So, who here thinks documentary filmmaker Mark Ruffalo shouldn't own a gun?

[krispos42]

(Okay, 3rd time's the charm. Hopefully my computer won't fart again! Thanks, mods!)

Mark Ruffalo 'added to terrorism watchlist' over Gasland (documentary that criticizes gas drilling)

Source: The Guardian

Actor reportedly put on US advisory list after organising screenings of documentary criticising natural gas drilling

Ben Child
Monday November 29

Actor Mark Ruffalo has reportedly been placed on a US terror advisory list after campaigning in support of a documentary highlighting the alleged dangers of natural gas drilling.

Ruffalo attracted the attention of Pennsylvania's Office of Homeland Security when he organised screenings for Gasland, which won the special jury prize at this year's Sundance film festival, and said he was concerned about the impact of drilling on water supplies. The actor has addressed the subject in the latest edition of American GQ.

Gasland, directed by Josh Fox, follows the film-maker as he visits communities in Pennsylvania where natural gas has been drilled. Fox decided to document his trip after a natural gas company wrote to him in 2008 offering to lease his family's land in Milanville, Pennsylvania for $100,000 (£64,000).

The documentary attracted attention for a particular scene in which a local man shows that he is able to set his tapwater on fire (see 2.25 of video, above). Others claim they are suffering from numerous health issues due – they believe – to their water having been contaminated.

<more>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/nov/29/mark-ruffalo-terrorism-watchlist-gasland

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4633970

Some politicians and lobbyists and such think that if you get put on a federal terrorist watch list you should no longer be able to buy a gun. Presumebly, you shouldn't be able to own one, either, and should have guns you already own taken away. But I digress.

So, should Wisconsin-born Mark Ruffalo be able to buy a firearm tomorrow? Why or why not?

[Jamastiene]

1. So, basically he has been added just for supporting a documentary?

Ridiculous.

If that is the only reason he is on that list, yes, he should still have his 2nd amendment rights. Maybe we need to reign in these out of control paranoid policy makers and make sure they know when they are just being plain ridiculous.

[krispos42]

2. The arguement is that...

"Well, if he's a suspected terrorist, why can be buy guns?!?!?!?!"

However, since there is no controls or due process on who gets on the list (there are toddlers that are routinely denied or subject to extra screening because their name matches the list), it shows how silly the whole idea really is.

After all, if he's on the terrorist watch list... why isn't he arrested for terrorism and in prison???

[Jamastiene]

3. Am I the only one who thinks we need to reign in the paranoia?

At some point we need to make the search for terrorists a more reasonable approach and give people due process and stop some of the overblown paranoia. I can't get over the fact that they would put someone on the watch list for just supporting a documentary. That's just ridiculous.

[krispos42]

9. Randi Rhodes and Sen. Ted Kennedy were on the list as well.

It's basically arbitrary. And apparantly doesn't include ages or descriptions, either!

[Euromutt]

19. Ted Kennedy wasn't on the list; the name "T. Kennedy" was

The "no fly" and "watch" lists don't list people, they list names--sometimes partial ones--and anyone with that name gets hassled. Aside from the late senator, there were presumably scores of Timothies, Theresas, Thomases, Tamaras, Terences etc. with the last name Kennedy who also got hassled.

[krispos42]

35. I have a reasonably common last name and first initial.

At some point in the near future, I'm going to be fucked by the TSA, aren't I?

[Glassunion]

40. Yes. At the rate that the list is growing, you should be on the list by June of 2013.

[Glassunion]

39. An old argument I had with a supervisor with the TSA.

The list: A list of people so dangerous that they cannot board a plane, yet so innocent that we cannot go arrest them.

My biggest fear is that one day they will start to arrest(detain indefinitely) people on the list for no other crime than being on that list.

I have stopped flying recently, due to the new "enhanced" screening techniques that I HAVE to go through on every visit to an airport.

One day they may simply take me away and subject me to "enhanced" interrogation techniques. For doing nothing more than being given a name at birth.

