IZinterrogator
New member
They said the same thing about communism.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Name on government watch list threatens pilot's career
- Thread starter WINSTON THE WOLF
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
Basically what IZinterrogator is demonstrating is that, no matter what policies you implement, there will always be ways to counter them. Which means that any policy you want to implement must be viewed in terms of additional security offered versus liberties infringed.
We've long since passed the point of diminishing returns. At this point each new restriction put in place does very little to actually reduce my chance of dying a fiery death, regardless of how warm and/or fuzzy it may make you feel.
At some point you have to accept the very real statistical probability that you may come to a violent end. And honestly, if terrorism is something you really worry about all that much then I'd suggest that you're either somebody too scared to go outside in the morning or somebody who has a terribly skewed view of how likely you actually are to be killed by a terrorist attack (even without the no-fly/watch list). Not to belittle the loss of those who did die or lose somebody on 9/11/2001, but in the grand scheme of things terrorism is way down there on the list of unexpected ways you could die. Even counting the 3,000 dead that day.
Over the last decade or so, what were your actual odds of dying in a terrorist attack? Compared to, say, your odds of dying in a car accident, fall, shooting, etc? Yeah, exactly. Pretty low. Unless you're the kind of person who looks up for falling pianos as they walk down the street, there's really very little reason to worry about dying from a terrorist attack. But for whatever reason people are just unable to grasp how unlikely they are to become a victim...random violence just messes with people. Which is why, for instance, thirteen people shot in a metro area of over five million can have an entire city cowering in fear.
Me? For whatever reason (perhaps because I've had people try to kill me), I figure I die when I die. I don't wonder every time I get on a plane if it's going to crash, or if some crazy purse-bomber is going to take us all with her. It's possible, sure, but come on. Why live your life in fear?
I'm not saying we should do nothing to stop terrorism. I'm saying that, again, anything we do must have the positives realistically weighed against the negatives. One could argue that, to a large extent, the airport is the absolute last line of security...if a guy makes it to the airport, then about ten other levels of defense have failed. Realistically, he should have been arrested long before he made it to the ticket counter or security checkpoint. If you think somebody who has evaded capture and managed to bring their plan that far is likely to be foiled by a list of names, then I've got a Magical Umbrella of Falling-Piano Protection(TM) to sell you...cheap.
We've long since passed the point of diminishing returns. At this point each new restriction put in place does very little to actually reduce my chance of dying a fiery death, regardless of how warm and/or fuzzy it may make you feel.
At some point you have to accept the very real statistical probability that you may come to a violent end. And honestly, if terrorism is something you really worry about all that much then I'd suggest that you're either somebody too scared to go outside in the morning or somebody who has a terribly skewed view of how likely you actually are to be killed by a terrorist attack (even without the no-fly/watch list). Not to belittle the loss of those who did die or lose somebody on 9/11/2001, but in the grand scheme of things terrorism is way down there on the list of unexpected ways you could die. Even counting the 3,000 dead that day.
Over the last decade or so, what were your actual odds of dying in a terrorist attack? Compared to, say, your odds of dying in a car accident, fall, shooting, etc? Yeah, exactly. Pretty low. Unless you're the kind of person who looks up for falling pianos as they walk down the street, there's really very little reason to worry about dying from a terrorist attack. But for whatever reason people are just unable to grasp how unlikely they are to become a victim...random violence just messes with people. Which is why, for instance, thirteen people shot in a metro area of over five million can have an entire city cowering in fear.
Me? For whatever reason (perhaps because I've had people try to kill me), I figure I die when I die. I don't wonder every time I get on a plane if it's going to crash, or if some crazy purse-bomber is going to take us all with her. It's possible, sure, but come on. Why live your life in fear?
I'm not saying we should do nothing to stop terrorism. I'm saying that, again, anything we do must have the positives realistically weighed against the negatives. One could argue that, to a large extent, the airport is the absolute last line of security...if a guy makes it to the airport, then about ten other levels of defense have failed. Realistically, he should have been arrested long before he made it to the ticket counter or security checkpoint. If you think somebody who has evaded capture and managed to bring their plan that far is likely to be foiled by a list of names, then I've got a Magical Umbrella of Falling-Piano Protection(TM) to sell you...cheap.
Proper implementation is the key, I am not saying adjustments are not warranted - only that it has the potential to do its job well.
What is properly implementation of a fundamentally flawed concept?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Actually the question should be "Why did you let only 2 or 3 guys armed only with box cutters take over a plane loaded with people? The 4th plane's passengers fought back.
Because it was pre-9/11. The conventional wisdom was essentially to allow the idiots to land the plane where they wanted, let them blather about they brothers in arms taken prisoner in Israel or wherever, promise to let out their friends, negotiate the release of the passengers and either raid the plane or wait for them to surrender. NOBODY in the civilian world thought anything like 9/11 would ever happen. That 4th plane transformed from a pre-9/11 mentality to a post mentality in a few short minutes.
I have no doubt that the TSA has gone overboard and is out of control, it needs to be reformed to focus in on probable threats instead of bothering random people to look like its doing its job.
The randomness, while ignorant to those of us with more common sense is required under current law and thinking. They give you two rationale:
1) Profiling is racism. It doesn't matter if you or me believe it or not, the vocal minority do and that's what the government reacts to.
2) Not screening the 90 year old grandmother opens up the possibility of a kidnapping or bribery type scenario. "We've got your grandson... take this on the plane with you or else."
Secondarily, it's not TSA that's out of control. It is the very fabric of governmental action. I could give you example after example of the idiocy which is the internal workings of these organizations.
If you support taking away liberty in the name of safety, then how is it any different to say, "I don't care if the NICS keeps everyone from owning a gun, as long as my loved ones don't get shot?" Maybe we can have a "no guns list"- oh wait we have one- it is called NICS.
Since home made explosives are so easy to produce, perhaps we should make a "no book list" to prohibit certain people from buying books. After all, we have a no gun list and a no fly list.
Perhaps we should just round people up and put them in camps until they can prove that they are not terrorists. Maybe that will make us safe. Maybe we can also throw their families in there, just to be sure.
To make sure that no one can get out on a technicality by hiring a scummy lawyer, we will have a "no jury trial" list, a "no right to search warrant" and "no right to habeas" list.
To be sure that they don't send messages to other terrorists operating on the outside, a "no free speech list" will be implemented, and all persons will be required to mail letters unsealed, so we can make sure they don't contain forbidden terrorist plans.
Will all of that make us safe, or should we do more?
Since home made explosives are so easy to produce, perhaps we should make a "no book list" to prohibit certain people from buying books. After all, we have a no gun list and a no fly list.
Perhaps we should just round people up and put them in camps until they can prove that they are not terrorists. Maybe that will make us safe. Maybe we can also throw their families in there, just to be sure.
To make sure that no one can get out on a technicality by hiring a scummy lawyer, we will have a "no jury trial" list, a "no right to search warrant" and "no right to habeas" list.
To be sure that they don't send messages to other terrorists operating on the outside, a "no free speech list" will be implemented, and all persons will be required to mail letters unsealed, so we can make sure they don't contain forbidden terrorist plans.
Will all of that make us safe, or should we do more?
Why do you dislike NICS? Unless your a criminal I don't see how it effects you.
Regarding explosives, the whole point of preventing large quantities of certain substances on planes is to prevent a bomb from being smuggled on.
I think everyone needs to be brought to trial soon after they are arrested, the government should not be able to hold people without proof or conviction.
Conversely I don't have a problem with the government monitoring certain people or groups which are a serious threat, but if they take action against them they need to go through the proper litigation proccess.
"Liberty" gets sacrificed in the name of safety, laws - rules and regulations keep this country together. They coexists and as times change the amount of freedom people have will grow and shrink.
I have been thinking and I personally want to see Air Marshals on every plane in America, that I ultimatly think would be more beneficial then the TWL.
Regarding explosives, the whole point of preventing large quantities of certain substances on planes is to prevent a bomb from being smuggled on.
I think everyone needs to be brought to trial soon after they are arrested, the government should not be able to hold people without proof or conviction.
Conversely I don't have a problem with the government monitoring certain people or groups which are a serious threat, but if they take action against them they need to go through the proper litigation proccess.
"Liberty" gets sacrificed in the name of safety, laws - rules and regulations keep this country together. They coexists and as times change the amount of freedom people have will grow and shrink.
I have been thinking and I personally want to see Air Marshals on every plane in America, that I ultimatly think would be more beneficial then the TWL.
That does not mean I believe those who are suspected terrorists should be Air-Line pilots or Air-Marshals, only that the TWL may not offer significant protection when it comes to passengers on planes.
If you are piloting an Air-Craft you should need to have a spotless record. Again he should have the ability to get his case resolved, but I see no problem with preventing him from piloting any large flying vehicle until then.
If you are piloting an Air-Craft you should need to have a spotless record. Again he should have the ability to get his case resolved, but I see no problem with preventing him from piloting any large flying vehicle until then.
The problem is that long after the threat of islamic terrorism - the agencies set up to deal with it , will still be here 'monitoring' us. After Osama Bin Laden dies of old age in some cave, there will still be the Dept.of Homeland Security enjoying a kind of eternal life. What will these agencies do? What new pastures of Security will they then be exploring? More and More Government...
:barf:
The current 'terrorism' was not caused by poor security; it was caused by poor foreign policy. The U.S. was warned over the course of decades that its policies in Saudi Arabia, and its policies that created the Mujihadeen and Al Qaeda - would boomerang. The hysteria that created No Fly Lists has done very little to increase security - but it has done a great deal to funnel the misperception of 'increased security.'
I'd hate to be like England where there's a video camera on every street corner, no gun rights, and someone always ready to check my bags. That's the next mission of 'Homeland Security?' Do we really want to be a Nanny State?
:barf:
The current 'terrorism' was not caused by poor security; it was caused by poor foreign policy. The U.S. was warned over the course of decades that its policies in Saudi Arabia, and its policies that created the Mujihadeen and Al Qaeda - would boomerang. The hysteria that created No Fly Lists has done very little to increase security - but it has done a great deal to funnel the misperception of 'increased security.'
I'd hate to be like England where there's a video camera on every street corner, no gun rights, and someone always ready to check my bags. That's the next mission of 'Homeland Security?' Do we really want to be a Nanny State?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
The current 'terrorism' was not caused by poor security; it was caused by poor foreign policy. The U.S. was warned over the course of decades that its policies in Saudi Arabia, and its policies that created the Mujihadeen and Al Qaeda - would boomerang.
Really? Because the threat of Islamic terrorism was what convinced Benjamin Franklin (I Think it was frankilin) that we need a strong central government with a strong navy to deal with the threat. It was the singular thing that over came his opposition to the Constitution.
"Islamic enmity toward the US is rooted in the Muslim religion, not recent American policy. In 1786, America’s Ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson, joined our Ambassador in London, John Adams, to negotiate with the Ambassador from Tripoli, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. The Americans asked their counterpart why the North African nations made war against the United States, a power “who had done them no injury", and according the report filed by Jefferson and Adams the Tripolitan diplomat replied: “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”"
TownHall.com http://townhall.com/columnists/Mich...n_policy_lessons_from_fighting_muslim_pirates
S832 writes quoting me:
Quote:
"Looking at the antics of government agencies, TSA in particular, but not thereto limited, the assumption mentioned by S832 strikes me as one hellishly large assumption, and additionally, based on history and past performances, more unwarranted than warranted. Just my opinion though."
I have no doubt that the TSA has gone overboard and is out of control, it needs to be reformed to focus in on probable threats instead of bothering random people to look like its doing its job.
With a few reforms I think the agency could do its job better and and not be as zealous in its actions.
