ACLU sues Jeppesen for Flights

[Jim Maher]

This is rich. The [Anti] American Civil Liberties Union, also known for
its staunch support of the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association
(NAMBLA), just filed a suit of Boeing's Jeppesen subsidiary. The
reason? The ACLU is accusing Jeppesen for providing flight services to
the CIA, which Boeing "knew or should have known," was using for the
purpose of "torturing" terrorists.

Even assuming for the purpose of the argument that the CIA was actually
torturing terrorists, why would Jeppesen be at fault? They merely
provide navigation support and handling for air traffic control, fuel
requirements, formalities, etc. for airplanes. Somehow ACLU wants to
hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.

Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.

http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2007/05/28/daily21.html

[Vaughn Simon]

"Jim Maher" > wrote in message
...
> hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.
>
> Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
> flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
> that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.

I am not quits as down on the ACLU as you are, but this also strikes me as a
heluva stretch. I don't see how they could possibly win the case, but perhaps
their intent is simply to make it harder for the government to do business.
Since private companies can not afford to continually be sued, many may simply
opt to decline government business.

[tom laudato]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Maher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.
> >
> > Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
> > flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
> > that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.
>
> I am not quits as down on the ACLU as you are, but this also strikes me as
a
> heluva stretch. I don't see how they could possibly win the case, but
perhaps
> their intent is simply to make it harder for the government to do
business.
> Since private companies can not afford to continually be sued, many may
simply
> opt to decline government business.
>
I rmember reading that they get paid for there time if they win the law
suit.....if they win a few along the way i do not think they worry about
losing a few...>tom

[john smith[_2_]]

This suit reminds me of the ones cities brought against the handgun
manufacturers. The courts will toss this one out, as well.

[Robert Barker]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Maher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.
>>
>> Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
>> flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
>> that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.
>
> I am not quits as down on the ACLU as you are, but this also strikes me as
> a heluva stretch. I don't see how they could possibly win the case, but
> perhaps their intent is simply to make it harder for the government to do
> business. Since private companies can not afford to continually be sued,
> many may simply opt to decline government business.
>

Perhaps they're using this suit to get information under "discovery" to find
out what the CIA is really up to. Then when they get the info, they'll drop
the suit and go after the real perps...

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Robert Barker" > said:
>Perhaps they're using this suit to get information under "discovery" to find
>out what the CIA is really up to. Then when they get the info, they'll drop
>the suit and go after the real perps...

You can't sue the government. You can only hold them accountable at
election time.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"God be between you and harm, in all the empty places that you must walk"

[Newps]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, "Robert Barker" > said:
>
>>Perhaps they're using this suit to get information under "discovery" to find
>>out what the CIA is really up to. Then when they get the info, they'll drop
>>the suit and go after the real perps...
>
>
> You can't sue the government. You can only hold them accountable at
> election time.

Sure you can. Happens every day. But you have to go to Federal Court
and they have to allow you to sue them.

[Jose]

> ...and they have to allow you to sue them

That has always struck me as so odd. Why would they allow you to sue them?

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[skym]

On Jun 3, 7:16 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > ...and they have to allow you to sue them
>
> That has always struck me as so odd. Why would they allow you to sue them?
>
> Jose


Under traditional English law, from which our legal system is largely
derived, the government is protected by the doctrine of sovereign
immunity ("The King can do no wrong.") However, most, if not all,
government entites in the US (the fed as well as states, cities,etc)
have waived the doctrine for certain classes of cases, hence "allowing
you to sue them." Rarely does the gov't waive the protection on a
case by case basis. The plaintiff in this case is probably hoping to
fit into some general category of case in which the govt has already
waived its sovereign immunity. That said, I agree that the case
should be without merit.

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:16:49 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> ...and they have to allow you to sue them
>
>That has always struck me as so odd. Why would they allow you to sue them?
>
The issue seems to be "standing." Wikipedia has a fairly terse article
with that title. It seems to say that you can sue the government in
Federal Court if you can show the court that you have been injured or
would be injured by something the government has done or wants to do,
but Congress can force the Court to take a case it doesn't want to
hear by passing an act for that specific purpose.

As a layman, I think this is different than ordinary tort law, where
the bar is set much lower.

Don

[Ash Wyllie]

Jim Maher opined

>Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
>flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
>that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.

