homeland security gone mad: ted kennedy grounded

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, So, are you saying OJ Simpson should be grounded for life? Since that is what you suggest for Ted Kennedy: This sounds pretty oppressive to me and you condone it... Thats where I got the idea. :rolleyes: PS: save your insults, they may backfire on you

#1
No.
O.J.Simpson should be sentenced to life, at least.
Edward Kennedy should be trialed and sentenced, as well. It would prevent him from any political career.

You have a "hazy clue" on U.S. political scene and history
Complaints ? To yourself or those who has upbrought you, not others.

#2
"Dark Horror" forum should match your views :-)))
#3
No lollipops ?
Try chewing gum, instead :-)))

[Compugasm]

chewing gum is sacrilegious.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Rainbow, you are living in a fantasy world. I am not defending Ted Kennedy, what I am doing is trying to find your Legal Justification for intercepting non-terrorists from travelling. Are you saying anybody accused of anything no matter how far in the past, should be considered a threat to airline security?

Originally posted by Rainbow, #2 "Dark Horror" forum should match your views :-))) #3 No lollipops ? Try chewing gum, instead :-)))

WTF?

[bishop]

she's been exhibiting some trollesque behavior imo. more debate, less ad hominem would be really nice.

ubrought? is that a word??? sounds like some ketchup with spagetti right there.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by bishop, uprought? is that a word??? sounds like some ketchup with spagetti right there.

I have just made it up, especially for you to make pizza out of it.
Good appetite :-)))

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Rainbow, you are living in a fantasy world. I am not defending Ted Kennedy, what I am doing is trying to find your Legal Justification for intercepting non-terrorists from travelling. Are you saying anybody accused of anything no matter how far in the past, should be considered a threat to airline security?  WTF?

#1
Nope, but you are getting closer :-)))
#2
Why am I to "cry" over Edward Kennedy's problems at the airport ?
That man is responsible for a person's death. Thanks to his whole family he got away with a crime he commited. He even did not say a single word "sorry", to that person's family (!) Justice for Edward Kennedy ? That is a dirty joke.
#3
I say that Edward Kennedy deserves NO "sympathy" or "appreaciation" of any kind.
If you want more information on the Kennedy's then you can find plenty on internet (at least), starting from personality through business, especially.
They behave as if they are "over the top and law". The family of f***
#4
Yeah, WTF

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gr8fuldaniel)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I am not defending Ted Kennedy, what I am doing is trying to find your Legal Justification for intercepting non-terrorists from travelling. Are you saying anybody accused of anything no matter how far in the past, should be considered a threat to airline security?[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Rainbow,

#2
Why am I to "cry" over Edward Kennedy's problems at the airport ?
That man is responsible for a person's death. Thanks to his whole family he got away with a crime he commited. He even did not say a single word "sorry", to that person's family (!) Justice for Edward Kennedy ? That is a dirty joke.
#3
I say that Edward Kennedy deserves NO "sympathy" or "appreaciation" of any kind.
If you want more information on the Kennedy's then you can find plenty on internet (at least), starting from personality through business, especially.
They behave as if they are "over the top and law". The family of f***[/quote]
Is that the best you can do? I dont care about your emotional dribble. Give me facts and debate. Who is asking for sympathy? Give me a rational argument for government oppression of anybody. You havent answered my questions yet.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Is that the best you can do? I dont care about your emotional dribble. Give me facts and debate. Who is asking for sympathy? Give me a rational argument for government oppression of anybody. You havent answered my questions yet.

#1
I have no crayons. Sorry.
#2
What oppression are you talking wbout ?
Can you specify it ?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Again???
One last time, then its the ignore button again:

Originally posted by Me what I am doing is trying to find your Legal Justification for intercepting non-terrorists from travelling. Are you saying anybody accused of anything no matter how far in the past, should be considered a threat to airline security?

Edit to add:
Take your time, I need a nap.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Again??? One last time, then its the ignore button again: what I am doing is trying to find your Legal Justification for intercepting non-terrorists from travelling. Are you saying anybody accused of anything no matter how far in the past, should be considered a threat to airline security?

#1
Thank you, boss :-)))
#2
Point me to the post (into which) I have ever "glorified" actions taken against Edward Kennedy as correct and proper ones, please.

All I said, that Edward Kennedy is a f*** who deserves a f*** , along with his whole "beloved" family. He should be "lucky" he is a politician, still, then he should not complain about some time taken away from him at the airport.
He took others the whole life, instead.
My reply that "Edward Kennedy should be grounded much realier and for good", refers exactly to my explanation.
#3
That I do not know. It depends of actual judicial system and the law.
If the law "promotes" such cases, then : "yes".
If the law "forbids" such practices, then : "no".

[Compugasm]

Ya know, if you take away the money, power, privilage, prestige, women, favors, benefits, and the diplomatic immunity, Ted Kennedy is just like you and me.

[gr8fuldaniel]

ACLU article Federal Judge in CA Rebuffs United Airline’s Plea To Dismiss ACLU Discrimination Case October 11, 2002 Arab-American Man Was Ejected From Plane Because Crew Member “Felt Uncomfortable” Having Him on Board FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE LOS ANGELES - A federal district judge today denied a motion to dismiss a civil rights lawsuit charging that United Airlines discriminated against a passenger. “This is a great victory,” said Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, which filed the case on behalf of Assem Bayaa, an American citizen of Middle Eastern descent. “The airline's extreme argument was that even if all of our allegations of discrimination were true, federal courts were powerless to intervene. This sends a strong message to the airlines that they are not exempt from civil rights protections.”

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

ACLU article Protect The Right to Travel Freely! Americans have the right to travel virtually anywhere in the world. This freedom allows us the opportunity to observe, learn from and share with foreign cultures. Our right to travel, except to places where there is imminent danger to physical safety or public health, is almost universal -- with the glaring exception of Cuba.

The right to travel is granted by God and is not restricted by The US Constitution. Discrimination must be stopped on every level, (should be) needless to say, that includes personal resentments. If we do not protest shoddy excuses for travel interruption, you will soon be stopped on the street and asked for your papers.
Then hauled off, without charges, no phone calls and held without bail indefinately. Dont think you are the exception. Put yourself in the shoes of those who know.
If we give up our rights for security, we deserve neither. Giving up your rights does not grant you security, but it does promote tyranny.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Compugasm, Ya know, if you take away the money, power, privilage, prestige, women, favors, benefits, and the diplomatic immunity, Ted Kennedy is just like you and me.

sounds like someone else i keep hearing about :rolleyes:

[gr8fuldaniel]

John Gilmore is sueing John Ashcroft

# Why are you suing the government over ID on airplanes? There are two central issues I'm trying to explore. The right to travel, also known as the right of free movement, is essential in every free society. It's a crime to interfere with anyone's right of free movement (we call it kidnapping, among other things). It's one of those things that is so foundational that everyone forgets about it until the bad-guys have eaten it away. The bad-guys in the U.S. Government have eaten it away for car drivers, for airline passengers, for long-distance trains, for intercity buses, and for cruise ships. They haven't gotten around to feet and bicycles yet, but the trend is quite clear. I'm suing so the courts will examine this trend. I hope they will find that the government's unilateral action in eliminating free movement of people without ID cards goes way too far. The right of anonymity, also sometimes known as the right to be left alone, has strong foundational roots too. It leads directly into "innocent until proven guilty" and "no bills of attainder", which prevents governments from harassing people they merely dislike. It leads directly into the right to make politically unpopular speeches and protests, which is the only fragile way to prevent violent uprisings among those who have complaints about how society is run. (If we punish people merely for complaining, others who share their complaints will learn to shoot first and complain later. Complaining anonymously is one way to be heard but not punished.) We can walk the streets without permission and without "your papers please" because we have the right to be anonymous. Out of fear and ignorance among the populace, and laziness among police, most people now assume that they must show identity papers on request of any cop, government official, or even rent-a-cops. What was once, and is still legally, a right, is rapidly becoming a casualty in practice. I am hoping that the courts will agree with me that the government can't e.g. require me to reveal my identity because I'm traveling to give a speech. It's well accepted that they can't make me reveal my identity at the speech itself, and also well accepted that they can't seek to prevent me from speaking or from traveling. # What is this I hear about secret laws in airports? When the government violates fundamental rights, they tend to surround themselves with procedural tricks designed to keep them from getting caught. The easiest way to make tyrranical rules is to simply not publish the rules, just punish anybody who doesn't follow them to your satisfaction. The FAA/TSA bureaucrats, in collaboration with anti-terrorism people in the White House, have kept slipping little phrases and trick references into Congressional laws that purport to let them do just that. For example, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires that every regulation be published, and says that any unpublished regulation is null and void; but another law passed just recently says that FAA/TSA can issue regulations "notwithstanding title 552 of section 5", i.e. the FOIA. So, the "rule" that says you have to show ID in airports is plastered all over on signs, but if you try to look up the real rule, it doesn't exist. A FOIA request for it will get you a letter saying that they have a copy, but they don't have to give it to you because of such-and-such a statute. Congress passed that statute to safeguard government research on defenses against terrorism, but the bureaucrats have hacked it so that they think they can order the traveling public to do any damn thing and never publish the rule. My case argues that this is unconstitutional, because....More.....(GrepLawHarvard)

http://freetotravel.org/capps-2.1-comments.txt
This link is to a summary of charges John Gilmoreis bringing against Homeland Security and TSA. Some very interesting reading. A tidbit:

These purposes violate the limits imposed in United States v. Davis, 482 US 893, 910 (9th Cir. 1973), stating that for an administrative screening to be a "reasonable search", it must be as limited in its intrusiveness as is consistent with satisfaction of the administrative need that justifies it. They also conflict with Torbet v. United Airlines, 298 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002) (in searches to prevent airline hijacking or detect the presence of weapons and explosives, such a search must be "confined in good faith to that purpose"). Airport searches are currently conducted without probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, and without obtaining a warrant from an independent judicial officer. The only reason that airport searches have been allowed a narrow exemption from the Fourth Amendment is because in the past they were restricted to the narrow purpose of locating weapons and explosives before they were taken aboard aircraft. TO THE EXTENT THAT AIRPORT SEARCHES BECOME AN EXCUSE TO FORCE CITIZENS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES SO THE GOVERNMENT CAN KEEP TRACK OF THEM -- OR AS A "CHECKPOINT" FOR ENFORCING WARRANTS -- OR FOR ENFORCING THE IMMIGRATION LAWS, OR THE DRUG LAWS -- OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE UNRELATED TO THE ORIGINAL NARROW PURPOSE -- THEN AIRPORT SEARCHES MUST COMPORT WITH FULL FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS. The proposed CAPPS-2 system does not even nod in the general direction of the Fourth Amendment. It is written with the mindset of a dictatorship; the government authors assume that they can make up a rule and everyone will be required to follow it, constitution or no constitution. The rule need not even be published; it can be kept secret from the public. TSA INCORRECTLY BELIEVES IT CAN IMPOSE THESE RULES REGARDLESS OF THE PRIVACY ACT TSA head Admiral Loy almost directly admitted this in the last week. "The potential always exists for me to issue a security directive to say we need the data," Loy said to reporters gathered on Sept 26, 2003 at the agency's Arlington headquarters. ("TSA May Try to Force Airlines to Share Data", by Sara Kehaulani Goo, Washington Post, Saturday, September 27, 2003; Page A11; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2003Sep26.html) "Security directives" are secret orders from TSA to airlines, which numerous citizens have tried and failed to even see, let alone challenge.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by giuliano,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (giuliano,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Compugasm, Ya know, if you take away the money, power, privilage, prestige, women, favors, benefits, and the diplomatic immunity, Ted Kennedy is just like you and me.

sounds like someone else i keep hearing about :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]Not-My-President, G. "Dumbya" Bush!

I just came out and said it, because at first it sounded like Clinton.

