Federal judge rules terror watchlist violates constitutional rights

The Hill ^ | 09/05/19 | Zack Budryk

[yesthatjallen]

The federal government has violated the rights of more than 1 million people by placing them on a watchlist of “known or suspected terrorists,” a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

The plaintiffs, 23 U.S. citizens, argued, with the backing of the Council on American Islamic Relations, that they were wrongly placed on the list, causing “a range of adverse consequences without a constitutionally adequate remedy.”

The plaintiffs, ruled U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga, “have constitutionally protected liberty interests that are implicated by their inclusion” on the list, and the Department of Homeland Security process by which people listed on the watchlist can challenge their inclusion “is not constitutionally adequate to protect those liberty interests.”

Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee, added “there is no evidence, or contention, that any of these plaintiffs satisfy the definition of a ’known terrorist’.” While Trenga’s ruling grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, it directs both sides to file supplemental briefings on appropriate remedies before he rules further.

SNIP

[Boogieman]

“Strawman alert. Every nation has the power to defend its borders. Our rights do not extend to foreign nationals, just as their tyrannies do not extend to us until/unless we choose to make ourselves subject to them.”

Nope, you said the right to travel is a “natural right” and natural rights apply to all men, regardless of nationality, or they apply to none. Either government can restrict this “right to travel”, in which case, all that is left to do is argue which restrictions are proper, and you would have to make an actual logical argument as to why restrictions at airports are not justified, or government cannot restrict this right, and you must support open borders. Pick one position; you cannot pick both.

“You “argue” like a democrat.”

I’m sorry, but it is your argument that would result in a right for anyone to cross our borders at will, since YOU are the one claiming that governments can’t place any restrictions on some “natural right” to travel. I’m just pointing out the logical conclusion of your flawed argument.