Greetings from your friendly, neighborhood, TERRORIST!

"Otis McNatt" wrote in message
om...
Peter R. wrote in message
...
Nomen Nescio wrote:

"You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.

Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
military personnel?

On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?

Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? I did, much to my chagrin.

Ah, if you voted for Bush, then military personnel have a right to order you
around. I suppose if you vote for Kerry this election and he wins, then
military personnel will have the right to order Democrats around.

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has not
gone far enough?

C J Campbell wrote:

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has not
gone far enough?

He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a fact of
life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the effect on
businesses and individuals is minimized."

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction
put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has
not
gone far enough?

He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a
fact of
life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the
effect on
businesses and individuals is minimized."

Reminiscent of Bush saying that we should just continue to go about our
daily business.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction
put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has
not
gone far enough?

He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a
fact of
life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the
effect on
businesses and individuals is minimized."

Which means... what exactly? That he feels our pain but isn't going to
change anything?

-cwk.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security
restriction put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush
has not
gone far enough?

He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is
now a fact of
life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that
the effect on
businesses and individuals is minimized."

You have to just LOVE these ambigious statements from politicians that
say nothing....achieve nothing....and insult your intelligence if you
let the statement go unchallanged :-)
"Tell us Mr. Politician, how MUCH increase....and increased over what
base value? And define "minimized" please Mr. Politician.......minimized
to what level........against what base value? Exactly how much domestic
security is in place now over what was there before, and how effective
is that security? Define the exact effects on businesses please?

The plain simple fact that people seem to either ignore or forget when
getting all fired up about national security issues and who's "right's"
will be trampled on is the fact that in a totally free society, there is
no such thing as national security. It's impossible by
definition...period!
Any viable action taken by a government authority that even remotely
begins to address a WORKABLE scenario in a national security context
will mean that government control will replace individual "rights".
It's the classic "you can't have it both ways" thing. You either have
total freedom or you have national security.
Right now in the United States, what we have are politicians desperately
caught between a public they are sworn to defend and who are screaming
at them 24 hours a day to take action that will protect them, and the
same public screaming at them 24 hours a day that the actions they
absolutely must take to even begin to address the national security
issues are violating their individual rights.
The result has been the Patriot Act good or bad, wide open borders, an
attempt at airport security that seems to hassle old ladies more than it
guarantees the capture of terrorists, and a whole gaggle of people on
these newsgroups who, just like the rest of the country, don't
understand that national security and individual rights can't exist on
the same page at the same point in time in a free society.
Argue on for all the good it will do :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

You have to just LOVE these ambigious statements from politicians that say
nothing....achieve nothing....and insult your intelligence if you let the
statement go unchallanged :-)
"Tell us Mr. Politician, how MUCH increase....and increased over what base
value? And define "minimized" please Mr. Politician.......minimized to
what level........against what base value? Exactly how much domestic
security is in place now over what was there before, and how effective is
that security? Define the exact effects on businesses please?


SNIP

The result has been the Patriot Act good or bad, wide open borders, an
attempt at airport security that seems to hassle old ladies more than it
guarantees the capture of terrorists, and a whole gaggle of people on
these newsgroups who, just like the rest of the country, don't understand
that national security and individual rights can't exist on the same page
at the same point in time in a free society.
Argue on for all the good it will do :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired



Dudley...

I was wondering when someone would point out the near mutual exclusivity of
"Total Security" and "Personal Freedom."

Well said!

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
50.1 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction
put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has
not
gone far enough?

He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a
fact of
life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the
effect on
businesses and individuals is minimized."

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
been looking for it.

Which is the long way around to saying absolutely nothing.

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.

Guess I get to be the lone voice of dissent here.

In case you haven't noticed, there's at least a couple ten thousand loonies
out there who want to kill us in large numbers. Maybe that's GWB's fault,
maybe it isn't, but that doesn't change the situation on the ground *right
now.* You're hanging around off the edge of a runway next near an ANG base.
Sorry, but I can see where the guys are going to get a little edgy. Sounds
like the soldier was a little gruffer with you than he needed to be, but
that's not his first order of business.

And yes, I do know that of which I speak. I was grounded for three months
after 9/11 because of the massive BOS-NYC-DC TFRs that no one cared to
explain.

