Former Colgan Air Pilot wins lawsuit

[Toonces]

Per Toonces:

1. Click on "User CP"
2. Click on "Edit Ignore List"
3. Type "Toonces" into the box
4. Click "Add"

My monitor is already slightly brighter.

That hurts. I am challenging you to a break dance fight after school. I am gonna serve you like you have never been served before.

 

[joliet]

At this point, Sarah Palin could beat Obama on her own, even CNN commentators were alluding to that last night after her little "talk."

 

[surreal1221]

She must get nude first to get my vote. . .but even then, she's running with McCain.

McCain will bring Palin down, not the other way around.

 

[joliet]

She must get nude first to get my vote. . .but even then, she's running with McCain.

McCain will bring Palin down, not the other way around.

/nod reluctantly

 

[surreal1221]

Get back to the other website. . .stop taking part in the misinformation campaign of JetCareers, where $300,000 salaries and babes at every port exist!



and before one of the mods think that I'm being serious. . .

sheesh

 

[granlistillo]

There is no such "adjudication." In this country you have to commit a crime before something like that will happen. We still have freedom of speech right?

Innocent until proven guilty? Try failing a drug test. You will be out the door whether or not you are convicted of a crime. Not sure what your point is.
My point is that if the government has the right to deny a security risk to fly (the courts seem to have upheld this) then I think the government should not deprive any rights without due process.

Also, dont confuse things. For good or bad, no pilot has the Constitutional right to fly. You have the Constitutional right to due process and equal protection of the law.

 

[surreal1221]

Actually, with the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 Habeas Corpus is not available to anyone the President of the United States, and/or any of his Officers deem is an unlawful enemy combatant in hostilities or who have supported hostilities against the United States of America - be it you're a US Citizen or not. Constitution? What's that? Bill of Rights?

Uh. . .I'm from Texas, I make my won rules as I go. . .uh huh huh hhhhuh.

Due Process. . .puhleeze, in America? Not after 9/11. Straight to Gitmo with you, you book seller of muslim literature that might address "radical islamo fascism."

What kind of due process is there when the TSA fails to acknowledge that you're on a list. So fine, then I'm not on a list - no no no - you're on the list, can you show me where on this list I'm on? :whatever:

This is all a huge scam, and the American public keep buying it.

 

[KLB]

At this point, Sarah Palin could beat Obama on her own, even CNN commentators were alluding to that last night after her little "talk."

She DID NOT write that speech. It was written by a staffer. All speeches are written by staffers. The talking points aren't hers, the words aren't hers, the jokes aren't hers. It's all an illusion.

 

[granlistillo]

Surreal,
Interesting comments that certainly point out one side of a sad dillema our government has had to deal with. I think I may tend to agree to some extent, but as usual you make a broad sweeping invective that really limits useful debate.

I've been around the block a bit and have lived in 5 countries other the US, and have lived in Europe for 10 of the last 14 years. Here are a couple of little secrets for you: There ain't no perfect government. The US is not evil.

Granted, I dont like the way the US is heading vis a vis personal liberties, but let me tell you amigo, they were going through entrenchment long before you were out of puberty and GWB was elected.

Now to listen to your blah blah blah we have no liberties... No we are now almost on par with the powers governments have over their citizens in Europe. Except we still have right to a jury trial here in the States. Free Speech in leftist Europe?? UH, not even close.

Back to my original thought. The US government has finally had to face some of the terrorism that Western Europe has had to face. Steps have been taken and upheld by the courts. Personally I hate the patriot act, but it is the law.

If the US government decides this individual is a security threat and the President be he GWB, Obama or McCain, as chief executive (the administration) decides that person cant fly, then there should be Due process and the chance for redress of grievances as per the US Constitution.

I dont like this secret list garbage.

Entiendes?

 

[surreal1221]

My point is that thanks to the MCAof2006 due process does not exists if the Executive places that individual in a location that does not afford him the ability to seek an attorney and legal assistance, and terms him as an enemy combatant.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter how many countries you have lived in, and still yet how much better you deem our quality life in regards to freedom of speech, ability to have proper legal assistance, and the whole assortment of "civil rights" that are provided to us courtesy of the Constitution and the Bill Rights. This is the United States of America, compared by generation to generation, administration to administration, and defined only by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the standard that is to be maintained. I don't care about the perceived, and as usual subjective opinion of how other countries rules are different or still yet more intrusive into personal liberties than they are here in the states. Only policies I'm concerned with are those of the United States of America. It might be easy for some to not ponder these decisions made by the people we elect into office, but they are not for me. Our elected officials work on our behalf, not the other way around. It seems that is easy for many to forget, especially those who find themselves lingering in a professional system that prides on obeying authority's every beck and call.

