.
To bolster the specious and alarmist argument that the failed bombing calls for a clamp down on civil rights, the New York Times trots out a reference to a recent drive-by shooting in Washington, D.C., in which four were slain and five wounded by a man wielding an AK-47 semi-automatic rifle.
How is this story different from Faisal Shahzad’s situation? Let me count the ways.
- The DC gun was stolen. Shahzad bought his weapon legally.
- The DC shooter discharged his weapon many times into a crowd. Shahzad never fired his.
- Police had tried to get an arrest warrant for the DC shooter after a shooting earlier in the same week, but prosecutors declined the request. On the other hand, Faisal Shahzad was not on police “radar” until after he tried to detonate a bomb in a crowded city.
In other words, the DC incident was utterly unrelated and dissimilar to the Times Square bomb attempt, but that didn’t deter these “professional journalists” from attempting to lead gullible readers to believe that, somehow, denying gun purchases to the un-charged and un-convicted will save the lives of teenagers on street corners or prevent terror attacks.
“Does The New York Times really crave a society in which the federal government can restrict the Constitutional rights of citizens who have committed no crimes?”
Yes, they do. They would also like to remove First Amendment protections for those who are not members of the old media.
Good thing no one read the Treason Times. In the aftermath of a close call, this type of thinking could catch on with an uninformed public.
Oh, yes, lifelong Manhattanites read the NYT and will cower in their beds tonight. It’s their guidebook and mentor. But it’s time the rest of the country stopped letting them think they’re the whole of the world.
And yet, NYT does not believe in racial profiling (unless it involves jobs and university admissions). Strange.
This can’t possibly be the same NYT that divulged national secrets during the Bush years, can it?
So, the NY Times would allow the government to be able to place you on a list (without your knowledge) without any particular requirements to show just cause or the oversight of a judge and treat you equivalent to a FELON. The worst part is that most of their readers probably don’t see anything wrong with this.
“The Times wants Congress to deny a citizen his Constitutional rights if the government suspects that the citizen has the potential to commit future illegal actions.”
So by their logic the NYT should be closed down due to their potential to leak classified information.
Potential? How about demonstrated willingness?
Well, sure, when you put it that way it doesn’t sound so bad. ;o)
It’s still bad on principle, though!
Consider, also, the surveillance problem this would present: The next would-be bomber is fat, dumb and happy, thinking he’s flying under the DHS radar. He goes into a gun shop to buy a 9mm and suddenly he’s denied because of his background check, yet he’s never been convicted of anything more egregious than a parking ticket. He will, doubtless, conclude that he’s on a watch list, thus blowing any possible surveillance operation that may have been ongoing.
Stupid NYT.
Oh, it’s much bigger than the Times hints at. Some “progressive” bureaucrat like, say, Janet Napolitano can issue a report titled something like, say, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” (or, better yet, don’t issue it; keep it secret). Then everyone classified by Janet, or the Times, or Naomi Wolf, or Naom Chomsky, or Bill Ayers, or whoever, as a Rightwing Extremist – and therefore potential terrorist – can be denied his civil rights at whim. Nobody has to prove anything; secret accusation is more than enough. The next step is to ship ‘em all off to camps. Hey, it worked for FDR; Obama will figure it out eventually.
If he lied on his paperwork to become a citizen, then yes take it away. Ir the application was accurate you are stuck with him. Want to change the rules? Do it for future citizens, start with anchor babies.
My thoughts exactly, forgotten man. Thank you.
Simple really. IS he a citizen? Then try him for treason and demand maximum the penalty. Not a citizen? Treat him as an irregular combatant and demand the maximum penalty.
Either one works for me.
The NYSLIMES has , they have been in the forefront of the drive to shut down free speech, and blogs by supporting the Mcain Feingold law,and attacking gun ownership.There isn’t a single nytimes editor who doesn’t envy Castro’s ability to terrorize dissidents through torture and murder.They can help bring this about, by helping Obama suppress the first and second amendments. Moribund, discredited, intellectually corrupt,and desperate, the SLIMES is trying to survive as the agitprop-ragsheet of a Obama tyranny,who would presumably reward them with a bailout.SCRATCH A LIBERAL:FIND A STALINIST WHORE!