S832:
Regarding the "few reforms" you referenced, without specifics, might one find included therein dissolution of the agency?
Quote:
"Looking at the antics of government agencies, TSA in particular, but not thereto limited, the assumption mentioned by S832 strikes me as one hellishly large assumption, and additionally, based on history and past performances, more unwarranted than warranted. Just my opinion though."
I have no doubt that the TSA has gone overboard and is out of control, it needs to be reformed to focus in on probable threats instead of bothering random people to look like its doing its job.
With a few reforms I think the agency could do its job better and and not be as zealous in its actions.
S832:
Regarding the "few reforms" you referenced, without specifics, might one find included therein dissolution of the agency?
S832 said:Its all a balance, I don't personally lose anything with either of these lists assuming they are implemented properly, I do have potential to lose my life if a terrorist could have been stopped by either of these but was not.
Just because you personally don't lose anything you're just peachy-keen on the list. But what if it DOES cause you to lose some of your liberties?
What happens when your credit/debit card won't work automatically without calling the bank each time? What happens when ATM's won't advance you more than $20 at at time? How mad are you going to be if you come home early from work and find the FBI coming out of your house after a warrantless search? How indignant will you be when pulled over for no apparent reason in town 80 miles from home and you hear the cop say "Sir, put your hands behind your back, this is for your safety and mine"?
Will you be indignant if arrested and held incommunicado and then informed you aren't allowed a phone call because you're classified as an "enemy combatant"?
Will you be indignant if your airline flight is called back to the gate and the pilot removed? How will you feel when the airline says "Gee we're sorry, but there are no available seats until Wednesday at 9pm"?
I have the feeling that you either have not reached your 30th birthday or you don't a widely varied life experience. From your statements you value safety over liberty and are willing to give up a lot for it.
From your statements you value safety over liberty and are willing to give up a lot for the illusion of safety.
Fixed it for ya.
YankeeRebel
Inactive
"A TSA spokeswoman said the agency is seeking 'a meaningful resolution' to the couple's case but said there is no timetable for doing so."
That is something. Last year during the amesty debate over illegal aliens(IA), a proposed law stated that in an investigation into the background of an IA, a determination was to be made within 24 hours. If a determination could not be made in that time, the subject was to be deemed cleared and allowed into the country. We can not in a timely manner clear a person that has been serving in the military for 13 years? Something is wrong some place.
That is something. Last year during the amesty debate over illegal aliens(IA), a proposed law stated that in an investigation into the background of an IA, a determination was to be made within 24 hours. If a determination could not be made in that time, the subject was to be deemed cleared and allowed into the country. We can not in a timely manner clear a person that has been serving in the military for 13 years? Something is wrong some place.
BillCA, I do value my safety and I will give up an extreme interpretation of liberty for it.
I clearly said people shouldn't be held without trial or without going through the proper legal proceedings, but I see no reason to let someone fly a air-craft while they are a suspected terrorist. We all know what happened last time they got a hold of a plane.
I clearly said people shouldn't be held without trial or without going through the proper legal proceedings, but I see no reason to let someone fly a air-craft while they are a suspected terrorist. We all know what happened last time they got a hold of a plane.
JuanCarlos
New member
BillCA, I do value my safety and I will give up an extreme interpretation of liberty for it.
I clearly said people shouldn't be held without trial or without going through the proper legal proceedings, but I see no reason to let someone fly a air-craft while they are a suspected terrorist. We all know what happened last time they got a hold of a plane.
Yes, and how many of those terrorists were employed as pilots?
Oh, right. None.
This guy has been flying for quite a while now. He's been at the controls of aircraft, more than likely within striking distance of buildings, and yet he hasn't yet killed any Americans (nor did he during his time flying for the US military). So what, he's waiting until the time is right?
Nothing you are saying makes much sense.
S832,
I really hate to be the one to tell you this, but you are not safe. You ARE going to die. How and when is unknown, but it is inevitable. Car wreck, heart attack, slipping in the bathroom, whatever.