Don't give them any ideas.






-ash
Cthulhu in 2007!
Why wait for nature?

[gatt]

Normally I don't have a problem with the intent of the ACLU...they champion
the underdogs that most people hate, simply because some underdog someday
might be worthy of a champion. (The civil rights movement comes to mind.)

But...

....that's just stupid. It's actually worse than stupid, though, because
it's going to tangle Jeppesen up in a legal battle it doesn't deserve. Do
you suppose they'd sue United for carrying terrorist hijackers?

-c

[gatt]

"Robert Barker" > wrote in message
...

>> Perhaps they're using this suit to get information under "discovery" to
>> find
> out what the CIA is really up to. Then when they get the info, they'll
> drop the suit and go after the real perps...

They should sue Evergreen if that's what they want. They flew from
McMinnville to the stepdown point for Groom Lake about a year ago.

'Course, the ACLU has probably never heard of it.

-c

[Gig 601XL Builder]

gatt wrote:
> Normally I don't have a problem with the intent of the ACLU...they
> champion the underdogs that most people hate, simply because some
> underdog someday might be worthy of a champion. (The civil rights
> movement comes to mind.)
> But...
>
> ...that's just stupid. It's actually worse than stupid, though,
> because it's going to tangle Jeppesen up in a legal battle it doesn't
> deserve. Do you suppose they'd sue United for carrying terrorist
> hijackers?
> -c


My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of the Bill
of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they defend.

[Matt Whiting]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> gatt wrote:
>> Normally I don't have a problem with the intent of the ACLU...they
>> champion the underdogs that most people hate, simply because some
>> underdog someday might be worthy of a champion. (The civil rights
>> movement comes to mind.)
>> But...
>>
>> ...that's just stupid. It's actually worse than stupid, though,
>> because it's going to tangle Jeppesen up in a legal battle it doesn't
>> deserve. Do you suppose they'd sue United for carrying terrorist
>> hijackers?
>> -c
>
>
> My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of the Bill
> of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they defend.

That's for sure. They are about the most hypocritical organization around.

Matt

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> gatt wrote:
>> Normally I don't have a problem with the intent of the ACLU...they
>> champion the underdogs that most people hate, simply because some
>> underdog someday might be worthy of a champion. (The civil rights
>> movement comes to mind.)

Absolute BULL****. Dig into their origins and find what a fraud they were
and pretty much still are (past their sedate PR crap).

>> But...
>
>
> My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of the
> Bill of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they defend.

Which is emblematic of their origins, and their original (and even today)
purpose.

I suspect you DO know what they were, don't you?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of the Bill
> of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they defend.

Actually, the ACLU has an extremely consistent record of unconditionally
defending civil liberties, without respect to race, creed, color ... or
popularity.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of
>> the Bill of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they
>> defend.
>
> Actually, the ACLU has an extremely consistent record of
> unconditionally defending civil liberties, without respect to race,
> creed, color ... or popularity.

From the ACLU web site:

"Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which
consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three
post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment
(women's suffrage), adopted in 1920."


Yet never once have they defended the 2nd amendment.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 5, 9:06 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
> >> My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of
> >> the Bill of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they
> >> defend.
>
> > Actually, the ACLU has an extremely consistent record of
> > unconditionally defending civil liberties, without respect to race,
> > creed, color ... or popularity.
>
> From the ACLU web site:
>
> "Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which
> consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three
> post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment
> (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920."
>
> Yet never once have they defended the 2nd amendment.

Of course not, they are the American Complete Liberals Union after
all...

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Yet never once have they defended the 2nd amendment.

Against what?

[gatt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>>> Normally I don't have a problem with the intent of the ACLU...they
>>> champion the underdogs that most people hate, simply because some
>>> underdog someday might be worthy of a champion. (The civil rights
>>> movement comes to mind.)
>
> Absolute BULL****.

Okay. I guess we're done here.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Yet never once have they defended the 2nd amendment.
>
> Against what?

Laws passed that have attacked the right it was written to protect, you
idiot.

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> "Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which
> consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three
> post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment
> (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920."
> Yet never once have they defended the 2nd amendment.

That's interesting.

On the other hand, they had a part in Brown v. Board of Education and bans
on interracial marriage. I don't know about you, but most of the people I
know including myself own all the guns they want; one friend owns a licensed
BAR, another owns a Sten and an MP-40. Another guy, who owns Fairly Honest
Don's Machine Gun Parlor, has an M-60 mounted on the back of an old surplus
jeep.

I prefer not to talk about my gun collection, but let's just say I haven't
needed the ACLU and I've thrown a whole hell of a lot of 7.62x39 downrange
on many occasions including those where law enforcement was also present.

-c

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Robert Barker wrote:
>>> hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.
>>>
>[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Perhaps they're using this suit to get information under "discovery" to find
>out what the CIA is really up to. Then when they get the info, they'll drop
>the suit and go after the real perps...

This current administration has been consistently expanding the power of the
executive thru a bizarre flurry of signing statements and other policy
decisions that severely threaten our rights under the constitution. It is
chilling to think Bush is applying his own interpretations to presented
legislation. A weaker mind / character in the presidency has never been.
It is agreed in most rational and civilized frames of belief that kidnapping
and torture are unacceptable. This is a simple moral issue. However, the
criminal constituency of our current administration has run amok under an
hysterical cry of "the war on terror". BULL****... kidnapping and torture is
terrorism.
If you believe that it is OK to torture other humans for reasons you think
are appropriate, remember that the same inquisitors will use similar methods
of logic to single you out for extermination when they are ready. The
continuing erosion of our civil rights are setting the stage for that
eventuality.

The ACLU is seeking discovery thru the channels that are most likely to
produce.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200706/1

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

>
>Which is emblematic of their origins, and their original (and even today)
>purpose.
>
>I suspect you DO know what they were, don't you?

Oh jesus, you're not going to start spouting "Red Scare" crap are you?
Spare us. Communism (on a large scale) is dead.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200706/1

[Gig 601XL Builder]

gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> "Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights,
>> which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus
>> the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and
>> the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920."
>> Yet never once have they defended the 2nd amendment.
>
> That's interesting.
>
> On the other hand, they had a part in Brown v. Board of Education and
> bans on interracial marriage. I don't know about you, but most of
> the people I know including myself own all the guns they want; one
> friend owns a licensed BAR, another owns a Sten and an MP-40. Another
> guy, who owns Fairly Honest Don's Machine Gun Parlor, has an M-60
> mounted on the back of an old surplus jeep.
>
> I prefer not to talk about my gun collection, but let's just say I
> haven't needed the ACLU and I've thrown a whole hell of a lot of
> 7.62x39 downrange on many occasions including those where law
> enforcement was also present.
> -c

Well, you and I are lucky that we live in states and cities that haven't
passed laws that outlaw such guns. The same can not be said for all of our
fellow US citizens.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Which is emblematic of their origins, and their original (and even
>> today) purpose.
>>
>> I suspect you DO know what they were, don't you?
>
> Oh jesus, you're not going to start spouting "Red Scare" crap are you?
> Spare us. Communism (on a large scale) is dead.

But those that support socialism and would like to see it in place in this
country are, unfortunately, not.

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>> I prefer not to talk about my gun collection, but let's just say I
>> haven't needed the ACLU and I've thrown a whole hell of a lot of
>> 7.62x39 downrange on many occasions including those where law enforcement
>> was also present.
>> -c
>
> Well, you and I are lucky that we live in states and cities that haven't
> passed laws that outlaw such guns. The same can not be said for all of our
> fellow US citizens.

Ahh... you might have a point there. If I have idle time this afternoon
I'm going to try to see if the ACLU ever defended a 2nd Amendment issue
although I'm not sure that it's a battle they could win if they tried.

Although I take the anti-ACLU stuff with a grain of salt (anytime the words
"liberal", "communist" or "neocon" are used, I'm immediately suspicious),
I'm certainly not ready to extend the ACLU the benefit of the doubt.

-c

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
>But those that support socialism and would like to see it in place in this
>country are, unfortunately, not.

Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Jim Logajan]

"gatt" > wrote:
> If I have idle time this
> afternoon I'm going to try to see if the ACLU ever defended a 2nd
> Amendment issue although I'm not sure that it's a battle they could
> win if they tried.

I'll try to save you some time by providing a link to the ACLU web site
that states the position of the ACLU national group on one hand and another
link wherein the Texas chapter of the ACLU of Texas actually joined with
the NRA in defending gun rights:

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep
and bear arms?""