Back 30 or so years ago the NYT notoriously editorialized for years and years for NY’s strict gun laws while Pinch’s dad was protected by gun toting bodyguards. Protection for me but not for thee. (Since gun permits were restricted for all practical purposes to the politically connected).
“conclude that he’s on a watch list” Given the track record at the old grey whore that might be classified as a feature from their point of view.
Ya know, I hadn’t thought of that, but you might have a point here. Then again, the Right People are in charge now, so maybe the NYT’s in a patriotic mood.
But whatever you do, don’t identify the muslims as muslims – that would be rude and unacceptable.
I personally think that any country that is unwilling to defend itself against a sworn enemy, against a hostile invasion force or a government that is socialist at best does not deserve to survive. Sad, but there it is.
The New York Times should adopt a new motto to fit their current editorial philosophy
It Was
“All The News That’s Fit To Print”
It effectively became….
” All The News That Fits We Print”
Now It’s
“If It Doesn’t Fit We Twist It Till It Does”
….uuuu..’o^o’..nn!n….algie
Illegitimi nOn carborundum
I will NOT let the bast@rds get me down!!!
Remember the lefty rule of thumb – never let a crisis go to waste.
The NYT is just following the playbook.
Gullible implies that the NY Times readers who agreed with the editorial actually cared about the truth. I think the correct description of the readership would be that they were abetters, the true purpose of the action being to reduce gun ownership rights without actually caring about the effect on terrorism suspects. The NY Times editorial page is truly just a liberal pulpit shouted to a liberal choir. No one really reads it who thinks for themselves.
Good article, Scott. More please.
The progressives/regressives/commies want a society much like a combination of the one in “Demolition Man” with Rambo Stallone and Orwell’s “1984.” That is their utopia.
But, don’t you see, those damn TEA Partiers need to be declared “danegrous extremists” have their rights taken away without trial for their own good! (Not like certain former Weather Underground, Black Panther, SEIU people who bite of law-abiding folk’s fingers, craze La Raza/illegal alien activities who threaten to shoot more police officers than they already have, etc. They, like Lenin, Stalin and his holiness Mao [PBUH] mean well.) However, folk who don’t worship the NYT may beg to differ.
It would be nice if you actually, you know, for fairness, mentioned all of the civil rights restrictions imposed by the Bush Administration and all of the civil rights violations done in the name on the war on terror, such as torture and detaining people without due process in that gulag in Cuba, and the failure of Bush to give Constitutional protections to political prisoners, instead subjecting them to military commissions with are a violation of international law. Maybe if you would have mentioned that, I could take your article more seriously.
Name one US citizen who had their civil rights violated by the Bush Admin-
Name the “international law” that protects non-uniformed terrorist who are targeting civilians-
Name one “political prisoner” that Bush held-
Hint: read the Geneva Convention. It does not protect non-uniformed combatants. Get your fact right before spouting your brainless talking points.
The U.S. citizen that had his rights violated was Jose Padilla–the “dirty bomber”. Because of this one single individual, every liberal in America can say with authority, adnauseam, that the Patriot Act resulted in the violation of the rights of U.S. citizen(s). Disingenuous? You betcha!
Sorry, but you’re going to have to give up defending the Bush Administration if you want to be taken seriously on any attempt to defend any civil liberties. Warrantless wiretapping was being put in place in February 2001, without any legal standing or defense for doing so until well after the fact. So as far as US citizens who had their civil rights violated by the Bush Administration, that would be “all of them.”
I’m not a liberal but I’m definitely not whatever flavor of conservative most of the people here seem to be. It’s time to grow up and judge something as right or wrong based on its own merits, and not judge it by who’s proposing it, who’s the target, and who you’re afraid of.
Anyone who snottily proclaims that no one is going to “take another person seriously” is someone who . . . I never take seriously.
