I agree with this ...Well done article.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 6:56 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] A Welcome Democratic Stand on Guns, But Are These
the Bills We're Looking For?
A Welcome Democratic Stand on Guns, But Are These the Bills We're Looking
For?
Published on
Thursday, June 23, 2016
by
Common Dreams
A Welcome Democratic Stand on Guns, But Are These the Bills We're Looking
For?
The historic sit-in in the House is impressive to behold, but the two
proposals the Democrats are demanding a vote on are very problematic
by
Phyllis Bennis
It was almost midnight when I found myself glued to the live video of scores
of Democratic congressmembers then about twelve hours into their historic
sit-in. They were occupying the House chamber, jerry-rigging a social
media-based broadcast when the Republican leadership shut-down the C-Span
cameras, rising one after another to speak with passion, reminding the
nation that business as usual is no longer okay. They are proud of
themselves and each other, as they should be. They are grateful to civil
rights icon and Georgia Congressman John Lewis who has been leading them in
speaking truth to power. By late morning Thursday they were continuing to
occupy the House. Despite the Republican leadership announcing that the
House is not in session, they are insisting that there be no congressional
recess without voting on the proposed bills, and they are demanding that the
public, filling the galleries, be allowed to stay.
They are reminding the world that since 1968 more Americans have been killed
in gun violence than in all the wars in US history. They are demanding a
vote on gun safety laws. It's a moving, empowering thing to see. It's rare,
powerful, and should be applauded.
"It's a moving, empowering thing to see... And yet. There's a huge problem."
And yet. There's a huge problem. The two proposals the Democrats are
demanding a vote on are very problematic. One bill proposes only a small,
completely insufficient expansion of background checks. The second would
not only be ineffective in preventing gun violence, but would cause a
dangerous increase in racial profiling and Islamophobia. That second bill
is the basis for the slogan "no fly, no buy" - which refers to making sure
that no one on law enforcement's so-called "no-fly" lists is ever allowed to
buy a weapon.
If we were talking about actually preventing real terrorists from buying
weapons, that would be a no-brainer. But the "no-fly" lists are not lists
of terrorists; they are lists of people - American citizens, green-card
holders, visitors, citizens of other countries - who end up on the FBI's or
other law enforcement agencies' lists for reasons we and they never know.
Maybe they share a name with someone once suspected of knowing someone whose
second cousin once skyped with someone thought to be a would-be terrorist.
Maybe their college roommate ended up trying to go to Syria. For some few of
them, maybe they really do have dangerous intentions. But there are
thousands of people on these lists. Most of them can't even find out why
they're not allowed to fly, let alone succeed at challenging the
prohibition. We should not forget that President Nelson Mandela remained on
the US "terrorist" watch-list until 2008. What the American Civil Liberties
Union calls our "error-prone and unfair watch-listing system" doesn't
produce a list of terrorists at all.
If it was up to me, I'd prohibit anyone - anyone, on or off those lists -
from buying or possessing these lethal weapons. But it's not up to me. And
unfortunately the "no fly, no buy" rule being proposed in the newly militant
House tonight is not going to prevent gun violence either. What it is going
to do, unfortunately, is further legitimize these watch lists, now as the
basis for a politically more popular version of gun control. But as the
ACLU noted, "Our nation's watch-listing system is error-prone and unreliable
because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place
individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government
error and clear their names."
And we know that those "vague and overbroad criteria" end up being applied
disproportionately to Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and others wrongly
assumed to be linked to terrorism. It is terribly sad that some of our most
principled, consistent members of Congress - members of the Black Caucus,
the conscience of the Congress, and the Progressive Caucus, whose members
work against racism, against racial profiling, against Islamophobia and
hatred, against war and beyond - are among those accepting and urging even
greater reliance on this "error-prone and unreliable" system in the name of
preventing gun violence.
The Democratic leadership is refusing to allow their now-insurgent party to
officially endorse the most sensible (however insufficient) versions of gun
control laws: outlawing assault weapons, removing the prohibition on
federal research on the public health consequences of gun violence, and
universal background checks. Those things, lethally opposed by the NRA,
would not stop the epidemic of gun violence in this country but unlike the
no-fly lists they would certainly help. Some in the sit-in rejected those
restrictions. At 12:35 in the morning, Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, one of
those who had set up the live-streaming of the debate after the Republican
leadership turned off the cameras, rose to call for all three of those
goals.
The congressional sit-in is bringing moral power and renewed urgency to the
cause of gun control. Watching the Democrats shout down Republican leaders
desperately trying to reclaim control of the House might challenge the
partisan bickering that has paralyzed Congress for years. It may mark the
beginning of a turn towards the re-legitimation of Congress, long demonized
as the least effective, least useful, least popular institution around. That
renewed legitimacy, though, would be far more likely achieved if these
members of Congress, as they consolidate their new moral credibility, would
finally reject the current iteration of "no fly" lists as the basis for gun
control - or indeed, as a valid method of counter-terrorism.
The Congressional sit-in protesters should be congratulated for standing up
for their principles. And they should be pressured to make sure their plans
to act on those principles don't undermine other principles of civil rights
and equality.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
Phyllis Bennis
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Thursday, June 23, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. What 'Our Revolution' Wants
. Brexit?