If we get hit again at home, and with the election right around the corner
there's plenty of reason to be on guard, we might lose everything. How about
a DC-style ADIZ over every single Class B? Mandatory flight plans for
everything? FAA can't handle it, tough ****, they'll just have a lottery for
VFR departure slots on weekends. What makes you think your non-pilot
neighbors won't surrender your freedom to fly without a second thought?

Don't get me wrong- I think the TSA is a mess and the current airline
security system, which is still the tagrte we need to worry the most about,
is a sickening morass of bureaucratic incompetence. So at best you've got a
marginal case to make that the ANG guy who harassed you should have been at
BDL searching peoples' carry-ons instead, or at the container terminal in
Boston. That's about it.

Best,
-cwk.

C, I see a disparity between this:

In case you haven't noticed, there's at least a couple ten thousand loonies
out there who want to kill us in large numbers. Maybe that's GWB's fault,
maybe it isn't, but that doesn't change the situation on the ground *right
now.* You're hanging around off the edge of a runway next near an ANG base.
Sorry, but I can see where the guys are going to get a little edgy. Sounds
like the soldier was a little gruffer with you than he needed to be, but
that's not his first order of business.
snip

And this:

What makes you think your non-pilot neighbors won't surrender your freedom
to fly without a second thought?

You probably don't mean it, but my interpretation is that your first
paragraph above is justifying what your second statement (removing the
"to fly") is condemning.

--
Peter

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...
Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.

Guess I get to be the lone voice of dissent here.

In case you haven't noticed, there's at least a couple ten thousand
loonies
out there who want to kill us in large numbers. Maybe that's GWB's fault,
maybe it isn't, but that doesn't change the situation on the ground *right
now.* You're hanging around off the edge of a runway next near an ANG
base.
Sorry, but I can see where the guys are going to get a little edgy.

So what? Why should we care if he's edgy? Personally, I'd rather my law
enforcement (military or civilian) be a little less jumpy, but if they are,
the solution is not for me (or the original poster) to comply with their
illegitimate requests. Rather, the solution is to fire the jumpy law
enforcement officers and hire ones that have more common sense.

Sounds
like the soldier was a little gruffer with you than he needed to be, but
that's not his first order of business.

The soldier had no business running the original poster off, unless he was
on military property (it's not clear whether he was or not). Off military
property, the soldier has no authority whatsoever to force someone to leave.
For that matter, even civilian law enforcement would not have that
authority.

A military or civilian law enforcement officer certainly is within their
rights to approach a person they find suspicious and talk to them. If they
ascertain that there is genuine cause for concern, they have legitimate
steps they can take. But that would not have been the case here, and the
officer's only legitimate action at that point would have been to wish the
"suspect" a nice day and get on to doing his job elsewhere.

And yes, I do know that of which I speak. I was grounded for three months
after 9/11 because of the massive BOS-NYC-DC TFRs that no one cared to
explain.

TFRs that were not reasonable, that were not justified, and should have been
criticized loudly. Inasmuch as you sit around claiming that they *were*
reasonable, you deserved to be grounded.

If we get hit again at home, and with the election right around the corner
there's plenty of reason to be on guard, we might lose everything.

Everything? That seems a little extreme. How, exactly, do you suggest that
we'd lose literally everything? Near as I can tell, we'd lose very little.
Our government is reasonably well protected from problems even when the "top
brass" is killed. Frankly, while I can't stand to think of anyone being
killed, sometimes I think we could benefit from losing the entire top
echelon of government so we could start over. I certainly don't believe
we'd lose everything, or even close to everything.

How about
a DC-style ADIZ over every single Class B? Mandatory flight plans for
everything? FAA can't handle it, tough ****, they'll just have a lottery
for
VFR departure slots on weekends. What makes you think your non-pilot
neighbors won't surrender your freedom to fly without a second thought?

Of course they will. That's why it's so atrocious that the non-pilot
military guard is illegally harassing a perfectly innocent person. It's
just one more step in the wrong direction.

Don't get me wrong- I think the TSA is a mess and the current airline
security system, which is still the tagrte we need to worry the most
about,
is a sickening morass of bureaucratic incompetence. So at best you've got
a
marginal case to make that the ANG guy who harassed you should have been
at
BDL searching peoples' carry-ons instead, or at the container terminal in
Boston. That's about it.

That's about what? The case is excellent for arguing that the military
guard should have let him stay where he was, watching the planes for as long
as he wanted to.

Pete