You mean the “gulag” that’s still open in Cuba? I thought gulags were OK in the island paradise.
I just noticed the article was by Scott Ott. Silly me for not realizing it is another Scrappleface post not meant to be serious or truthful.
Vinny, this is especially to you from me. Enjoy…its from one of the best in the business.
So the NYT is pro-blacklisting…. good to know.
What other rights do they think can be eliminated because you’re on a government list?
Huh, the troll quality has gone downhill. “Well… well… Bush did it too!” isn’t exactly a great way to excuse the actions of a man that ran on HopeChange. And I’ll note that it’s been over a year and the gulag of Cuba (heh), is still open.
Yes, we should demand an immediate release of all the political prisoners in Cuba!
Then there’s the plain old “lolz you write satire”. Never mind that the link actually leads to a real NYT editorial.
The only gulags in Cuba are run by Castro. We do have a prisoner of war camp there for terrorists who are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
“Does The New York Times really crave a society in which the federal government can restrict the Constitutional rights of citizens who have committed no crimes?”
They do. All Liberals do at this point. Effectively ALL Democrats – pols and voters – do at this point.
Our problem is that they have trmendous power and technology the Soviets could only dream about.
Our Nation has never been in more serious danger.
It may already be too late.
The problem is, our current batch of leftists are a product of the Soviet effort to subvert this country from the inside. The only thing they didn’t count on was that their efforts would out last the Soviet Union
I am sure you are right Doug.
Who would have thought back then….
But in retrospect now, the signs were clear: Everywhere in Academia, and on every level, for over 40 years now, the basic Soviet/Marxist/Communist line has been taught – so much so that it is in the area of the ‘taken for granted wisdom of the world’ given starting points. It’s the sort of thing the indoctrinated and brainwashed Democrat (which is effectively every one of that animal now) casually mention at summer barbecues with neighbors and friends.
They are perfectly brainwashed. They don’t know they are brainwashed. They are perfect agents. They don’t know they are agents.
Al la Rumsfled, it’s not that they don’t know what they don’t know. It’s that they don’t know that they don’t know.
America is truly scr*%ed.
Maybe I am naive but I am shocked. I met today with a woman who is a professor of education, she credentials new teachers. I was looking at the stuff she teaches, and it was pure politically correct nonsense, about how black kids “feel” about math, various other racial crybaby textbooks, nothing whatsoever about actually teaching an academic subject!
And when I told her I don’t think it’s fair that I have to pay for this and my kids have to be indoctrinated in this, she openly told me “all education is political”, and if they don’t teach it this way, it’s not fair to the left wing parents.
Folks, we have a BIG problem on our hands. The lefties have total control of the education establishment and they have a strangle hold on our kids’ education. I walked away from this meeting really disturbed, she has the power to credential hundreds of new teachers…
lagil-I teach Honors level Chemistry at a high school and yesterday brought the flag t-shirt kids up. One of mine spoke up and said basically–”Oh that’s California for you.” and the other 20 didn’t disagree. There are conservative students and teachers through out the system, just not enough yet. Many of my fellow staff are conservatives as well, not all educators are screamin’ liberals!
“BIG Problem on our hands” being the understatemnet of the century. It’s more than a problem. It’s the end of civilization that was crafted over 2000 long hard years.
Our BEST chance might be total social collapse with a simultaneous “monastery movement” that saved the best and developed the future through centuries of waves of barbarian invasions.
The other chance – peacefully undoing the PC Society and educational system we are now all slaves to – is such a long shot it’s hard to imagine it ever happening. We’d need fighters and patriots and an intelligensia that simply is not here yet, and would arrive, if they did, like a miracle.
All we have now are a few millons canaries looking aout the coal mine and just beginning to say ‘Holy Sh*^!’
I think we should not only agree with the NYT, but, work to immediately implement their suggestions. With the November elections looking like a Republican slam dunk and Obama’s sliding popularity making him appear to be a one-termer, I CAN’T WAIT until the Republicans get into office and find these new restraints available!
