Mutiny on Flight 613

[AirBadger]

It looks like you are more concerned with feelings and emotions and "happy", more than anything else. Profiling is not racism, it is allocating limited resources, to the more statistically likely people to commit terrorist. Its not about segregation and witch burnings, although nice try at a red herring.

To me, it folly to suggest that everyone deserves the same level of scrutiny. Some people just should be looked at a bit more, in addition to the standard level of security everyone should go through. Yes, maybe some feelings may get hurt, oh well they should get over it. A young male from countries Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, deserve some extra attention than most others will.

Your idea of profiling may not be segregation, but some of these folks want different lines for different types of people based on skin color and religion. That, my friend, is segregation. I do agree that certain people need extra scrutiny, but based on their actions and behavior, not skin color or religion. And some of you guys really are willing to give the TSA even more power. Do you really want that? Being the airline pilots you are, you clearly understand how much of a mess that organization is, do you think they are ready to handle even more power? I certainly don't. I'm going to leave the "extra scrutiny" to the state department, CIA, NSA, FBI, and all of the fine young men and women in the military fighting for us over seas.

 

[414Flyer]

Thats because the guy commited a crime. What we're talking about here is just assuming that a certain person is going to commit a crime based on their skin color or religion. The two guys on this Monarch flight didn't commit a crime, but they got "prosecuted" anyway by a group of vigilantes who in a state of fear and panic made a dumb decision.

Well with that logic, it would have been unfair to have singled out the 9/11 hijackers during the ticketing, security or boarding process, because a crime had not been committed yet.

 

[AirBadger]

Well with that logic, it would have been unfair to have singled out the 9/11 hijackers during the ticketing, security or boarding process, because a crime had not been committed yet.

The system failed to protect us on 9/11 because warnings were ignored, people were ignored, and we had gotten complacent. We could have stopped the OKC bombing if there was a ban on Ryder moving trucks near the federal building, but at the time it just didn't make any sense. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[pkober]

Were you one the types that complained about NSA "wire tapping"? Did you cheer when the media reported how we are tracking terrorist money?

Just wondering where you stand on those issues.

CLAMBAKE

 

[AirBadger]

Were you one the types that complained about NSA "wire tapping"? Did you cheer when the media reported how we are tracking terrorist money?

Just wondering where you stand on those issues.

CLAMBAKE

While the NSA was found to have broken the FISA laws, our country still needs an organization dedicated to electronic surveillance of potential threats. However, I do believe that these operations should be conducted within the confines of the law. If the government wants to survey citizens without warrants, the citizens should be the ones who get to decide whether to allow that sort of thing or not. And the tracking money thing, everyone knew we were tracking the financial details of terrorists, it's nothing new. Back before 9/11 an article was written about how SWIFT worked with the CIA tracking finances of Bin Laden. Even the administration talked about how they track terrorist finances. If someone doesn't want information leaked, they need to tighten the leash on their employees, because the government knows by now that the media loves to get the big scoop first.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

For everyone's information, I'll say again, profiling does not work!

The airline with the world's BEST security is El-Al. They have the money, time and resources to do anything they want. Do they profile? No. If it was the best security measure, they would do it.

If El-Al does NOT do something, security-wise, we shouldn't either because it's a waste of time and money.

cliff
YIP

 

[Patriot328]

Hi!

If our Government one day wants to take away our guns (I have 4), the ACLU will be fighting for our right to keep them, as stated in the Bill of Rights.

I wouldn't bet on that.

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Gun Control[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]​

[/FONT]​

 

[V1cutsrfun]

I recently read in the American Journal that 70% off all muslims are in favor of abolishng the constitution in favor of islamic law, while 54% of the born here offspring feel the same.:angryfire

The ACLU will continue the be all things to all people agenda that will protect them, their right to assemble, raise funds and worship allah then plot your freinds and family's death, all beacuse they dont want to offend anyone.

Thomas Jefferson once shot a man on the White house lawn for treason...Supporting islam is a act of treason.

