Airplane shot down in Colombia

[Aviv Hod[_2_]]

Summary: US and Colombian agents shoot down a smuggling suspect:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=063_1182300981

This is shocking to me on so many levels - extrajudicial execution on
tape with Americans involved. Drug smuggling is a problem and all, but
this isn't like a police car chase where there is clear danger to
bystanders. Couldn't the authorities avoid deadly force?!? From the
tape it seems like the authorities were very concerned about the
proximity of the border but even if they would have had to let the plane
get away, that is no excuse for their trigger finger to do the police work!

Does anyone have any more context on this incident? Anyone know how
common this is? There was a family of missionaries that was shot down a
few years back in a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me sick.

-Aviv

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:44:40 -0400, Aviv Hod
> wrote in
>:

>Summary: US and Colombian agents shoot down a smuggling suspect:
>
>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=063_1182300981
>
>This is shocking to me on so many levels - extrajudicial execution on
>tape with Americans involved. Drug smuggling is a problem and all, but
>this isn't like a police car chase where there is clear danger to
>bystanders. Couldn't the authorities avoid deadly force?!? From the
>tape it seems like the authorities were very concerned about the
>proximity of the border but even if they would have had to let the plane
>get away, that is no excuse for their trigger finger to do the police work!
>
>Does anyone have any more context on this incident? Anyone know how
>common this is? There was a family of missionaries that was shot down a
>few years back in a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me sick.
>
>-Aviv

I presume you are aware of a similar incident in which a missionary
aircraft was shot down by mistake several years ago.

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:44:40 -0400, Aviv Hod
> > wrote in
> >:
>>
>> There was a family of missionaries that was shot
>> down a few years back in a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me
>> sick.
>
> I presume you are aware of a similar incident in which a missionary
> aircraft was shot down by mistake several years ago.

You obviously presume correctly.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Dave S]

Aviv Hod wrote:
> Summary: US and Colombian agents shoot down a smuggling suspect:
>
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=063_1182300981
>
> This is shocking to me on so many levels - extrajudicial execution on
> tape with Americans involved. Drug smuggling is a problem and all, but
> this isn't like a police car chase where there is clear danger to
> bystanders. Couldn't the authorities avoid deadly force?!? From the
> tape it seems like the authorities were very concerned about the
> proximity of the border but even if they would have had to let the plane
> get away, that is no excuse for their trigger finger to do the police work!
>
> Does anyone have any more context on this incident? Anyone know how
> common this is? There was a family of missionaries that was shot down a
> few years back in a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me sick.
>
> -Aviv

So what do you propose?

Copy his tail number down and terminate the chase? How would you STOP
this aircraft if the pilot doesnt want to cooperate?

Tell us the answer.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, John T > posted:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:44:40 -0400, Aviv Hod
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>>
>>> There was a family of missionaries that was shot
>>> down a few years back in a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me
>>> sick.
>>
>> I presume you are aware of a similar incident in which a missionary
>> aircraft was shot down by mistake several years ago.
>
> You obviously presume correctly.
>
You spelled "obliviously" wrong. ;-)

Neil

[Blueskies]

"Dave S" > wrote in message nk.net...
> Aviv Hod wrote:
>> Summary: US and Colombian agents shoot down a smuggling suspect:
>>
>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=063_1182300981
>>
>> This is shocking to me on so many levels - extrajudicial execution on tape with Americans involved. Drug smuggling
>> is a problem and all, but this isn't like a police car chase where there is clear danger to bystanders. Couldn't the
>> authorities avoid deadly force?!? From the tape it seems like the authorities were very concerned about the
>> proximity of the border but even if they would have had to let the plane get away, that is no excuse for their
>> trigger finger to do the police work!
>>
>> Does anyone have any more context on this incident? Anyone know how common this is? There was a family of
>> missionaries that was shot down a few years back in a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me sick.
>>
>> -Aviv
>
> So what do you propose?
>
> Copy his tail number down and terminate the chase? How would you STOP this aircraft if the pilot doesnt want to
> cooperate?
>
> Tell us the answer.

Why bother. Illegal drugs just provide a way for the bad guys to get more money...

[NW_Pilot]

"Aviv Hod" > wrote in message
...
> Summary: US and Colombian agents shoot down a smuggling suspect:
>
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=063_1182300981
>
> There was a family of missionaries that was shot down a few years back in
> a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me sick.
>
> -Aviv

And people think this country is the land of the free hahahaha sorry it's
the land of the buck! 80% of our population is on some sort of drug! Almost
anything you do now is a crime and half are classified as a felony so they
can disarm civilians so our government can try control the masses even
further.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Aviv Hod" > wrote in message
...
> Summary: US and Colombian agents shoot down a smuggling suspect:
>
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=063_1182300981
>
> This is shocking to me on so many levels - extrajudicial execution on tape
> with Americans involved. Drug smuggling is a problem and all, but this
> isn't like a police car chase where there is clear danger to bystanders.
> Couldn't the authorities avoid deadly force?!? From the tape it seems
> like the authorities were very concerned about the proximity of the border
> but even if they would have had to let the plane get away, that is no
> excuse for their trigger finger to do the police work!
>
> Does anyone have any more context on this incident? Anyone know how
> common this is? There was a family of missionaries that was shot down a
> few years back in a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me sick.
>
> -Aviv

I found myself pulling for the twin to make it. Not that I want the drugs to
get through, but I would much prefer to arrest a bunch of people, rather
than having the poor schmuck (sp?) in the left seat of the airplane be the
only one to pay a price.