[cleanhippie]

22. What reason, short of due process, would say he SHOULD NOT be able to own a gun?

That list is crap. One gets added for reasons unknown, without due process.

[Trajan]

4. Guns Guns Guns ! .... YIPPIE ! ...

Non sequitur, btw ...

What Ruffalo needs is safety, and justice ...

He neednt run out THIS VERY MINUTE to obtain either ...

Just a silly ass non sequitur to bring up a personal gun fetish ...

Signed, Liberal who appreciates at least a few gun laws (my gawd .. Can I have just one ? ... sheeesh)

[X_Digger]

7. You've got 20,000 laws.. you want more? n/t

[Trajan]

10. I was hoping for 20,001 ... Damn ...

AGAIN I lose ....

But hey ... As long as I have cold hard metal in my pants ... I feel big and mighty ....

OK .... I know ...

May I PLEASE have one more gun law ?

(Pssst - The OP is apparently castigating the notion of a waiting period, which most reasonable people agree is warranted and does NOT introduce an undue restriction on gun owners ... I say .. Well, some sarcastic malarkey in response to this ridiculous misdirection is proper ... )

[X_Digger]

13. Actually, it's not about a waiting period..

Various bliss-ninnies (Senator Frank Lautenberg- NJ, being the one that comes to mind) have tried to promulgate regulation that anyone on any of a number of 'terrah' watch lists be permanently ineligible to pass the NICS background check that is performed when a person purchases a gun from an FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee).

[PavePusher]

15. "most reasonable people agree is warranted". Oreally? n/t

[Straw Man]

17. But hey...

But hey ... As long as I have cold hard metal in my pants ... I feel big and mighty ....

I love it when you talk dirty.

(Pssst - The OP is apparently castigating the notion of a waiting period, which most reasonable people agree is warranted and does NOT introduce an undue restriction on gun owners ... I say .. Well, some sarcastic malarkey in response to this ridiculous misdirection is proper ... )

The "ridiculous misdirection" is all yours. He's referring to the "No Fly" list, by which anyone's rights can be arbitrarily and indefinitely suspended without due process and without any recourse. Some people seem to think this is a good idea, until such time as it is applied to one of their friends.

"Sarcastic malarkey" is an apt description.

[Euromutt]

21. It's not about a waiting period, it's about due process

Or rather, the lack thereof. Inclusion on the "terrorist watch list" and "no fly list" currently occurs, as far as anyone can tell, at the whim of a member of the executive branch of government, with no legislative authorization and no judicial oversight. Moreover, it is not specific persons who are placed on the lists, but names, and anyone with such a name is liable to be hassled. There are currently, by a conservative estimate, over a million names on the combined lists; the number of people affected is far greater.

Do you like the idea that, based on your inclusion on a list by something as potentially trivial as a Too Stupid for Arby's agent who didn't like the way you gave him "lip" (e.g. by advising him that if he touched your "junk," you'd have him arrested for sexual assault), you could be deprived of the ability to exercise one or more constitutional rights? Well, probably not, but who gives a shit what you think: you're a "terror suspect." We know you are, because you're on a list that says you are. Therefore, you don't deserve to have rights. After all, we know the U.S. government would never persecute someone who didn't deserve it, right? Right?

So, since we know you're a bad little terrorist, and we've all but proved it, you know you don't get to complain when we take away your ability to express your opinions (e.g. by confiscating your computer and modem), without a warrant (why should we need a warrant to search and seize the effects of a filthy terrorist like you?), and deny you the ability to complain to a judge. After all, it's not unconstitutional unless a judge says it is, so if we don't let you talk to a judge, nothing we do to you can unconstitutional!

Isn't America great?

[lawodevolution]

33. "The OP is apparently castigating the notion of a waiting period,"

Maybe we should put a wait period on how many times you can express yourself on the internet. Maybe we should put a wait limit on voting or a limit on number of seats you can vote on in an election cycle.

