Saw President Bush's plane (response to "Saw J.T.'s Plane")

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

But while sovereign immunity has been reduced much over the years national
security issues is one place where it still carries some weight and I see no
court deciding that protection of the President should be secondary to some
commercial loss.

Why not? The USA is a democracy, and the President is only one part of a
government that employs a balance of powers. This being so, there's a limit
to the President's importance to the nation, and therefore a limit to the
measures that can reasonably be justified to protect him. The constant
inflationary spiral of these measures has to stop somewhere. Bringing a city
to a halt is not really justified, not even for the President.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

But while sovereign immunity has been reduced much over the years
national security issues is one place where it still carries some
weight and I see no court deciding that protection of the President
should be secondary to some commercial loss.

Why not? The USA is a democracy, and the President is only one part
of a government that employs a balance of powers. This being so,
there's a limit to the President's importance to the nation, and
therefore a limit to the measures that can reasonably be justified to
protect him. The constant inflationary spiral of these measures has
to stop somewhere. Bringing a city to a halt is not really
justified, not even for the President.



First off no, the USA isn't and never was. It is a representative republic.
The President and Vice President are the only two representatives who are
elected by the entire electorate. That does give them a certain higher
standing than the other members of our government.

But that aside the majority of the citizens of the US feel that the POTUS is
of significant enough importance to allow those who are charged with his
well being a certain latitude in his protection. While a individual or even
many individulas might have in the past or in the future suffer some
financial loss due to the steps required to protect the POTUS it pales in
comparison to the loss that would be suffered by many, many people should he
be killed, especially should that attack be part of a larger attack on our
country. The loss may well be caused by purely emotional reactions but that
doesn't make the loss any less.

Bringing a city to a halt is, to say the least, a little overstated. Bush
was here in little old El Dorado Arkansas (pop. ~20k) before the last
election. The town didn't come to a halt. A matter of fact if you weren't in
a 4 block radius of where he was speaking you wouldn't have known he was in
town. As a matter of fact I went to the airport where AF1 was sitting
(though it wasn't the 747 it was a 757)and was allowed inside the fence and
allowed to go to my hanger. There was a police officer there who asked why I
was there. When I pointed to the airplane tires in the back of my truck and
to my hanger he said, "Have a nice day and please leave via this exit." This
was mainly because AF1 was parked 50 yards from the other exit and I would
have had to drive past it.

As far as the limit to the POTUS's importance to the US, yes there is a
limit as there is a limit to what can be done to protect him. But, at least
at this point the general public doesn't think that limit has been exceeded.

Keep in mind that even though you are making great headway in the
competition there are still a lot more people that would want to do harm to
the POTUS than there are that want to do so to the average citizen.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...


First off no, the USA isn't and never was. It is a representative
republic. The President and Vice President are the only two
representatives who are elected by the entire electorate. That does give
them a certain higher standing than the other members of our government.
Since you're picking nits, I'll join in:

First, they are elected by the Electoral College, and second, they are
executives, not representatives. Only our representatives are elected by
direct vote, and even senators were originally elected by state
representative.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...


First off no, the USA isn't and never was. It is a representative
republic. The President and Vice President are the only two
representatives who are elected by the entire electorate. That does
give them a certain higher standing than the other members of our
government.
Since you're picking nits, I'll join in:

First, they are elected by the Electoral College, and second, they are
executives, not representatives. Only our representatives are elected
by direct vote, and even senators were originally elected by state
representative.

Let me rephrase. PRES & VPRES are the only folks whose names are on
everyone's ballot.

And originally the VP was whoever came in second for President. Of all the
constitution that had to be the silliest idea in it.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...


First off no, the USA isn't and never was. It is a representative
republic. The President and Vice President are the only two
representatives who are elected by the entire electorate. That does
give them a certain higher standing than the other members of our
government.
Since you're picking nits, I'll join in:

First, they are elected by the Electoral College, and second, they are
executives, not representatives. Only our representatives are elected
by direct vote, and even senators were originally elected by state
representative.

Let me rephrase. PRES & VPRES are the only folks whose names are on
everyone's ballot.