. Election 2016
A Welcome Democratic Stand on Guns, But Are These the Bills We're Looking
For?
Published on
Thursday, June 23, 2016
by
Common Dreams
A Welcome Democratic Stand on Guns, But Are These the Bills We're Looking
For?
The historic sit-in in the House is impressive to behold, but the two
proposals the Democrats are demanding a vote on are very problematic
by
Phyllis Bennis
. 15 Comments
.
. It was almost midnight when I found myself glued to the live video
of scores of Democratic congressmembers then about twelve hours into their
historic sit-in. They were occupying the House chamber, jerry-rigging a
social media-based broadcast when the Republican leadership shut-down the
C-Span cameras, rising one after another to speak with passion, reminding
the nation that business as usual is no longer okay. They are proud of
themselves and each other, as they should be. They are grateful to civil
rights icon and Georgia Congressman John Lewis who has been leading them in
speaking truth to power. By late morning Thursday they were continuing to
occupy the House. Despite the Republican leadership announcing that the
House is not in session, they are insisting that there be no congressional
recess without voting on the proposed bills, and they are demanding that the
public, filling the galleries, be allowed to stay.
. They are reminding the world that since 1968 more Americans have
been killed in gun violence than in all the wars in US history. They are
demanding a vote on gun safety laws. It's a moving, empowering thing to see.
It's rare, powerful, and should be applauded.
. "It's a moving, empowering thing to see... And yet. There's a huge
problem."
. And yet. There's a huge problem. The two proposals the Democrats are
demanding a vote on are very problematic. One bill proposes only a small,
completely insufficient expansion of background checks. The second would not
only be ineffective in preventing gun violence, but would cause a dangerous
increase in racial profiling and Islamophobia. That second bill is the basis
for the slogan "no fly, no buy" - which refers to making sure that no one on
law enforcement's so-called "no-fly" lists is ever allowed to buy a weapon.
. If we were talking about actually preventing real terrorists from
buying weapons, that would be a no-brainer. But the "no-fly" lists are not
lists of terrorists; they are lists of people - American citizens,
green-card holders, visitors, citizens of other countries - who end up on
the FBI's or other law enforcement agencies' lists for reasons we and they
never know. Maybe they share a name with someone once suspected of knowing
someone whose second cousin once skyped with someone thought to be a
would-be terrorist. Maybe their college roommate ended up trying to go to
Syria. For some few of them, maybe they really do have dangerous intentions.
But there are thousands of people on these lists. Most of them can't even
find out why they're not allowed to fly, let alone succeed at challenging
the prohibition. We should not forget that President Nelson Mandela remained
on the US "terrorist" watch-list until 2008. What the American Civil
Liberties Union calls our "error-prone and unfair watch-listing system"
doesn't produce a list of terrorists at all.
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/myj16-articlehttps://secure.actbl
ue.com/contribute/page/myj16-article
If it was up to me, I'd prohibit anyone - anyone, on or off those lists -
from buying or possessing these lethal weapons. But it's not up to me. And
unfortunately the "no fly, no buy" rule being proposed in the newly militant
House tonight is not going to prevent gun violence either. What it is going
to do, unfortunately, is further legitimize these watch lists, now as the
basis for a politically more popular version of gun control. But as the ACLU
noted, "Our nation's watch-listing system is error-prone and unreliable
because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place
individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government
error and clear their names."
And we know that those "vague and overbroad criteria" end up being applied
disproportionately to Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and others wrongly
assumed to be linked to terrorism. It is terribly sad that some of our most
principled, consistent members of Congress - members of the Black Caucus,
the conscience of the Congress, and the Progressive Caucus, whose members
work against racism, against racial profiling, against Islamophobia and
hatred, against war and beyond - are among those accepting and urging even
greater reliance on this "error-prone and unreliable" system in the name of
preventing gun violence.
The Democratic leadership is refusing to allow their now-insurgent party to
officially endorse the most sensible (however insufficient) versions of gun
control laws: outlawing assault weapons, removing the prohibition on federal
research on the public health consequences of gun violence, and universal
background checks. Those things, lethally opposed by the NRA, would not stop
the epidemic of gun violence in this country but unlike the no-fly lists
they would certainly help. Some in the sit-in rejected those restrictions.
At 12:35 in the morning, Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, one of those who had set
up the live-streaming of the debate after the Republican leadership turned
off the cameras, rose to call for all three of those goals.
The congressional sit-in is bringing moral power and renewed urgency to the
cause of gun control. Watching the Democrats shout down Republican leaders
desperately trying to reclaim control of the House might challenge the
partisan bickering that has paralyzed Congress for years. It may mark the
beginning of a turn towards the re-legitimation of Congress, long demonized
as the least effective, least useful, least popular institution around. That
renewed legitimacy, though, would be far more likely achieved if these
members of Congress, as they consolidate their new moral credibility, would
finally reject the current iteration of "no fly" lists as the basis for gun
control - or indeed, as a valid method of counter-terrorism.
The Congressional sit-in protesters should be congratulated for standing up
for their principles. And they should be pressured to make sure their plans
to act on those principles don't undermine other principles of civil rights
and equality.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