Its time to stand up and do what is right and protect ourselves.

 

[wmuflyguy]

I recently read in the American Journal that 70% off all muslims are in favor of abolishng the constitution in favor of islamic law, while 54% of the born here offspring feel the same.:angryfire

The ACLU will continue the be all things to all people agenda that will protect them, their right to assemble, raise funds and worship allah then plot your freinds and family's death, all beacuse they dont want to offend anyone.

Thomas Jefferson once shot a man on the White house lawn for treason...Supporting islam is a act of treason.

Its time to stand up and do what is right and protect ourselves.

Cite the Journal, approximate date would be helpful too.

 

[Icelandair]

The ACLU is a domestic terrorist organization and should be shut down under RICO statutes. They are a pro gay, pro terrorist, anti God organization that would gleefully tear the crosses off the war memorials.

I say good for these passengers. If the leaders of the country refuse to lead, the people must lead the leaders.

 

[V1cutsrfun]

The ACLU is a domestic terrorist organization and should be shut down under RICO statutes. They are a pro gay, pro terrorist, anti God organization that would gleefully tear the crosses off the war memorials.

I say good for these passengers. If the leaders of the country refuse to lead, the people must lead the leaders.

Very Well PUT

There is nothing redeeming about Muslims, Islam or the Arab world.

 

[V1cutsrfun]

Also it is against Islam to pledge to a country which is not govenerd by islamic law
which ties into what I said earlier....
No doubt the ACLU will protect this as well

 

[V1cutsrfun]

Also it is against Islam to pledge to a country which is not govenerd by islamic law.....which ties into what I said earlier....

No doubt the ACLU will protect this agenda as well

I read it on a dead head in June from a fellow cummuter...

sent twice in error sorry

 

[AirBadger]

The ACLU is a domestic terrorist organization and should be shut down under RICO statutes. They are a pro gay, pro terrorist, anti God organization that would gleefully tear the crosses off the war memorials.

I say good for these passengers. If the leaders of the country refuse to lead, the people must lead the leaders.

Domestic terrorism? Let's not get ahead of ourselves, bud. I don't know what you're talking about shutting them down under RICO statues, they have not broken any of those statues. Go read them and try to pin racketeering and gambling on the ACLU. If the government could shut down the ACLU, they probably would, but since they have broken no law, guess what, they are free to exist. Yeah the ACLU is awkward on some issues, but they have the right to do what they do, just like the KKK, Neo Nazis, AARP, AOPA, NRA etc etc etc. And what do you mean by "pro gay"? Is there something wrong with thinking that being gay shouldn't be considered a reason to have unequal rights? And "pro terrorist"...I have yet to see any actions taken by the ACLU that promotes terrorism. Being based in New York City, I doubt they were smiling on 9/11. Yes, the ACLU is a little far left even for my tastes, but when push comes to shove and the government is taking away your rights, would you rather have the ACLU, or nothing at all?

 

[V1cutsrfun]

Domestic terrorism? Let's not get ahead of ourselves, bud.
Pull your head out of the sand......
And what do you mean by "pro gay"? Is there something wrong with thinking that being gay shouldn't be considered a reason to have unequal rights?

No body and I mean no body said that gays don't have equal rights they have equal rights rights already, which of course isnt good enough, No one said that they could not marry, all they are saying is that you cant marry another dude

And "pro terrorist"...I have yet to see any actions taken by the ACLU that promotes terrorism. Being based in New York City, I doubt they were smiling on 9/11. Yes, the ACLU is a little far left even for my tastes, but when push comes to shove and the government is taking away your rights, would you rather have the ACLU, or nothing at all?

Kruschev said it best: "you will sell us the rope that we use to hang you."
Well we aren't selling rope right now, but the ACLU is paving the way for these individuals so they have a protected sanctuary in which they may commit acts of terror. all the while saying they are doing it for your own good....just to make you sleep better at night.

Congrats hook , line and sinker.....:uzi: