Criminal Prosecution for TFR Bust?

All part of the George Bush Airport Police State, using the SS to do
it, in this case. 1000 arrested in the USA after 9/11, most held and
never charged, 600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?)). Hey, I want America
safe, but I also want it FREE. Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft, no American
Freedom safe from their police powers. Sorry to be political, if the
Dems were doing it I'd be hollering just as loud. Wake up America!

Larry Dighera wrote in message . ..
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 46a November 10, 2003

-------------------------------------------------------------------


TFRS: WHO ARE THEY REALLY STOPPING?
The FAA is looking at revising its enforcement policy for pilots
who bust TFRs and the Washington ADIZ. Agency officials told a
recent meeting of the GA Coalition that federal security agencies
are not in favor of a flexible system of enforcement that takes
mitigating factors into consideration. In fact, according to EAA's
account of the meeting, the Secret Service initially wanted
criminal charges laid against wayward pilots. Coalition Chairman
Tom Poberezny urged the FAA to adopt a uniform policy that allows
remedial action, counseling and even amnesty for pilots who
mistakenly enter restricted airspace. The meeting attendees were
told that almost 2,800 violations have been recorded so far, about
half of them in the Washington ADIZ and Camp David TFRs.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#186022

Doug wrote:

All part of the George Bush Airport Police State, using the SS to do
it, in this case. 1000 arrested in the USA after 9/11, most held and

Hey Doug: aren't you the moron who was trying to solve a rigging problem with
his AUTOPILOT engaged?

(A HUSKY, right?)

On 15 Nov 2003 20:34:24 -0800, Doug wrote:

600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?))

there was a TV documentation on a German TV station about Guantanamo Bay.
They interviewed 2 (or more) released people in Afghanistan. Both have been
imprisoned while there was collected headmoney for them paid by US folks
(CIA, military, ??)

in German: http://www.spiegel.de/sptv/magazin/0...260710,00.html

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:46:20 GMT, Martin Hotze
wrote:

in German: http://www.spiegel.de/sptv/magazin/0...260710,00.html

Interesting. For free, the usual unsupported dreck. For a couple of
bucks (for me, that would be the charge for the articles plus the bank
charges to process dollars into euros) you can have the full context.

I'll offer a translation, best I can, in all cases the word
translation choices are mine:

(begin translation)

660 prisonsers now subsist in the high-security prison called "Camp
Delta" at the Guantanamo Bay Marine base. Among them is a Turk, Murat
Kurnaz, who was born and raised in Bremen (Germany). Without the
chance for a trial, he waits for his release, or at least some
official charge.

AP

Prisoners in an apparantly disenfranchised place: Camp Delta Inmates

This military prison is located in Cuban jurisdiction, and is
therefore outside the reach of American justice. The prisoners are
charged with being "illegal combatants," which is an elegant
equivocation for the total loss of justice. No inmate knows what the
future holds for him. Either they receive no due process and stand to
wait, rotting in prison for years to come, or they'll receive charges
that could mean the death penalty.

68 of these prisoners were released in the last 18 months. Karin
Assman spoke with some of them for SPIEGEL TV, and got a look at
Guantanamo from the inside.

(end translation)

Go ahead, Spiegel, tell us how you *really* feel!

I note that for a holding prison which (I'm told, and those pictures
seem to show) feeds and clothes the inmates, and gives them
opportunity to exercise their religion (note that those flourescent
prison outfits come with *head cover*), within the constraints of the
prison.

Perhaps SPIEGEL TV would serve us all better by examining something
like the French prison system, or that of, say, Saudi Arabia. In
Saudia Arabia, I'm told, the prisoners give law enforcement a hand
from time to time. Literally.

And in any case, the term is "enemy combatant," and is a *correct*
term for a combatant who operates against an army outside the
strictures of the Geneva Convention.

