Student Pilot Gets Five Months In Prison [Archive]

Dave S

March 1st 05, 12:02 AM

He was a 2 time convicted felon for drug offenses... and I find it
pretty hard to "inadverdently" forget to disclose that on an application.

So.. yea.. kinda severe, but I think the fella was a perfect opportunity
to "make an example". Regardless of how you feel about it, felons and
former felons are pretty much walking around with a permanent black mark
on their record, wether they've done their time, paid their dues....etc.

Dave

Jon Kraus wrote:
> Wonder how he got caught? The punishment sounds pretty severe. I wonder
> what happened that we don't know about.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Mooney 201 4443H
>
> Montblack wrote:
>
>> Ever Consider Lying To The FAA?
>> Student Pilot Gets Five Months In Prison
>>
>> From today's AvWeb (free) e-mail newswire.
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/358-full.html#189253
>>
>> This case:
>> http://www.oig.dot.gov/item_details.php?item=1505
>>
>> Many cases:
>> http://www.oig.dot.gov/docs_by_area.php?area=45&long=1
>>
>>
>> Don't lie ...unless you're actually in Government.
>>
>> Montblack
>> Free Martha <fist>
>>
>

jls

March 1st 05, 12:37 AM

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> Wonder how he got caught? The punishment sounds pretty severe. I wonder
> what happened that we don't know about.
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Mooney 201 4443H
>

The form you fill out when you apply for a medical clearly asks what crime
you've ever been convicted of ---- any crime. It also clearly warns that
lying on the form can subject you to prosecution for perjury pursuant to
criminal sections of the United States Code.

AINut

March 2nd 05, 02:14 AM

He might have the same thoughts that I have:
1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not have
committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.
2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
earning a license.

It could also be that the person figured that since it wasn't any of
their business and totally irrelevant to flight safety, he wasn't going
to tell them about it. I can empathize with that.

David

jls wrote:
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Wonder how he got caught? The punishment sounds pretty severe. I wonder
>>what happened that we don't know about.
>>
>>Jon Kraus
>>PP-ASEL-IA
>>Mooney 201 4443H
>>
>
>
> The form you fill out when you apply for a medical clearly asks what crime
> you've ever been convicted of ---- any crime. It also clearly warns that
> lying on the form can subject you to prosecution for perjury pursuant to
> criminal sections of the United States Code.
>
>

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 2nd 05, 05:07 AM

AINut wrote:
> He might have the same thoughts that I have:
> 1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not have
> committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.
> 2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
> earning a license.
>
> It could also be that the person figured that since it wasn't any of
> their business and totally irrelevant to flight safety, he wasn't going
> to tell them about it. I can empathize with that.
>
> David
>

It's irrelevant whether it's the FAA's business, he committed perjury.
Secondly the odds are he is still using and that affects his judgment.
Even if he doesn't use for a week before flying he still commits a crime
when he does. Thats' bad judgement. If he flies when under the influence
it affects not only his safety that is affected it is the safety of
others. Flying safety IS the FAA's business.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dave S

March 2nd 05, 05:25 AM

AINut wrote:

> It could also be that the person figured that since it wasn't any of
> their business and totally irrelevant to flight safety, he wasn't going
> to tell them about it. I can empathize with that.
>
> David
>
>>

If he felt it was not the FAA's business, he should have not applied for
the medical form. In doing so, he was endorsing a document that attested
to the absence of conviction. Thats what he was busted for. LYING. Not
for being an ex-con. He was busted for LYING about it.

Unfortunately, if he wanted to seek the PRIVELEDGE of flying in the US
(outside the confines of the sport class)he needed to obtain the
medical. He made his choice and they made an example of him. Had he
simply owned up to it, he would likely had finally been issued the
medical... and wouldn't be incarcerated now.

Dave

George Patterson

March 2nd 05, 05:46 AM

Dave S wrote:
>
> He made his choice and they made an example of him.

In my opinion, they didn't make an example of him. If I recall the form
correctly, he didn't get anywhere near the maximum sentence. If they had wanted
to make an example of him, it would be very easy to get a maximum sentence on
someone with two prior felony convictions.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

Matt Whiting

March 2nd 05, 11:36 AM

AINut wrote:

> He might have the same thoughts that I have:
> 1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not have
> committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.

It is if you want a pilot certificate. If you don't want that, then you
are correct that it is none of the FAA's business.

> 2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
> earning a license.

The information is relevant. Offender's often repeat, that isn't news.

> It could also be that the person figured that since it wasn't any of
> their business and totally irrelevant to flight safety, he wasn't going
> to tell them about it. I can empathize with that.

Empathizing with it still doesn't make perjury legal. :-)

Matt

Neil Gould

March 2nd 05, 01:55 PM

Recently, Dave S > posted:

> AINut wrote:
>
>> It could also be that the person figured that since it wasn't any of
>> their business and totally irrelevant to flight safety, he wasn't
>> going to tell them about it. I can empathize with that.
>>
>> David
>>
Fortunately, the FAA doesn't leave it up to individuals to decide what is
or is not relevant to flight safety. In this case, there is more than one
reason to suspect that his problem *could* be a risk, and that possibility
was underscored by his lying about it.

> Unfortunately, if he wanted to seek the PRIVELEDGE of flying in the US
> (outside the confines of the sport class)he needed to obtain the
> medical. He made his choice and they made an example of him. Had he
> simply owned up to it, he would likely had finally been issued the
> medical... and wouldn't be incarcerated now.
>
I'd guess that he lied about it because a drug conviction may pretty much
eliminate his chances of being issued a medical. And, it's an indictment
against his judgement that he didn't expect the feds to find out about it.

Regards,

Neil

AINut

March 2nd 05, 07:05 PM

Ron Natalie wrote:
> AINut wrote:
>
>> He might have the same thoughts that I have:
>> 1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not have
>> committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.
>
>
> The FAA medical process is exceptionally intrusive into your private
> affairs in the supposed name of flight safety. Frankly, there's no
> "privacy issue" here anyhow. Criminal records are public knowledge.
>
>> 2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
>> earning a license.
>
>
> The FAA does not consider of history of drug issues to be irrelevant.

Obviously. But they are wrong.

John Godwin

March 2nd 05, 08:01 PM

AINut > wrote in
:

> Ron Natalie wrote:
>>
>> The FAA does not consider of history of drug issues to be
>> irrelevant.
>
> Obviously. But they are wrong.

...and with respect to your statement, your medical and/or psychiatric
credentials are?.....

--

Matt Whiting

March 2nd 05, 11:50 PM

AINut wrote:

> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>> AINut wrote:
>>
>>> He might have the same thoughts that I have:
>>> 1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not
>>> have committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.
>>
>>
>>
>> The FAA medical process is exceptionally intrusive into your private
>> affairs in the supposed name of flight safety. Frankly, there's no
>> "privacy issue" here anyhow. Criminal records are public knowledge.
>>
>>> 2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
>>> earning a license.
>>
>>
>>
>> The FAA does not consider of history of drug issues to be irrelevant.
>
>
> Obviously. But they are wrong.

No, they are being prudent.

Matt

Robert Bonomi

March 3rd 05, 05:46 AM

In article >,
AINut > wrote:
>Ron Natalie wrote:
>> AINut wrote:
>>
>>> He might have the same thoughts that I have:
>>> 1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not have
>>> committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.
>>
>>
>> The FAA medical process is exceptionally intrusive into your private
>> affairs in the supposed name of flight safety. Frankly, there's no
>> "privacy issue" here anyhow. Criminal records are public knowledge.
>>
>>> 2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
>>> earning a license.
>>
>>
>> The FAA does not consider of history of drug issues to be irrelevant.
>
>Obviously. But they are wrong.

You have *your* opinion.

They have _theirs_.

The law says "their opinion is the only one that counts".

Since they 'own the game', *IF* you're going to "play the game", you play
by _their_ rules.

Note: criminal convictions -- even after 'time served' -- ARE indicative of
the prior exercise of "bad judgement", among other things. Telling lies about
prior convictions on a document where it says "you can go to jail if you
lie here" is _continued_ exercise of "bad judgement".

The FAA has a *valid* "public safety" interest in evaluating the 'judgement'
of the candidate 'pilot in command' in life-and-death situations -- affecting
not only said pilot, but passengers, and potentially _large_ numbers of
people on the ground.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 3rd 05, 06:41 AM

Jughugs

March 3rd 05, 04:45 PM

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:qkyVd.20908$Sn6.6551@lakeread03...
> No, you are. A history of drug abuse is an indicator of future
> behaviour.

This is blatent bull****... you've eaten way too many government MRE's

>The FAA does have the right and obligation to keep druggies
> from flying.

This is true... so require the person to take drug tests more frequently.

I agree that in this case... falsifying the app was what screwed him.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 3rd 05, 09:09 PM

Jughugs wrote:

> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:qkyVd.20908$Sn6.6551@lakeread03...
>
>>No, you are. A history of drug abuse is an indicator of future
>>behaviour.
>
>
> This is blatent bull****... you've eaten way too many government MRE's

That's your opinion. Since you can't debate without being abusive this
discussion is closed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Juan Jimenez

March 3rd 05, 09:13 PM

<read: Since you won't agree with me, I'll take my marbles.>

If history of drug abuse is an indicator of future behavior, that explains
the actions of the moron in the White House...

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:Z1LVd.21110$Sn6.8789@lakeread03...
> Jughugs wrote:
>
>> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>> news:qkyVd.20908$Sn6.6551@lakeread03...
>>
>>>No, you are. A history of drug abuse is an indicator of future
>>>behaviour.
>>
>>
>> This is blatent bull****... you've eaten way too many government MRE's
>
> That's your opinion. Since you can't debate without being abusive this
> discussion is closed.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

jls

March 3rd 05, 10:01 PM

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:Z1LVd.21110$Sn6.8789@lakeread03...
> Jughugs wrote:
>
> > "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> > news:qkyVd.20908$Sn6.6551@lakeread03...
> >
> >>No, you are. A history of drug abuse is an indicator of future
> >>behaviour.
> >
> >
> > This is blatent bull****... you've eaten way too many government MRE's
>
> That's your opinion. Since you can't debate without being abusive this
> discussion is closed.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ah, but Dannie, they can prosecute you for lying about a lot of other little
sins you may have committed and not fessed up to on that airman medical
form:

Back in the summer of 2004, I flipped out the airman medical application
form and showed it to about 8 airmen at my airport. Most
of them sheeple-ishly admitted to having trouble with the two questions
about
criminal records and motor vehicle traffic convictions. None of them would
admit to any rational connection between an airman's medical exam to
determine if he were safe to fly and a criminal record, especially a
misdemeanor record. One of them admitted to having to call a lawyer about
one question on his form and then having to answer it, "YES," i. e., that he
had had a conviction for which he had had to attend driver improvement
school to get points off
his driver license in order to operate a motor vehicle on the streets and
highways. He had to pay a higher fee to the doctor (for having to come back
later to finish his medical) and of course an attorney fee. Once we began
to have a full discussion of the meanings of the questions, we found that
most of these pilots were unconvicted felons for having answered one or more
of the questions uncandidly. We the sheeple.

