It was really close...

Very well said,
Sometimes we only see the part of history we chose to see. Lincoln had
the entire Maryland State Legislature arrested and never charged with a
crime....just to keep them from voting for or against secession. Numerous
newspaper owner/editors were arrested because they expressed the thought
that the Constitution allowed for secession..as a few northestern states had
threathened many a time. I didn't agree with Lincoln throwing the
Constitution out of the window then, and I don't agree with doing it now
either.
Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having all of
the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal Government.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers have been disgusted at us since 1861 .
We really would not need a Patriot Act, if the Federals would do there
number one job...protect the borders of this country. I will be the first to
admit during times of war, extra measures have to be taken....but I have not
seen a Declaration of War since Dec. 1941.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Alan" wrote in message
...

I'm kind of tired of the Nazi card being continuously played by those
who disagree with the Patriot Act, George Bush and the government in
general. Read your history, what we have in the here and now in
this country bears no resemblance to Nazi Germany. Or, for Wilsonian
America from 1917-1919 during WWI. This Democrat President
implemented draconian policies and curbs on speech and liberty that
went far beyond anything the current Republican administration is
doing. Prison sentences of over 10 years were handed out for
publicly opposing the US entry into the war.

Not just the USA but the history of the human race has a record of
over-responding to threats or danger. Another Democrat put American
citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps. The Chinese
kind of over did it on a wall. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus among
other things. Even the human body's immune system over reacts when
faced with invaders.

I'm not worried about school children crossing a line in a playground
and getting arrested for sedition. I'm more concerned about
clue-less pilots who either operate in a vacuum or are two
stupid/arrogant to check the airspace and plan accordingly. That kind
of behavior will trigger an over reaction to general aviation that
affects us all.

So stop telling me we have become Nazi Germany and that Bush is
Hitler. It does a real disservice to the millions who perished
opposing the real thing.

Alan Bloom
Dogs can Fly.
http://www.flyingmutts.com

wrote:
1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.

So? There are terrorist groups all over the world wishing to carry out
attacks on all sorts of people/governments.


2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.

Maybe, but that doesn't warrant reductions in our freedoms.


3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

So are every car, van, SUV and truck driving around in DC. And most of
them can carry a lot more explosive payload than the overwhelming majority
of GA aircraft. Someone could probably stab you to death with a butter
knife, but we're not worrying about butter knives, are we?


Yes, I agree a U-Haul looks like a far better delivery system, but a
piston GA plane is not out of the question. The bomb used in the first
WTC attack was 1,100 pounds, which is inside the envelope of a 206 to
name just one.

Why wouldn't they just drive up to their target? They'd attract a lot
less attention.

I don't know what they're doing to restrict trucks from getting close
enough, and a 5000# fertilizer bomb probably doesn't need to get too
close to leave a mark. Heck, I'd assume they're not doing enough. I
would also say that intercepting a 206 in mid-air is the least
efficient way to deal with that threat profile, but it would seem to be
pretty foolish to ignore it, especially considering that it has been
done before.

Tell you what? How about the government locking all of us in our houses,
and not letting us out. That would solve the security problem. If they
see anyone outside their house, they can just shoot them immediately. I
realize that's an absurd example, but it makes the point. How much
freedom are we willing to give up for security against a relatively small
number of extremist islamists?

--- Jay




--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

On 5/13/05 4:18 AM, in article
, "Denny"
wrote:

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews. and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.


************************************************** ****************************
*
Now they are willing to kill people who get lost and cross invisible
lines in the sky so that the powerful and the politically connected can
feel safe... Will they next start shooting our children because they
ride their bikes across an invisible line on the ground?

The Patriot Act, is not...


Be reasonable. The prohibited area around the White House has been there for
decades. No one was talking about shooting these guys down because they had
violated the ADIZ or the restricted areas. They were inside the original
prohibited area and not responding in any way to signals or radio calls.
This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act or anything else that the
current administration has done. The Cessna flew right over the Vice
President's home. It flew between Congress and the White House. How clueless
is that? It has been illegal to fly there since the height of the Cold War.
Personally, I think the Secret Service showed considerable restraint.

And yes, if your children start riding their bikes toward certain
installations, do not respond to calls for them to stop and ignore warning
shots, it is possible that someone is going to shoot them. And you know
what? That has always been true in every country and every time since the
beginning of history. Children can be very effective as soldiers, spies,
assassins and saboteurs.


denny

1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.

