Why GA is Dying

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
the fact remains that taking pictures at
airports has now been placed within the realm of a possible security
issue

So is wearing shoes, taking notes, walking around, and sneezing. It's
all within the realm of a possible security issue. In fact posting on
Usenet is most certainly a security issue, so anybody who posts on
Usenet should accept that they may be accosted at any time for any
reason by security should they wish to be at an airport.

Most medium sized airports do not allow free access to the ramp, and have
not, for years before 911.

People have been detained, all across the country, for taking suspicious
amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were arrested
and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken. Sounds like
there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.
--
Jim in NC

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
This is correct, and it's also the reason why the people deciding what
constitutes a security issue are indeed civilian and not police. Police
are simply the tool that implements these decisions.

The people who decide what consititues a security issue should not =be=
security people, civilian or not. Security peopls should =advise= our
leaders, but should not make the decisions, since it is in their best
interests that everything be a security issue.


Perhaps I need to be a bit clearer on this for certain people.

When I say "civilian", I mean the following; which should be obvious to a
teacher :-)
These decisions ARE made by civilian leaders at the highest level of ELECTED
GOVERNMENT. These leaders consult with ALL the necessary specialists in the
field, both civilian and military when making these decisions, then the
decisions are made at the highest level, which is the elected civilian
government.
Police....and indeed ALL those directed by this top leadership authority,
are then DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT the decisions that have been made.
Is this clear enough?
Dudley Henriques

Jose schrieb:

Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
American Citizens when on American soil.

Yes. Oh, and Blacks shouldn't be granted the same rights as whites and
women shouldn't be ganted the same rights as men and ... geeezz.

Stefan

You just proved the point in this original case. The person taking the
pictures was asked to have his ID examined. Is that not the first step in
determining if he was an US citizen?

I was about to reply under the assumption that it was the police doing
the asking, but I checked the OP and found I was confusing two different
posts. From the OP (Kyle's):

In the middle of this, one of the employees from the FBO came over and asked
the guy to go to the FBO and present his photo ID so the FBO would know who
is making pictures at the airport.

From the one I was conflating (Emily's):

I once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and ask why I was taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and I wasn't under any obligation to explain myself to him.

I still don't know whether this was a small airport or a large one (it
would make a little difference). It would also make a difference if the
photo taking looked suspicious or innocouous. My impression from the OP
is that it was innocuous, and the FBO was overreacting. And being
foreign or not is a bit of a red herring, (despite the fact that I
brought it up) inasmuch as nobody knows whether somebody is a citizen or
not before checking ID (and with lots of fake ID out there, a real
foreigner intent on harm is likely to be able to fool an FBO if he
doens't push too hard).

Whether action should be taken (checking ID, calling the cops...)
depends on the suspiciousness of the activity in context. Simply taking
pictures at an airport with the pilot present does not strike me as
suspicious. Perhaps there were other circumstances.

If you can argue back against this point, it will only show that you are
_only_ out to continue an argument.

If I =can= (successfully) argue back, it would show no such thing.

Security and freedom are a balancing act. There is a heavy hand on the
security side. The only thing on the freedom side are individuals like
you, me, Emily, and Kyle. If people like us don't speak up, whether on
Usenet or otherwise, we'll end up with things like a flight restriction
zone around the capital, where (dangerous) little airplanes can't go and
(politically connected) big airplanes can.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as American Citizens when on American soil.

Yes. Oh, and Blacks shouldn't be granted the same rights as whites and women shouldn't be ganted the same rights as men and ... geeezz.

What problem do you have with my statement? There is no parallel
between yours and mine.

Jews are not entitled to the same rights to Holy Communion as Catholics.

This is nothing against Jews, it is simply that =members= (of anything)
hold greater rights (=within= that something). It is what "membership"
means. I even qualified my original statement with "when on American
Soil", though I thought it would be obvious.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Voting. Work. Carrying a gun. Buying certain businesses
or getting a business license. Running for President.
These are just a few of the many legal reasons and areas
when citizens and non-citizens are treated differently.


Yet non-citizens can get a pilot's certificate, get a green
card and work, buy a hunting license and carry a gun with
certain restrictions.