One of the pilots had been convicted of resisting an officer, another of a
simple
non-traffic misdemeanor, one of assault, one of bedding and cohabitation (i.
e., shacking up, which Dannie is probably guilty of, if he would only admit
it),
and one said that although unconvicted he felt a little guilty because he
had committed onanism. I must confess I had a bulge in my pants once while
standing in line at the movies in South Carolina with a voluptuous girl in
shorts and halter just in front of me (which was a serious crime calling for
a year's imprisonment and fine). All of them -- all of us -- are now more
aware of the irrational deviousness of Big Brother.

Do you have any despicable scofflaws operating aircraft out of your airport?

And then there's this, which I wrote in August, 2004, titled "Big Brother
Wants to Know What Infractions You've Committed Before He Lets You Fly":

And he asks this nosy, meddlesome affront to the Constitution on your
application for a third class medical.

Here's the question: Do you have a history of nontraffic convictions
(misdeameanors or felonies)? And take a look at the intrusive question
next to it. Then ask yourself WTF that information has to do with a third
class medical. Oh, and by the way, the Social Security Act specifically
guarantees that the social security number is for social security and social
security ONLY. So would Big Brother lie to you? Do government agencies
lie?

So, now let's see here. Big Brother somehow thinks this criminal record
inquiry into your moral character and social status has something to do with
your ability to fly safely, but not until after 9-11. Thus, if you have
been convicted of simple
assault, disturbing the peace, jaywalking, failure to apply for a privilege
license, joyriding, cussing in public, landing a helicopter in a National
Park, hunting deer without a license, cohabiting without benefit of clergy,
riding a skateboard on the Parkway, disturbing a religious service,
attempting to parachute off the world trade center,
violation of a child support law, failure to pay either state or federal
taxes, violation of the age of consent, disorderly conduct, trespass, or
any number of simple
misdemeanors you may be unfit to fly. Otherwise, why would Big Brother ask
all these nosy questions? Not to mention that any felony you
may have been convicted of could be disqualifying. As to felonies, of
course Big Brother has been frantically busy the last decade figuring out
ingenious new ways to make you into a convicted felon, including converting
traditional misdemeanors into felonies.

Sorry, nolo contendere (no contest) won't help you. Neither will an
expunction. Go
ahead and admit to the disgusting things you have done, even if the record
has been expunged or you
pleaded nolo. If you don't you will face the risk of perjury charges.
See that
little NOTICE of felony fine and imprisonment at the bottom left of the cold
and calculating, but tricky, federal form?

Good luck, boys, getting by the moral character and fitness committee for
that flying ticket. Be ever watchful. Big Brother gives with one hand
and takes abundantly with the other. He has already stolen your 9th
Amendment and is reaching his grimy hands for more amendments. After all,
as an FBI agent caught violating the Bill of Rights once said, "They're just
amendments."

Read the Ninth Amendment and see:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 3rd 05, 10:25 PM

jls wrote:

> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:Z1LVd.21110$Sn6.8789@lakeread03...
>
>>Jughugs wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>>>news:qkyVd.20908$Sn6.6551@lakeread03...
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, you are. A history of drug abuse is an indicator of future
>>>>behaviour.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is blatent bull****... you've eaten way too many government MRE's
>>
>>That's your opinion. Since you can't debate without being abusive this
>>discussion is closed.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> Ah, but Dan

<snip>

If I read what you wrote correctly you feel questions about of criminal
behaviour don't belong in a medical exam. I say they do for the simple
reason they are evaluating you physically and mentally. When you start
going to see a shrink or counselor that is one thing that will come up
when you fill out your initial paperwork. It is important to know when
evaluating the patient.

While I don't agree with some of the logic used in FAA medical
determinations I do fully understand that if you want to fly, and the
agency that will allow you to do that has deemed certain questions must
be asked you have to honestly answer the questions. If it weeds out a
few nut cases then it serves the purpose. Let's face it, it's the only
game in town.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Jughugs

March 3rd 05, 10:44 PM

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:Z1LVd.21110$Sn6.8789@lakeread03...
> That's your opinion. Since you can't debate without being abusive this
> discussion is closed.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Oh relax you old codger... if you would have went Marines you might have a
tougher hide.

Let's say you catch one of your grandchildren burning ants with a magifying
glass... does that mean that they are going to grow up abusing animals or
worse yet... a Serial Killer!?!?! Of course not.

Montblack

March 3rd 05, 11:20 PM

("Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" wrote)
> If I read what you wrote correctly you feel questions about of criminal
> behaviour don't belong in a medical exam. I say they do for the simple
> reason they are evaluating you physically and mentally. When you start
> going to see a shrink or counselor that is one thing that will come up
> when you fill out your initial paperwork. It is important to know when
> evaluating the patient.

How much debt are you carrying? Stressed about it?

....just give us your financials and we'll determine things we need to
determine based on your financials.

Montblack

Montblack

March 3rd 05, 11:25 PM

("Jughugs" wrote)
> Let's say you catch one of your grandchildren burning ants with a
> magifying
> glass... does that mean that they are going to grow up abusing animals or
> worse yet... a Serial Killer!?!?! Of course not.

Was she pulling the little ant's legs off first?

Montblack

jls

March 3rd 05, 11:37 PM

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jughugs" wrote)
> > Let's say you catch one of your grandchildren burning ants with a
> > magifying
> > glass... does that mean that they are going to grow up abusing animals
or
> > worse yet... a Serial Killer!?!?! Of course not.
>
>
> Was she pulling the little ant's legs off first?
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

What an endorphen release! Best laugh I had in a while. Does that make
me a user?

Dude

March 4th 05, 12:16 AM

If it weeds out a
> few nut cases then it serves the purpose. Let's face it, it's the only
> game in town.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

As an extremely honest person who has never used an illegal drug and has
served in the military I would like to disagree.

Undoubtedly, if we kept former military members from flying, we would "weed
out a few nut cases". If this is your standard for good law, you need to
stop voting.

Okay, I think its worthwhile to make a check of criminal records for people
who want a PPL. I also think it makes sense that we ask on some form
somewhere. I think the Medical is not likely the best place, but it was
expedient to use so I understand it.

Matt Whiting

March 4th 05, 12:24 AM

Jughugs wrote:
> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:qkyVd.20908$Sn6.6551@lakeread03...
>
>>No, you are. A history of drug abuse is an indicator of future
>>behaviour.
>
>
> This is blatent bull****... you've eaten way too many government MRE's

No, that is pretty well known. It is very hard for drug abusers to
quit, whether the drug is nicotine, alcohol or something else.

Past users are very much more likely to be future users.

Matt

Jughugs

March 4th 05, 01:07 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> No, that is pretty well known. It is very hard for drug abusers to
> quit, whether the drug is nicotine, alcohol or something else.
>
> Past users are very much more likely to be future users.
>
>
> Matt

Ok... well let's take your example then.. which is... apples and oranges*.
Should we NOT allow folks who consume nicotine and alcohol to fly? I'm sure
that would desimate over half of the ATP population for sure.

*An ILLEGAL drug user is more likely to quit and stay that way than one of
the LEGAL drug consumers.

March 4th 05, 02:12 AM

" jls" > wrote in
:

> Ah, but Dannie, they can prosecute you for lying about a lot of other
> little sins you may have committed and not fessed up to on that airman
> medical form:
>
<<much snippage>>

Another good reason that I'll likely be a Sport Pilot instead of a PPL...

No medical, no intrusion!

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Roger

March 4th 05, 02:55 AM

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:41:24 -0600, "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired"
> wrote:

>AINut wrote:
>
>> Ron Natalie wrote:
>>
>>> AINut wrote:
>>>
>>>> He might have the same thoughts that I have:
>>>> 1) It's none of the FAA's business what crimes you may or may not
>>>> have committed -- if you already done your time, you've paid your dues.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The FAA medical process is exceptionally intrusive into your private
>>> affairs in the supposed name of flight safety. Frankly, there's no
>>> "privacy issue" here anyhow. Criminal records are public knowledge.
>>>
>>>> 2) the FAA has no NEED of old info that is completely irrelevant to
>>>> earning a license.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The FAA does not consider of history of drug issues to be irrelevant.
>>
>>
>> Obviously. But they are wrong.
>
>No, you are. A history of drug abuse is an indicator of future
>behaviour. The FAA does have the right and obligation to keep druggies
>from flying.

They are considered character traits and unless the individual can
show a long history of change since the abuse (drugs and/or alcohol)
they are still considered traits.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

AINut

March 4th 05, 03:06 AM

Even if it IS the "only game in town," it doesn't give the FAA, a
government agency, license to break the law.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
> jls wrote:
>
>> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>> news:Z1LVd.21110$Sn6.8789@lakeread03...
>>
>>> Jughugs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>>>> news:qkyVd.20908$Sn6.6551@lakeread03...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No, you are. A history of drug abuse is an indicator of future
>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is blatent bull****... you've eaten way too many government MRE's
>>>
>>>
>>> That's your opinion. Since you can't debate without being abusive this
>>> discussion is closed.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, but Dan
>
>
> <snip>
>
> If I read what you wrote correctly you feel questions about of criminal
> behaviour don't belong in a medical exam. I say they do for the simple
> reason they are evaluating you physically and mentally. When you start
> going to see a shrink or counselor that is one thing that will come up
> when you fill out your initial paperwork. It is important to know when
> evaluating the patient.
>
> While I don't agree with some of the logic used in FAA medical
> determinations I do fully understand that if you want to fly, and the
> agency that will allow you to do that has deemed certain questions must
> be asked you have to honestly answer the questions. If it weeds out a
> few nut cases then it serves the purpose. Let's face it, it's the only
> game in town.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 4th 05, 03:07 AM

Dude wrote:
> If it weeds out a
>
>>few nut cases then it serves the purpose. Let's face it, it's the only
>>game in town.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> As an extremely honest person who has never used an illegal drug and has
> served in the military I would like to disagree.
>
> Undoubtedly, if we kept former military members from flying, we would "weed
> out a few nut cases". If this is your standard for good law, you need to
> stop voting.

That was a cheap shot. Have a nice day.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

AINut

March 4th 05, 03:08 AM

So let them use. As long as they do it responsibly, what is the problem?

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Jughugs wrote:
>
>> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>> news:qkyVd.20908$Sn6.6551@lakeread03...
>>
>>> No, you are. A history of drug abuse is an indicator of future
>>> behaviour.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is blatent bull****... you've eaten way too many government MRE's
>
>
> No, that is pretty well known. It is very hard for drug abusers to
> quit, whether the drug is nicotine, alcohol or something else.
>
> Past users are very much more likely to be future users.
>
>
> Matt

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 4th 05, 03:21 AM

AINut wrote:

> Even if it IS the "only game in town," it doesn't give the FAA, a
> government agency, license to break the law.
>
<snip>

>> criminal behaviour don't belong in a medical exam. I say they do for
>> the simple reason they are evaluating you physically and mentally.
>> When you start going to see a shrink or counselor that is one thing
>> that will come up when you fill out your initial paperwork. It is
>> important to know when evaluating the patient.
>>
>> While I don't agree with some of the logic used in FAA medical
>> determinations I do fully understand that if you want to fly, and the
>> agency that will allow you to do that has deemed certain questions
>> must be asked you have to honestly answer the questions. If it weeds
>> out a few nut cases then it serves the purpose. Let's face it, it's
>> the only game in town.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

What laws are the FAA breaking by asking such questions? Privacy? You
don't have to answer the questions and FAA doesn't have to issue you a
ticket. It's all voluntary.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Ernest Christley

March 4th 05, 03:32 AM

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

> If I read what you wrote correctly you feel questions about of criminal
> behaviour don't belong in a medical exam. I say they do for the simple
> reason they are evaluating you physically and mentally. When you start
> going to see a shrink or counselor that is one thing that will come up
> when you fill out your initial paperwork. It is important to know when
> evaluating the patient.
>

The problem I have with it are several, but in this particular case, can
we not quote double jeopardy. The judge sentences you to prison for 10
years. Once you've served your time, why do you then get hit with
arbitrary questions that further restrict your rights. I could see it
if the sentence for ******* was 10 years and never fly a plane again,
but I don't think that judges usually do that. At what point can a man
fade away into society and once again become a citizen?

