Name on government watch list threatens pilot's career

[divemedic]

So you don't consider the loss of employment to be losing liberty? Or is it OK to infringe on someone's liberty, as long as you only do it temporarily? Will it be OK if the government tells you that YOU can't go to work for 4 months, and that you will be fired at the end of that 4 month period, even though you have broken no laws? Furthermore, you have no right to a hearing to clear your name?

That is what is happening here. He has been suspended since April. It seems to me that this is one small step away from the secret police coming to take you away in the middle of the night. But I guess that is OK since he is just one of those filthy Muslims.

 

[BillCA]

S832,

I find your reasoning and rationale to be weak, flawed and unacceptable in a free society.

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.

Pilots are monitored by their employers quite closely. I can assure you, if a pilot gets into trouble with the law, the airline knows about it quite fast.

But it's not the airline pilots that have caused havoc, but the passengers. Suppose we turn it around and say all of the passengers have to be squeaky clean? Can you pass that test? Ever had contact with police? Ever filed a police report? Ever been arrested or detained even if no charges were filed? Ever declared bankruptcy? Ever had a house foreclosed or property seized for non payment? Take a train or drive, then, you're not clean enough to fly.

As far as the airlines go, your safety is their responsibility only in as far as their services are required. That means a good pilot, mechanically sound aircraft, quality fuel, good maintenance procedures and the flight crew follows FAA rules. The airline is NOT responsible for terrorist getting aboard (that's TSA's fault) nor are they responsible for your personal safety in the terminal.

Temporarily preventing someone from flying a plane isn't what I would consider loss of liberty,

Preventing someone from earning a living is not a loss of liberty? *** do you do for a living? Could you find another job, "temporarily" that'll replace your income if some gov't bureaucrat said you couldn't work in your field? How long can the gov't drag their feet before giving permission for you to pursue your chosen career?

That's not how this country is supposed to work.

Your idea of "other people" losing their liberties at the whim of a gov't list or bureaucracy is callous and, I daresay, un-American. If a person is so "dangerous" or "suspect" in their motives that they cannot board an airplane, then why are they not charged with some crime? Or at least held and interrogated by TSA/FBI? Why must people prove their innocence when the burden of accusations, constitutionally, is on the government?

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.

Simply because people do not trust the government. The NICS system was supposed to destroy ALL inquiries within 24 hours to prevent record keeping of who's bought a gun. Only denials could be kept. But AG Reno decided that the law didn't preclude DOJ from keeping a "sampling" to run "integrity checks" (whatever those might be) on the system.

But as someone who's been in the computer field over 30 years, I can tell you that any electronic data can be copied and shunted to another system for later use in building a database. For example, point of sale systems approving credit cards have to process lots of transactions through a clearing house very fast. But nothing stops a company from sending a 2nd transmission to an in-house server so it can compile a database of card transactions (without the card-numbers I might add) for statistical use. The same could be done (and probably has been done) with NICS. Incoming transactions are processed and approved, but the system sends two message out - one to the FFL for approval and the other to a database machine with all the information, including the approval/denial. That database can be further processed into a central database of gun owners. And all of this can happen in the time it takes me to type the word illegal.

Add this: There is NO OTHER RIGHT in the constitution for which the government can force you to first obtain their permission to exercise that right.

Rights cannot be subject to government approval. That is exactly what the NICS system does. It was agreed to as a compromise to avoid longer waiting periods for firearms purchases. Agreed, keeping guns out the the hands of criminals is a good cause. But criminals seldom buy guns at retail. They buy them on the street from people who steal them or engage in straw-man purchases. Thus the gov't curtails everyone's liberties to catch the very few (and dumb) criminals who try to buy one from a dealer.

 

[alan]

Re posts by S832, the following bit of history comes to mind, not an exact quote of Mr. Franklin's wording, however I submit that the essential points remain. He that gives up essential liberties to obtain temporary security shall have neither liberties nor security.

It also turns out, or certainly so seems to be that liberties once surrendered are very difficult to regain. Put in other terms, it is ever so much easier, less expensive too, to do a little maintenance work, thereby avoiding damage, than it is to repair damage done.

 

[S832]

divemedic, I never said he shouldn't be able to clear his name, only that his pilots license should be temporarily suspended while his case is reviewed.

BillCA, So, you support no regulations? When does safety matter? How close to blowing something up or killing thousands of people does one have to be, in order for the government to take action? When you are in a position of power you need to be held to higher standards. When one is in a position to cause catastrophic damage, then that person needs to be near perfect. If you thought a pilot was drunk, would you fly on his plane?