We dont hear much about "The Women of Bush" because they turn up dead, shot in the head, and buried in the media.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, ACLU article Federal Judge in CA Rebuffs United Airline’s Plea To Dismiss ACLU Discrimination Case  October 11, 2002 Arab-American Man Was Ejected From Plane Because Crew Member “Felt Uncomfortable” Having Him on Board FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE LOS ANGELES - A federal district judge today denied a motion to dismiss a civil rights lawsuit charging that United Airlines discriminated against a passenger. “This is a great victory,” said Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, which filed the case on behalf of Assem Bayaa, an American citizen of Middle Eastern descent. “The airline's extreme argument was that even if all of our allegations of discrimination were true, federal courts were powerless to intervene. This sends a strong message to the airlines that they are not exempt from civil rights protections.”  The right to travel is granted by God and is not restricted by The US Constitution. Discrimination must be stopped on every level, (should be) needless to say, that includes personal resentments. If we do not protest shoddy excuses for travel interruption, you will soon be stopped on the street and asked for your papers. Then hauled off, without charges, no phone calls and held without bail indefinately. Dont think you are the exception. Put yourself in the shoes of those who know. If we give up our rights for security, we deserve neither. Giving up your rights does not grant you security, but it does promote tyranny.

What am I to do that federal district judge issued that order ?
Nothing (almost). I can write and talk about it (only). That judge cares my opinion as well as I care him.

How long time is going to take you to understand, that politicians care money, only ? A judge is a part of a political system. That judge belongs to "the same old pack". Why are you surprized, then ?

#1
God and the Law, there are completely different issues.

I am not a pacifist, definitely.
If a system breaks my rights, I will fight. Will I die ? So bo it.

Look how many people died already. Who cares ? You ?
Do you care a person who died 3,000 years ago in Rome ? or people who are going to come after us 2,000 years ahead ? They cared and will care a f*** about you or me.
#2
Nope.
I am not the exception.
(As I stated), I will fight regardless of the outcomes.
#3
I fight anything that may endanger my family existance.
It may be called "communism", "capitalism", "democracy", "spoon", "fork", "shoes" , "birds", "big guys", small guys", ect. Just whatever and whoever that may harm my family. All I care is my family.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Love America, Hate the Dictator

This reminds me of the Miranda act.....

"President Bush, put your hands behind your head, spread your legs, "you have the right to remain silent, everything you do and everything you say can and will be held against you by those who just can't get past the "only my opinion counts" stage of developement. LOL

[gr8fuldaniel]

This is a follow up to the story I posted on page 3 of this thread. A happy ending.

Singer Cat Stevens Says Awarded Libel Damages LONDON (Reuters) - Yusuf Islam, the pop singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, said on Tuesday he had won substantial damages from two British newspapers which alleged he supported terrorism. "I am delighted by the settlement which helps vindicate my character and good name," he said after the settlement with The Sun and the Sunday Times. The singer, who changed his name after converting to Islam in the 1970s, was traveling on a flight from London to Washington when it was diverted to Bangor, Maine last September. He was then deported from the United States. The U.S. Homeland Security Department said he was deported after his name turned up on U.S. "no fly" lists because of activities they said could be potentially linked to terrorism. The two newspapers suggested the U.S. authorities had been right to refuse Islam entry to the country. After winning the libel damages, Islam said: "It seems to me the easiest thing in the world these days to make scurrilous accusations against Muslims, and in my case it directly impacts on my relief work and damages my reputation as an artist." "The harm done is often difficult to repair," he added in a statement. The 57-year-old singer intends to contribute the undisclosed damages he receives to projects for orphans hit by the tsunami in South East Asia. more.....

[jose]

James Moore is an Emmy-winning former television news correspondent and the co-author of the bestselling, Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential. He has been writing and reporting from Texas for the past 25 years on the rise of Rove and Bush and has traveled extensively on every presidential campaign since 1976.

This author was placed on the no fly list. Two points: there's nothing you or I can do to help him but make this public, and two- we are all targets here. Excerpt, Link and horror story on the flip.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/5/85158/32663

[Zealot]

Quote by: Compugasm Ya know, if you take away the money, power, privilage, prestige, women, favors, benefits, and the diplomatic immunity, Ted Kennedy is just like you and me.

No sir, I am not an alcoholic and not responsible for the death of my lady friend.