It's reprehensible that the government will give a sentence, and then
keep heaping on more judgements after the debt is paid.

> While I don't agree with some of the logic used in FAA medical
> determinations I do fully understand that if you want to fly, and the
> agency that will allow you to do that has deemed certain questions must
> be asked you have to honestly answer the questions. If it weeds out a
> few nut cases then it serves the purpose. Let's face it, it's the only
> game in town.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

There's the rub, Dan. 'the agency that will allow you' You see certain
inalienable rights as endowed by Congress. I see them endowed by my
creator. 'The agency' doesn't allow; they forbid. I already had the
right. They've taken it away, unless I follow their set of arbitrary
rules, and they use a lot of guns to do it. Make no mistake about it,
'the agency' is a group of people using force to exert their will on
another group of people (person in this case). But such is a democracy
that we just have to make a big enough stink about it to get the rules
changed.

Here's an interesting question. If it was SO easy to check the guy's
background...so easy that it was obvious to everybody that he would be
caught... then why ask? Would it be just to have something else for
applicant's to trip over? Just to see if you can make them lie?
There's a maxim in politics that if you make enough 'good' laws then
everyone becomes a criminal. At that point you can get rid of whoever
you like. Defacto totalitarianism, with a facade of legitimacy.

Here's another one. Why put it on the medical? Could it be to hide
responsibility of collecting the information? Is it to use the
legitimacy of doctors to hide the illegitamcy of the question? But
then, doesn't it make doctors defacto policemen?

I view the 'agency that will allow' you to fly and their
'determinations' as a group of people with personal agendas, one of
which is to increase their own power and importance. They are not my
parents, and I do not need them to pamper me and protect me from myself.
I play the game, because I know they have lots of guns and I've seen
enough movies to want to avoid the inside of jail cells. But just
because I go along doesn't mean that it's not all bull****e.

Dude

March 4th 05, 03:39 AM

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:jiQVd.21124$Sn6.18842@lakeread03...
> Dude wrote:
>> If it weeds out a
>>
>>>few nut cases then it serves the purpose. Let's face it, it's the only
>>>game in town.
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>> As an extremely honest person who has never used an illegal drug and has
>> served in the military I would like to disagree.
>>
>> Undoubtedly, if we kept former military members from flying, we would
>> "weed out a few nut cases". If this is your standard for good law, you
>> need to stop voting.
>
> That was a cheap shot. Have a nice day.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I don't think it was all that cheap. If you want to amend your statement, I
would be glad to read what you really meant. Thoughts like the one you wrote
are much too common these days, and its getting more expensive everyday.

Dude

March 4th 05, 03:44 AM

>
> What laws are the FAA breaking by asking such questions? Privacy? You
> don't have to answer the questions and FAA doesn't have to issue you a
> ticket. It's all voluntary.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

This whole "privilege" thing has been taken way too far by our government.
We will see how you feel after they come for your ticket.

Dude

March 4th 05, 03:48 AM

"AINut" > wrote in message
...
> So let them use. As long as they do it responsibly, what is the problem?
>
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Jughugs wrote:
>>
>>> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>>> news:qkyVd.20908$Sn6.6551@lakeread03...
>>>
>>>> No, you are. A history of drug abuse is an indicator of future
>>>> behaviour.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is blatent bull****... you've eaten way too many government MRE's
>>
>>
>> No, that is pretty well known. It is very hard for drug abusers to quit,
>> whether the drug is nicotine, alcohol or something else.
>>
>> Past users are very much more likely to be future users.
>>
>>
>> Matt

True, but if you give them no reason to quit, then they will not. Drawing
the line and saying anyone who ever got convicted for possession cannot fly
seems to be over the top to me. I am more likely to get run over by them
than hit by them in a plane. Should we not take away their driving
privileges as well?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 4th 05, 04:05 AM

Ernest Christley wrote:

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>
>> If I read what you wrote correctly you feel questions about of
>> criminal behaviour don't belong in a medical exam. I say they do for
>> the simple reason they are evaluating you physically and mentally.
>> When you start going to see a shrink or counselor that is one thing
>> that will come up when you fill out your initial paperwork. It is
>> important to know when evaluating the patient.
>>
>
> The problem I have with it are several, but in this particular case, can
> we not quote double jeopardy. The judge sentences you to prison for 10
> years. Once you've served your time, why do you then get hit with
> arbitrary questions that further restrict your rights. I could see it
> if the sentence for ******* was 10 years and never fly a plane again,
> but I don't think that judges usually do that. At what point can a man
> fade away into society and once again become a citizen?
>
> It's reprehensible that the government will give a sentence, and then
> keep heaping on more judgements after the debt is paid.

For one thing a felon loses some civil rights until he petitions to have
them restored. The 2 most notable are the rights to vote and own guns.

>
>> While I don't agree with some of the logic used in FAA medical
>> determinations I do fully understand that if you want to fly, and the
>> agency that will allow you to do that has deemed certain questions
>> must be asked you have to honestly answer the questions. If it weeds
>> out a few nut cases then it serves the purpose. Let's face it, it's
>> the only game in town.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> There's the rub, Dan. 'the agency that will allow you' You see certain
> inalienable rights as endowed by Congress. I see them endowed by my
> creator. 'The agency' doesn't allow; they forbid. I already had the
> right. They've taken it away, unless I follow their set of arbitrary
> rules, and they use a lot of guns to do it. Make no mistake about it,
> 'the agency' is a group of people using force to exert their will on
> another group of people (person in this case). But such is a democracy
> that we just have to make a big enough stink about it to get the rules
> changed.

Driving and flying are privileges, not rights. FAA was created to create
and enforce rules to keep flying safe. Feel free to try to get this
changed. That's why congressmen have telephones and aides to read their
mail.
>
> Here's an interesting question. If it was SO easy to check the guy's
> background...so easy that it was obvious to everybody that he would be
> caught... then why ask?

Perhaps computerized checks aren't as efficient as you think, maybe the
paper questions are to allow the process to get underway while waiting
for the background checks, it could be a hold over from before
computerized checks. Who knows, the fact remains the questions are there
and no one is forcing you to apply for a license.

Would it be just to have something else for
> applicant's to trip over? Just to see if you can make them lie? There's
> a maxim in politics that if you make enough 'good' laws then everyone
> becomes a criminal. At that point you can get rid of whoever you like.
> Defacto totalitarianism, with a facade of legitimacy.
>
> Here's another one. Why put it on the medical? Could it be to hide
> responsibility of collecting the information? Is it to use the
> legitimacy of doctors to hide the illegitamcy of the question? But
> then, doesn't it make doctors defacto policemen?
>
> I view the 'agency that will allow' you to fly and their
> 'determinations' as a group of people with personal agendas, one of
> which is to increase their own power and importance. They are not my
> parents, and I do not need them to pamper me and protect me from myself.
> I play the game, because I know they have lots of guns and I've seen
> enough movies to want to avoid the inside of jail cells. But just
> because I go along doesn't mean that it's not all bull****e.

Yes, that's what it is, a bunch if rich white men who ride in black
helicopters who are out to get you.

Dn, U.S. Air Force, retired

StellaStarr

March 4th 05, 04:10 AM

jls wrote:
>
> Good luck, boys, getting by the moral character and fitness committee for
> that flying ticket.
>

There are a lot of things you can do that carry penalties. A felony
conviction removes your right to hold public office, or vote, and in
some states you can't get that voting right back unless you file a
petition, wait, and hope somebody approves it. Of course, get a little
buzzed and miss a corner driving on a dark road, and the penalty's
death. You see people every day in the paper who paid that penalty, and
weren't asked if they approved.

Life may not be fair, but the FAA asks you to be honest. There's a good
chance they'll note it, file it, and give you the medical with no fuss.
I know. It's not their job to play The Punisher. It's not your right
to hide that past, which after all is on legal record.

Go ahead and tell your girlfriend your record's clear. It's your karma.
But don't lie to the FAA. You're asking for the privilege of getting a
pilot's certificate, and they're the folks who grant it, so you go by
their rules. That's the way it is, babe!

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 4th 05, 04:13 AM

Dude wrote:

> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:jiQVd.21124$Sn6.18842@lakeread03...
>
>>Dude wrote:
>>
>>> If it weeds out a
>>>
>>>
>>>>few nut cases then it serves the purpose. Let's face it, it's the only
>>>>game in town.
>>>>
>>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>>
>>>As an extremely honest person who has never used an illegal drug and has
>>>served in the military I would like to disagree.
>>>
>>>Undoubtedly, if we kept former military members from flying, we would
>>>"weed out a few nut cases". If this is your standard for good law, you
>>>need to stop voting.
>>
>>That was a cheap shot. Have a nice day.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> I don't think it was all that cheap. If you want to amend your statement, I
> would be glad to read what you really meant. Thoughts like the one you wrote
> are much too common these days, and its getting more expensive everyday.
>
>
OK, I'll ammend it just for you. Your suggestion that keeping former
military pilots from flying would weed out a few nut cases was a cheap
shot. If as you said you had served in the military you'd know military
pilots go through a much more rigorous program than any PPL ever will.

I ignored the rest of your rant since none of it makes anymore sense
than "If this is your standard for good law, you need to stop voting."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 4th 05, 04:17 AM

Dude wrote:

>>What laws are the FAA breaking by asking such questions? Privacy? You
>>don't have to answer the questions and FAA doesn't have to issue you a
>>ticket. It's all voluntary.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> This whole "privilege" thing has been taken way too far by our government.
> We will see how you feel after they come for your ticket.
>
>
What ticket? I am a 100% disabled vet.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dude

March 4th 05, 04:33 AM

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:ufRVd.21132$Sn6.2010@lakeread03...
> Dude wrote:
>
>> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>> news:jiQVd.21124$Sn6.18842@lakeread03...
>>
>>>Dude wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it weeds out a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>few nut cases then it serves the purpose. Let's face it, it's the only
>>>>>game in town.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As an extremely honest person who has never used an illegal drug and has
>>>>served in the military I would like to disagree.
>>>>
>>>>Undoubtedly, if we kept former military members from flying, we would
>>>>"weed out a few nut cases". If this is your standard for good law, you
>>>>need to stop voting.
>>>
>>>That was a cheap shot. Have a nice day.
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>> I don't think it was all that cheap. If you want to amend your
>> statement, I would be glad to read what you really meant. Thoughts like
>> the one you wrote are much too common these days, and its getting more
>> expensive everyday.
> OK, I'll ammend it just for you. Your suggestion that keeping former
> military pilots from flying would weed out a few nut cases was a cheap
> shot. If as you said you had served in the military you'd know military
> pilots go through a much more rigorous program than any PPL ever will.
>
> I ignored the rest of your rant since none of it makes anymore sense than
> "If this is your standard for good law, you need to stop voting."
>
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan,

First, I did not specify military pilots, I said the whole military. Thus I
included myself. You took it personally, and it was not intended to be so.
Certainly, you met some nuts in the military. I spent more than a few days
worth of work trying to weed some of them out of the military, and would
rather them not be flying with me in the pattern.

Second, if you did stop reading, then you did a great job of blind cut and
paste.

Third, the statement you question for making no sense, makes perfect sense.

Fourth, you accused me of a cheap shot, so I gave you a chance to restate
your orignal comment - Not your accusatory, illogical, or weak defense of
it. It is EXACTLY the kind of reasoning politicians give when they propse
to take away our liberties for a small amount of security. So, I propose
that if you really meant what you said, you could do us a favor and stay
home on election day. And, as if you were one of those politicians, you now
defend your position by crying about the way I am taking your argument down
rather than defending your position or proving I am wrong.

My shot may be alleged to be cheap, but it is still correct and on target.

Dude

March 4th 05, 04:35 AM

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:kjRVd.21133$Sn6.7547@lakeread03...
> Dude wrote:
>
>>>What laws are the FAA breaking by asking such questions? Privacy? You
>>>don't have to answer the questions and FAA doesn't have to issue you a
>>>ticket. It's all voluntary.
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>> This whole "privilege" thing has been taken way too far by our
>> government. We will see how you feel after they come for your ticket.
> What ticket? I am a 100% disabled vet.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

100% ?

What does that mean? You seem to be posting pretty well. You mean they
already took your license?

Frank van der Hulst

March 4th 05, 05:57 AM

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

> When you start
> going to see a shrink or counselor that is one thing that will come up
> when you fill out your initial paperwork. It is important to know when
> evaluating the patient.

Let me see if I read you correctly here: Someone who has a problem and
is getting treatment for it is in some way LESS healthy than someone has
the same problem but is not getting treatment.

Yeah right.

Frank

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 4th 05, 06:18 AM

Frank van der Hulst wrote:

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>
>> When you start going to see a shrink or counselor that is one thing
>> that will come up when you fill out your initial paperwork. It is
>> important to know when evaluating the patient.
>
>
> Let me see if I read you correctly here: Someone who has a problem and
> is getting treatment for it is in some way LESS healthy than someone has
> the same problem but is not getting treatment.
>
> Yeah right.
>
> Frank

Believe it or not the FAA does look at things like that. When I was
first put on Norvasc for hypertension the FAA explained to me that would
disqualify me. My hypertension wasn't bad enough to get grounded yet
treating it would ground me. I think they still do that with
antidepressants.

However that wasn't the point I was making. I was explaining why the FAA
might want information about criminal behaviour.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

John

March 4th 05, 07:39 AM

Frank van der Hulst wrote:

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>
>> When you start
>> going to see a shrink or counselor that is one thing that will come up
>> when you fill out your initial paperwork. It is important to know when
>> evaluating the patient.
>
> Let me see if I read you correctly here: Someone who has a problem and
> is getting treatment for it is in some way LESS healthy than someone has
> the same problem but is not getting treatment.
>
> Yeah right.
>
> Frank
Sure that's what the FAA says anyway!
If you have had a blocked artery (such as I) and have had it 'fixed' by
angioplasty and stent (as I) and come back to run over 3500 miles a year
and compete in 33 running races a year (as I) you are much more dangerous
than some one who has had a massive coranary and just let their medical
expire. That is what the FAA says with SP license. I have to undergo $2000
- $3000 dollars worth of testing (thank heavens for insurance) each year to
maintain my license (medical) and if I apply for an issuance and they don't
like something (ANYTHING) I lose it and can not downgrade to a SP even
though the Coronary sufferer can self certify that he feels he is medically
fit and fly!
John
Just not fair!
PS I just sent my 'package' to the FAA about 2 months ago and they are
requesting a more 'detailed' write up from the cardiologist even though he
plainly says on the origanal paper work that the test were good and no
deteriation was noted. Kinda makes you nervous!

Matt Whiting

March 4th 05, 11:21 AM

Jughugs wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>No, that is pretty well known. It is very hard for drug abusers to
>>quit, whether the drug is nicotine, alcohol or something else.
>>
>>Past users are very much more likely to be future users.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Ok... well let's take your example then.. which is... apples and oranges*.
> Should we NOT allow folks who consume nicotine and alcohol to fly? I'm sure
> that would desimate over half of the ATP population for sure.

If it impairs their flying ability significantly, then yes.

> *An ILLEGAL drug user is more likely to quit and stay that way than one of
> the LEGAL drug consumers.

That may be true, but I've seen not data to suggest that. I've seen a
lot of evidence over the years, personally, that drug addicts have a
VERY hard time quitting permanently.

Matt

jls

March 4th 05, 12:38 PM

"StellaStarr" > wrote in message
news:gdRVd.88876$tl3.31949@attbi_s02...
> jls wrote:
> >
> > Good luck, boys, getting by the moral character and fitness committee
for
> > that flying ticket.
> >
>
> There are a lot of things you can do that carry penalties. A felony
> conviction removes your right to hold public office, or vote,

Be accurate, now. In some states a felony conviction does not deprive one
of the right to vote. Some people may even vote from behind prison walls.
In NC a convicted felon can vote, and felons in other states can vote too.
I would have to do a little research to come up with all of them.

The problem with the new airman medical form is not felonies based on drug
use or sale, or alcohol related convictions. The problem is with asking
about misdemeanors and infractions in one's past which are irrelevant to
flight safety. The sweeping new inquiry occurred after 9-11 and my doc, to
whom I pointed out the bothersome questions, was not even aware they were on
the form. "Hell," he says, "I didn't know they'd put that on there. What
are they trying to do?"

"Make felons of us all," it looks to me.

and in
> some states you can't get that voting right back unless you file a
> petition, wait, and hope somebody approves it. Of course, get a little
> buzzed and miss a corner driving on a dark road, and the penalty's
> death. You see people every day in the paper who paid that penalty, and
> weren't asked if they approved.
>
> Life may not be fair, but the FAA asks you to be honest. There's a good
> chance they'll note it, file it, and give you the medical with no fuss.

Ja. Fuer dem Heimlands Securitaet. Sieg Heil!

If you're talking to me, Ma'am, I don't have a criminal record but as
someone who values the Bill of Rights and the privileges, guarantees, and
immunities against oppressive government assured in our Constitution, it
bothers me to see power grabs like these. As well as bleating sheep who go
along with them.

> I know. It's not their job to play The Punisher. It's not your right
> to hide that past, which after all is on legal record.

You are either being obtuse or haven't done your homework. I explained in
my long reply to Dan that about 8 pilots (whom I polled) had all answered
questions on their airman medical forms falsely. As a matter of fact the
form is designed to induce false answers. Who wants to admit that as a
juvenile he was convicted of joyriding the neighbor's car? In my opinion
these people are all worthy non-felon pilots, but their false answers
subjects them to felony indictments. Read the damn form. It's obvious you
haven't read the intrusive, meddlesome irrational thing which demands to
know if you've even been convicted of jaywalking, or some petty juvenile
offense long ago expunged. If you don't see the harm, the implications, the
dangers in that sweeping officious intrusiveness, then you may be suffering
from Rip Van Winkle syndrome. Or just thick?
>
> Go ahead and tell your girlfriend your record's clear. It's your karma.
> But don't lie to the FAA. You're asking for the privilege of getting a
> pilot's certificate, and they're the folks who grant it, so you go by
> their rules. That's the way it is, babe!

Sounds like a condescending German fishwife advising the neighbor's boy to
comply during early ascendancy of the Third Reich with all the new unheard
of legislation making violators subject to arrest and imprisonment for
fibbing on his application for license to take cabbages to market. All in
the name of safety and security.

jls

March 4th 05, 01:03 PM

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:XuQVd.21127$Sn6.17071@lakeread03...
> AINut wrote:
>
> > Even if it IS the "only game in town," it doesn't give the FAA, a
> > government agency, license to break the law.
> >
> <snip>
>
> >> criminal behaviour don't belong in a medical exam. I say they do for
> >> the simple reason they are evaluating you physically and mentally.
> >> When you start going to see a shrink or counselor that is one thing
> >> that will come up when you fill out your initial paperwork. It is
> >> important to know when evaluating the patient.
> >>
> >> While I don't agree with some of the logic used in FAA medical
> >> determinations I do fully understand that if you want to fly, and the
> >> agency that will allow you to do that has deemed certain questions
> >> must be asked you have to honestly answer the questions. If it weeds
> >> out a few nut cases then it serves the purpose. Let's face it, it's
> >> the only game in town.
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> What laws are the FAA breaking by asking such questions?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and so proclaims within its
four corners. Even privileges like licenses are not to be denied on the
basis of the government's pleasure, its graces, or favors. What conceivable
legitimacy does the government have in sticking its nose into one's
misdemeanor record on an airman medical form specifically designed for
inquiry into his health? What does the physician care if you've pleaded
guilty to speeding and had to go to driver improvement clinic in order to
remove points from your license?

And yes, there are protections of privacy implicit in the Constitution.
See the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments for details. I'm thinking it would
be the first time for you.

Privacy? You
> don't have to answer the questions and FAA doesn't have to issue you a
> ticket. It's all voluntary.

When you say a pilot's license is a privilege, just what do you mean by
that?

You're making a pre-WWII argument for 1930's Vaterland authoritarianism,
wherein privileges were summarily denied, without due process of law, or
licenses revoked with a waving of a wand, without a hearing, without notice
and an opportunity to be heard, and on any basis formerly considered
arbitrary and capricious.

I'll bet it doesn't bother you when people are punished for asserting their
fifth amendment rights to remain silent. What did you do during the
paranoia of the McCarthy era, sit on a subcommittee or go around getting
decent Americans fired?

We don't get our rights from government by some kind of a dole. They get
their power from us, from the consent of the governed and that goddamn
consent *CAN* be withdrawn.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Robert Bonomi

March 4th 05, 01:49 PM

In article >,
Jughugs > wrote:
>
>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>> No, that is pretty well known. It is very hard for drug abusers to
>> quit, whether the drug is nicotine, alcohol or something else.
>>
>> Past users are very much more likely to be future users.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>Ok... well let's take your example then.. which is... apples and oranges*.
>Should we NOT allow folks who consume nicotine and alcohol to fly? I'm sure
>that would desimate over half of the ATP population for sure.
>
>*An ILLEGAL drug user is more likely to quit and stay that way than one of
>the LEGAL drug consumers.

Depends *greatly* on the actual drug involved.

The 'recidivism' rate for convicted heroin users -- *after* having
"successfully" completed( detox treatment -- is well in excess of 85%.

On the other hand, Valium abusers -- once the dependency is broken -- have
only about 1:20 odds of becoming 'hooked' again.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 4th 05, 06:11 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Jughugs wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> No, that is pretty well known. It is very hard for drug abusers to
>>> quit, whether the drug is nicotine, alcohol or something else.
>>>
>>> Past users are very much more likely to be future users.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok... well let's take your example then.. which is... apples and
>> oranges*.
>> Should we NOT allow folks who consume nicotine and alcohol to fly?
>> I'm sure
>> that would desimate over half of the ATP population for sure.
>
>
> If it impairs their flying ability significantly, then yes.
>
>
>> *An ILLEGAL drug user is more likely to quit and stay that way than
>> one of
>> the LEGAL drug consumers.
>
>
> That may be true, but I've seen not data to suggest that. I've seen a
> lot of evidence over the years, personally, that drug addicts have a
> VERY hard time quitting permanently.
>
>
> Matt

Tsk tsk, Matt, anyone who would use the word 'desimate'(sic) that way
can't be wrong :)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Jughugs

March 4th 05, 07:01 PM

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:Xw1Wd.21177$Sn6.14987@lakeread03...
>
> Tsk tsk, Matt, anyone who would use the word 'desimate'(sic) that way
> can't be wrong :)
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Oh not another "internet spelling cop". Spelling was wrong, use was
correct... so sue me.

AINut

March 5th 05, 12:06 AM

I remember reading somewhere that flying is a right, and not a legal
privilege, unlike the way we got screwed with driver's licenses.
However, FAA has ignored the Supremes in their methods of implementation.

David

Dude wrote:
>>What laws are the FAA breaking by asking such questions? Privacy? You
>>don't have to answer the questions and FAA doesn't have to issue you a
>>ticket. It's all voluntary.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> This whole "privilege" thing has been taken way too far by our government.
> We will see how you feel after they come for your ticket.
>
>

Colibri

March 5th 05, 09:33 AM

AINut wrote:

> I remember reading somewhere that flying is a right, and not a legal
> privilege, unlike the way we got screwed with driver's licenses.
> However, FAA has ignored the Supremes in their methods of implementation.

There must be a reason why pilot certificates are called certificates, not
licenses. Certificates testify to ability. Licenses grant permission.

> David
>
> Dude wrote:
>>>What laws are the FAA breaking by asking such questions? Privacy? You
>>>don't have to answer the questions and FAA doesn't have to issue you a
>>>ticket. It's all voluntary.
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> This whole "privilege" thing has been taken way too far by our government.
>> We will see how you feel after they come for your ticket.

Smitty

March 5th 05, 02:56 PM

In article >,
"Jughugs" > wrote:

> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
> news:Xw1Wd.21177$Sn6.14987@lakeread03...
> >
> > Tsk tsk, Matt, anyone who would use the word 'desimate'(sic) that way
> > can't be wrong :)
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> Oh not another "internet spelling cop". Spelling was wrong, use was
> correct... so sue me.

Uh, actually, the usage is incorrect, also. The word decimate literally
means to kill one tenth of the total number. It isn't the ones who are
killed who are "decimated," it is the total population, who as a group
are thus reduced by that percentage.

Jughugs

March 5th 05, 06:15 PM

"Smitty" > wrote in message
...
> Uh, actually, the usage is incorrect, also. The word decimate literally
> means to kill one tenth of the total number. It isn't the ones who are
> killed who are "decimated," it is the total population, who as a group
> are thus reduced by that percentage.

Uh, no wonder other countries laugh at our lack of skill with language. So
growing up all through school, you were only taught to use ONE of the
possible meanings? Just a quick look at dictionary.com shows other uses
and gives an example:

"To reduce markedly in amount: a profligate heir who decimated his trust
fund. "

Rich S.

March 5th 05, 06:24 PM

"Jughugs" > wrote in message
...
> Uh, no wonder other countries laugh at our lack of skill with language. So
> growing up all through school, you were only taught to use ONE of the
> possible meanings? Just a quick look at dictionary.com shows other uses
> and gives an example:
>
> "To reduce markedly in amount: a profligate heir who decimated his trust
> fund. "

Repeated errors may become common usage - but they're still errors.

Rich S.

Smitty

March 5th 05, 07:50 PM

In article >,
"Jughugs" > wrote:

> "Smitty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Uh, actually, the usage is incorrect, also. The word decimate literally
> > means to kill one tenth of the total number. It isn't the ones who are
> > killed who are "decimated," it is the total population, who as a group
> > are thus reduced by that percentage.
>
>
> Uh, no wonder other countries laugh at our lack of skill with language. So
> growing up all through school, you were only taught to use ONE of the
> possible meanings? Just a quick look at dictionary.com shows other uses
> and gives an example:
>
> "To reduce markedly in amount: a profligate heir who decimated his trust
> fund. "

Yes, other countries are laughing at us for a variety of good reasons.
Far from supporting your contention, however, this example only further
illustrates the incorrect usage. It is true that the meaning of the word
has been expanded. But, note that the trust fund *as a whole* has been
decimated. The example does not say, ..."the heir decimated over half of
his trust fund." That would have been decidedly incorrect.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 6th 05, 12:44 AM

Smitty wrote:
> In article >,
> "Jughugs" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
>>news:Xw1Wd.21177$Sn6.14987@lakeread03...
>>
>>>Tsk tsk, Matt, anyone who would use the word 'desimate'(sic) that way
>>>can't be wrong :)
>>>
>>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>Oh not another "internet spelling cop". Spelling was wrong, use was
>>correct... so sue me.
>
>
> Uh, actually, the usage is incorrect, also. The word decimate literally
> means to kill one tenth of the total number. It isn't the ones who are
> killed who are "decimated," it is the total population, who as a group
> are thus reduced by that percentage.

The term comes from a Roman method for discouraging cowardice. If an
attack didn't go well enough the commander could order 1 man of 10 to be
killed by his fellow soldiers. The killing was usually neither pleasant
nor swift. The French used a similar system as late as WW1.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mike Beede

March 6th 05, 01:38 AM

In article >,
"Rich S." > wrote:

> "Jughugs" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Uh, no wonder other countries laugh at our lack of skill with language. So
> > growing up all through school, you were only taught to use ONE of the
> > possible meanings? Just a quick look at dictionary.com shows other uses
> > and gives an example:
> >
> > "To reduce markedly in amount: a profligate heir who decimated his trust
> > fund. "
>
> Repeated errors may become common usage - but they're still errors.

I guess if I were an ancient Roman I might agree with you, but as
a speaker of English, I have to say you're wrong. It's a common
meaning and as correct as any other.

Unless you regularly speak proto-Indo European, your converstation is
probably entirely words that originally had other meanings.

Mike Beede

Dude

March 6th 05, 02:32 AM

>
> Yes, other countries are laughing at us for a variety of good reasons.

Mostly because they are jealous. In spite of many problems, we have the best
country in the world bar none. We are number one!

And, we can laugh at ourselves. Further proving our supremacy.

We are Number One!

And, we gladly share the "secrets" of our success with others hoping they
can do as well or better.

WE ARE NUMBER ONE!!!!

Please refer any disagreements to the head of state of any place you think
is better, Good Luck.

Theorem

March 6th 05, 02:13 PM

> What conceivable legitimacy does the government have in sticking
> its nose into one's misdemeanor record on an airman medical form
> specifically designed for inquiry into his health?

The government has an interest in this for at least several reasons,
not the least of which is the simple expediency of seeing if the
applicant is being truthful on the application. This is important to
determine, if possible, and the method used is reasonable, in my view.
Ask a straightup question, the answer to which is public information
anyway, and see if the applicant is candid in replying.

Besides, "health" includes more than just physical health. Mental and
emotional health are equally important and also come under the heading
"medical". Someone with a string of non-traffic misdemeanors may not
be a suitable candidate for an airman certificate, depending on the
nature of the offenses. If that person is willing to lie about them on
an official application, to conduct a cover-up, then that person would
be likely, in my view anyway, to lie about other things, perhaps even
falsify other records such as log book entries, or to claim some
certification he or she does not possess. Why take the chance? Why
fail to check the barn door when it is easy to do so?

> What does the physician care if you've pleaded guilty to speeding
> and had to go to driver improvement clinic in order to remove
> points from your license?

The physician does not care. That's not his or her job. But the public
at large is legitimately very interested in every airman applicant's
truthfulness regarding his or her legal status, criminal history, if
any, and medical condition, and the FAA's job is to make flying safe
for everyone, in the air and on the ground.

Lots and lots of people have been convicted of misdemeanors. Many have
done time. In my case, I paid a fine. And yes, when one has paid one's
fine and/or served one's time, one should no longer be dogged by the
charge. In and of itself, this should be no bar to obtaining an airman
certificate. Indeed, it is not. Even most felonies are probably not a
bar to aviation, depending on the harm or danger caused to others,
i.e., the lack of regard for the safty of others. But lying about it
certainly should be a bar to certification. What would you have, a
certified liar in command? Great confidence builder!

Another reason to support full disclosure on the application, as well
as the proscription against lying and the attendant penalties for
being untruthful, is that there is nowhere else to draw a clear line.
Some lies are worse than others. Some omitted information is more
critical than other omitted information. Yes, no doubt, but where can
you draw the line? Without a total ban on false statements on
applications, and suitably stiff penalties for making them, the
situation could not be managed efficiently.

Thanks for listening, even if you disagree.

Ralph

Theorem

March 6th 05, 02:19 PM

> The problem I have with it are several, but in this particular
> case, can we not quote double jeopardy. The judge sentences you to
> prison for 10 years. Once you've served your time, why do you then
> get hit with arbitrary questions that further restrict your rights.

How, exactly, does a question about your past, which is public
information anyway, restrict your rights? Where, exactly, is the
double jeopardy?

jls

March 6th 05, 04:10 PM

"Theorem" <"theorem AT axiometric DOT org"> wrote in message
...
> > What conceivable legitimacy does the government have in sticking
> > its nose into one's misdemeanor record on an airman medical form
> > specifically designed for inquiry into his health?
[...]
> Lots and lots of people have been convicted of misdemeanors. Many have
> done time. In my case, I paid a fine. And yes, when one has paid one's
> fine and/or served one's time, one should no longer be dogged by the
> charge. In and of itself, this should be no bar to obtaining an airman
> certificate. Indeed, it is not.

Oh, shades of McCarthyism. How would YOU know? How would anyone know?
The form you're filling out doesn't say a goddamn thing about that.

Even most felonies are probably not a
> bar to aviation, depending on the harm or danger caused to others,

How would YOU know? How would anyone know?

> i.e., the lack of regard for the safty of others. But lying about it
> certainly should be a bar to certification. What would you have, a
> certified liar in command? Great confidence builder!

Gross oversimplification. Do you know how many affluent kids who have been
convicted of felonies or serious misdemeanors have had their records
expunged?
>
And how many of these can fill out that airman medical form, lie on it, and
escape detection and prosecution?

You may not know it but once a crime has been expunged, the criminal no
longer has to admit he has committed it.

So what do you do, admit or deny? The expunction laws say you can deny,
but you damn sure better not deny an expunged crime on an application to be
a member of the bar.

This is a can of worms. You wouldn't be one of those totalitarians in the
public sector who opened it, would you?

No problem with drunks and drugsters. They shouldn't fly, not in GA or
carrying passengers for hire. They shouldn't fly ultralights or SA
aircraft, just my opinion. But making a guy run to his lawyer for advice,
and subjecting him to risk of a prison sentence, loss of citizenship, and a
felony record, when he's asked if he had to go to driver improvement clinic
when he was 16 in order to qualify for a third-class medical? That's
something out of _1984_ and follows and is because of 9-11. And 9-11 was
caused by the Bush Administration and the FBI sitting on their asses when
red flags were up everywhere that a band of crazed saudi muslims were about
to turn airliners into WMD's. So rank and file Americans are being punished
for it, with such vexatious foolishness as this.

Doctrine of substitutive atonement, or maybe a curse from one of those
commandments the theocrats want to post on every town square.

UltraJohn

March 6th 05, 04:46 PM

jls wrote:
> when he was 16 in order to qualify for a third-class medical? That's
> something out of _1984_ and follows and is because of 9-11. And 9-11 was
> caused by the Bush Administration and the FBI sitting on their asses when
> red flags were up everywhere that a band of crazed saudi muslims were
> about
> to turn airliners into WMD's. So rank and file Americans are being
> punished for it, with such vexatious foolishness as this.
>
> Doctrine of substitutive atonement, or maybe a curse from one of those
> commandments the theocrats want to post on every town square.

The guy lied about a very serious criminal offense and YOU just CAN'T let it
go.
NOw you bring up your political agenda to throw into the mix. Everything is
Bush's fault! The perpetrator is totally innocent.
jls please get a life! Go out and go flying maybe that will cool you off a
bit. I think this thread has been beaten to death!
John

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 6th 05, 06:01 PM

Theorem wrote:
>> The problem I have with it are several, but in this particular
>> case, can we not quote double jeopardy. The judge sentences you to
>> prison for 10 years. Once you've served your time, why do you then
>> get hit with arbitrary questions that further restrict your rights.
>
>
> How, exactly, does a question about your past, which is public
> information anyway, restrict your rights? Where, exactly, is the double
> jeopardy?

There isn't a "double jeopardy." If the applicant had told the truth in
the first place there would have been no jeopardy. Since he lied it was
an entirely new charge totally unrelated to the first. It doesn't make a
difference what he lied about the fact remains he did.

I have no sympathy for the applicant.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 6th 05, 06:09 PM

UltraJohn wrote:

> jls wrote:
>
>>when he was 16 in order to qualify for a third-class medical? That's
>>something out of _1984_ and follows and is because of 9-11. And 9-11 was
>>caused by the Bush Administration and the FBI sitting on their asses when
>>red flags were up everywhere that a band of crazed saudi muslims were
>>about
>>to turn airliners into WMD's. So rank and file Americans are being
>>punished for it, with such vexatious foolishness as this.
>>
>>Doctrine of substitutive atonement, or maybe a curse from one of those
>>commandments the theocrats want to post on every town square.
>
>
>
> The guy lied about a very serious criminal offense and YOU just CAN'T let it
> go.
> NOw you bring up your political agenda to throw into the mix. Everything is
> Bush's fault! The perpetrator is totally innocent.
> jls please get a life! Go out and go flying maybe that will cool you off a
> bit. I think this thread has been beaten to death!
> John
>
If I recall correctly I was asked if I had ever been arrested back in
the 1970s. I know I did in the 1980s.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

jls

March 6th 05, 06:26 PM

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> jls wrote:
> > when he was 16 in order to qualify for a third-class medical? That's
> > something out of _1984_ and follows and is because of 9-11. And 9-11
was
> > caused by the Bush Administration and the FBI sitting on their asses
when
> > red flags were up everywhere that a band of crazed saudi muslims were
> > about
> > to turn airliners into WMD's. So rank and file Americans are being
> > punished for it, with such vexatious foolishness as this.
> >
> > Doctrine of substitutive atonement, or maybe a curse from one of those
> > commandments the theocrats want to post on every town square.
>
>
> The guy lied about a very serious criminal offense and YOU just CAN'T let
it
> go.

Poor reading comprehension. The punishment meted out to the offender in NC
for lying on his airman medical form is fair and just; he got what he
deserved and was stupid besides because unlike many criminal offenders, he
had a big dossier in the National Crime Information Center database. The
post-9-11 changes on the form to ask intrusive, irrational questions on
petty crimes and infractions I do quarrel with, since they go beyond
legitimate inquiry and are vague, overbroad, discriminatory in fact and law,
arbitrary and capricious, and otherwise violate due process of law and the
equal protections of the laws under the 14th Amendment, just the kind of
bull**** over-meddlesome over-regulating big brother loves to do nowadays.

> NOw you bring up your political agenda to throw into the mix.

Hell, yes, and the last time you peed yourself over something I said you
demanded someone call Ok City and cancel my ticket, you wacky old
goosestepper. Even a mortal enemy of mine denounced you for it.

Everything is
> Bush's fault!

Not quite everything, but he had daily briefings shortly before 9-11with FBI
and CIA warning that there was credible intelligence foreign islamic
militants in the USA (and god knows we've let enough of them into the
country to roam and plot at will) were plotting to hijack airliners and fly
them into skyscrapers.

>The perpetrator is totally innocent.

Uh, no, the perpetrators are all in paradise enjoying their 72 virgins and
28 little boys, while Americans are being tormented with the Patriot Act,
idiots like John Ashcroft who's scared ****less to let a tit on a statue
stand uncovered, and idiotic federal oppression like the new airman medical
application.

If I stand idly by with actual or constructive knowledge (which the Bush
Administration had) that thousands of Americans are about to be slaughtered
by foreign zealots with evil holy books like the koran and the hadith and
enough pilot instruction to steer a 737 into the World Trade Center, that
makes me culpable when they carry it out.

> jls please get a life! Go out and go flying maybe that will cool you off a
> bit. I think this thread has been beaten to death!
> John
>

Translation: "Shut up. I don't like what you're saying so I'm declaring
the thread finished."

jls

March 6th 05, 06:30 PM

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote in message
news:ZHHWd.24389$Sn6.5909@lakeread03...
> UltraJohn wrote:
>
> > jls wrote:
> >
> >>when he was 16 in order to qualify for a third-class medical? That's
> >>something out of _1984_ and follows and is because of 9-11. And 9-11
was
> >>caused by the Bush Administration and the FBI sitting on their asses
when
> >>red flags were up everywhere that a band of crazed saudi muslims were
> >>about
> >>to turn airliners into WMD's. So rank and file Americans are being
> >>punished for it, with such vexatious foolishness as this.
> >>
> >>Doctrine of substitutive atonement, or maybe a curse from one of those
> >>commandments the theocrats want to post on every town square.
> >
> >
> >
> > The guy lied about a very serious criminal offense and YOU just CAN'T
let it
> > go.
> > NOw you bring up your political agenda to throw into the mix. Everything
is
> > Bush's fault! The perpetrator is totally innocent.
> > jls please get a life! Go out and go flying maybe that will cool you off
a
> > bit. I think this thread has been beaten to death!
> > John
> >
> If I recall correctly I was asked if I had ever been arrested back in
> the 1970s. I know I did in the 1980s.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On an airman medical application, third class? For alcohol or drug-related
offenses. If for anything else, I'd have to see it to believe it.

As I've said before the government has a legitimate interest in preventing
alchoholics, drunks, drugsters, and drug dealers from operating aircraft or
heavy machinery.

Ernest Christley

March 8th 05, 01:14 AM

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
> Theorem wrote:
>
>>> The problem I have with it are several, but in this particular
>>> case, can we not quote double jeopardy. The judge sentences you to
>>> prison for 10 years. Once you've served your time, why do you then
>>> get hit with arbitrary questions that further restrict your rights.
>>
>>
>>
>> How, exactly, does a question about your past, which is public
>> information anyway, restrict your rights? Where, exactly, is the
>> double jeopardy?
>
>
> There isn't a "double jeopardy." If the applicant had told the truth in
> the first place there would have been no jeopardy. Since he lied it was
> an entirely new charge totally unrelated to the first. It doesn't make a
> difference what he lied about the fact remains he did.
>
> I have no sympathy for the applicant.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"arbitrary questions that further restrict your rights"

If there is no jeopardy, what is the point of the question? Are you
defending some sadist bureaucrat who gets off on continually embarassing
people who have paid their dues for past mistakes?

"Oh, we're not going to do anything to the guy. We just want to see if
we can make him sweat. He-he."

Either we have a penal system that punishes people according to law and
then grants redemption, or we have one which allows petty bureaucrats to
arbitrarily dump on whoever they please.

Is the judge/jury responsible for sentencing or is it the FAA? And yes,
using the power of the government to restrict someones behavior is most
definitely punishment. If there are crimes that will restrict your
future ability to obtain a certificate, then let Congress write it into
law and be done with it. The prospective student pilot will then apply
to the FAA for their annointing, not to a doctor and not to a CFI.

As for politics, I am very much a Bush supporter. I do not see this as
a Dem/Rep battle. I see this as a bureaucrat/we the people battle.

Rich S.

March 8th 05, 01:25 AM

"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> As for politics, I am very much a Bush supporter. I do not see this as a
> Dem/Rep battle. I see this as a bureaucrat/we the people battle.

Amen.

Rich "resigned burrocrap" S.

UltraJohn

March 8th 05, 02:11 AM

Rich S. wrote:

> "Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> As for politics, I am very much a Bush supporter. I do not see this as a
>> Dem/Rep battle. I see this as a bureaucrat/we the people battle.
>
That was my main complaint of jls's post. Turning it into a political bash.
John
By the way his response something to the effect I 'turned his name in' is so
bogus, I do not take anything I read or write here beyond here. I never
defamed his name to anyone.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 8th 05, 03:51 AM

Ernest Christley wrote:

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>
>> Theorem wrote:
>>
>>>> The problem I have with it are several, but in this particular
>>>> case, can we not quote double jeopardy. The judge sentences you to
>>>> prison for 10 years. Once you've served your time, why do you then
>>>> get hit with arbitrary questions that further restrict your rights.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How, exactly, does a question about your past, which is public
>>> information anyway, restrict your rights? Where, exactly, is the
>>> double jeopardy?
>>
>>
>>
>> There isn't a "double jeopardy." If the applicant had told the truth
>> in the first place there would have been no jeopardy. Since he lied it
>> was an entirely new charge totally unrelated to the first. It doesn't
>> make a difference what he lied about the fact remains he did.
>>
>> I have no sympathy for the applicant.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> "arbitrary questions that further restrict your rights"
>
> If there is no jeopardy, what is the point of the question? Are you
> defending some sadist bureaucrat who gets off on continually embarassing
> people who have paid their dues for past mistakes?
>
> "Oh, we're not going to do anything to the guy. We just want to see if
> we can make him sweat. He-he."
>
> Either we have a penal system that punishes people according to law and
> then grants redemption, or we have one which allows petty bureaucrats to
> arbitrarily dump on whoever they please.
>
> Is the judge/jury responsible for sentencing or is it the FAA? And yes,
> using the power of the government to restrict someones behavior is most
> definitely punishment. If there are crimes that will restrict your
> future ability to obtain a certificate, then let Congress write it into
> law and be done with it. The prospective student pilot will then apply
> to the FAA for their annointing, not to a doctor and not to a CFI.
>
> As for politics, I am very much a Bush supporter. I do not see this as
> a Dem/Rep battle. I see this as a bureaucrat/we the people battle.

Let me try this again. The question was valid as far as the psych eval
part was concerned. If you don't believe me make an appointment with a
shrink, read the forms you have to fill out then ask him why. I was even
asked that question by a family counselor. It's a valid question when
investigating behavioural trends. Simply asking if ine has been arrested
doesn't constitute jeopardy. For crying out loud it's legal in every
state for job applications and professional licenses including roofers.
That doesn't mean all employers will ask, just that they can. If you
can't inderstand this I guess I don't have the words to explain better.

It's not politics, it's just common sense.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

jls

March 8th 05, 11:12 AM

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Rich S. wrote:
>
> > "Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >>
> >> As for politics, I am very much a Bush supporter. I do not see this as
a
> >> Dem/Rep battle. I see this as a bureaucrat/we the people battle.
> >
> That was my main complaint of jls's post. Turning it into a political
bash.
> John
> By the way his response something to the effect I 'turned his name in' is
so
> bogus, I do not take anything I read or write here beyond here. I never
> defamed his name to anyone.
>

I think you're correct and apologize. The culprit was a lilliputian who
called himself Big John.
Just weeks before 9-11 Bush was laid back at his ranch in Crawford, TX when
he received a daily briefing warning that Osama Bin Ladin had a cell of
terrorists in this country planning to fly airliners into skyscrapers.
There's no political bashing in that, and I readily denounced Reno and
Clinton for assault in Waco, Texas on innocent children.

Read up on the Laura Kriho case if you'd be interested to know just what the
government can do to you for completely innocent answers to their prying
questions, even for no answer at all. She thought a previous conviction of
hers had been expunged (erased from the record), so she didn't speak up
about it. That got her into a lot of legal trouble, although in effect she
was completely innocent.

You and Dannie, Stella, and Theorem (whoever he is) are trying to justify
something hateful to the Bill of Rights. Who doesn't denounce the illegal
FAA practice is either naive or has DNA which warms to totalitarianism.

Mark Hickey

March 8th 05, 01:38 PM

" jls" > wrote:

>I think you're correct and apologize. The culprit was a lilliputian who
>called himself Big John.
>Just weeks before 9-11 Bush was laid back at his ranch in Crawford, TX when
>he received a daily briefing warning that Osama Bin Ladin had a cell of
>terrorists in this country planning to fly airliners into skyscrapers.

You wanna maybe come up with a credible (i.e. not
gwbisabigpoopoohead.com) citation for that particular bit of
mythology? The rest of us aren't quite as gullible as you, it seems.

Mark "that's how Dan Rather lost his credibility too" Hickey

jls

March 8th 05, 11:59 PM

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> " jls" > wrote:
>
> >I think you're correct and apologize. The culprit was a lilliputian who
> >called himself Big John.
> >Just weeks before 9-11 Bush was laid back at his ranch in Crawford, TX
when
> >he received a daily briefing warning that Osama Bin Ladin had a cell of
> >terrorists in this country planning to fly airliners into skyscrapers.
>
> You wanna maybe come up with a credible (i.e. not
> gwbisabigpoopoohead.com) citation for that particular bit of
> mythology? The rest of us aren't quite as gullible as you, it seems.
>
> Mark "that's how Dan Rather lost his credibility too" Hickey

Rather didn't lose ALL his credibility. He was a top-notch journalist when
you were playing with poopoo and kicking slats out of your cradle.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/whitehouse/pdb_6aug01.htm

2 FBI reports and a CIA report, all taken together, put Bush on notice. He
failed to connect the dots:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A30219-2002May16&notFound=true

I heard the report I remember on NPR or nightly news.

UltraJohn

March 9th 05, 01:48 AM

jls wrote:

>
> 2 FBI reports and a CIA report, all taken together, put Bush on notice. He
> failed to connect the dots:
>
> Yeah it's called CYA!

<grin>
John "not big, just Ultra" P

Mark Hickey

March 9th 05, 02:13 AM

" jls" > wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
>> " jls" > wrote:
>>
>> >I think you're correct and apologize. The culprit was a lilliputian who
>> >called himself Big John.
>> >Just weeks before 9-11 Bush was laid back at his ranch in Crawford, TX
>when
>> >he received a daily briefing warning that Osama Bin Ladin had a cell of
>> >terrorists in this country planning to fly airliners into skyscrapers.
>>
>> You wanna maybe come up with a credible (i.e. not
>> gwbisabigpoopoohead.com) citation for that particular bit of
>> mythology? The rest of us aren't quite as gullible as you, it seems.
>>
>> Mark "that's how Dan Rather lost his credibility too" Hickey
>
>Rather didn't lose ALL his credibility. He was a top-notch journalist when
>you were playing with poopoo and kicking slats out of your cradle.

Hardly, but his good days are (sadly) long behind him.

>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

That's supposed to be legitimate??? C'mon...

>http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/whitehouse/pdb_6aug01.htm

OK, so I guess I missed the part where Al Qaeda operatives were
planning to fly airliners into skyscrapers". You wanna maybe point it
out to us (and while you're at it, explain why that wouldn't have
sorta occurred to the intel pukes who put the report together, if it
was so obvious).

>2 FBI reports and a CIA report, all taken together, put Bush on notice. He
>failed to connect the dots:
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A30219-2002May16&notFound=true

To sum it up:

"But Rice said Bush was not told, and U.S. intelligence
analysts never envisioned, that terrorists would use jetliners
in the type of suicide attacks carried out in New York and
Washington on Sept. 11. Rice and other administration
officials said that the threat was not specific enough to
warrant a public warning, but that the Federal Aviation
Administration urged the airlines to be cautious. "

You might also notice in that article you posted (that includes the
entire text of the briefing you claim as a "smoking gun") that is says
the FBI is working 70 (SEVENTY) related cases.

Nowhere has anyone with any credibility EVER claimed that Bush was
warned that Al Qaeda was going to use planes as missiles.

OTOH, I think it IS kind of funny that most left-wingers think GWB is
a dunce, but that he's smart enough to be able to do what the sum
total of the US intelligence organization couldn't do, while skimming
over many, many hundreds of pages of high-level reports while keeping
up on the gazillion or so other things he has to deal with daily.

That would be like me accusing you of missing something that was
buried at the bottom of page 54 of a Tuesday issue of the New York
Times (of course, it would have to be a reference to an article that
didn't actually say anything about the subject, to make the comparison
more accurate). That would be silly, of course... but no sillier than
those who want to blame Bush for the failure to connect the dots.

>I heard the report I remember on NPR or nightly news.

Another bastion of journalistic integrity - heh heh heh.

Mark "still didn't come up with a smoking gun there" Hickey

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 9th 05, 03:12 AM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> " jls" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>" jls" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think you're correct and apologize. The culprit was a lilliputian who
>>>>called himself Big John.
>>>>Just weeks before 9-11 Bush was laid back at his ranch in Crawford, TX
>>
>>when
>>
>>>>he received a daily briefing warning that Osama Bin Ladin had a cell of
>>>>terrorists in this country planning to fly airliners into skyscrapers.
>>>
>>>You wanna maybe come up with a credible (i.e. not
>>>gwbisabigpoopoohead.com) citation for that particular bit of
>>>mythology? The rest of us aren't quite as gullible as you, it seems.
>>>
>>>Mark "that's how Dan Rather lost his credibility too" Hickey
>>
>>Rather didn't lose ALL his credibility. He was a top-notch journalist when
>>you were playing with poopoo and kicking slats out of your cradle.
>
>
> Hardly, but his good days are (sadly) long behind him.
>
>
>>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
>
>
> That's supposed to be legitimate??? C'mon...
>
>
>>http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/whitehouse/pdb_6aug01.htm
>
>
> OK, so I guess I missed the part where Al Qaeda operatives were
> planning to fly airliners into skyscrapers". You wanna maybe point it
> out to us (and while you're at it, explain why that wouldn't have
> sorta occurred to the intel pukes who put the report together, if it
> was so obvious).
>
>
>>2 FBI reports and a CIA report, all taken together, put Bush on notice. He
>>failed to connect the dots:
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A30219-2002May16&notFound=true
>
>
> To sum it up:
>
> "But Rice said Bush was not told, and U.S. intelligence
> analysts never envisioned, that terrorists would use jetliners
> in the type of suicide attacks carried out in New York and
> Washington on Sept. 11. Rice and other administration
> officials said that the threat was not specific enough to
> warrant a public warning, but that the Federal Aviation
> Administration urged the airlines to be cautious. "
>
> You might also notice in that article you posted (that includes the
> entire text of the briefing you claim as a "smoking gun") that is says
> the FBI is working 70 (SEVENTY) related cases.
>
> Nowhere has anyone with any credibility EVER claimed that Bush was
> warned that Al Qaeda was going to use planes as missiles.
>
> OTOH, I think it IS kind of funny that most left-wingers think GWB is
> a dunce, but that he's smart enough to be able to do what the sum
> total of the US intelligence organization couldn't do, while skimming
> over many, many hundreds of pages of high-level reports while keeping
> up on the gazillion or so other things he has to deal with daily.
>
> That would be like me accusing you of missing something that was
> buried at the bottom of page 54 of a Tuesday issue of the New York
> Times (of course, it would have to be a reference to an article that
> didn't actually say anything about the subject, to make the comparison
> more accurate). That would be silly, of course... but no sillier than
> those who want to blame Bush for the failure to connect the dots.
>
>
>>I heard the report I remember on NPR or nightly news.
>
>
> Another bastion of journalistic integrity - heh heh heh.
>
> Mark "still didn't come up with a smoking gun there" Hickey
>
Forget it, Mark, jls seems to have a fetish for conspiracies.

Dan, .S. Air Force, retired

Ernest Christley

March 9th 05, 03:45 AM

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

> Let me try this again. The question was valid as far as the psych eval
> part was concerned. If you don't believe me make an appointment with a
> shrink, read the forms you have to fill out then ask him why. I was even
> asked that question by a family counselor. It's a valid question when
> investigating behavioural trends. Simply asking if ine has been arrested
> doesn't constitute jeopardy. For crying out loud it's legal in every
> state for job applications and professional licenses including roofers.
> That doesn't mean all employers will ask, just that they can. If you
> can't inderstand this I guess I don't have the words to explain better.
>
> It's not politics, it's just common sense.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It is now officially time for this thread to end.

Remember that Hitler didn't rise to power through successive elected
offices. He rose through the back doors of bureaucratic offices.

Thank you to all who have participated.

8*)

Mark Hickey

March 9th 05, 04:09 AM

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> OTOH, I think it IS kind of funny that most left-wingers think GWB is
>> a dunce, but that he's smart enough to be able to do what the sum
>> total of the US intelligence organization couldn't do, while skimming
>> over many, many hundreds of pages of high-level reports while keeping
>> up on the gazillion or so other things he has to deal with daily.
>>
>> That would be like me accusing you of missing something that was
>> buried at the bottom of page 54 of a Tuesday issue of the New York
>> Times (of course, it would have to be a reference to an article that
>> didn't actually say anything about the subject, to make the comparison
>> more accurate). That would be silly, of course... but no sillier than
>> those who want to blame Bush for the failure to connect the dots.
>>
>>>I heard the report I remember on NPR or nightly news.
>>
>> Another bastion of journalistic integrity - heh heh heh.
>>
>> Mark "still didn't come up with a smoking gun there" Hickey
>>
>Forget it, Mark, jls seems to have a fetish for conspiracies.
>
>Dan, .S. Air Force, retired

I'm just trying to get him to realize that all the Democrat
bomb-throwers filed this one away the day after the election. No one
with even a semblance of common sense would expect the POTUS to be the
one who can pull a "Columbo" out of a proverbial hat, when the sum
total of our combined intelligence agencies couldn't.

Fortunately, Bush DID help fix the division between the agencies,
which is consistent with his job description (while sleuthing isn't).

Mark Hickey

Montblack

March 9th 05, 11:11 PM

("Ernest Christley" wrote)
> Remember that Hitler didn't rise to power through successive elected
> offices. He rose through the back doors of bureaucratic offices.

Not disagreeing, but "H" also rose to power by murdering judges, newspaper
editors, opponents, and all manner of bureaucrats - and this was prior to
1930.

Montblack

jls

March 11th 05, 02:24 AM

"Mark Hickey" -- same ol same ol

And then Dannie
> >Forget it, Mark, jls seems to have a fetish for conspiracies.