If (big, big, IF in Central/South America) the local authorities on the
destination end of the flight would jump in and grab everyone at the
delivery point, that would seem to be a more just and effective treatment..
Of course, the local policia at the destination are probably getting a
payoff and might not be happy with anyone putting a hurt on their
pocketbook...

KB

[Morgans[_2_]]

"NW_Pilot" >

> Almost anything you do now is a crime and half are classified as a felony
> so they can disarm civilians so our government can try control the masses
> even further.

****, don't make me laugh.

Counting out guns that are used for hunting only, the FELONS have 3/4ths of
the rest of the guns that are in private hands.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> If (big, big, IF in Central/South America) the local authorities on the
> destination end of the flight would jump in and grab everyone at the
> delivery point

The tape refers to them being "only 5 miles from the frontier" where
he'd be "home free".

I would guess that this refers to the border of a country that isn't
going to extradite the bad guys.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:44:40 -0400, Aviv Hod
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Summary: US and Colombian agents shoot down a smuggling suspect:
>>
>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=063_1182300981
>>
>> This is shocking to me on so many levels - extrajudicial execution on
>> tape with Americans involved. Drug smuggling is a problem and all, but
>> this isn't like a police car chase where there is clear danger to
>> bystanders. Couldn't the authorities avoid deadly force?!? From the
>> tape it seems like the authorities were very concerned about the
>> proximity of the border but even if they would have had to let the plane
>> get away, that is no excuse for their trigger finger to do the police work!
>>
>> Does anyone have any more context on this incident? Anyone know how
>> common this is? There was a family of missionaries that was shot down a
>> few years back in a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me sick.
>>
>> -Aviv
>
> I presume you are aware of a similar incident in which a missionary
> aircraft was shot down by mistake several years ago.
>

Yes, that is probably why he referred to it in his next to last sentence.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> If (big, big, IF in Central/South America) the local authorities on the
> destination end of the flight would jump in and grab everyone at the
> delivery point, that would seem to be a more just and effective treatment..
> Of course, the local policia at the destination are probably getting a
> payoff and might not be happy with anyone putting a hurt on their
> pocketbook...

I agree that catching them upon landing is the preferred course of
action, but given all of the talk about the border it is pretty obvious
that they were heading to a "safe haven" country. If that really was
the case (I'm only assuming that given the context), then I have no
problem at all with the shoot-down.

Matt

[Aviv Hod[_2_]]

Dave S wrote:
> Aviv Hod wrote:
>> Summary: US and Colombian agents shoot down a smuggling suspect:
>>
>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=063_1182300981
>>
>> This is shocking to me on so many levels - extrajudicial execution on
>> tape with Americans involved. Drug smuggling is a problem and all,
>> but this isn't like a police car chase where there is clear danger to
>> bystanders. Couldn't the authorities avoid deadly force?!? From the
>> tape it seems like the authorities were very concerned about the
>> proximity of the border but even if they would have had to let the
>> plane get away, that is no excuse for their trigger finger to do the
>> police work!
>>
>> Does anyone have any more context on this incident? Anyone know how
>> common this is? There was a family of missionaries that was shot down
>> a few years back in a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me sick.
>>
>> -Aviv
>
> So what do you propose?
>
> Copy his tail number down and terminate the chase? How would you STOP
> this aircraft if the pilot doesnt want to cooperate?
>
> Tell us the answer.

I don't know the answer to your question. Perhaps you are correct that
shooting the plane down is the only way to STOP the aircraft RIGHT NOW.
But is stopping the plane RIGHT NOW critical to anyone's safety?
Since no one was in danger during the pursuit (like there is in a car
chase on the freeway for example) I see no justification to use deadly
force.

Granted, if there is a border that can be crossed where the smuggler can
be in a safe haven, it sounds to me like a diplomatic problem that ought
to be addressed diplomatically. There are ways to provide incentives
for countries to cooperate so that you can chase the aircraft to its
destination and deal with the criminal issues there.

Law enforcement folks constantly make grave decisions to apply the
appropriate level of force for a given situation. Without immediate
threat to life from the smuggling plane, this strikes me as heavy handed
to the extreme.

-Aviv

[Jim Logajan]

Dave S > wrote:
> Copy his tail number down and terminate the chase? How would you STOP
> this aircraft if the pilot doesnt want to cooperate?

