It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: SeanM
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 03:54 AM

Now that I've had a chance to see multiple versions of the story, I'm getting close to agreeing with Doug. In my mind, this IS something to be concerned about, and something to watch to make sure that it's not an ongoing flagrant abuse of civil rights.

However, in THIS particular case, it does appear that she made the problem for herself. Admittedly - the reaction looked to be overly harsh. To ban someone from the use of ANY airline after the security issue has been dealt with seems to be a peevish overreaction by someone in security. But I don't see any supporting material for this having been more than a series of bad decisions and reactions from both sides.

The story of the young man barred from flying due to his reading material disturbs me far more. I've yet to find ANY evidence that he did anything more 'dangerous' than attempt to board a plane with a book about ecoterrorists. While it rankles my sensibilities, I can see where they might want to keep tabs on the gentleman, and that he would have his luggage checked. But to summarily ban him from a flight - AFTER he cooperated with the security checks, and AFTER they cleared him from any suspicion... that's wrong. That's also a highly dangerous act for the airport security authority to take from a financial standpoint. This country's litigation happy enough to begin with. Why give someone a legitimate and quite justified reason to go for the throat?

M

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: InOBU
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 03:58 AM

Dear DougR: War is always a threat to civil liberties. If it were not so, we Quakers would not have the joy of our traditional meetings with Amish, Mennonites and Othodox Jews as well as others of concience in prissons at the start of wars for two hundred years in the States. Those days are for the most part past, but as truth is the first casualty of war, we must remain vigilent or those days can come back. So the treat to civil liberties is always a possibility in any nation, during times of war it becomes a clear and present danger and one which we all should be ready to defend the rights of those we don't always agree with.
Cheers pals, Larry

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 07:32 AM

I think people seem to be losing the line of reasoning here.

How is it, do you suppose, that this person was able to make the complaint that she was prevented from travelling because of her political views?

Once she was singled out for a random check, she was questioned. Asked where she was going, for what purpose. If she told the truth, and THEN the National Guardsman became overzealous, as it appears likely to have been the case, then her "over-reaction" begins to make some sense.

I find this story to be very troubling. Just as troubling as any of the others. It is simply too easy to claim "she asked for it" just because she gave the security people a hard time when she believed they had overstepped their bounds. I likely would have done the same as she did under the circumstances, which must have been quite frightening for her. I'm sure she was already a bit paranoid over her destination and having to get through security as it was. Then to be told she wasn't going to be allowed to travel at all? Come on people--how would *you* have reacted under the same circumstances? Smile happily at Mr. Guardia and go home, knowing the world was safe from the likes of yourself?

Everyone seems to be certain, despite no evidence in any of the articles I've read, that this was a random search.

So what does it mean if it *wasn't* a random search, and the woman was targeted?

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 09:52 AM

Lets see, a journalist detained for taking pictures of security checkpoints in an airport. Hmmmm... sounds like lack of common sense on his part. From the sounds of his story, he believes that because he is a journalist he has certain rights, above the common citizen. Because he is a journalist, (mind you, he did not mention that he showed any sort of credentials to that fact) he should be allowed to take pictures of security checkpoints. Two men were arrested in Tampa for taking film footage in the Ports. Seriously, without prior permissions, why would anyone be taking pictures of Port Security? And with everything that just happened, why don't people use a little common sense about things they do? I certainly would not raise issue with security personell. The more you fight them and protest that your freedoms had been violated, the more likely you are to be detained. Understand that we are at war, and that some things have changed. Maybe somewhere along the lines, Americans have forgotten what freedoms really meant. Freedom means that you have a great amount of responsibility. You are free to do and say what you wish, but you must also take responsibilty for those actions. You want to be anti-government? Cool... feel free... but know that you will be watched. You may not agree with that, but it is the trade off of being put on a watch list, or getting executed with no trial, as many other countries do. I suppose to many the troubles of having to go through extra security is just as bad as being shot in the head.

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 11:46 AM

Doug and Guest,

I believe that bin Laden and Omar could be classified as soldiers as well. The Taliban certainly are soldiers. Are soldiers exempt from being terrorists because they wear a uniform? (Yes, the Taliban wears a uniform). Kendall might be correct about referring to George Washington as a "terrorist" to the British in once sense.

This is why the term "terrorist" is so ambiguous. Palenstine refuses to acknowledge Hamas as terrorists. Syria refuses to acknowlege Hezbollah as terrorists.

I prefer to use the words "violent religious extremists". I think semantics is the way out of the paper bag of propaganda.

Frank

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 02:02 PM

Then, Frank, I suppose, since you prefer the phrase, "violent religious extremists" you must accept what Osama bin Laden says when he says he is leading an Islamic campaign against us infidels (paraphrasing). Is that so? The majority of Muslems do not agree with him.

And I don't recall anyone refuting that Taliban troops are anything other than soldiers! Of course they are. They comprise the Taliban army.

GW was commanding general of the Continental army. He was a soldier.

Osama bin Laden is not a member of ANY army. He and his followers are terrorists! That's my belief, anyway.

DougR

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 06:26 PM

You want to be anti-government? Cool... feel free... but know that you will be watched.

