Airplane shot down in Colombia

Dave S wrote:
Aviv Hod wrote:
Summary: US and Colombian agents shoot down a smuggling suspect:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=063_1182300981

This is shocking to me on so many levels - extrajudicial execution on
tape with Americans involved. Drug smuggling is a problem and all,
but this isn't like a police car chase where there is clear danger to
bystanders. Couldn't the authorities avoid deadly force?!? From the
tape it seems like the authorities were very concerned about the
proximity of the border but even if they would have had to let the
plane get away, that is no excuse for their trigger finger to do the
police work!

Does anyone have any more context on this incident? Anyone know how
common this is? There was a family of missionaries that was shot down
a few years back in a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me sick.

-Aviv

So what do you propose?

Copy his tail number down and terminate the chase? How would you STOP
this aircraft if the pilot doesnt want to cooperate?

Tell us the answer.

I don't know the answer to your question. Perhaps you are correct that
shooting the plane down is the only way to STOP the aircraft RIGHT NOW.
But is stopping the plane RIGHT NOW critical to anyone's safety?
Since no one was in danger during the pursuit (like there is in a car
chase on the freeway for example) I see no justification to use deadly
force.

Granted, if there is a border that can be crossed where the smuggler can
be in a safe haven, it sounds to me like a diplomatic problem that ought
to be addressed diplomatically. There are ways to provide incentives
for countries to cooperate so that you can chase the aircraft to its
destination and deal with the criminal issues there.

Law enforcement folks constantly make grave decisions to apply the
appropriate level of force for a given situation. Without immediate
threat to life from the smuggling plane, this strikes me as heavy handed
to the extreme.

-Aviv

Aviv Hod wrote:
Without immediate
threat to life from the smuggling plane, this strikes me as heavy handed
to the extreme.

-Aviv

And that is where we disagree.

If you arent doing anything wrong, you have no reason to run.


I frankly wish that US domestic law enforcement was empowered to
terminate pursuits sooner rather than later.

While this veers OT, I feel someone fleeing police in a car/truck etc is
behaving recklessly with a deadly weapon - the vehicle itself. That
endangers the lives of innocents. That, in and of itself, justifies the
use of force, and deadly force, to terminate a pursuit and protect the
public in doing so.

In the same vein, maybe some drug pilots will rethink their career
choice if they know that they will be shot down for failure to comply
with law enforcement or military directives to stop, land and be
searched. Maybe the drug pilots will decide that their life isnt worth it.

If this drug pilot wanted to live, he had the ability to make a simple
choice. Divert and be inspected. He made his choice, and he died because
of it. Its a drug WAR. People die in wars. And this pilot had more due
process extended to him than any victim of a drug cartel's henchman.

What is so hard about understanding that when a bad actor dies at the
hands of the military or law enforcement, its a series of choices by the
bad actor that leads to this outcome? What is so hard about putting
blame where it belongs?

On Jul 1, 2:06 am, Dave S wrote:
Aviv Hod wrote:

Without immediate

threat to life from the smuggling plane, this strikes me as heavy handed
to the extreme.

-Aviv

And that is where we disagree.

If you arent doing anything wrong, you have no reason to run.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no reason to stop.


I frankly wish that US domestic law enforcement was empowered to
terminate pursuits sooner rather than later.

While this veers OT, I feel someone fleeing

Your use of the word "flee" presupposes that you have done something
wrong to be "fleeing" from, or that the person trying to convince you
to stop has the right to interfere with your activities.

police in a car/truck etc is
behaving recklessly with a deadly weapon - the vehicle itself. That
endangers the lives of innocents. That, in and of itself, justifies the
use of force, and deadly force, to terminate a pursuit and protect the
public in doing so.

One could just as easily argue that the pursuers pose just as much
threat to the public as the pursued ... and if anyone is hurt as much
if not more of the blame.

Consider also that when the police or military are given the authority
to arbitrarily stop and search or question (or "deadly force" against)
people ... then you have allowed your nation to become a police state!


In the same vein, maybe some drug pilots will rethink their career
choice if they know that they will be shot down for failure to comply
with law enforcement or military directives to stop, land and be
searched. Maybe the drug pilots will decide that their life isnt worth it.

If this drug pilot wanted to live, he had the ability to make a simple
choice. Divert and be inspected.

Or ... if he refused to divert, simply follow the plane until it was
forced to land somewhere when it ran out of fuel; perhaps resulting in
the location of more important criminals in the chain ... and their
arrest, if there is criminal activity involved in the flight in the
first place.

He made his choice, and he died because
of it. Its a drug WAR.

By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
"war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.

People die in wars. And this pilot had more due
process extended to him than any victim of a drug cartel's henchman.

What is so hard about understanding that when a bad actor dies at the
hands of the military or law enforcement, its a series of choices by the
bad actor that leads to this outcome?

What is so hard about putting
blame where it belongs?

Nothing ... but do you immediately know every "bad actor" you
encounter? By exactly what signs or attributes can you so judge these
people, and know the good from the bad?

"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message ups.com...

By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
"war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.


Well stated, thanks!

On 2007-07-01 04:55:18 -0700, "Blueskies" said:


"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message
ups.com...

By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
"war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.


Well stated, thanks!

I would suggest you read "How to Stop A War" and "A Quick and Dirty
Guide to War" by James Dunnigan. This is a war by any reasonable
definition of the term.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Jul 1, 10:11 am, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2007-07-01 04:55:18 -0700, "Blueskies" said:







"PPL-A (Canada)" wrote in message
oups.com...

By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
"war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.