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

"The ACLU Defends Gun Rights"

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html

If anyone ever forms a U.S. national organization that defends all our
civil rights then I would support it.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Laws passed that have attacked the right it was written to protect, you
> idiot.

Examples?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> I prefer not to talk about my gun collection, but let's just say I
>>> haven't needed the ACLU and I've thrown a whole hell of a lot of
>>> 7.62x39 downrange on many occasions including those where law
>>> enforcement was also present.
>>> -c
>>
>> Well, you and I are lucky that we live in states and cities that
>> haven't passed laws that outlaw such guns. The same can not be said
>> for all of our fellow US citizens.
>
> Ahh... you might have a point there. If I have idle time this
> afternoon I'm going to try to see if the ACLU ever defended a 2nd
> Amendment issue although I'm not sure that it's a battle they could
> win if they tried.

If you find a 2nd Amendment case they've championed please let me know. I've
been involved in gun rights activity for over 20 years and never came across
one.

The ACLU backing gun rights would have one of two affects. Either they would
lose a large base of their support because of it or the anti-gun movement
would lose a large base of their support because the easily led supporters
would say, "Oh my God, gun rights is a civil rights issue because the ACLU
says so."

> Although I take the anti-ACLU stuff with a grain of salt (anytime the
> words "liberal", "communist" or "neocon" are used, I'm immediately
> suspicious), I'm certainly not ready to extend the ACLU the benefit
> of the doubt.
> -c

Take it with a big grain of salt but the history of the organization is
studded with out right communists and socialists who did not and do not have
the best interest of the USA foremost in their mind. Just a little research
will show you that. I learned it in the chambers of a Democrat state judge
when I was a reporter right out of school. He was later appointed to a
federal judgeship by Clinton.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>>
>> But those that support socialism and would like to see it in place
>> in this country are, unfortunately, not.
>
> Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.

I don't support them either. As a matter of fact I'd place them on pretty
equal levels of "not a good thingness."

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>>
>> Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.
>
>I don't support them either. As a matter of fact I'd place them on pretty
>equal levels of "not a good thingness."

Sorry. I didn't really mean to imply that you did. I was trying to create
that sense of often parallel, extreme ideologies that are, as you say, "not a
good thingness"

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200706/1

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "gatt" > wrote:
>> If I have idle time this
>> afternoon I'm going to try to see if the ACLU ever defended a 2nd
>> Amendment issue although I'm not sure that it's a battle they could
>> win if they tried.
>
> I'll try to save you some time by providing a link to the ACLU web
> site that states the position of the ACLU national group on one hand
> and another link wherein the Texas chapter of the ACLU of Texas
> actually joined with the NRA in defending gun rights:
>
> "Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's unlimited right to keep
> and bear arms?""
>
> http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
>
> "The ACLU Defends Gun Rights"
>
> http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html
>
> If anyone ever forms a U.S. national organization that defends all our
> civil rights then I would support it.


I especilly like this from the ACLU site

"IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that
the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun
ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register
guns. "

I wonder how they would react if there were a law that required you to be
registered to speak?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Laws passed that have attacked the right it was written to protect,
>> you idiot.
>
> Examples?

Feel free do do you own research. It shouldn't be hard.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 14:31:02 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But those that support socialism and would like to see it in place
>>> in this country are, unfortunately, not.
>>
>> Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.
>
>I don't support them either. As a matter of fact I'd place them on pretty
>equal levels of "not a good thingness."
>

http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035/
I do not think it is arrogant of me to claim that I had already
discovered these four objections (as well as noticed the more
vulgar and obvious fact that religion is used by those in temporal
charge to invest themselves with authority) before my boyish voice
had broken.

[Jim Logajan]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> I especilly like this from the ACLU site
>
> "IN BRIEF
> The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe
> that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations
> of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license
> and register guns. "
>
> I wonder how they would react if there were a law that required you to
> be registered to speak?

I applaud some of the fights that the ACLU picks. But on a number of issues
they are clearly in favor of state power rather than civil liberties. The
historical context (a bunch of rebels - literally self-armed civilians)
makes the intent of the Second Amendment clear. And a lot of state
constitutions explicitly grant individuals the right to keep and bear arms.
Here's a nice summary of what state constitutions provide (and don't
provide) in terms of the right to own arms:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

I see at least two states whose constitutions (or declaration of rights)
date from within couple years of the federal constitution that explicitly
grant individuals the right to keep and bear arms:

"Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of
themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted
1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are
dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military
should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil
power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII."

"Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are
dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military
should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil
power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15)."

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:734126e6bb945@uwe...
> >
>>Which is emblematic of their origins, and their original (and even today)
>>purpose.
>>
>>I suspect you DO know what they were, don't you?
>
> Oh jesus, you're not going to start spouting "Red Scare" crap are you?
> Spare us. Communism (on a large scale) is dead.

Crap?

You mean the stuff the dug out of the Soviet archives?

That crap?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:73419b1d491a8@uwe...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>>
>>But those that support socialism and would like to see it in place in this
>>country are, unfortunately, not.
>
> Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.

Before you shove your poop encrusted foot into your mouth, you might find
out the beliefs of the person you are refering to.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But those that support socialism and would like to see it in place
>>> in this country are, unfortunately, not.
>>
>> Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.
>
> I don't support them either. As a matter of fact I'd place them on pretty
> equal levels of "not a good thingness."

"Goofy bastiges" in my book.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> My problem with the ACLU is they promote themselves as defenders of
>>> the Bill of Rights. Yet they are very selective of what rights they
>>> defend.
>>
>> Actually, the ACLU has an extremely consistent record of
>> unconditionally defending civil liberties, without respect to race,
>> creed, color ... or popularity.
>
> From the ACLU web site:
>
> "Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which
> consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three
> post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment
> (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920."
>
>
> Yet never once have they defended the 2nd amendment.
Or the 9th, 10th...

Their take on the others is anything but consistent.

See how often they've intervened when a conservative or libertarian, such as
Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Ward Connerly, etc., have been shut down,
intimidated....

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>
>> http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
>>
>> "The ACLU Defends Gun Rights"
>>
>> http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html
>>
>> If anyone ever forms a U.S. national organization that defends all our
>> civil rights then I would support it.
>
>
> I especilly like this from the ACLU site
>
> "IN BRIEF
> The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that
> the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun
> ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and
> register guns. "
>
> I wonder how they would react if there were a law that required you to be
> registered to speak?

I liked this part:

"But it is notable that the gun angle did not prevent the Texas chapter from
getting involved, despite the national organization's position that the
Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear
arms."

Something stinks to high hell....kinda like the Vatican holding $$TRILLIONS
in art treasures and real estate and telling the rest of the world to "feed
the poor".

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Maher opined
>
>>Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
>>flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
>>that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.
>
> Don't give them any ideas.
>
They're already working overtime to come up with such daffyness.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:7342b4da783d0@uwe...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.
>>
>>I don't support them either. As a matter of fact I'd place them on pretty
>>equal levels of "not a good thingness."
>
> Sorry. I didn't really mean to imply that you did. I was trying to create
> that sense of often parallel, extreme ideologies that are, as you say,
> "not a
> good thingness"
>

Extreme ideologies...like liberty?

I mean the real thing, not the current Republicrat collectivism/statism
thing.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:734108f5ed1b1@uwe...
> Robert Barker wrote:
>>>> hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.
>>>>
>>[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>>Perhaps they're using this suit to get information under "discovery" to
>>find
>>out what the CIA is really up to. Then when they get the info, they'll
>>drop
>>the suit and go after the real perps...
>
> This current administration has been consistently expanding the power of
> the
> executive thru a bizarre flurry of signing statements and other policy
> decisions that severely threaten our rights under the constitution.

As compared with his predecessor, the top "Executive Orders" issuer, who
didn't have even a single minor crisis during his regime?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html
>>>
>>> "The ACLU Defends Gun Rights"
>>>
>>> http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html
>>>
>>> If anyone ever forms a U.S. national organization that defends all
>>> our civil rights then I would support it.
>>
>>
>> I especilly like this from the ACLU site
>>
>> "IN BRIEF
>> The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe
>> that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations
>> of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can
>> license and register guns. "
>>
>> I wonder how they would react if there were a law that required you
>> to be registered to speak?
>
> I liked this part:
>
> "But it is notable that the gun angle did not prevent the Texas
> chapter from getting involved, despite the national organization's
> position that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual
> right to keep and bear arms."
>
> Something stinks to high hell....kinda like the Vatican holding
> $$TRILLIONS in art treasures and real estate and telling the rest of
> the world to "feed the poor".


