Retired Marine Colonel on Terror Watch List?!?!?

[RamyGras]

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/a...of-people.html

This is flat out ridiculous.


Sunday, April 08, 2007
Another Enemy of the People?


Mark Graber


I am posting the below with the permission of Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. For those who do not know, Professor Murphy is easily the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science. His works on both constitutional theory and judicial behavior are classics in the field. Bluntly, legal scholarship that does not engage many themes in his book, briefly noted below, Constitutional Democracy, may be legal, but cannot be said to be scholarship. As interesting, for present purposes, readers of the book will discover that Murphy is hardly a conventional political or legal liberal. While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination. Apparently these credentials and others noted below are no longer sufficient to prevent one from becoming an enemy of the people.

"On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving."

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "

[Logan13]

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/a...of-people.html

This is flat out ridiculous.


Sunday, April 08, 2007
Another Enemy of the People?


Mark Graber


I am posting the below with the permission of Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. For those who do not know, Professor Murphy is easily the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science. His works on both constitutional theory and judicial behavior are classics in the field. Bluntly, legal scholarship that does not engage many themes in his book, briefly noted below, Constitutional Democracy, may be legal, but cannot be said to be scholarship. As interesting, for present purposes, readers of the book will discover that Murphy is hardly a conventional political or legal liberal. While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination. Apparently these credentials and others noted below are no longer sufficient to prevent one from becoming an enemy of the people.

"On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving."

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "

I'll let the members from that blog comment in my place:

"Maybe someone can convince the Dems to investigate something worthwhile like this rather than the President's hiring or firing of his subordinates."
# posted by Bart ***alma : 11:33 AM+

I agree that if true, its ridiculous and the people should be fired.
That said, I am VERY SKEPTICAL -- at least that it happened like that.
I think we all agree that someone shouldn't be on a terrorist watch list even if they participated in a peace march.

But, I find it very difficult to believe that people are added solely because of that. For example, some individuals associated with the sponsors of the so-called "peace marches" are affilitiated with less than reputable organization that might warrant scrutiny. But more likely, he was added as a mistake -- which seems to happen far too often.

In the grand list of opponents to the administration, I'm sure the professor with his one "televised" and web available speech is FAR, FAR down the list. If they were going to start using such measures, there are hundreds of people that would be far more likely to have this done to them.
Prognosis: BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) or an accident.

[RamyGras]

I'll let the members from that blog comment in my place:

"Maybe someone can convince the Dems to investigate something worthwhile like this rather than the President's hiring or firing of his subordinates."
# posted by Bart ***alma : 11:33 AM+

I agree that if true, its ridiculous and the people should be fired.
That said, I am VERY SKEPTICAL -- at least that it happened like that.
I think we all agree that someone shouldn't be on a terrorist watch list even if they participated in a peace march.

But, I find it very difficult to believe that people are added solely because of that. For example, some individuals associated with the sponsors of the so-called "peace marches" are affilitiated with less than reputable organization that might warrant scrutiny. But more likely, he was added as a mistake -- which seems to happen far too often.

In the grand list of opponents to the administration, I'm sure the professor with his one "televised" and web available speech is FAR, FAR down the list. If they were going to start using such measures, there are hundreds of people that would be far more likely to have this done to them.
Prognosis: BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) or an accident.

I wish, for once, you would look at what is presented and admit that it is foolish. It seems you agree with the response that "it's skeptical" it happened in the fashion that he wrote. Logan, you seem like a bright individual, and you obviously do a lot of reading. So, I know you've read of instances like this happening in the past few years. (See: Cat Stevens) Being on the Terror Watch List has a negative impact for innocent Americans, in ways more detrimental than just being harassed at an airport. It makes it easier to have your identity stolen or be denied employment or a loan. (terrorwatchlist.org) And, worst, police officers are wasting more time than ever with a fury of false alarms, when they could be out looking for real criminals. (See: http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index...id=1&aid=24235) And let's not forget Senator Ted Kennedy (think what you want about him) not being allowed on a plane b/c he, too, was on the list.

The whole process is disorganized and a complete joke. I have no problem with the list, as long as it's done intelligently. So far, it's been nothing but a hassle and comedic fodder.

[Logan13]

I wish, for once, you would look at what is presented and admit that it is foolish. It seems you agree with the response that "it's skeptical" it happened in the fashion that he wrote. Logan, you seem like a bright individual, and you obviously do a lot of reading. So, I know you've read of instances like this happening in the past few years. (See: Cat Stevens) Being on the Terror Watch List has a negative impact for innocent Americans, in ways more detrimental than just being harassed at an airport. It makes it easier to have your identity stolen or be denied employment or a loan. (terrorwatchlist.org) And, worst, police officers are wasting more time than ever with a fury of false alarms, when they could be out looking for real criminals. (See: http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index...id=1&aid=24235) And let's not forget Senator Ted Kennedy (think what you want about him) not being allowed on a plane b/c he, too, was on the list.

The whole process is disorganized and a complete joke. I have no problem with the list, as long as it's done intelligently. So far, it's been nothing but a hassle and comedic fodder.

Cat Stevens, although I liked his music, deserves to be on the watch list. If I was satisfied that this story was true, than I would say it was rediculous. But just because someone blogs about it, does not make it true. Therefore, I will not condemn it just for the sake of condemning it. Is it your stance that we should do away with any watch list regardless?

[RamyGras]

Of course not, Logan! I stated that I do believe it is necessary, but must be done intelligently, and not include such a broad spectrum of people. You nitpick every post and choose what you want to respond to. If you agree with Cat Stevens, that's your opinion. However, how about the colonel and how about Ted Kennedy, a U.S. senator? Don't you think that's pushing it? Don't you think that having these guys on the list is plain ignorant? It seems to me, that if it were a Democrat supervising this idiocy, you would be the first to condemn it.

[Logan13]

Of course not, Logan! I stated that I do believe it is necessary, but must be done intelligently, and not include such a broad spectrum of people. You nitpick every post and choose what you want to respond to. If you agree with Cat Stevens, that's your opinion. However, how about the colonel and how about Ted Kennedy, a U.S. senator? Don't you think that's pushing it? Don't you think that having these guys on the list is plain ignorant? It seems to me, that if it were a Democrat supervising this idiocy, you would be the first to condemn it.

Terrorist watch list is not political to me, although many try to make it that way. Show me the report from a reputable news outlet, not blogs, that is discussing this story. Until then, it is simply the blog rumor mill at work and is not worth a discussion or my time.

[RamyGras]

Fair enough.