Who needs bombs?

[Crissa]

Some guy's blog (actually more than one, but hey) details the treatment and confinement and torture of a US Citizen at the hands of the current Administration. None of this has been even denied by the government.

Who cares who it is; this is basically the same torture scene (actually worse) than what is shown in V for Vendetta. This torture is wrong. It doesn't get us reliable information, it doesn't get us helpful information, and it doesn't make us the good guys.

-Crissa

[Josh_Kablack]

Hey, despite all the inconvieninces and stripping of constitutional freedoms, we still have the freedom to crash planes into New York skyscapers!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/ ... [br]Hooray for Freedom! :USA:

[Crissa]

Yes, the freedom to drive high-performance vehicles into buildings like idiots hasn't changed. The fact that they can hit above the ground floor is really immaterial. I'm curious how that would've changed, really.

But we're also charging 'Al Queda's lawyer' a native Californian who has been featured in some Al Queda videos for his ability to speak English with Treason and 'Giving aid to terrorists'. Never mind that we not only don't know where he is; there's no evidence of him giving <i>material</i> aid to them, either. At least, nothing worse than 'Tokyo Rose' did...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1868064.ece

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

I doesn't have to be material aid for it to be considered treason. Basically, it is just "giving Aid or Comfort to the enemy." Wikipedia Definition on Treason. In the end, the guy will probably get what Tokyo Rose got: 6 years in prison.

[power_word_wedgie]

1160790234[/unixtime]]Hey, despite all the inconvieninces and stripping of constitutional freedoms, we still have the freedom to crash planes into New York skyscapers!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/ ... [br]Hooray for Freedom! :USA:

Well, actually I'd be surprised if they don't pare back the available airspace over New York City after this event. Even before this, you still had TCAs to keep your aircraft in if you want to fly in major cities, which still confounds me on what actually happened here.

Edit: And to just give a quick response to the original post, I'm thinking that the issue of security is one of those things that's driven because:

1) Though I'm not in agreement with the ultra-conservatives when they say that there would be NO private air travel, I do believe that it would be much different than what it would be today. Then main problem is that many people who fly are like my wife: they're not confortable about flying in the first place. Agreed, driving kills more people than flying, but the main difference is that people are driving every day and thus become acclimated to it. It's like a guy getting used to climbing around on I-beams because he works on skyscrape construction. Air travel is not like that for most people: it's a one or two flights per year ordeal. Thus, no security would scare away these people from flying. Thus, less people flying means more consolidation of airline companies which means higher ticket prices due to a smaller population of people flying. And, at the end of the day, there would be more people upset with the fact that the common man can't afford a plane ticket under the new scenario versus the civil liberties lost today.

2) Hey, I've been a part of being "selectively targeted" by a government for thorough searches. It happens every time I go to Brazil for work. Ever since the U.S. has required searches of all foreign nationals, the Brazilian government has a thorough search of only American in response. Yeah, it takes two hours for something that should take 15 minutes, but really it isn't that bad. I'm thinking that it has to do with the fact that I don't fly that often. (see point 1 on this)

3) Even if the government lifted the searches, then I'm sure that the insurance companies would still require it. Hey, I was a security guard for construction equipment like payloaders and steamrollers back in the 1980's. The only reason I had the job was due to that it was required by insurance companies. But in some way, I guess it would be nice if the responsibility was handed to the airlines. That way, it would just be their policy and we could drop the whole civil rights thing. And theoretically I wonder if companies that had strict security would have better booking than those that don't - I'm thinking that in general people are less inclined to be searched thoroughly if they think that it will give them the impression that things will be safer.

4) I'm thinking that there's not going to be a "huge" rollback of security just because of the political fallout. People know it isn't a case of whether there will be another terrorist incident: it's going to be when. The problem is that neither political party wants to be the ones known for making security more lax once that incident happens.

Well, that's it. Aloha!

[Crissa]

They fell out of their airspace and hit a building. It's no different than a ferarri spinning out over a park lawn and smashing up.

Really. Why does this worry you more than people being tried in absentia?

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

The thing that worries me is how they "fell" out of their airspace and whether a party with more nefarious motives can do the same "falling." Apparenlty, I'm not alone since that is what many people there in NYC are thinking as well.