Just because someone in country A is forced to eat bird crap every morning, and we here in country B are not forced to do such yet we're supposed to be happy that we have to simply lick the bird crap every morning as opposed to eating it? Really? Is that the argument? They have it worse, so we should simply be happy we haven't reached their level of intrusiveness - yet? Yet. How about never? One should never truly feel content with their government, and their associated powers. The moment that occurs - it's too late - the bad deeds are already being established.

But hey - you win. How about that?

 

[Bumblebee]

Innocent until proven guilty? Try failing a drug test.

that would be proof!?!? right???

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

My point is that thanks to the MCAof2006 due process does not exists if the Executive places that individual in a location that does not afford him the ability to seek an attorney and legal assistance, and terms him as an enemy combatant.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter how many countries you have lived in, and still yet how much better you deem our quality life in regards to freedom of speech, ability to have proper legal assistance, and the whole assortment of "civil rights" that are provided to us courtesy of the Constitution and the Bill Rights. This is the United States of America, compared by generation to generation, administration to administration, and defined only by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the standard that is to be maintained. I don't care about the perceived, and as usual subjective opinion of how other countries rules are different or still yet more intrusive into personal liberties than they are here in the states. Only policies I'm concerned with are those of the United States of America. It might be easy for some to not ponder these decisions made by the people we elect into office, but they are not for me. Our elected officials work on our behalf, not the other way around. It seems that is easy for many to forget, especially those who find themselves lingering in a professional system that prides on obeying authority's every beck and call.

Just because someone in country A is forced to eat bird crap every morning, and we here in country B are not forced to do such yet we're supposed to be happy that we have to simply lick the bird crap every morning as opposed to eating it? Really? Is that the argument? They have it worse, so we should simply be happy we haven't reached their level of intrusiveness - yet? Yet. How about never? One should never truly feel content with their government, and their associated powers. The moment that occurs - it's too late - the bad deeds are already being established.

But hey - you win. How about that?

The lesgislation in question's scope is limited to only "alien unlawful combatants." Even Human Rights Watch agrees. Not that I agree with it at all, but it doesn't appear that it could be used against US Citizens.

 

[granlistillo]

that would be proof!?!? right???

In most cases yes, point is the assumption changes. Pop positive and if you are innocent you have some work cut out for you. It is not a criminal proceeding and neither is the no fly list.

 

[granlistillo]

The lesgislation in question's scope is limited to only "alien unlawful combatants." Even Human Rights Watch agrees. Not that I agree with it at all, but it doesn't appear that it could be used against US Citizens.

I think there was a guy at gitmo, a saudi who never had a us passport who was born on us soil, he tried the us citizen ploy. If i remember right the courts upheld he could be held as alien unlawful combatant.

This whole argument is absurd. 1st off the Bush Admin is doing the guy a favor. If he was a US citizen, he could be tried for high treason. 2nd these guys are for the most part granted rights consistent with the geneva convention and more. Even though by acts of perfidy and lack of uniforms, they could flat out be executed.

If FDR was President a lot of these guys would be cellar temperature by now.

 

[kellwolf]

In most cases yes, point is the assumption changes. Pop positive and if you are innocent you have some work cut out for you. It is not a criminal proceeding and neither is the no fly list.

If you show a positive on a drug test, then the assumption should change. It's no longer an "assumption" since there is some evidence that you may not be innocent.

Sorta like being found at a murder scene with a gun. Sure, you may just have happened along and tripped over it, but the cops probably aren't gonna buy that explanation even if it happens to be true.

 

[granlistillo]

If you show a positive on a drug test, then the assumption should change. It's no longer an "assumption" since there is some evidence that you may not be innocent.

Duh

BTW, DOT drug tests are not used for criminal prosecution, so technically guilt and innocence dont even come into play.

The whole point of this was to illustrate to a poster with a misconception that the government can take administrative action without resorting to the courts.

 

[derg]

Guys get their licenses suspended daily without due process.

 

[granlistillo]

True dat

but at least there is a ntsb Admin law judge and a process to appeal, have a hearing, etc.

Not so with this list.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

True dat

but at least there is a ntsb Admin law judge and a process to appeal, have a hearing, etc.

Not so with this list.

Due process is something that happens before the bad thing occurs, not the ability to appeal afterwards. Also, federal court said that individuals can sue the government in regards to their name being on this list -- hence the whole lawsuit that this thread is about.