Texas & ACLU. That's two you don't put together often unless there is a "v."
in between them.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Yet never once have they defended the 2nd amendment.
>
> Against what?
>


Fjukkwit

Bertie

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>But those that support socialism and would like to see it in place in this
>>>country are, unfortunately, not.
>>
>> Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.
>
>Before you shove your poop encrusted foot into your mouth, you might find
>out the beliefs of the person you are refering to.

Doesn't matter.
I'm willing to discuss things with most rational people of any belief.
Unless he/she believes a christian theocracy is preferable....then it still
doesn't matter.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>> Nor are those intent on a christian theocracy.
>>>
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> "not a
>> good thingness"
>
>Extreme ideologies...like liberty?
>
>I mean the real thing, not the current Republicrat collectivism/statism
>thing.

I don't think I suggested liberty was an extreme ideology.

Erosion of our liberties is to what I refer and republicrat, fascism, statism
are not preferable either.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200706/1

[Jim Logajan]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
....
>>Extreme ideologies...like liberty?
....
>
> I don't think I suggested liberty was an extreme ideology.

Side note: I believe liberty _is_ considered by many people to be an
"extreme" ideology. Ask a crowd (say the readers of this newsgroup) to vote
on whether they consider the following political ideologies to be extreme,
though both are presumably founded on maximizing liberty:

Libertarianism
Anarchism

and I suspect a majority would label both as being "extreme." Giving up
liberties in exchange for something else is considered a non-extreme
position, if not almost a law of nature.

(I guess I'm an extremist!)

[Jose]

> Libertarianism
> Anarchism
>
> and I suspect a majority would label both as being "extreme." Giving up
> liberties in exchange for something else is considered a non-extreme
> position, if not almost a law of nature.

It's a question of degree. Neither liberty nor government is extreme.
However, anarchy (no government, total liberty) and totalitarianism
(total government, no liberty) are extreme.

It's a question of perspective. If one believes that we are already too
far in one direction, the belief that going further in that direction is
extremist.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Phil]

Jim Maher wrote:
> This is rich. The [Anti] American Civil Liberties Union, also known for
> its staunch support of the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association
> (NAMBLA), just filed a suit of Boeing's Jeppesen subsidiary. The
> reason? The ACLU is accusing Jeppesen for providing flight services to
> the CIA, which Boeing "knew or should have known," was using for the
> purpose of "torturing" terrorists.
>
> Even assuming for the purpose of the argument that the CIA was actually
> torturing terrorists, why would Jeppesen be at fault? They merely
> provide navigation support and handling for air traffic control, fuel
> requirements, formalities, etc. for airplanes. Somehow ACLU wants to
> hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.
>
> Why not sue the company that made the diodes in the VOR beacons that the
> flights may have used, or the headset manufacturer too? What a pity
> that valuable court resources are consumed by the ACLU's bilge.
>
> http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2007/05/28/daily21.html
>
>
>
>
>

Urban myth ...

--
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
—- Voltaire

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-05 10:24:22 -0700, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> said:

> Robert Barker wrote:
>>>> hold Jeppesen responsible for running a torture chamber too.
>>>>
>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>> Perhaps they're using this suit to get information under "discovery" to find
>> out what the CIA is really up to. Then when they get the info, they'll drop
>> the suit and go after the real perps...
>
> This current administration has been consistently expanding the power of the
> executive thru a bizarre flurry of signing statements and other policy
> decisions that severely threaten our rights under the constitution. It is
> chilling to think Bush is applying his own interpretations to presented
> legislation. A weaker mind / character in the presidency has never been.
> It is agreed in most rational and civilized frames of belief that kidnapping
> and torture are unacceptable.

This is bizarre. No one is claiming that the Bush administration
kidnapped or tortured the plaintiffs in this case.

Extraordinary rendition is simply returning criminals to trial in
countries that we have no extradition agreement with. It is nothing
new; every administration since the foundation of the republic has done
this. Every country does it.