Being tried in absentia doesn't worry me at all. If I was in that situation and wanted to be present (which for a serious charge I would want to be), I'd jump on a plane and go to the country in question. I'm sure if the guy wants to be to come from Pakistan and be a part of the trial, the courts and Department of Justice would be more than accomodating.

[Crissa]

What 'nefarious' thing could you do with an object smaller than a Honda Civic? C'mon, there's thousands of fatal vehicle accidents every day.

Sure, sure, you'd want to return to a country that'd jail you indefinitely for doing what you thought right (and supposedly can speak without being charged) without ever being able to see the evidence against you post haste - a country that has, and declared that it will torture you.

Yeah. I just bet.

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

Meh, it clearly means they don't have me in custody and figure there isn't much chance of capturing me. I like that much more than being there. In all honesty they're just grandstanding to make themselves feel good, they've run out of real options so they're shaking their fists and calling people names.

Its like when some fundy claims you're going to hell, their opinion dosen't matter.

[Crissa]

[FLASH=425,350,false,#ffffff]http://www.youtube.com/v/0RhmCKKt8h4[/FLASH]

Who needs bombs when they have this administration?

Hee! Yay for Flash.

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

The thing is that this isn't solely an administration or a U.S. issue.

BBC Article on Muslim Discrimination at Paris Airport.

I caught this one on the BBC news show on PBS. France has no love lost for the Bush Administration or the Republican party, yet they're doing the same antics. As I mentioned earlier, this has more to do with quelling people's fears of flying to maintain the industry the way it is more than anything else, and a frenchman with fear of flying has the same anxieties as an american in the same situation.

[power_word_wedgie]

1160866054[/unixtime]]What 'nefarious' thing could you do with an object smaller than a Honda Civic? C'mon, there's thousands of fatal vehicle accidents every day.

It goes to failure mode analysis. If something breaks in your car, you just pull over to the side of the road. It's not the same in an airplane. In fact, that's way we're seeing non-terroristic activities (being directed onto wrong runways, losing power while flying in cities, etc.) that are proving as much deadly accidents. With this in mind, plane travel has been a little more regulated tha driving, especially cities with TCAs that you have to maintain if you wish to fly into them. And I imagine a small plane can be loaded with explosives and rammed into a building. With a car, you can make crash barricades to protect the building. You can't do the same thing for small planes - they travel in three dimensions.

Sure, sure, you'd want to return to a country that'd jail you indefinitely for doing what you thought right (and supposedly can speak without being charged) without ever being able to see the evidence against you post haste - a country that has, and declared that it will torture you.

Yeah. I just bet.

Ah, but that has very little to do with being tried in absentia and more to do with the concerns with the partiality of a legal system. If I was concerned with "being tortured," I'd turn myself in to a media outlet then go to the government or turn myself in to a 3rd party country. And besides, we've already determined that Tokyo Rose got a few years in prison for her actions and I doubt that his sentence would be any greater than that. It's like that guy that was the spokeman for the Iraqi government during the offensive - he was actually taking on a celebrity status for his actions. The key points are (a) he's an American and (b) it was pretty much just propaganda.(heck, Lindh and Hamdi took up arms and Lindh got 20 years prison (long but not indefinite) and Hamdi is roaming around Saudi Arabia) Finally, as I noted in a previous post, it isn't like treasonous activity is a new concept - one can speak their mind but if it is considered treasonous (disloyal to their country) then one always has had to deal with the consequences of what they said.

Let' put it this way: I'd be concerned with trials in absentia if the person was in the same city at a location that the court knew that they could be reached, yet the courts did not feel that notifying them of their treason trial was all that important.

[Crissa]

Actually, in that airplane, if something goes wrong, you pull the chute and hit the ground and walk to get help.

How's that different? You blow a tire while going 70mph on a superhighway at rushhour and suddenly you're blocking eight lanes of traffic just looking stupid - or people are wondering why your car is under that truck.

What's treasonous again? Being a lawyer for a terrorist?

What, you don't believe that all men are created equal with inalienable rights?

