no car for you

I have discussed the “No Fly List”/”Terrorist Watch List” before, and I have additionally discussed how some people want to abridge your rights on the basis of being on an arbitrary list, but here is a quick recap: The list has no real oversight. You can be added to the list and never know, and without any trial, cause, or justification. Worse, the list is name-driven, which means if you have a name similar to someone already on the list, you are basically on the list (after all, terrorists do not exactly have social security numbers, so we have to use just names, right?). The list is frought with all kinds of errors, and people from Senator Kennedy to anyone with the name of “Robert Johnson” has been detrimentally affected by the list.
Well, apparently something else people on the list (and people whose names are similar to those on the list) cannot do is get banks to loan them money:

A guy of middle-eastern decent (born in Afghanistan) wants to buy a car. We agree on the price, he fills out a credit-ap and we run it. Rock Star, as we say in the biz, 815 FICO score with 92% of his current credit available. Well employed at a famous medical school. Should be “No Problem” getting him financed, right?

Wrong. His name brings up a flag on AMPAC, the American Patriot Act terrorist watch list. Well, his name is similar to other names on the list, so, banks are not allowed to loan money to him. It means he can’t get the car and I can’t get the sale.

Now, we all know that that list has over a million names on it. You remember, Sen. Frank Lautenberg wanted to prevent anyone whose name appeared on that list from being able to purchase a firearm even though the vast majority of those people have never been accused or convicted of anything.

My own feeling is, the guy is well employed, here in this country legally. If he’s suspect, they should investigate. Otherwise, why can’t he do what other free residents are able to do? Like, buy a car? Either he is or he isn’t. In-between leaves him in limbo and that is not fair to him.

Which is exactly the point: if the people on the list are “too dangerous” to be allowed on an airliner, they should not be on the streets. If the people on the list are “too dangerous” to be allowed to purchase a firearm, they should not be on the streets. If the people on the list are “too dangerous” to get a bank to loan them some gorramed money, they should not be on the streets.
Either you have the proof to put these individuals behind bars, or you do not. There should be no “in-between”, and creating one without even the slightest nod towards due process is offensive in the extreme.
Or do you like the idea of your natural rights being infringed, without trial, simply because you might do something wrong?