Re: Police State America - Criticize Bush II...No flying for you



Grendel wrote:
On Apr 13, 2:23 pm, Bearkiller <fast...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Grendel wrote:

On Apr 12, 9:32 am, Bama Brian <bamaNOTbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Grendel wrote:

On Apr 11, 9:46 pm, Bearkiller <fast...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Grendel wrote:

On Apr 11, 2:29 pm, Bearkiller <fast...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Felix D. wrote:

"Bearkiller" <fast...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CXUSh.1490$XU4.186@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

edi...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Apr 10, 3:39 pm, akl...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

There's lots of holes in this story Pat. For starters, airline
employees have no idea why someone is on the list, just that they ARE
on the list. Also, if you're tagged for screening you have to go
inside to the counter, not on the curb.

There are many more holes in this story. For instance, what kind
of - real - police state lets a dissident filmmaker traipse all over
"Berlin" at will making a movie bashing "Hitler" so he can then get
richer having it openly shown all over the "Reich?" Talk-radio hosts
and "mainstream" newspaper columnists alike openly bash "Hitler" daily
- and don't get "disappeared" into some gulag.

I'll tell you what you should do. Contact Professor Murphy, emeritus
professor at Princeton, and tell him that you think he's lying.
http://lapa.princeton.edu/peopledetail.php?ID=507Hisemailis on this
web site.

IOW, he wasn't arrested and eventually made his way home. Sounds like he
stubbed his toe in the airport and wants to make it (<chuckle>) a Federal
case.

That's exactly what he should do, file a lawsuit in federal court naming
the airline, the airport, and the federal government as defendants. I
hope he gets millions of dollars as a settlement.

Not being able to curbcheck your luggage is worth millions?

Denial of normal procedure is a denial of rights, yes, that's correct.

No, it's not. If that's the case, then anytime the curbside service
is un-manned would contitute a 'denial of rights'. It is a
convienience, as is flying. (remember, not being able to fly does not
preclude his ability to travel, as there are other modes of travel.)

One is guaranteed freedom from government interferece.

What world do you live in? There is no such guarantee. There is
govenment interference in everything you do. Want to drive, gotta get
a license. Want to build a shed, gotta get permits. Are all of these
interferences (or, interferece, as you put it) unconstitutional?

You have little understanding of rights, do you?

You seem to have a wierd idea of what constitutes a right.

I know what a right is, do you?

Yes, I have a right to travel. I don't have a 'right' to fly on a
commercial airline(although, as that is there business, I can...but
they are free to refuse me their services).

Under what grounds? Cause must be shown. The airlines cannot
arbitrarily refuse you service.

And, in this case, they did not arbitrarily refuse service, in fact
they didn't refuse service at all. As he was on a list of people who
have been critical of America, he was given extra attention.

If I was guaranteed, as a
right, to whatever method of travel is available, I'd opt for the V-22
Ospray...but then, the 'guv'mint' doesn't agree.

Curbside baggage check is a convenience, not a 'right'.

You do not know that, in actual fact curb side check in becomes a right

from "customary" procedure processes.

Well, speeding is a 'customary procedure'...does it mean it's a
'right'? Does that mean I can tell the cop that pulled me over that
he cannot give me a ticket as speeding is a 'customary procedure' for
90% of drivers?

Non sequitur.

Not at all, just pointing out that 'customary procedure' is bogus.

You seem to think you can make up 'rights' as you go along.

Also, had he actually been refused access to the flight, this still
would not constitute a violation of his rights, as flying is not a
right.

Yes, flying in commercial air transport is a right.

No, flying in commercial air transport is a convenience. If it were a
'right, the airlines would not be able to refuse you service, which
they can do for even the smallest reason (say your child is not
behaving).

They cannot arbitrarily refuse you service;

I did not say they could do so arbitrarily, nor would I expect them to
arbitrarily. That does not mean you can't get booted off for
misbehaving.

nor can the government keep
you off that airliner. Not legally or constitutionally.

Yes, legally, they can. Which is obvious, as they have a 'No Fly
List'. Constitutionally, there is no right to travel within the
Constitution (if you can find it, please do).

When you get a chance, read the Federalist Papers. It clearly states in
them that the Constitution by no means lists all rights intrinsic to
humans, and protected by the Constitution. This idea was codified in
the Constitution int he 9th Amendment. So, yes, the right to travel is
a Constitutiuonally protected right.


Just because the Constitution does not list all intrinsic rights, does
not make flying a Constitutionnally protected right.

Flying on a commercial air carrier isn't a right, if it were I'd not need a ticket. However, once I buy a ticket, I have a vested interest in and a right to board the flight to fulfill the contract I have with the airline. The government has no authority nor a legitimate power to intervene.

Here's Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people."


Again, this does not mean that flying is a right. "Others" means
there are 'other' rights not mentioned. It does not mean everything
is a right.

Nor did I claim that "everything" is a right. I'm stating in this instance where the right exists, to teach you that there is a right involved, both the right to contract and the right to travel.

Additionally, the 4th Amendment also comes into play since
it protects the right "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons," which means in order to search baggage a warrant is required.


Haven't been to an airport in a while, have you? A private person who
conducts a search for private purposes does not need a search warrant.
Security searches made by airline employees acting under federal
tariff regulations, for example, are private searches and do not
require a search warrant.

The newly formed TSA does the searches now, where've you been? Additionally, private entities do not have a "right" to do anything to me beyond provide the travel as contracted.