I am not a terrorist - Arabic writing has been declared not free speech in airports, hence this t-shirt.

What was it that our founding fathers said about freedom?

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

1161408096[/unixtime]]Actually, in that airplane, if something goes wrong, you pull the chute and hit the ground and walk to get help.

Te parachute is not a common feature on aircraft. Yeah, Liddle's plane had it, and in fact that the feature didn't open up prior to crash raises even more questions.

How's that different? You blow a tire while going 70mph on a superhighway at rushhour and suddenly you're blocking eight lanes of traffic just looking stupid - or people are wondering why your car is under that truck.

I've blown tires, once at 70 mph, and was able to pull over and fix it with no problem, because it was easy to pull over to the side of the road and fix it. That isn't the case for a plane. Ask any pilot and they'll say that the scariest time time during flight is take-off and landings.

What's treasonous again? Being a lawyer for a terrorist?

Wikipedia Link for Treason

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

What, you don't believe that all men are created equal with inalienable rights?

All people are created equal. However, all people must answer for their actions if they conduct activities that are considered treasonous.

What was it that our founding fathers said about freedom?

Actually, the founding fathers were hard-asses concerning treason. This was from the Wikipedia link:

To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article Three defines treason as levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating treason-like offense with different names (such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sabotage in the 1917 Espionage Act) that do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition. The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by President George Washington.

[Crissa]

'All people are created equal.'

And yet, you're happily going along with laws which treat people differently - IE, without rights - for being born somewhere else or having travelled to another country.

Those two things seem anti-similar.

And who cares about a damn airplane wreck? More people died in single-car accidents (your experience not withstanding) last week than died in aircraft accidents last year.

-Crissa

[Zherog]

1161408096[/unixtime]]Arabic writing has been declared not free speech in airports, hence this t-shirt.

At the risk of being told I watch too much Fox news again: Cite?

[power_word_wedgie]

1161466775[/unixtime]]'All people are created equal.'

And yet, you're happily going along with laws which treat people differently - IE, without rights - for being born somewhere else or having travelled to another country.

Those two things seem anti-similar.

It may seem that way, but it really isn't. Like I noted in a previous post, I was the direct target of this "discrimination" each time I flew to Brazil. However, I love going to Brazil and visiting the people, even under such "repression."

And who cares about a damn airplane wreck? More people died in single-car accidents (your experience not withstanding) last week than died in aircraft accidents last year.

As I explained in a previous post, most people care because:

1) When compared to amount of time spent doing such activity each year, I'm sure airline mortality is much worse than absolute numbers. For example, I drive roughly 2 hours every day. I'll be lucky if I fly 16 hours every year.

2) Much of what the airline industry has to deal with is people's perception of what they consider to be a dangerous activity. For example, cars may be more dangerous, but people have grown accustom to them because they drive them every day. Now, if the government started a policy of requiring all people to fly several times each week, then people may become more accustomed to flying and thus not concerned with flight safety. Alas, this isn't going to happen. It's like a construction worker walking on I-beams. Personally, I wouldn't walk on one for all of the tea in China. However, these workers do it every day and thus don't dwell on the dangers of walking on them.

[Crissa]

Sorry, PWW, I don't really need to cite it. Do your own homework for once.

And hours/miles traveled per person to deaths? Airtravel is safer, once again. Ask the FAA. Now, small craft...

And I don't give a flying frak about being concerned with danger. Imagining danger is far more 'dangerous' to our rights than real dangers - and you're imagining dangers where there aren't any.

-Crissa

[Zherog]

It wasn't PWW that asked for a cite.

[power_word_wedgie]

And in case there is confusion, (Z, she hasn't met us so she might be thinking the we're MuPs of one another), there's enough people (including fbmf) on this board that have met us during GenCon to know that we are different people.

As for this:

And hours/miles traveled per person to deaths? Airtravel is safer, once again. Ask the FAA. Now, small craft...

And I don't give a flying frak about being concerned with danger. Imagining danger is far more 'dangerous' to our rights than real dangers - and you're imagining dangers where there aren't any.