Just think, then we can put every damn left-wing ex-bombmaker under constant surveillance and make sure they don’t cause any more trouble. This is gonna be great. I can hardly thank the NYT enough………..
Good call.
I also hope Republicans use the new “simple majority” method of passing any legislation they want. The new rule the Dems gave us in Congress was that there are no rules when youm want to pass laws. You just pass them. You don’t even really have to vote if you don’t want to. You can just send them over to your President who signs whatever the hell he wants, and anyway does whatever he wants law or no law regardless. We should have a czar, for example, that deals with the ‘democrat’ problem.
We do not have to observe the filibuster rule or anything. We can dismantle the liberal state in one massive fell swoop with a simple majority. Anyone who doesn’;t like ti can get dismantled too and there is nothing they can do to stop it.
Consitution? The Liberals already tore it up and pissed on it, so why not return the favor?
Those who used that power for that admirable purpose, would find themselves unable to give it up, and corrupted by it in the end. And given the penchant of Republicans to screw things up, they would more likely end up like Boromir in any attempt to seize the Ring and use it for good.
#8 Tom Swift- “ship em’ all off to camps”
Hope that wonderful government cheese recipe for baked ziti will be on the menu at the “camp”, and I’m sure the New York Times will editorially insist on Halal meal preparation, despite everyone I’m planning on meeting at “Camp Big Brother” will be either a Tea Party or N.R.A. member. By the way the recipe is in the Sunday Times Style section.
“New York Times, now so post-modernly insightful, forget about wrapping your fish around its’ illustrious pages. It’s so extraordinarily unique, wrap all your, bottom fish dwelling extrusions about it, plant it on your lawn and watch your grass die”
The Old York Times is a mouth peace for the left’s agenda of destroying America. They have got to get rid of the weapons to control the last nation state.
This is part of what bringing the Muslims, and illegal aliens into America is for. They will cause trouble to a point the commies will cry for a ban on weapons.
People at the New York Times are socialists who will gladly restrict civil rights of certain citizens in order to further the socialist order. The First Amendment is just a prop for them that is used when convenient and discarded when not.
I am going to write a piece on propaganda, an understanding of which is essential to properly deconstructing our current cultural scene. The point of propaganda is not to inculcate ideas: grasping this is essential. The point is to create a homogeneous cultural system. How do you calibrate socially? Do you not look to those around you?
Propaganda is precisely intended to foster social conformity, within which ideational conformity nests easily. It is something that rejects traditional values since they make people less mutable. It rejects reason, since many of the transitions from one concept to another make no sense (War is peace, blue is red).
The whole goal is to create a mass of people who believe themselves independent thinkers, who in fact believe whatever they are told. After all, they exist in a mass of similar people.
The writers at the New York Times don’t have an ideology, per se. No one really needs to create content any more. The basic memes, the basic themes that have a weight of their own and keep rolling, are that all difference must be eradicated–which in practice means that white people must be silenced–and that any American who speaks of the value of our system should be denigrated.
Since everyone around them believes the same thing, these basic presuppositions literally go decades without being examined. No one ever thinks it through. They just keep repeating the same basic disharmonious melodies, year on year.
Yet, hope is not lost. They are enmeshed in what amounts to a cult. Cult members leave; they wake up. Whittaker Chambers is an excellent example.
One problem with Conservatives is that since we value the past, and freedom, we spend little time visualizing the future. Let it come: this is our mantra. We protect ourselves, keep doing what we do, and things will work out. This is quite reasonable, but it doesn’t meet the emotional needs of leftists. One cannot understand why people JOIN this cult, without taking into consideration that most of them are atheists who have been exposed often to the doctrine that life is meaningless. Leftism is not a political system, but rather a meaning system (in my own terms).
But what if we could develop a vision in which the stated goals of Communism–universal peace, harmonious communities, local ownership of the means of production (I am speaking here to the myth I think most of these people today embrace, at least the ones who are not simply evil SOB’s, which is a percentage of them)–could be accomplished within a CONSERVATIVE narrative?
