Name on government watch list threatens pilot's career
- Thread starter WINSTON THE WOLF
- Start date
And this man believe in killing infidels based on what evidence? No one is asserting that he believes this. Why should he loose his career of 15 or more years because a tiny minority of people who do share his religion think that way? Why should his honorable military service be disgraced like this?
That's easy. It never does. If we loose our "ideal" of America, then this country becomes a corporate-fascist state. "Public safety" is too vague and indefinable a Bloody Shirt for it to be waved broadly. You believe in dignity, freedom, and our constitution or you end up being what is called a "collaborator" with fascists, like much of our current DOJ and much the DHS. Our country is dangerously on the edge.
JuanCarlos
New member
When the individual in question takes actions or expresses desire indicating a desire to harm others? Sounds about right to me.
If he truly follows such a theoretical religion, it probably wouldn't be long before this happened, at which point we'd be justified in taking action. Though I guess at this point it wouldn't be entirely preemptive, so you can feel free to read this as a "never" if you choose as well.
Irrelevant anyway, since no such religion exists nor is this man such an example. Nice try, though...you were pretty transparent, really.
Sorry, but I'm not really big on trading freedom for safety. Especially since not only do you deserve neither at that point, but chances are that's exactly what you'll end up with.
Ideals are only ideals, but can not always be followed. I would rather have 100 million people on a no fly list including my self then have any of my family members killed by a terrorist who rams a plane into a building(not referring to this man, but some random individual).
Again allot of people say things here, but when faced with that choice of someone you love dieing, or preventing someone from flying on an Airplane - what will you choose?
I don't have an absolute answer to the question, but just like torture - I want to be against it but when faced with that choice, I am probably capable of it and would probably support it just like most others.
Again allot of people say things here, but when faced with that choice of someone you love dieing, or preventing someone from flying on an Airplane - what will you choose?
I don't have an absolute answer to the question, but just like torture - I want to be against it but when faced with that choice, I am probably capable of it and would probably support it just like most others.
You're trolling and baiting again.
And when you cannot get a job, home loan or a car loan over $10k because you are on some "government list", are you still going to say "gee, I guess that's okay"?
This country was founded on the principle that the government's powers to deprive people of their liberties is limited. If a government lackey can add a neighbor's name to the list with no accountability and cause him to lose his career, that is not limited power.
Even if it only deprives his neighbor of his right to travel by public conveyance (plane, train, boat), it's still an unlawful intrusion against the liberty of the people at large.
It may be that all he has to do is fill out 3 forms and submit them to the gov't to be removed. The more troubling question is why was he put on the list in the first place? What other "identifiers" does the government use to distinguish between all the Roger E. Smiths out there? Or the William Jeffersons? Or similar common names.
Basing addition to the no-fly or watch-list on religion is like basing it on skin color, ancestry or your favorite sporting event.
JuanCarlos
New member
Well, considering you want to keep the population of the US at 300 million, having 100 million names on the no-fly list would make it pretty useless. It would either shut down air travel (due to economic reasons), or simply create a burgeoning industry in fake identification.
Also, I'd hardly be willing to sacrifice the freedom of my entire country, including my family members, just to keep them safe. Yes, I'd honestly rather they die in a terrorist attack, and based on their expressed views they'd prefer the same.
Besides which, the choice you're presenting is ludicrous anyway. Even assuming you could pose a choice of "give up <insert freedom> and save X lives," (which is idiotic to begin with), you have no assurance that your loved ones (or you, of course) will be among X. Unless you're suggesting that there's a policy where X will be "all victims of terrorism/violence," which is also idiotic. In the real world, there's even the possibility that X will be zero, or worse negative.
I'm not huge on gambling, and when I do I prefer it to be my paycheck at the craps table, not my freedom. My luck might suck at that table, but I know all I'll lose is money...at least I'll die a free man (if possibly broke).
You want to be safe? Build yourself a bomb shelter, and stay there. I promise I won't bother you.
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
Shiner Bock
New member
Or gun ownership.
The difference is there are legitimate concerns, the NSA doesn't care about the people living in the woods with tyedye covered peace signs. They care about those who are a potential threat.
I can't give an answer in regards to this specific individual's case, but overall this paranoia over the NSA is really unfounded.