The only way to be safe from injury and dying is to have never lived.
How can you dare to leave your bed each day?
I really hate to be the one to tell you this, but you are not safe. You ARE going to die. How and when is unknown, but it is inevitable. Car wreck, heart attack, slipping in the bathroom, whatever.
The only way to be safe from injury and dying is to have never lived.
How can you dare to leave your bed each day?
"s832" said:Why do you dislike NICS? Unless your a criminal I don't see how it effects you.
Regarding explosives, the whole point of preventing large quantities of certain substances on planes is to prevent a bomb from being smuggled on.
I think everyone needs to be brought to trial soon after they are arrested, the government should not be able to hold people without proof or conviction.
Conversely I don't have a problem with the government monitoring certain people or groups which are a serious threat, but if they take action against them they need to go through the proper litigation proccess.
"Liberty" gets sacrificed in the name of safety, laws - rules and regulations keep this country together. They coexists and as times change the amount of freedom people have will grow and shrink.
I have been thinking and I personally want to see Air Marshals on every plane in America, that I ultimatly think would be more beneficial then the TWL.
You contradict yourself. You say that the Government should have to go through a proper litigation process to take action against you, but then in the same post, you support the NICS, you support the terror watch list, all on a suspicion.
You ignore the COTUS in General, and the 5A specifically:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
What happens when the next attack happens, and they don't use a plane? What if they derail a train full of hazardous materials in the middle of a major city? Blow up a gasoline pipeline or two?
IZinterrogator
New member
Before I got my CHL, I was delayed 80% of the time. Why? Because I have a security clearance, so it shows up in NICS that I have been investigated by the government for criminal or treasonous activity. I have my clearance, so obviously I passed it, but the fact that I was investigated is enough to hold me up. The NICS check has been in place much longer than the no-fly list, and they still don't have it right. What makes you think the TWL bureaucracy is any more competent than the NICS people?Why do you dislike NICS? Unless your a criminal I don't see how it effects you.
Most of the NICS checks are fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with NICS, I can't fathom as to why anyone is against background checks.
BillCA, circumstances have changed regarding his recent life changes including his new wife and religion, I don't know if that is a big enough change to warrant an investigation but if he is going to be the pilot on any plane I am on - I certainly would want an investigation pursued, pilots should need to be squeaky clean.
miboso, When I get on a plane I expect the airline to have a far higher safety standard then I do when driving in my own vehicle. I am paying them to make sure I get where I want to be going, my safety is their responsibility.
divemedic, Obviously all major infrastructure needs to be guarded.
Temporarily preventing someone from flying a plane isn't what I would consider loss of liberty, being randomly abducted and held without trial is but no one is suggesting anyone do that, nor is anyone saying he should never be able to fly again, only that his case needs to be reviewed and any questions regarding why he was placed on the list answered.
No one is saying that improvements and alterations shouldn't be made, I actually have come to agree the No-Fly list is some-what pointless when it comes to passengers, but when it comes to pilots I think its worth doing.
BillCA, circumstances have changed regarding his recent life changes including his new wife and religion, I don't know if that is a big enough change to warrant an investigation but if he is going to be the pilot on any plane I am on - I certainly would want an investigation pursued, pilots should need to be squeaky clean.
miboso, When I get on a plane I expect the airline to have a far higher safety standard then I do when driving in my own vehicle. I am paying them to make sure I get where I want to be going, my safety is their responsibility.
divemedic, Obviously all major infrastructure needs to be guarded.
Temporarily preventing someone from flying a plane isn't what I would consider loss of liberty, being randomly abducted and held without trial is but no one is suggesting anyone do that, nor is anyone saying he should never be able to fly again, only that his case needs to be reviewed and any questions regarding why he was placed on the list answered.
No one is saying that improvements and alterations shouldn't be made, I actually have come to agree the No-Fly list is some-what pointless when it comes to passengers, but when it comes to pilots I think its worth doing.