You sure? How high a risk is that, exactly? How high to be worth how
much of a restriction of constitutional freedom?

2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.

It happened once. Once.

3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.


Many other things are more possible means. Way more. Yet they are
totally unrestricted.

In the end, it comes down to weighing the desire for security against
the amount of freedom you restrict. Do you really think the current
restrictions on GA flying around DC do much to reduce the risk? With
airliners flying out of Reagan? With trucks going through the city? Or
is the more likely theory that GA pilots are a group so small that
politicians can easily restrict their freedom without too much
resistance while appearing to do something really effective in the eye
of the public, even it doesn't do much?

EFFECTIVE reductions of terror attack risk in the DC area would look
WAY different than this. And Joe Dumb Voter would feel them every day
of his life. And that's exactly why they aren't done.



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Christopher,

I think the Secret Service showed considerable restraint.


Because the "collateral damage" of shooting the plane down would have
been way higher than any damage inflicted by the plane itself. Simple
as that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.
2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.
3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

I don't disagree with any of them. I disagree that they are significant
statements, and that they form the basis for a "good, clear, and well
defined" reason for the giant restricted area over DC.

To put it in perspective, suppose all the highways into and out of DC
were blockaded, and one needed prior authorization to enter or leave the
DC area - perhaps mediated by EZ-Pass and a RFID tag on driver licenses
(actually, not very farfetched at all). Since rental vans were used for
prior attacks, they are allowed to travel freely (so long as they belong
to one of the larger rental companies). However, every subcompact car
is suspect, since it can carry a bomb in the trunk.

The restrictions are set up for very clear, well defined reasons, and
every driver knows it.

1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.
2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.
3. Small cars are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote:

Well, he's still flying and was flying within a week after this happened.
Unless someone knows something specific my anecdotal evidence shows that a
front-page news grabber screw-up does not guarantee certificate action.

I'm glad that the news coverage will have no impact on the penalty; why
should it? But the TSA has been mandating 30 day suspensions for ADIZ
violations. Even if the FAA wanted to resist this (not that there's any
reason to do so), they can do nothing for the TSA but ask "how far over do
you want me to bend?"

The one wildcard in this is the NASA form. But I'm sure that issue already
arisen, as *some* previous ADIZ violators must have completed one. I just
don't know the outcome.

In the case of the NYC tourist, he "only" violated class B airspace. That's
a dramatically different thing from violating the useless ADIZ, at least in
the minds of those hunkering down.

I *am* surprised that he was flying again w/in a week, but I've no idea what
other circumstances surrounded that. Perhaps he NASA-formed his way out.
Perhaps he was given a remedial checkride instead of a suspension? I
simply don't know.

- Andrew

wrote:


3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

Yes, I agree a U-Haul looks like a far better delivery system, but a
piston GA plane is not out of the question. The bomb used in the first
WTC attack was 1,100 pounds, which is inside the envelope of a 206 to
name just one.
[...]
but it would seem to be
pretty foolish to ignore it, especially considering that it has been
done before.

No security expert would ever address the least likely scenario first
(unless the goal was something other than achieving security).

- Andrew

On 13 May 2005 04:18:29 -0700, "Denny" wrote:

Now they are willing to kill people who get lost and cross invisible
lines in the sky so that the powerful and the politically connected can
feel safe... Will they next start shooting our children because they
ride their bikes across an invisible line on the ground?

The Patriot Act, is not...

denny


But yet we have very visible lines at our borders where people are
crossing them everyday in droves but we cant seem to stop them.

Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher's

W P Dixon wrote:

We really would not need a Patriot Act, if the Federals would do there
number one job...protect the borders of this country.

That's not quite correct. Have you an alarm in your home or office? Does
it include interior sensors (ie. motion or IR detectors) or just periphery
detectors?

Odds are you've both. And there's good reason: layered security is an
improvement.

That said, the entire Patriot act isn't about security. The new driver
license rules being pushed by the TSA are about security. Compare the two,
and you'll see a significant difference.

Further, interior security must always be balanced against the use of the
interior. Someone with large pets, for example, cannot use most motion or
IR detectors. While the person could simply get rid of the pets, that's a
price at least some are unwilling to pay.

Similarly, we could easily achieve perfect internal security in this
country. At what price, however?

- Andrew