It is incumbent on civilized countries to determine that persons being
sent to another country for trial without extradition will not be
mistreated. Whether the Bush administration has met its obligation
there is unknown; Jeppesen has no way of knowing what agreements we
have with countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan or how well those
agreements are being kept. In fact, they have no way of knowing the
purpose of these flights at all.

What, you want to sue the fuel companies, too? The line guy that filled
the tanks? The people that made the airplane's instruments?

This is nothing more than an attempt by the ACLU to extort money from
people who acted in good faith. The extraordinary renditions have been
held by the Supreme Court to be legal -- the ACLU lost there, so they
are taking it out on private businesses. It is nothing less than a
blatant attempt to subvert the actions of a democratically elected
government through extortion.

These lawsuits cost a lot of money. The ACLU is attempting to stop a
war it disagrees with by attacking the civil rights of ordinary
citizens. It is doing something far worse than Bush was ever accused of.

> This is a simple moral issue.

It certainly is. Extortion and blackmail are wrong, and the ACLU is
engaging in these activities. Jeppesen is a private company, run by
private citizens, performing services that they are legally entitled,
even obligated, to perform. ACLU is attempting to punish people and
deprive them of their civil rights because of its political
disagreements with the current administration.

> However, the
> criminal constituency of our current administration has run amok under an
> hysterical cry of "the war on terror". <expletive deleted>...
> kidnapping and torture is
> terrorism.

ACLU is the one engaging in immoral activities here.

> If you believe that it is OK to torture other humans for reasons you think
> are appropriate, remember that the same inquisitors will use similar methods
> of logic to single you out for extermination when they are ready. The
> continuing erosion of our civil rights are setting the stage for that
> eventuality.
>
> The ACLU is seeking discovery thru the channels that are most likely to
> produce.

Ah. The end justifies the means, eh? You are beginning to sound just
like what you say the Bush administration is.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Blanche]

C J Campbell > wrote:
>It certainly is. Extortion and blackmail are wrong, and the ACLU is
>engaging in these activities. Jeppesen is a private company, run by
>private citizens, performing services that they are legally entitled,
>even obligated, to perform.

No, Jepp is NOT a private company. Boeing is a publicly traded corporation,
in which anyone may purchase stock. It is a public corporation,
incorporated in Delaware, stock symbol BA.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Blanche wrote:
> C J Campbell > wrote:
>> It certainly is. Extortion and blackmail are wrong, and the ACLU is
>> engaging in these activities. Jeppesen is a private company, run by
>> private citizens, performing services that they are legally entitled,
>> even obligated, to perform.
>
> No, Jepp is NOT a private company. Boeing is a publicly traded
> corporation, in which anyone may purchase stock. It is a public
> corporation, incorporated in Delaware, stock symbol BA.

I'm willing to bet he ment private company as in not a part of the
government.

Replacing "private" in his comment with non-governmental or even blank space
doesn't change the fact that he is right.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
>C J Campbell > wrote:
>>It certainly is. Extortion and blackmail are wrong, and the ACLU is
>>engaging in these activities. Jeppesen is a private company, run by
>>private citizens, performing services that they are legally entitled,
>>even obligated, to perform.
>
> No, Jepp is NOT a private company. Boeing is a publicly traded
> corporation,
> in which anyone may purchase stock. It is a public corporation,
> incorporated in Delaware, stock symbol BA.

You're confusing "public company" with an entity like Amtak or the post
office.

Boeing is a "private" company.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-13 11:00:42 -0700, Blanche > said:

> C J Campbell > wrote:
>> It certainly is. Extortion and blackmail are wrong, and the ACLU is
>> engaging in these activities. Jeppesen is a private company, run by
>> private citizens, performing services that they are legally entitled,
>> even obligated, to perform.
>
> No, Jepp is NOT a private company. Boeing is a publicly traded corporation,
> in which anyone may purchase stock. It is a public corporation,
> incorporated in Delaware, stock symbol BA.

Boeing is a private company, but not a privately held company. Boeing
is not owned by the government.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> Boeing is a private company, but not a privately held company. Boeing
> is not owned by the government.

Some people may be confusing it with Airbus, which is a public charity.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> C J Campbell writes:
>
>> Boeing is a private company, but not a privately held company. Boeing
>> is not owned by the government.
>
> Some people may be confusing it with Airbus, which is a public charity.
>



Like you'd know the difference.

Bankruptcy boi.


Bertie