Ted Kennedy put on No Fly List

And if he was headed back to DC for a session of the Senate that may have
well been a Constitutional violation.



"Roger Long" wrote in message
. ..
Yes, really! It took him several phone calls before he could get on his
flight.

Now, I know that the political leanings of most of you in this group will
lead you to think that keeping people like Kennedy off of airplanes and
away
from Washington is good for the nation. However, if it can happen to him,
it can happen to anybody.

Considering some of my posts here, I won't be surprised if I can't get on
my
next commercial flight either. The days when we have to stop by the
police
department before we leave town can't be very far off.

--

Roger Long

In article ,
"Roger Long" wrote:

Putting Kennedy on a no-drive list would make more sense...

Yes, really! It took him several phone calls before he could get on his
flight.


--
Take out the airplane for reply

"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...
lance smith quoted:

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge personally called Kennedy "to
make sure that the situation was remedied," said a spokeswoman for
Ridge's department.

Was Ridge *really* making sure that "the situation was remedied"?

Or was he merely interested in avoiding a repeat incident for Ted?

I think the proper term is "sucking up."


IMWTK

The airline has a right and responsibility to not board Ted Kennedy.
The FAA has a FAR which prohibits the boarding of an intoxicated
passenger. Besides, any aircraft, short of a C5A, would be over max.
ramp weight with that lard butt on board.

Wallace Berry wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Roger Long" wrote:

Putting Kennedy on a no-drive list would make more sense...

Yes, really! It took him several phone calls before he could get on his
flight.

Recently, lance smith posted:

I'm not the biggest fan of Kennedy but he raises a good point- if it
took a senator weeks and many calls to get off the list, what would it
take and how long would it take an ordinary American to get off the
list?

It may not be possible.

Here's the link and the text of the Reuters story:

How can some of this just "slip by" people?

A Kennedy spokesman said the whole thing had resulted from a simple
error and had not been politically motivated.

How would a Kennedy spokesman know this? It sounds like a political
appeasement to me.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge personally called Kennedy "to
make sure that the situation was remedied," said a spokeswoman for
Ridge's department.

Why would Ridge have to check with Kennedy to make sure of such a thing?
He should have complete access to the system that created this "simple
error", and should know for a fact whether the situation (obviously not
the ability to make such "simple errors") was remedied. Calling the victim
of such errors should yield no useful information whatsoever, as the
victim would only know whether they were stopped on a particular flight,
not whether the "situation was remedied". Are we really that gullible a
people?

Neil