The TSA needs to be reformed, it needs to continue to exist but be less zealous in its actions. The girl with nipple rings isn't a threat, neither is the mother who had bottled breast milk, conversely guns - knives and other dangerous objects obviously need to be kept off planes.

The government can keep all of the files, I even support that they do assuming they find a way to permanently signify guns with serial numbers which can't be removed.

That would cut down on straw purchases and allow criminals to be tracked down allot easier.

alan, No one(in my view) is giving up an essential liberty in doing what I am suggesting.

 

[Recon7]

I always get a little suspicious when the official statement ends with .......but we don't have enough evidence to arrest him.....YET

 

[divemedic]

So, you support him having his livelihood removed for 6 months or longer so they can investigate him purely because of his religion? First amendment- check. Fifth amendment- check. How is that NOT removing liberty?

Eventually letting him clear his name is ridiculous. That is like saying "as long as we eventually let you out of prison, we can lock you up without trial."

The government can take preemptive action, if someone is "close" to blowing up others? Being Muslim is close enough for you? Is being white close enough to joining the KKK enough to make you a racist? Does being a male make you close enough to being a rapist?

You support tracking of who owns guns, as if that is not ever abused and used to confiscate.

Wow. The COTUS is just a piece of paper to you, isn't it?

 

[IZinterrogator]

I can't believe I almost missed this one...

Those who are trained in a specific field are usually best at it and should be the ones to do it.

So, when someone breaks into your home in the night, are you going to protect yourself and your family with a gun if necessary or will you just call the cops and hope nothing bad happens in the mean time?

Someone as concerned about their own personal safety and relying on others to keep them safe as yourself should not own guns. Those things are dangerous, you know. Without a 24-hour RSO in your home to supervise, you might hurt yourself.

 

[alan]

S832 writes:

alan, No one(in my view) is giving up an essential liberty in doing what I am suggesting.

-------------------

S832:

I think sir that there exists here a serious difference of opinion. You might turn out to be correct, though personally speaking, I do not so think.

 

[BillCA]

S832 refuses to engage in answering questions about what happens when his liberties are threatened. I think he is afraid of "the predators" out there and willing to give up everyone else's liberties (and coincidentally his own) as long as they don't inconvenience him too much. I suggest a life lesson by spending six months in a charming place like China, Nicaragua or Iran.

Either that, or he simply has never understood the concept of living life as a free man. He is unwilling to live a life that has risk to it. My guess is that he'd prefer it if we controlled the weather so it'd only rain at night.

So, you support no regulations? When does safety matter? How close to blowing something up or killing thousands of people does one have to be, in order for the government to take action? When you are in a position of power you need to be held to higher standards. When one is in a position to cause catastrophic damage, then that person needs to be near perfect. If you thought a pilot was drunk, would you fly on his plane?

You obviously aren't capable of understanding the free man's point of view. If my name is on some "list" and I'm so dangerous that I am prohibited from flying as a passenger on an airline, why am I not taken into custody? If the government cannot "make a court case stick" against someone, they have no authority to prevent that person from exercising their right to travel on any type of public conveyance.

The government can act only when the person has demonstrated some overt act that ties in with a pattern of behavior that leads to the conclusion that a crime is about to be committed.

Let's suppose you, as an off-duty gov't agent overhear two guys plotting the robbery of a money shipment via armored car. You hear the details of the route, how many security men, how accomplices Huey, Dewey and Louie will do the heavy lifting while they stand guard. There's only two things missing. They say they need "a bazooka or something else that'll disable an armored car, and a 4-ton truck to haul the stuff away."

Can you arrest them? Not yet. Not until they demonstrate some overt action to indicate they really intend to go through with the crime. One of the men buys 5 pairs of gloves at Sears? Nope. One of them reports back that a 4-ton Ryder truck costs $49.99 a day? Nope. But if one of them buys a bazooka - or a 20mm or similar weapon capable of the task, yes you can arrest them. Or if one of them rents a 4-ton truck then it's quite likely you can arrest them.

But until then, no. So what should the watch list be used for? When a list-member is discovered then extra scrutiny is applied to him, his belongings and those traveling with him. Perhaps extra scrutiny is given to the aircraft they'll fly in too. Authorities notified that he's on which flight and all other relevant data.

Those on a no-fly list should be detained by authorities to verify their identity and if he is a wanted person, he's taken into custody. Otherwise they're left to continue their trip.

 

[Recon7]

Free man with rights []
Convicted criminal who gave up rights []

Check 1 box.