[SteveM]

42. "Cold hard metal in [your] pants?" Don't go swimming.

[quickesst]

14. It's because they believe....

....That their is not twenty thousand and one laws, they don't have any. Delusional. Thanks.
quickesst

[RSillsbee]

23. Can I have just one

Absolutely , you can havve just one and not only that but I'll even give it to you:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One gun law just what you asked for

[applegrove]

5. And Mark Ruffalo is a great actor. I really like him.

[hlthe2b]

6. We need to totally overhaul the terrorism watch list...

including safeguards for those who might end up for political manipulations/reasons, errors, or other, then incorporate a uniform system for those to appeal their status, with independent civilian oversight to the process.

Fix the damned terrorist watch list. That is the damned problem. Handing guns over to every person, who may actually belong on the watch list, is not.

[X_Digger]

8. Fix, hell.. scrap it.

If someone is so dangerous that you don't trust them to fly commercial, then build a case against them, and charge them.

Otherwise? Fuck right off.

[hlthe2b]

11. Works for me...

[Euromutt]

18. Hear, hear

All the more since having your name on either list doesn't bar you from entering railroad stations, shopping malls, sports stadia, government buildings and other potential terrorist targets.

In addition, a filthy detail about the watch lists is that actual suspected terrorists aren't on it because the intelligence community doesn't want them to be able to find out they're under suspicion via any airline ground crew employee.

[Caliman73]

36. Agreed.

There should not be any kind of secondary legal system where due process, the right to a fair trial including a defense, and legal representation are included. These lists are ridiculous and have no place in a country that claims to have a functioning legal system.

[SteveM]

43. I agree. Now, how many gun-controller/prohis would agree?

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Zero evidence he is on the list has been forthcoming.

[slackmaster]

24. Correct, and there never will be any evidence. You aren't allowed to know who is on it.

And who is not.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. The state has claimed he isn't.

By what evidence does HE claim he is on the list?

[slackmaster]

26. The state probably doesn't know, and if they did they wouldn't tell

The list is owned by the federal government.

By what evidence does HE claim he is on the list?

I don't know, but I am sure he doesn't have any way of knowing for sure whether or not he's on it.

Nobody does.

[X_Digger]

27. In this case, it's the state DHS, not fed. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

28. This isn't a federal database.

The Fed did give the state money to maintain it, but it's a state database.

[Glassunion]

41. Difficult to say... But look at some recent reports.

In the following article a spokesperson for Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency says: "His name is not in any of our bulletins," and "There is no list, we never even had a list."

However it is not the PA Emergency Management Agency that maintains these lists. So it would be easy for them in an official capacity to make that claim and still have Mark Ruffalo on a terror watch list maintained by another agency. If you look at the article the claim is made that it is the PA Office of Homeland Security that placed him on the list.

RamboLiberal posted in the PA group a while back an article about the Pennsylvania Homeland Security office engaged in domestic surveillance, comparing political groups to Al Qaeda.

In essence the state's security offices were tracking, monitoring and setting up a network of civilian spies to infiltrate peaceful groups. Those being tracked were engaged in lawful, peaceful protests, including groups opposed to natural gas drilling, peace activists and gay rights groups.

The time frame for Ruffalo's claims also fits. If he was organizing screenings and working to spread awareness of the oil drilling during the early months of this year. He could have easily been placed on a watch list.

Article: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/11/pennsylvania_homeland_security_1.html

As to your question as to what evidence does HE claim he is on the list. I have been unable to find anything other than the claim. I can find nothing with any elaboration as to how he knows. But, I can say that I am on a list(or at least my name is). All I had to do was try to get on a plane in the latter months of 2002. 100% of the time I try and get on a plane since that time has been a hassle to say the least. Sad thing is there are many people(in all probability over 10,000) in the US with my exact first and last name. We all get the same hassle at the airport.

Thank you RamboLiberal for the original article in the PA forum.

Edited: To say thank you.