In point of fact, I am going to write a piece on how to implement Communism as a Republican. We don’t oppose their goals–remember the dictatorship of the proletariat is, in theory, temporary, and their actual goal decentralization–but rather their means. Actually, we oppose their atheism, and their economic beliefs, but both are intended, in theory, as means to an end; and in any even Communism pretends to be scientific. All scientific narratives are subject to reevaluation, in principle if obviously not always in practice. I say this as a long term hater of Communism who has often been accused of McCarthyism, which is the political equivalent of the accusation of “racism”.
Here is my preliminary effort in that regard: http://www.goodnessmovement.com/Page8.html
That was well written, Barry. Thanks, it was interesting. I’ll check your link, too.
Down the line, when They come for you, They will not want you to have a firearm with which you can defend yourself and your family. That is why They wish to confiscate your firearms before They come for you. They, in their tiny, starchamber minds, arbitrarily label you a danger, remove your defense, and leave you helpless. Will you be enslaved or will you be sent to a gulag for re-education, torture, starvation and death? Your choice. The madman in the White House can’t wait to chuckle in glee as you scream in agony; even as he will scream in Hell for all eternity.
But, if many of us keep our weapons at the ready, perhaps we can vote the obamanation into political oblivion and rid ouselves of him and his equally perverted, babykilling, communist accomplices at the very next opportunity.
I will add one more thought, then I have to move on to other projects.
You transition from a liberal to a leftist when YOU NO LONGER CARE ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR POLICIES. Most leftists are ignorant of basic economics. Why? They don’t care.
The simplest summation of this is Ruskins “It is only possible to answer for the final truth of principles, and not the direct success of plans”.
Thus, Detroit is fine. They meant well. They followed “true” principles, of generosity, compassion, and goodwill. It just didn’t work out. Oh well. On to the next project.
That this is imbecility would only occur among someone capable of self reflection; and provided one is given constantly changing, shifting, causes–Daily Kos’s, if I might be permitted to say so–one never “wakes up”. Movement is the key to eliminating the possibility of perceptual or moral coherence.
Again, this is the aim and method of propaganda.
Picked this piece up from FARK, ready to disagree. But I have to say, a well-reasoned argument. I think the NYT got it very wrong on this. Nice one, guys.
NYT IS MOSTLY GOOD FOR WRAPPING TRASH. ITS BIAS ON MULTIPLE ISSUES IS OVER THE TOP!!
Hey, that’s not funny! Smart and correct, but not funny.
Funny they didn’t want to ban firearms after the islamic Ft Hood massacre.
How about we ban airplanes, they seem a little more dangerous.
I hope the next terror attack is planted right in front of the old media’s buildings. That would put an end to them. They should become the victims of the monster, and the policies he’s imposing on our country. Barack Hussein Obama, hmm, hmm, hmm.
#26 HALL MONITOR: I enjoyed your post.The SLIMES ,also known as “Pravda on the Hudson”, has been a GULAG enthusiast for years.They especially admire the tropical terror camps in Cuba.Watch the TIMES to start a campaign to quarantine returning veterans just before the November elections.
If you have not figured it out by now there is no US Constitution any more. Who got the most doe that is the way we go. If we had elected officials that did what they were voted in to do. Our borders would protected and the drug war that has been going on for over 40 years, would have been won a long time ago. The cartel already owns Mexico and is buying up the US officials at a record pace. Our own soldiers walk through vast fields of poppies in Afghanistan and do nothing, and your worried that they are going to take your guns. It is only a matter of time before they come for our guns. They will take mine only when I run out of ammunition.
Great analysis, even though I hate Faisal Shahzad. Did you know it was Obama and either the State Dept or DoD (against CT objections) that took him off the list to show how much they’re not like President Bush? Yes, I read about it in a reputable paper, but I cannot remember which one. Too many papers, too long ago. (Hey, it’s been almost a month!)
Thank you for keeping your eye on ball with a steady hand. Keep up the great work, Scott.