--GUEST,just a nobody

I find this statement pretty troubling. There is a big difference between being 'anti-government' and being in opposition to the party of the present administration.

That's one of the things that is supposed to make this country great, isn't it? The right to oppose the current administration, and to seek to win the office through free and fair elections? No?

If the current administration uses the power of the office, and inteligence agencies such as the FBI to moniter the activities of opposition parties, don't we come frighteningly close to being the very sort of non-democratic society that we keep saying we're better than?

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: Art Thieme
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 09:18 PM

I, too, got the original e-mail from Paul. It does amaze me how urban legends seem to take on more credibility when presented here in cyberspace as gospel. I'm glad I didn't forward it to "everyone I know". It took me a few years, but I'm learning about this web of ours.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: InOBU
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 10:17 PM

Hi Art: What I find more incidious than urban legend about this, is that the individual involved did not give us all the facts and I think the more appropriate description is hoax. As I wrote to the person who sent it to me, we progressives are the canary at the bottom of the mine, and when you cry wolf, no one pays us attention when we smell the gass. Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 02:40 PM

The further tale of the denial of the right to use an American airport by an American citizen: click here.

--Charlie Baum

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 04:47 PM

GUEST penned: "We are amused by the continuous use of the adjective "innocent" when applied to "civilians." It is not clear to me that civilians are necessarily innocent. The term innocent signifies "not guilty," and by extension it might be proposed that putting on a uniform automatically makes the wearer guilty of something or other, such as fighting for his country. It seems that the term "non-combatant" is preferable to "innocent civilian."

In the US, you are supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty", so I would have to disagree.

And, as stated previously...being an asshole is not a crime. If it were, I and a lot of other people would be in for life sentences. ;D

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 05:14 PM

InOBU et al--

Read your post; read N.O.'s first hand account. Here's my take, free for nothing.

N.O. was treated stupidly by "armed military," yes. Who was the "armed military?" One stupid enlisted person whom I doubt very much was acting on secret orders from the Joint Chiefs. To me it just exemplifies Chicken Charlie's First Law of Life: a LITTLE power is dangerous. Ever been to court? I have. The judge was polite, the DA almost apologetic. The bailiff was an asshole. Always works that way. It was never clear whether N.O. was initially flagged because she was a Green or because of a random selection. Whyever she crossed paths with the alleged moron, she indeed suffered some Kafkaesque treatment. It's just life, though; it doesn't prove conspiracy. If I didn't want to always get picked for "random" searches, I would just shave my beard. Price of rebellion. Get over it.

Only on Mudcat would this question be somehow melted down and recast with the one on bombing civilians so as to result in a badly stated problem guaranteeing badly stated answers, which also now have to involve the Great Anonymous Guest Malediction, because otherwise we might stay on one topic until that was cleanly resolved. Perish that thought. My sig other just reminded me it's Friday. Thank God or Allahu Akbar, whichever your choice in the matter.

CC

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: GUEST,Leprechaun
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 06:51 PM

I've known some people who worked in airports and some of them develop an uncanny sense of smell. It could be, and in my opinion it is even likely, the people in the airport were alerted to that green lady because she smelled like a terrorist. I bet the same thing would happen to Charlie Baum.

Leprechaun

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: SeanM
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 07:08 PM

Doug commented earlier that "you must accept what Osama bin Laden says when he says he is leading an Islamic campaign against us infidels (paraphrasing). Is that so? The majority of Muslems do not agree with him"

I say Bin Laden is leading an Islamic campaign. Just because the 'battle' is being waged with one side being of unified religious belief doesn't mean EVERYONE with that belief has to fall lockstep behind them. All that is required is that the 'side' that claims the religious faith at least nominally professes it.

And yes, George Washington WAS a terrorist of sorts - to the British. He was using unorthodox techniques that relied primarily on shock and fear to demoralize a superior number of troops. More importantly, he was using violent means to affect social and political reform.

M

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 08:58 AM

Dear Sean M
I think we are loosing site of the definition of terrorist. Every soldier is not a terrorist, where by your definition most soldiers could be seen as terrorits. Rather a terrorist, according to standards set in courts, is one who targets civilian populations. The executive branch of the US government, and the Irish and British governments have been seeking to change the definition to deal with the contradictions in our history and present. But, I fear that is a rather slippery slope. The changing of that definition led to juryless courts in Ireland, and now in the US.
Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: DougR
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 05:37 PM

Hey Larry, you lost your cookie again! Why don't you nail that sucker down? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 06:20 PM

Larry who lost his cookie... it is because I am on a secret list, put together by the Green Party of progressives who oppose their world domination program.
Cheers Larry the cookieless. I wrote to the Cat... didn't get it back yet. Cheers again

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 07:51 PM

Cookieless Larry, you can reset your cookie by going to the top of this page, and in the 'quick links' dropdown menue, click on 'reset cookie', then 'go' and follow the instructions.

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 08:20 PM

Hi Carol... Forgot my passord, so I sent the required email to Max, I suppose, have not heard back yet, Larry the cookieless

Subject: RE: It Can't Happen Here? (U.S. Freedom lost
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 08:39 PM

Bummer. Good luck with it.