None of that page, of course, makes the claim that Martin made, namely
that there were bounty hunters involved in collecting the enemy
combatants. Presumably the allegations are made in the TV program? If
so, by whom? And what would be wrong with that in a war zone?

Es geht schon, Martin. Ein paar hier koennen auch Deutsch, auch wenn
unsere Tastaturen es nicht koennen!

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

In article ,
Robert Perkins wrote:

This military prison is located in Cuban jurisdiction, and is
therefore outside the reach of American justice. The prisoners are
charged with being "illegal combatants," which is an elegant
equivocation for the total loss of justice. No inmate knows what the
future holds for him. Either they receive no due process and stand to
wait, rotting in prison for years to come, or they'll receive charges
that could mean the death penalty.

68 of these prisoners were released in the last 18 months. Karin
Assman spoke with some of them for SPIEGEL TV, and got a look at
Guantanamo from the inside.

I've never understood the problem here.

Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.

(Barring the possible use of a procedure sometimes used in earlier wars
-- including our Civil War, I think -- in which prisoners give their
word and bond not to fight again in the conflict, and are released to go
home to their farms and families.)

What's not to like? Did prisoners of war on either side in WW II have
the right to demand trials and due process? (including prisoners from
neutral nations who might have volunteered to fight on either of the
sides)

The current war is obviously an unusual war, but equally obviously it's
a war. Does the fact that the other side's mode of fighting it falls
miles outside the Geneva Convention somehow give them the right to
increased, rather than perhaps reduced, protections when taken prisoner?

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...

I've never understood the problem here.

Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.



So, you expect bin laden to come and pick up his prisoners?

This has been declared a war against "terror." There is no formal "other
side."

In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...

I've never understood the problem here.

Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.



So, you expect bin laden to come and pick up his prisoners?

This has been declared a war against "terror." There is no formal "other
side."


That's my point.

If bin lader doesn't want to come and pick up "his prisoners" (your
phrasing), that's *their* problem.

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...

That's my point.

If bin lader doesn't want to come and pick up "his prisoners" (your
phrasing), that's *their* problem.


So you support secret permanent detention without trial based on unknown
evidence?

I'm all for having a safe and secure country, but not if it means stuff like
that, because giving a government infinite power like that will lead to some
very bad things.

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Robert Perkins wrote:

This military prison is located in Cuban jurisdiction, and is
therefore outside the reach of American justice. The prisoners are
charged with being "illegal combatants," which is an elegant
equivocation for the total loss of justice. No inmate knows what the
future holds for him. Either they receive no due process and stand to
wait, rotting in prison for years to come, or they'll receive charges
that could mean the death penalty.

68 of these prisoners were released in the last 18 months. Karin
Assman spoke with some of them for SPIEGEL TV, and got a look at
Guantanamo from the inside.

I've never understood the problem here.

Presumably as soon as the war is over -- meaning either the other side
surrenders, or a peace treaty is negotiated and signed between the two
sides -- official representatives of the other side can show up and take
their prisoners home. Until then. they sit.

(Barring the possible use of a procedure sometimes used in earlier wars
-- including our Civil War, I think -- in which prisoners give their
word and bond not to fight again in the conflict, and are released to go
home to their farms and families.)

What's not to like? Did prisoners of war on either side in WW II have
the right to demand trials and due process? (including prisoners from
neutral nations who might have volunteered to fight on either of the
sides)

Sorry dude, they are not POWs. Our government has said that numerous times.

The current war is obviously an unusual war, but equally obviously it's
a war. Does the fact that the other side's mode of fighting it falls
miles outside the Geneva Convention somehow give them the right to
increased, rather than perhaps reduced, protections when taken prisoner?

Maybe you need to factor in the absurdity that we attacked them and now
expect them to fight by our rules. Somehow I don't think that approach is
going to work.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message


Maybe you need to factor in the absurdity that we attacked them and
now expect them to fight by our rules. Somehow I don't think that
approach is going to work.

Are you suggesting that we should be fighting by their rules?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________