They are not perfect, but they aren't this evil agency many people try to paint them as.
I can't give an answer in regards to this specific individual's case, but overall this paranoia over the NSA is really unfounded.
They are not perfect, but they aren't this evil agency many people try to paint them as.
JuanCarlos
New member
Actually, I may have been a bit overzealous there. I'm not perfect.
My ideals regarding freedom do have their limits. I'm willing to somewhat limit the economic freedom (through taxes) of myself and others such as to reduce my chances of becoming penniless and starving should something unexpected happen, as well as to reduce my chances of being beaten to death for my wallet by such a penniless or starving person. Beyond that? No.
I'm even a little embarrassed by this fact, honestly. But like I said, I'm not perfect. The question is, are you embarrassed?
Moving on, let's just talk about the no-fly list for a moment. Just for fun. I don't take credit for all of the following, it's a combination of my own thoughts and logic along with that of others. Anyway...
This is, supposedly, a list of people so dangerous that they cannot be allowed to board an airplane under any circumstances. Yet, at the same time, many (most?) of these people must also be innocent enough that they cannot instead simply be detained (even with the Patriot Act in place).
How can somebody dangerous enough to be on the no-fly list not be able to simply be arrested?
Moving along, let's talk about security. What, exactly, does a list of names do to keep us safe? It really only works if everybody's on it, which is impossible because they're recruiting more people every day. But at that point, what's the point of the list? If, theoretically, we are screening all passengers, and fortifying cockpit doors, and scanning luggage for bombs, and keeping people from getting on with water or without taking their shoes off, what is the harm in letting one of these guys on the list on a plane (holy run-on sentence Batman!)? Are these all like terrorist MacGyvers, or something?
See, theoretically we need to keep planes safe enough that any terrorist not on the list (and there will always be many, many of them) can't, you know, kill us. But at the same time, that means that in theory the plane is safe enough to allow on "terrorists" that are on the list (quotes because there's the assumption that everybody on the list is a terrorist...why aren't they arrested on the spot?). Especially since, us having their names and all, we can simply subject them to an additional screening if need be...you know, make sure they don't have a bomb up their rectum or something crazy.
When you think about it logically, the entire no-fly list doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Especially when you think of just how many people have found their way onto it because some terrorist shares their name (or has used it...I can't imagine there are that many terrorists name James Smith, or Bob Jones, or the horde of other incredibly common names that have found their way onto it...screams "alias" to me).
Anyway, whatever. 90% of it is security theater. Including the "terror alert level" that has never fallen below yellow (sounds like a scale in need of recalibration to me). If you're willing to give up some freedoms for this farce, super for you. I pity you as a human being, however, and I will not join you in supporting it.
My ideals regarding freedom do have their limits. I'm willing to somewhat limit the economic freedom (through taxes) of myself and others such as to reduce my chances of becoming penniless and starving should something unexpected happen, as well as to reduce my chances of being beaten to death for my wallet by such a penniless or starving person. Beyond that? No.
I'm even a little embarrassed by this fact, honestly. But like I said, I'm not perfect. The question is, are you embarrassed?
Moving on, let's just talk about the no-fly list for a moment. Just for fun. I don't take credit for all of the following, it's a combination of my own thoughts and logic along with that of others. Anyway...
This is, supposedly, a list of people so dangerous that they cannot be allowed to board an airplane under any circumstances. Yet, at the same time, many (most?) of these people must also be innocent enough that they cannot instead simply be detained (even with the Patriot Act in place).
How can somebody dangerous enough to be on the no-fly list not be able to simply be arrested?
Moving along, let's talk about security. What, exactly, does a list of names do to keep us safe? It really only works if everybody's on it, which is impossible because they're recruiting more people every day. But at that point, what's the point of the list? If, theoretically, we are screening all passengers, and fortifying cockpit doors, and scanning luggage for bombs, and keeping people from getting on with water or without taking their shoes off, what is the harm in letting one of these guys on the list on a plane (holy run-on sentence Batman!)? Are these all like terrorist MacGyvers, or something?
See, theoretically we need to keep planes safe enough that any terrorist not on the list (and there will always be many, many of them) can't, you know, kill us. But at the same time, that means that in theory the plane is safe enough to allow on "terrorists" that are on the list (quotes because there's the assumption that everybody on the list is a terrorist...why aren't they arrested on the spot?). Especially since, us having their names and all, we can simply subject them to an additional screening if need be...you know, make sure they don't have a bomb up their rectum or something crazy.