JLS happens to like the truth, which is: Bush was asleep at the wheel.

Still asleep too. And trying to convince sheepy Americans that taking
Saddam is the same as taking Osama Bin Ladin, who's laughing up his sleeve
at the incompetent Bushes.
> >
> >Dan, .S. Air Farce, retired
>

jls

March 11th 05, 02:39 AM

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> >> OTOH, I think it IS kind of funny that most left-wingers think GWB is
> >> a dunce, but that he's smart enough to be able to do what the sum
> >> total of the US intelligence organization couldn't do, while skimming
> >> over many, many hundreds of pages of high-level reports while keeping
> >> up on the gazillion or so other things he has to deal with daily.
> >>
> >> That would be like me accusing you of missing something that was
> >> buried at the bottom of page 54 of a Tuesday issue of the New York
> >> Times (of course, it would have to be a reference to an article that
> >> didn't actually say anything about the subject, to make the comparison
> >> more accurate). That would be silly, of course... but no sillier than
> >> those who want to blame Bush for the failure to connect the dots.
> >>
> >>>I heard the report I remember on NPR or nightly news.
> >>
> >> Another bastion of journalistic integrity - heh heh heh.
> >>
> >> Mark "still didn't come up with a smoking gun there" Hickey
> >>
> >Forget it, Mark, jls seems to have a fetish for conspiracies.
> >
> >Dan, .S. Air Force, retired
>
> I'm just trying to get him to realize that all the Democrat
> bomb-throwers filed this one away the day after the election. No one
> with even a semblance of common sense would expect the POTUS to be the
> one who can pull a "Columbo" out of a proverbial hat, when the sum
> total of our combined intelligence agencies couldn't.

How goofy. They did have ample intelligence and neither Bush nor anybody
else would listen to them. Now that Americans have read enough of the
Koran and Hadith and understand how moozle-um martyrdom got those zealots a
special place on a higher plain in their paradise, plenty of wine and little
boys and girls to please their lust through eternity, while Bush and idiots
Ashcroft and Cheney called their religion a religion of peace (hawhawhaw!),
Americans are beginning to see the light. Most of them would vote for Bush
again though, because they're addle-brained and stuck on their SUV's and
what little modicum of prosperity they are squandering.
>
> Fortunately, Bush DID help fix the division between the agencies,
> which is consistent with his job description (while sleuthing isn't).

Yeah, that's right. The Preznit shouldn't be expected to know the contents
of his daily briefings. That would take some detective work. And Laura was
probably too busy at the ranch arranging the sports schedule on the teevy to
be all that concerned about it too.
>

It's awful hard when you're at Crawford taking it easy to be bothered with
too much detail, same as the cursory 30-minute smoker blahblah the
Texecution gov and Alberto gave to the condemned before they were executed.

LCT Paintball

March 11th 05, 02:57 AM

> It is now officially time for this thread to end.
>
> Remember that Hitler didn't rise to power through successive elected
> offices. He rose through the back doors of bureaucratic offices.
>
> Thank you to all who have participated.

Goodwin's Law doesn't count if you do it on purpose. ;)

I just love armchair quarterbacks telling me how easy a job is that they've
never tried.

Mark Hickey

March 11th 05, 05:08 AM

" jls" > wrote:

>Yeah, that's right. The Preznit shouldn't be expected to know the contents
>of his daily briefings. That would take some detective work. And Laura was
>probably too busy at the ranch arranging the sports schedule on the teevy to
>be all that concerned about it too.

So just to make sure I know where you're coming from... you think it's
the job of the nation's intelligence agencies to funnel all the data
to the president, who is then responsible for interpreting it.

Ummmmmm....

Mark "wow" Hickey

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

March 11th 05, 05:56 AM

Mark Hickey wrote:

> " jls" > wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah, that's right. The Preznit shouldn't be expected to know the contents
>>of his daily briefings. That would take some detective work. And Laura was
>>probably too busy at the ranch arranging the sports schedule on the teevy to
>>be all that concerned about it too.
>
>
> So just to make sure I know where you're coming from... you think it's
> the job of the nation's intelligence agencies to funnel all the data
> to the president, who is then responsible for interpreting it.
>
> Ummmmmm....
>
> Mark "wow" Hickey

Mark, jls is obviously delusional and paranoid. Shall we nominate him
for president? The Democrats need a nominee they can all get behind.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Montblack

March 11th 05, 06:06 AM

("Mark Hickey" wrote)
> So just to make sure I know where you're coming from... you think it's
> the job of the nation's intelligence agencies to funnel all the data
> to the president, who is then responsible for interpreting it.

Wow. This is like a parallel universe from GW's party days - when he had a
beard.

Some buddies, a keg of something, and the same funnel. Chugalug, chugalug.

Montblack

jls

March 12th 05, 01:29 PM

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> " jls" > wrote:
>
> >Yeah, that's right. The Preznit shouldn't be expected to know the
contents
> >of his daily briefings. That would take some detective work. And Laura
was
> >probably too busy at the ranch arranging the sports schedule on the teevy
to
> >be all that concerned about it too.
>
> So just to make sure I know where you're coming from... you think it's
> the job of the nation's intelligence agencies to funnel all the data
> to the president, who is then responsible for interpreting it.
>
> Ummmmmm....
>
> Mark "wow" Hickey

The intelligence services fed Bush all he needed in the English language:
two times in August before the "big bombs" on 9-11 he received warnings of
specific credible threats.

But I think you're right. He did need someone to translate English for
him, he's so poor at it. The buck stopped with Harry Truman. It doesn't
stop with Bush.

Mark Hickey

March 12th 05, 04:35 PM

" jls" > wrote:

>The intelligence services fed Bush all he needed in the English language:
>two times in August before the "big bombs" on 9-11 he received warnings of
>specific credible threats.

You haven't posted squat in terms of evidence of any "specific
credible threats"... but don't let that disturb your attempt to
rewrite history.

Of course, you can continue to ignore the dozens of FBI investigations
that were underway due to the NON-specific threats that WERE contained
in the inelligence briefs.

And you can restore some of your credibility by simply posting a
credible citation of a "specific credible threat" that you seem to
think existed.

That won't happen, of course, but it's important to give you the
opportunity.

Mark "ball's in your court" Hickey

Ernest Christley

March 12th 05, 06:51 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:

> And you can restore some of your credibility by simply posting a
> credible citation of a "specific credible threat" that you seem to
> think existed.
>

Nope. That won't help. Even if there was a direct and credible threat,
what was Bush supposed to do? Shut down the entire American commercial
air fleet? Oh, yeah. That would go over like a lead balloon.

JLS must not only point out a knowledge of a specific threat, but he
must give some indication of what reasonable measures could have been
taken to alleviate that threat. I know people are going to die horrible
deaths today. Some may even crash their airplanes. Unfortunately, I
dont' know who or where they are. There's just a threat. Now what can
I do about it?

jls

March 12th 05, 08:03 PM

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> " jls" > wrote:
>
> >The intelligence services fed Bush all he needed in the English language:
> >two times in August before the "big bombs" on 9-11 he received warnings
of
> >specific credible threats.
>
> You haven't posted squat in terms of evidence of any "specific
> credible threats"... but don't let that disturb your attempt to
> rewrite history.

Oh, dear. Don't you just talk like a kept woman defending her
benefactor --- while he's a global laughingstock for his indifference to
daily briefings putting him on notice that the little muslim goat would do
something spectacular here in the USA, like butt down the Taj Mahals of
American corporatocracy.
>
> Of course, you can continue to ignore the dozens of FBI investigations
> that were underway due to the NON-specific threats that WERE contained
> in the inelligence briefs.

The intelligence services and the FBI are culpable too, but your Preznit
still had enough info to act, and glaringly didn't.

These words seem to be apposite:

"From a distance, it looks as if the warning [of 9-11] came but they all
were on vacation."

Of course it might do you well, if you can comprehend better than Bushism
can, to read the entire article:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/

>
> And you can restore some of your credibility by simply posting a
> credible citation of a "specific credible threat" that you seem to
> think existed.

I already have and you choose to spin on it--- even more pitifully than
Condoleeza did.
>
> That won't happen, of course, yapyapyap

How many terrorist cells right here in the good ol' "safe" USA did Bush get
warning of? And how many more inculpating PDB's is he concealing to CHA?
Pathetic.

And now *AIN'T* it really safe since Americans are being punished with
Constitution-bashing abortions like the Patriot Act and stupid GA flight
restrictions because of conspicuous thugs like Mohammed Atta and Marwan
al-Shehri --- so conspicuous that Bush never even had a clue. Yeah, these
trained Arab terrorists were making spectacles of themselves going around
the country bragging, spending profigately, learning in our flight
simulators and on our airports how to steer airliners but not take off or
land them, recruiting from hundreds of other islamic freaks lingering like
little trojan horses inside our borders, reeking with hostile mohammedanism,
and chatting by cellphones with their holy father, Osama.

Oh, if you read right carefully (better than Bush I suspect) you see that
his press guys like Ari can leave out a preposition here and there and
change the whole meaning in the minds of the American public.

Mark Hickey

March 12th 05, 11:52 PM

" jls" > wrote:

.... nothing of substance.

I didn't think you could come up with anything showing there was a
credible and actionable threat. Thanks for playing anyway.

Mark "everyone else on the left let this dead horse lay in November"
Hickey

jls

March 13th 05, 01:29 PM

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> " jls" > wrote:
>
> ... nothing of substance.
>
> I didn't think you could come up with anything showing there was a
> credible and actionable threat. Thanks for playing anyway.
>
> Mark "everyone else on the left let this dead horse lay in November"
> Hickey

You don't even reply to the posts--- you simply stamp your amateurish spin
on them. So go back to aggravating the trade imbalance with China.
That's your motivation and makes you so cozy with the neo-fascists and
neo-conservaloons anyway.

You probably can't even weld titanium yourself or ride a bike, just farm
that out to "aerospace welders" in China, heheheh.

BTW, what aircraft are you building? Nothing I bet.

These words seem to be apposite:

"From a distance, it looks as if the warning [of 9-11] came but they all
were on vacation."

Of course it might do you well, if you can comprehend better than Bushism
can, to read the entire article:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/

>
> And you can restore some of your credibility by simply posting a
> credible citation of a "specific credible threat" that you seem to
> think existed.

I already have and you choose to spin on it--- even more pitifully than
Condoleeza did.
>
> That won't happen, of course, yapyapyap

How many terrorist cells right here in the good ol' "safe" USA did Bush get
warning of? And how many more inculpating PDB's is he concealing to CHA?
Pathetic.

And now *AIN'T* it really safe since Americans are being punished with
Constitution-bashing abortions like the Patriot Act and stupid GA flight
restrictions because of conspicuous thugs like Mohammed Atta and Marwan
al-Shehri --- so conspicuous that Bush never even had a clue. Yeah, these
trained Arab terrorists were making spectacles of themselves going around
the country bragging, spending profigately, learning in our flight
simulators and on our airports how to steer airliners but not take off or
land them, recruiting from hundreds of other islamic freaks lingering like
little trojan horses inside our borders, reeking with hostile mohammedanism,
and chatting by cellphones with their holy father, Osama.

Oh, if you read right carefully (better than Bush I suspect) you see that
his press guys like Ari can leave out a preposition here and there and
change the whole meaning in the minds of the American public.