I understand the position. However, at the end of the day, the airline industry has to ask the question of whether less people will fly because:

a) they believe their rights have been violated or,
b) they believe that it is unsafe for them to fly. (due to that it is an unfamilar form of transportation to them and thus a perceived judgement)

I'm thinking that the latter is a much greater population than the former. Also, if the latter population doesn't fly, after the announcement, "Hey, we're going to stop checking people thoroughly and allowing everything on board to respect people's rights", then it is just going to shrink the flying population because people won't perceive airline travel as safe, and thus it is just going to accelerate consolidation of airlines and the increase of ticket prices. Stating to people that they can either:

a) go though a thorough inspection and banning of materials on flights or,

b) pay double for their airline ticket,

more people are going to select the latter than the former. YMMV.

[Crissa]

1161524962[/unixtime]]It wasn't PWW that asked for a cite.

Sorry, Zherog.

It was a news story in the last year, I don't have lexis-nexus to find it.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

PWW, I really don't see where you draw the parallel of the safety of small aircraft and the safety of flying on an airline. They're pretty remotely connected.

Do people think things are safe? Most people think that Blimps are flammable, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and that croissants and french fries are French.

Being ignorant doesn't make the world safer, nor does passing laws or giving up rights for the perception of safety. People will still fly, regardless of the protections taken or the amount the government gives the airline industry. They want to go places. Why not make things safer rather than just pretending that all these things give the perception of being safer?

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

1161527197[/unixtime]]PWW, I really don't see where you draw the parallel of the safety of small aircraft and the safety of flying on an airline. They're pretty remotely connected.

The common element is that when things go wrong, they can be devastating. As I mentioned before, in both situations, you can't just pull over to the side of the road and fix things. And, yes, I have experience in both the aircraft industry and the automotive industry in an engineering capacity. There are more stringent quality control measures in the aircraft industry than the automotive industry.

Do people think things are safe? Most people think that Blimps are flammable, that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and that croissants and french fries are French.

Being ignorant doesn't make the world safer, nor does passing laws or giving up rights for the perception of safety. People will still fly, regardless of the protections taken or the amount the government gives the airline industry. They want to go places. Why not make things safer rather than just pretending that all these things give the perception of being safer?

The thing is that these "people" are your customers, and you have to meet your customer expectations if you expect to sell product. For example, you don't have to fly to get to most destinations. To see my father in Corpus Christi, Texas, I can either fly or drive down there. My wife is very uncomfortabe flying, so by saying, "Hey, we're going to ease up on security measures in order to bow to people's rights", though it is a long drive, we're most likely going to drive in that situation. And, as I mentioned, since flying isn't a typical activity of people, they're going to be reserved to doing it unless they perceive that it is safe. Yeah, some people will fly no matter what, but like I said, the amount that will fly just to give up a right is much higher than those that will fly if the perception of security changes, and that's just because flying is not an everyday activity for a person.

Another perfect example is response of Americans to vacationing abroad after 9/11. In my local area, me make RVs and trailers/campers. Business has skyrocketed since 9/11 since people are nervous to fly internationally and possible repercussions that they may experience in those countries because they are American. Thus, they feel safer driving around the US and visiting national parks in their recreational vehicles. Now, is international travel really unsafe? Probably not, but that is not what is perceived.

Finally, giving people back their "rights" isn't going to make airline travel safer. And, agreed, there are other areas that can be addressed that will make things safer. However, if you think that the current costs are high, costs to enacting measures to actually make things safer will make your eyes pop out out your head. That would literally bankrupt the whole airline industry or at the very least cause ticket prices to skyrocket. Thus, we have the "cursory scan" method that we have today to (a) catch the overt acts and (b) give the perception of safety.

You can't sell product due to your own perceived views when you design a product - it has to be the customer base's perceived view of the product. Otherwise, you won't sell product. (ie. Edsel, New Coke, etc.)

[Crissa]

The 'costs' of travel safety are not comessurate with their results.

In other words, we're doing things which make us less safe. And it doesn't matter what public perception is on this one - if it doesn't work, it doesn't work - as people still need to get from place to place and the unsafeness will show up eventually anyhow.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

A light aircraft such as the one that crashed has a cargo capacity a third of the sedan.

-Crissa