And originally the VP was whoever came in second for President. Of all the
constitution that had to be the silliest idea in it.
Almost as silly as some of the tortured interpretations of it.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

But that aside the majority of the citizens of the US feel that the POTUS is
of significant enough importance to allow those who are charged with his
well being a certain latitude in his protection.

How do you know? None of the current procedures in effect was ever voted on
by the majority of citizens of the US; it's all Executive Orders and the like.
Some of the laws related to this look wildly unconstitutional.

While a individual or even
many individulas might have in the past or in the future suffer some
financial loss due to the steps required to protect the POTUS it pales in
comparison to the loss that would be suffered by many, many people should he
be killed, especially should that attack be part of a larger attack on our
country. The loss may well be caused by purely emotional reactions but that
doesn't make the loss any less.

A number of presidents have been killed in office and the country has not
disintegrated into chaos.

Bringing a city to a halt is, to say the least, a little overstated.

I wish it were.

As far as the limit to the POTUS's importance to the US, yes there is a
limit as there is a limit to what can be done to protect him. But, at least
at this point the general public doesn't think that limit has been exceeded.

The general public has never been consulted on the question.

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Thu 30 Aug 2007 04:49:48p, Mxsmanic
wrote:

A number of presidents have been killed in office and the country has
not disintegrated into chaos.

One could even argue that with some of them, they country was better off
afterwards.

"Gig 601XL Builder !" wrote

But that aside the majority of the citizens of the US feel that the POTUS
is
of significant enough importance to allow those who are charged with his
well being a certain latitude in his protection. While a individual or
even
many individulas might have in the past or in the future suffer some
financial loss due to the steps required to protect the POTUS it pales in
comparison to the loss that would be suffered by many, many people should
he
be killed, especially should that attack be part of a larger attack on our
country. The loss may!well be caused by purely emotional reactions but
that
doesn't make the loss any less.

Bringing a city to a halt is, to say the least, a little overstated. Bush
was here in little old El Dorado Arkansas (pop. ~20k) before the last
election. The town didn't come to a halt. A matter of fact if you weren't
in
a 4 block radius of where he was speaking you wouldn't have known he was
in
town. As a matter of fact I went to the airport where AF1 was sitting
(though it wasn't the 747 it was a 757)and was allowed inside the fence
and
allowed to go to my hanger. There was a police officer there who asked why
I
was there. When I pointed to the airplane tires in the back of my truck
and
to my hanger he said, "Have a nice day and please leave via this exit."
This
was mainly because AF1 was parked 50 yards from the other exit and I would
have had to drive past it.

As far as the limit to the POTUS's importance to the US, yes there is a
limit as there is a limit to what can be done to protect him. But, at
least
at this point the general public doesn't think that limit has been
exceeded.

Well said, Gig. It is always good to hear a voice of calm analysis, as all
around are freaking out.

They remind me of all of the conspiracy theorists, in a way. Something like
all the POTUS is trying to do is ruin their (and as many other's) day. So
sorry; life is not fair, but I believe as you do, that a dead president at
the hands of an assassin would not be a "good thing" for the country.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

They remind me of all of the conspiracy theorists, in a way. Something
like all the POTUS is trying to do is ruin their (and as many other's)
day. So sorry; life is not fair, but I believe as you do, that a dead
president at the hands of an assassin would not be a "good thing" for the
country.

The problem is when one POTUS comes to town and shakes everybody's hand, and
the next one comes to town in secret or locks himself away from the public
so that only $X-contributors can see him. It gives the perception that one
is either wildly unpopular or a coward.

Mainly, my criticism is when they arrive DURING rush hour, and it's not just
Bush. Al Gore has done the same thing on at least two difference occasions
since he left the VP office. I don't see how he rates.

(When Bob Dole came to town several years ago he saw the Evergreen B-17
parked near the hangar and made security and staff stop what they were doing
so he could go tour the airplane and talk to the volunteers. Now there's a
good man!)

-c

(When Bob Dole came to town several years ago he saw the Evergreen B-17
parked near the hangar and made security and staff stop what they were doing
so he could go tour the airplane and talk to the volunteers. Now there's a
good man!)

Yep, Dole should've been elected president. Our country would have
benefited greatly from his wisdom and experience, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"