When you think about it logically, the entire no-fly list doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Especially when you think of just how many people have found their way onto it because some terrorist shares their name (or has used it...I can't imagine there are that many terrorists name James Smith, or Bob Jones, or the horde of other incredibly common names that have found their way onto it...screams "alias" to me).
Anyway, whatever. 90% of it is security theater. Including the "terror alert level" that has never fallen below yellow (sounds like a scale in need of recalibration to me). If you're willing to give up some freedoms for this farce, super for you. I pity you as a human being, however, and I will not join you in supporting it.
You clearly support limitations beyond just taxes, such as no killing people, no screaming fire in a crowded theater, building codes, traffic laws, environmental regulations, even gun laws.
Ideals are great but unless you are insane they can't be the only thing taken into account when making a decision.
I would be OK allowing those on the TWL to be able to board airplanes as long as they go through additional screening, I think thats fair - but until they can clear up any confusion on terrorist affiliation they should not be allowed to pilot an aircraft.
Also the government needs to not obsessively screen people who in all likelihood aren't terrorists. I think profiling to some degree is OK, people who are more likely to do something wrong should get more attention payed to them while those who are least likely to do something wrong should not have to go through the same level of scrutiny.
I am not saying they should go through anything horrible, but just go through some basic, extra precautions.
Ideals are great but unless you are insane they can't be the only thing taken into account when making a decision.
I would be OK allowing those on the TWL to be able to board airplanes as long as they go through additional screening, I think thats fair - but until they can clear up any confusion on terrorist affiliation they should not be allowed to pilot an aircraft.
Also the government needs to not obsessively screen people who in all likelihood aren't terrorists. I think profiling to some degree is OK, people who are more likely to do something wrong should get more attention payed to them while those who are least likely to do something wrong should not have to go through the same level of scrutiny.
I am not saying they should go through anything horrible, but just go through some basic, extra precautions.
JuanCarlos
New member
Really?
Really?!
Man, you gotta try to dress the strawman up before you start beatin' on him.
Also known as: proving a negative. Not something we generally let the government force us to do.
JuanCarlos
New member
/facepalm
What is "public interest?" It is clearly not the sentiment of 50% +1, because that is nothing more than mindless mob rule.
The no-fly list is an example of a supposedly "reasonable restriction" implemented "for our own good" but in fact adopted for its placebo effect and without regard for its ineffectiveness (as eloquently described by JuanCarlos).
I don't know beyond that it makes sense to implement when the gain outweighs the loss. I think thats for people who are much smarter then me or you to decide and it seems the Bush administration has made the decision on its own.
So our argument over it really doesn't matter much now.
Do you think the gain outweighs the loss because you were told so or because you thought about it and came to your own conclusion? If the latter, please refute JuanCarlos' arguments in post #30.
Please do not suggest that I have such a deficiency in intellect that I am generally dumber than the output of the federal bureaucracy.
Last edited:
I don't want the deaths of 3000 people to rest on me, or even 1 person. This is not a black and white issue, even though many people try to make it seem like it is.
I know I would do anything I could to stop my family from dieing, most people would do the same. Civil liberties are important, but stopping someone from flying a plane into a building or planting a chemical weapon in the subway system is also important.
I don't know the answer, but I do know I don't want to be in a skyscraper when an Airplane hits it or a bomb goes off - and I certainly wouldn't any of my family to be in it either.
This conversation has morphed into a general discussion on what the government should be allowed to do in regards to monitoring people, I am sorry for the thread veer but I think this conversation warrants discussion - perhaps in a new thread.
I know I would do anything I could to stop my family from dieing, most people would do the same. Civil liberties are important, but stopping someone from flying a plane into a building or planting a chemical weapon in the subway system is also important.
I don't know the answer, but I do know I don't want to be in a skyscraper when an Airplane hits it or a bomb goes off - and I certainly wouldn't any of my family to be in it either.
This conversation has morphed into a general discussion on what the government should be allowed to do in regards to monitoring people, I am sorry for the thread veer but I think this conversation warrants discussion - perhaps in a new thread.