"Jose" wrote in message
t...
| Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same
freedoms as American Citizens when on American soil.
|
| Yes. Oh, and Blacks shouldn't be granted the same rights
as whites and women shouldn't be ganted the same rights as
men and ... geeezz.
|
| What problem do you have with my statement? There is no
parallel
| between yours and mine.
|
| Jews are not entitled to the same rights to Holy Communion
as Catholics.
|
| This is nothing against Jews, it is simply that =members=
(of anything)
| hold greater rights (=within= that something). It is what
"membership"
| means. I even qualified my original statement with "when
on American
| Soil", though I thought it would be obvious.
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
People have been detained, all across the country, for taking suspicious
amounts of pictures, as they were casing tall buildings. They were
arrested
and deported, based on the types of pictures they had taken. Sounds
like
there is a law, somewhere, supporting this.

Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
American Citizens when on American soil.

You just proved the point in this original case. The person taking the
pictures was asked to have his ID examined. Is that not the first step in
determining if he was an US citizen?

If you can argue back against this point, it will only show that you are
_only_ out to continue an argument.
--
Jim in NC

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

Security and freedom are a balancing act. There is a heavy hand on the
security side. The only thing on the freedom side are individuals like
you, me, Emily, and Kyle. If people like us don't speak up, whether on
Usenet or otherwise, we'll end up with things like a flight restriction
zone around the capital, where (dangerous) little airplanes can't go and
(politically connected) big airplanes can.

Jose

You are correct that freedom and security are a balancing act, and you are
also correct that the bias at this point in time favors security.

You are wrong however, that the only people on the freedom side of this
equation are people like you, and the people you have mentioned. There are
many people out here on the security side of the coin deeply involved with
getting the security issue as under control as possible with a minimal loss
of individual freedoms. This is no easy task, and mistakes have and will be
made. The system always needs improvement.
You do a dis-service to the people in security trying to make it better when
you assume that the only ones who understand the freedom issue are those
like you who endorse those who immediately "take on" security people and
rail on about their "rights" when approached while taking pictures at an
airport rather than responding in a spirit of cooperation.
The sad part of your line of reasoning is that its actually people arguing
your position who make the situation worse instead of better. You seem to
believe that authority means loss of freedom. Its responses like Emily's
misguided antics at the airport that make the security issue all that much
harder to implement and as a result of that, possibly even more restrictive
measures must be put in place.
You people are defeating your own agenda!
Dudley Henriques

Jose wrote:
Foreigners are not (and should not be) granted the same freedoms as
American Citizens when on American soil.

Does that mean they have no right to life or liberty? If they are murdered
does that mean the murderer need not be prosecuted? If they are robbed,
does that mean they can't bring charges? If you contract to buy products,
raw material, or services from foreigners (or they from you), how do you
think they can enforce your contractual obligation if they have no
recognized freedoms? If the above questions give you pause to realize
foreigners may have need for some rights and freedoms, how are you going to
pick-and-choose which rights freedoms they should be granted? What would
you like to see if you travel to other countries?

Are you perhaps confusing _services_ with _rights_? After all, the
statement "Foreigners who have not paid taxes should not be granted any
government services not needed to defend or maintain their rights," might
be what some are really intending to say, but may be conflating rights and
freedoms with government provided services.

There are
many people out here on the security side of the coin deeply involved with
getting the security issue as under control as possible with a minimal loss
of individual freedoms.

I hope so, and it is not an easy task. But on my end I see things like
the DC ADIZ, shoe removal, metal detectors in schools, and broad wiretap
authority being accepted as a matter of course. It only needs to be in
place for five or ten years for our children, who grow up with it as a
natural part of the landscape, to consider it normal.

You do a dis-service to the people in security trying to make it better when
you assume that the only ones who understand the freedom issue are those
like you who endorse those who immediately "take on" security people and
rail on about their "rights" when approached while taking pictures at an
airport rather than responding in a spirit of cooperation.

I understand those who bristle when approached in a spirit of authority
rather than a spirit of cooperation.

You seem to believe that authority means loss of freedom.

It needen't (and authority is important for the preservation of
freedom). I am however =extremely= concerned about the unchecked spread
of authority, especially inasmuch as it impacts aviation, which it is
doing. I am also concerned when it makes unrelated impingement (such as
the demolition of Jay's runway) easier by eroding opposition in general.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.