[Euromutt]

38. No conclusive proof, maybe, but there has to be some evidence

Namely, corroborated accounts of Ruffalo being subjected to extra TSA harassment every time he flies (if he's on the "watch list"), or being denied boarding entirely (if he's on the "no fly list"). Otherwise, his supposedly being on either list is indistinguishable from his not being on either.

[Euromutt]

16. If Ruffalo is on the watch list, that's lame even by the DHS's standards

Normally, a name (note: not a person, a name) is placed on the watch list or "no fly" list* because it belongs to or has been used by a person actually suspected of planning, providing material support for, or committing terrorist activity. Ted Kennedy got hassled because there was a "T. Kennedy" on the list, an alias used by somebody actually suspected of terrorist activity (or so I gather); of course, there may have been any number of people named Tamara, Theresa, Timothy, Thomas, Talula and Tamerlane Kennedy who also got hassled.

Yusuf Islam got put on the list because he donated money to a Palestinian charity that, unbeknownst to him, was affiliated with Hamas. Islam's previous name--Cat Stevens--was also put on the list, which resulted in the wife of the late Alaskan senator Ted Stevens getting hassled; her name is Catherine, aka "Cat."

Daniel Brown was placed on the list after gunpowder residue was detected on his boots while passing through airport security. Problem was that he was at the time a Marine reservist NCO returning from a tour in Iraq, an activity in which one might reasonably accrue such residue. For that matter, there are plenty of activities that are legal in the United States in which might get gunpowder or gunpowder residue on one's footwear, e.g. hunting, target shooting or reloading cartridges.

Still, however stupid those examples may be, they were at least tangentially (albeit very, very tangentially) related to terrorist activity and commercial aircraft. It is practically unheard of, even with all the abuses of the "no fly" and watch lists, for a name to be put on the list without some justification concerning terrorism, however flimsy.

Can anyone do better than "reportedly" in confirming that the name "Mark Ruffalo" is in fact on either the watch list or "no fly" list?

* - Persons on the "terrorist watch list" are "merely" subject to extra scrutiny while traveling by commercial aircraft; persons on the "no fly" list are barred from boarding all together.

[one-eyed fat man]

20. another sleazy issue

The "terrah" watch lists, no-fly lists, and the Patriot Act were all roundly denounced as over-reaching grabs of power and unconstitutional when implemented by the Bush Administration.

Nobody wants to point out the turd floating in the punchbowl, after two years, these are no longer the "Bush" lists. If there has ever been a President who "relinquished" powers his predecessor usurped, someone point out the event. It doesn't matter which side abuses its power, it's wrong.

Once an Administration, or even a government, seizes powers unto itself, particularly under the guise of a crisis, it never relinquishes them, even when the crisis has passed.

OK, on second thought, maybe one time: the US Government did release Japanese internees after the War.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. And unfortunately, some at DU are just fine with it. Check out these links:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3934094


http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x232423


Sad to say, some of these 'good Germans' are still with us...

[Kennah]

30. I think John Boner belongs on the terror watchlist

I suspect he's a mutant Oompa-Loompa giant. Think about it.

Osama Bin Laden. Tall.

John Boner, amongst the Oompa-Loompa, extremely tall. Must be an über terror mastermind.

[Kennah]

31. On the issue of being on the Watchlist over opposition to natural gas fracking ...

... is there a place where I can sign up?

[benEzra]

32. According to the Brady Campaign, he's a "known or suspected terrorist"...

and should have his rights summarily revoked.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/terrorgap

"Known or suspected terrorist", of course, is their term for anyone who gets blacklisted. FWIW, I also see that the founder of Wikileaks is being called a "terrorist" now, too, especially after he has let on that he is going to expose illegal dealings by a big U.S. bank.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/30/AR2010113003966.html

[spin]

34. Isn't it amazing that when Wikileaks threatens a bank ...

they get shut down.

[benEzra]

37. Yup. Bill Kristol is now calling for Assange to be abducted or killed...

and it just happens that he does so after Assange threatens a bank.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/30/bill-kristol-whack-wikileaks