<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

The New York Times abandons due process 

TigerHawk neither owns guns nor has a problem with people who do. I admire people who are skilled in the handling of weapons, and am all for my children learning how to shoot straight from their grandpa. I tend to think that the advocates of gun regulation overstate the benefits that would flow therefrom, and that the opponents of all gun regulation are a bit scary.

That bit of background is supposed to frame up my criticism of this morning's most annoying editorial in The New York Times. The Times is fretting that "terror suspects" can buy weapons with "alarming ease."

I admit that, if true, it is not good public policy to let "terror suspects" buy weapons. But I don't argue that "terror suspects" shouldn't be surveilled or searched or -- when picked up overseas in places where terrorists congregate -- rendered to their home country or packed off to Gitmo. The New York Times, however, has been enormously solicitous of "terror suspects" in other contexts. Indeed, this may be the first time that the NYT's editorial page has championed depriving "terror suspects" of due process of law.

Is there any chance that the reasoning in this editorial is -- say it ain't so -- results-oriented?

9 Comments:

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Mar 09, 09:57:00 AM:

Good job.

The Times had a story yesterday with background on this.

Frequently Unasked Questions - if the Feds denied someone a seat on an airplane because they were on a watch list, what would the Times say?

Tom Maguire  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Mar 09, 10:27:00 AM:

If we did as the New York Times wants then a great way for an al Qaeda operative to find out if he is under surveillance by the FBI is to attempt to purchase a weapon. Sale denied by NICS -- then he knows his cover is blown. Sale goes through -- he is still golden. I would rather he keep guessing, not knowing if he is under surveillance or not.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Mar 09, 12:55:00 PM:

As usual, the NYT plays loose with gun control advocacy. They are trying to imply that terrorists are buying machine guns at the local Walmart. An 'Assault Rifle' is an automatic weapon and I am sure that none of the 47 cleared transactions was for a machine gun.

johninreno  

By Blogger Screwy Hoolie, at Wed Mar 09, 01:02:00 PM:

Back at the NYT, eh Hawk? Do you have a subscription?

My fave comment so far is the one in favor of arming terrorists, so we don't tip them off that they're being surveilled.

My second fave is that if it's not an assault rifle that it's somehow o.k.  

By Anonymous Chas, at Wed Mar 09, 01:09:00 PM:

NYT - Good idea, wrong target.
Number of terrorist attacks in US with legally reegistered firearme = o:
Number of terrorist attacks using car/truck/van bomb: > 1

We need to deny driver's license and vehicle ownership to watch listees.  

By Anonymous Chas, at Wed Mar 09, 01:09:00 PM:

NYT - Good idea, wrong target.
Number of terrorist attacks in US with legally reegistered firearme = o:
Number of terrorist attacks using car/truck/van bomb: > 1

We need to deny driver's license and vehicle ownership to watch listees.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Oct 03, 07:00:00 PM:

new home lancaster california
Information => new home lancaster california
 

By Blogger Get-A-Free-House, at Mon Oct 03, 11:18:00 PM:

How would you like to own a new custom-built home at a 42% to 100% discount?  

By Blogger Quit Smoking, at Tue Oct 04, 01:08:00 AM:

I am looking for ideas to start my own blog about ebooks and you have give me a few ideas. Thank you. Good blog. I will check it each week.  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?