If an individual voluntarily consents (agrees to) a search, no warrant
is needed. It can be argued, by the simple posting of requirements of
such on a ticket or at the airport, that a passenger automatically
agrees to having their luggage searched by the act of buying a ticket.

No, not if the federal government is mandating such searches as a condition for the airlines to operate, it then becomes a government search by proxy.

The right to travel, indeed all rights, are not granted by the
Constitution,


I never claimed they did. If you'd read what I wrote, I always
mention rights 'recognized' by the Constitution.

Rights aren't "recognized", they're protected by the Constitution. Government isn't required for rights to exist at all. In fact, we'd all be better off and safer if there were no government.

therefore do not need to be mentioned in anyway in the
Constitution to exist.


I agree. There are many rights that the Constitution does not cover.
I just get tired of people making up 'rights' as they go along. My
personal favorite: During an interview in Houston when FEMA was
discontinuing paying for hotels for Katrina Evacuees 18 months after
Katrina, one lady made the comment, "The Guv'mint's been taking care
of me all my life...for them to stop now is Unconstitutional". (I'd
like to read her version of the Constitution.)

You're confabulating a sociofascist ward of the state with someone who understands rights and what they mean.

I have3 a right to travel,


Yes you do. That right does not equat to a right to fly.

You are wrong. Once I contract with an airline for transportation, my vested interest in traveling on that airline takes the form of a right. No ticket, no vested interest.

and once I've purchased a ticket which is a
contract between me and the airline to provice air transportation at a
specified time and place,


Yes, and you have to follow all their requirements. Not carry what is
prohibitive, show proper I.D., consent to search requirements. If you
do not follow the rules, you have broken that contract and they can
refuse you service.

If these "conditions", which are not mentioned on the ticket nor during the buying process for obvious reasons, are promulgated by the government, then they're government requirements by proxy and are unConstitutional.

the US government does not have Constitutional
authorization to intervene in any way unless probable cause exists that
a crime is being committed, whereupon they need a warrant to procede.


They do have the right to make a list of people who can not fly and
who will require hightened security. The same way they can make list
of materials that cannot not be shipped via aircraft, or can make list
of how certain things can be shipped at all (ever heard of D.O.T.?).


I don't know who the "they" is, but when government makes a list that is held secret with no review by my attorney's, then that is unConstitutional. Odd that you seem to know none of this. Are you a native born American?

held that such a right exists, but doesn't mention that it is by the
best available means.

You don't think that the government should clamp down on dissent, you
know, such as the dissent that Timothy McVeigh and Jeffrey Dahmer were
up to? Yes, Nixon had an 'enimies' list, and missused it. That does
not make the No Fly List, or the Extra Screening List,
unconstitutional or illegal.

Dissent is a lawful activity.


Yes it is, but they have learned through experience that it can also
portend a dangerous person.

Nonsense.

And as such, uttering certain phrases
will garner you extra attention. If you neighbor were to state
publically that he was going to bulldoze you home next Friday,
wouldn't you check into it?

No, I would not.

Cannabalizing another human has never
been seen as lawful within US borders. McVeigh wasn't acting alone,
others have never been brought to trial, or even accused.


I seem to remember that Terry Nichols is serving life without parole
for his role in the matter.

There were over 20 people directly involved in the bombing of the Murrah Building, McVeigh was a minor participant, if at all.

Bring in
something clear cut, not cases on the periphery.


These are clear cut. They demonstrate that there are some not so nice
people out there. And it is our governments job to protect the people
of the U.S. from these not so nice people.

You're talking about preemptive laws, that's unConstitutional in America, by long tradition.

Okay, it has been proven that there are people in this country who
would do harm to this country(i.e. 9/11, Oklahoma, etc). The No Fly
and Selectee lists constitute a list of people who, through their own
actions and/or words, have proven to be either an actual suspect, or a
potential suspect who are in need of further investigation.

Since the list is secret, you really have no idea who is on it and why
they're on it.


Nor do I really care. There is a reason it is secret. As put by the
FBI: 'The TSDB remains an effective tool in the government's
counterterrorism efforts because its contents are not disclosed. If
TSC revealed who was in the TSDB, terrorist organizations would be
able to circumvent the purpose of the terrorist watchlist by
determining in advance which of their members are likely to be
questioned or detained.'

So, why are you so set on depriving the government an important tool
to stopping possible terrorists?

Government is the primary cause of terrorism on the planet, especially the US governemnt. I'm depriving them of a tool that affects the intrinsic rights of all Americans, the tool of which you speak is unConstitutional and should be outlawed immediately and those involved with the enforcement thereof imprisoned after due process.

Never trust government.


I never do until they've earned it, especially the liberal side.

Neo-conservatives such as yourself ARE liberals.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Rick Stanley RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER
    ... RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER ... > generally, for individual rights. ... > "The Constitution of the United States was ordained, it is true, by ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Whos Tired of Pink
    ... the federal government overturn Oregon's assisted suicide law, ... Are you saying that a Republican Attorney ... discovered "states rights" decided to argue that using FDA regulations ... "The Constitution is clear about states' rights. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Whos Tired of Pink
    ... the federal government overturn Oregon's assisted suicide law, ... Are you saying that a Republican Attorney ... discovered "states rights" decided to argue that using FDA regulations ... "The Constitution is clear about states' rights. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Note to Phil
    ... Yes, they do, as do yours from your constitution, Magus. ... And interpreted by the Supreme Court as protecting those rights not ... The militia provides security ... ones distributed from an armory or the federal government. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: CNCing a new case for the Constitution
    ... >Bill of Rights were a part of the "original" Constitution of The United ... >regarding what the government could not do. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)