Well stated, thanks!

I would suggest you read "How to Stop A War" and "A Quick and Dirty
Guide to War" by James Dunnigan. This is a war by any reasonable
definition of the term.

So I am to understand that we are supposed to defer to the definitions
of, and ideas about war propogated by a person whose job and primary
claim to notoriety is design and authoring of war GAMES (that's
right ... board GAMES)? That's what James Dunnigan does right? You
know what they say about the man who has a hammer can see only nails?
I hope this makes my point.

I don't believe there's any reason to summarily drop the whole canon
of western philosophers', political scientists', military theorists'
thoughts about war (not to mention definitions set forth in
international law) in deference to some war GAMER ...

Sorry ... you gotta try better than that ... conflict (no matter how
angry you are at the other party) DOES NOT always equate
philosophically, legally, or ethically to a situation to which it is
appropriate to use the term "war".

I maintain my original position. "War", as it's coming to be used, is
a euphemism that is increasingly being deployed by devious politicians
to justify in the public conciousness any number of highly suspect
activities both domestic and international. This tactic, swallowed
whole and regurgitated to us by our increasingly uncrital media, is
gaining power as our populace loses touch with aging veterans who have
actual experience of genuine war.

No war game designer is going to change my mind on this. It's
absurd. Legal problem, social problem, international jurisdictional
problem, all true of the drug trade. War however it is not, except by
the flimsy definitions required to justify many of the inappropriate
responses to it by politicians, police, and military.

I also still maintain that any society that has handed over many of
its freedoms to the police (secret and otherwise) and military, and
perceives itself to be in a constant state of "war", has allowed
itself to become a police or military state.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Dave S" wrote in message nk.net...

What is so hard about understanding that when a bad actor dies at the hands of the military or law enforcement, its a
series of choices by the bad actor that leads to this outcome? What is so hard about putting blame where it belongs?


The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no market there would be no 'value stream'...

The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no market there would be no 'value stream'...

So now it's the addict's fault that our inner cities are laced with
drugs and thugs? It's the user's fault that normal people dare not
set foot into the ghettos that exist in every major city in America?
All we have to do to fix this mess is "change the law"?

That may be the most naive thing I've ever seen written here -- and
*that* is not an easy cliff to scale!

If you had any experience in the inner cities of America, you would
know that drugs are the scrourge of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE there.
The "market" you speak of exists because of a drug cartel that
produces and provides cheap drugs for easy distribution to people who
apparently have nothing left to lose.

These people then think nothing of taking everything that anyone else
has to lose, in order to maintain their drug addiction -- and the
cycle of crime continues. Stretch this cycle out 40 years, and you
have what we have today in America -- large areas in every major city
that are essentially fenced off (by police, and common sense) from
regular citizens, so that the shooting war in the inner city can't
infect the rest of us.

A quiet, sad irony of America -- far more shooting deaths occur in our
inner cities every day than occur on the battlefields of Iraq and
Afghanistan. It's a shameful situation that BOTH political parties
and the mainstream media choose to ignore.

(Well, except after Hurricane Katrina, of course, when they were
shocked -- SHOCKED -- that there was poverty and violence going on in
New Orleans!)

Now, of course, you can say that eliminating drugs wouldn't fix the
ghettos, and you might be right. People who can look at a hypodermic
needle full of unknown **** and somehow make the leap to thinking
"Hey, it sounds like *FUN* to inject that into my arm!" are probably
beyond ANYONE'S help.

Stupid is incurable.

However, eliminating drugs (and the cartel behind them) would remove
a major fuel source for much of the violence that claims so many lives
there.

And, of course, you have to look at the reciprocal of what you are
proposing. If making drugs ILLEGAL is the problem, what would making
them LEGAL do?

When I contemplate legalized drugs, I get a vision from "The Matrix",
with entire segments of our society laying around hooked up to
intravenous tubes, oblivious to everything around them. Would
providing free drugs to the inhabitants solve the violence? Even if
it did, would it be the right thing to do?

I don't know the circumstances of the shoot-down in the video, but if
that plane was packed with cocaine or heroin that was destined for my
hometown -- a beautiful city on the shores of Lake Michigan that is
fighting for its life against a growing drug-and-crime-plagued ghetto
-- and the pilot had ignored every attempt to get him to land, he
deserved his fate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no market there would be no 'value stream'...

So now it's the addict's fault that our inner cities are laced with
drugs and thugs? It's the user's fault that normal people dare not
set foot into the ghettos that exist in every major city in America?
All we have to do to fix this mess is "change the law"?

Yes, Jay, it is really simple. If we simply eliminate all laws (no
reason to stop just with drug laws), we'll have no crime at all! You
can't have crime if you have no laws to break. And we'd need no judges
or lawyers or politicians! I'm warming up to this idea already. :-)

Matt

Yes, Jay, it is really simple. If we simply eliminate all laws (no
reason to stop just with drug laws), we'll have no crime at all! You
can't have crime if you have no laws to break. And we'd need no judges
or lawyers or politicians! I'm warming up to this idea already. :-)

It's funny, but true, that there is a large contingent of people
(enough of whom vote) here in Iowa City who have repeatedly killed
plans to build a desperately needed larger prison, using essentially
your (tongue-in-cheek) argument.

Their claim is that the prisons are over-crowded because of drug
offenders, and that all we need to do is simply release them all, and
voila! -- no need for a bigger prison!

So, Johnson County ends up leasing space (at outrageous prices) from
empty jails around the state. In the ten years we've lived here, we
could have built five new prisons, and been money ahead...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"