If, hypothetically, this had happened in U.S. airspace (but it happened in
Colombia), then the police may only use deadly force if they had "probable
cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or
serious physical injury to the officer or others."[1]

That doesn't appear to be the case in this incident. So all they _could_ do
would be to write down the tail number and any other identifying info,
alert the destination nation of the aircraft and ask them to track and
arrest the occupants.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

[john hawkins]

Counting out guns that are used for hunting only, the FELONS have 3/4ths of
> the rest of the guns that are in private hands.
Eh?!
sure would like a reference to the data that supports that idea.

(Of course statistics shows that 99.87% of statistics are made up :) )

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NW_Pilot" >
>
>> Almost anything you do now is a crime and half are classified as a felony
>> so they can disarm civilians so our government can try control the masses
>> even further.
>
> ****, don't make me laugh.
>
> Counting out guns that are used for hunting only, the FELONS have 3/4ths
> of the rest of the guns that are in private hands.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[[email protected]]

If the video was widely distributed, it might encourage other pilots
in the ferry business to think about dropping gear and flaps and
following the fighter to an airport.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-30 07:44:40 -0700, Aviv Hod
> said:

> Summary: US and Colombian agents shoot down a smuggling suspect:
>
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=063_1182300981
>
> This is shocking to me on so many levels - extrajudicial execution on
> tape with Americans involved. Drug smuggling is a problem and all, but
> this isn't like a police car chase where there is clear danger to
> bystanders. Couldn't the authorities avoid deadly force?!? From the
> tape it seems like the authorities were very concerned about the
> proximity of the border but even if they would have had to let the
> plane get away, that is no excuse for their trigger finger to do the
> police work!
>
> Does anyone have any more context on this incident? Anyone know how
> common this is? There was a family of missionaries that was shot down
> a few years back in a similar anti-drug operation. Makes me sick.
>
> -Aviv

The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these treaties. This is
behavior that we used to associate with the worst aspects of the Soviet
Union and other rogue states.

On the other hand, these drug dealers are conducting what is basically
a civil war against the government of Columbia, attempting to set up a
criminal government providing a safe haven for all manner of gangsters
and thugs.

So it is a hard question. Do you let the drug dealers take over a whole
country, or do you violate international standards of behavior to
prevent it? Personally, I have grave concerns about becoming what we
are trying to stop.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Morgans[_2_]]

> Counting out guns that are used for hunting only, the FELONS have 3/4ths
> of
>> the rest of the guns that are in private hands.
> Eh?!
> sure would like a reference to the data that supports that idea.
>
> (Of course statistics shows that 99.87% of statistics are made up :) )

Considering that the felons with the guns are not likely to volunteer that
information for a survey, that info would be "rather" hard to get, so shall
I make up some more statistics for you? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
> civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these treaties. This is
> behavior that we used to associate with the worst aspects of the Soviet
> Union and other rogue states.

Just curious: When has the US ever fired on civilian aircraft?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dallas]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:04:36 -0700, Airbus wrote:

> Shooting them down is socially
> constructive, and easily the right thing to do. It's like that.

Most of the nations to south of the U.S.A. believe in expediency. It's
much less expensive than a cumbersome due process system.

Police states are an extremely effective and economical way to control
crime.

--
Dallas

[Dave S]

Aviv Hod wrote:
Without immediate
> threat to life from the smuggling plane, this strikes me as heavy handed
> to the extreme.
>
> -Aviv

And that is where we disagree.

If you arent doing anything wrong, you have no reason to run.


I frankly wish that US domestic law enforcement was empowered to
terminate pursuits sooner rather than later.

While this veers OT, I feel someone fleeing police in a car/truck etc is
behaving recklessly with a deadly weapon - the vehicle itself. That
endangers the lives of innocents. That, in and of itself, justifies the
use of force, and deadly force, to terminate a pursuit and protect the
public in doing so.

In the same vein, maybe some drug pilots will rethink their career
choice if they know that they will be shot down for failure to comply
with law enforcement or military directives to stop, land and be
searched. Maybe the drug pilots will decide that their life isnt worth it.

If this drug pilot wanted to live, he had the ability to make a simple
choice. Divert and be inspected. He made his choice, and he died because
of it. Its a drug WAR. People die in wars. And this pilot had more due
process extended to him than any victim of a drug cartel's henchman.

What is so hard about understanding that when a bad actor dies at the
hands of the military or law enforcement, its a series of choices by the
bad actor that leads to this outcome? What is so hard about putting
blame where it belongs?

[Airbus]

Americans tend to have a conciliatory tone toward drug smugglers, who they
consider to be involved in peddling of "social vices" and thus not really
bad guys. This is very removed from the truth. The FARC bandits are mafia
hardliners who control half of Colombia. Shooting them down is socially
constructive, and easily the right thing to do. It's like that.

Aside the socio-political context, I agree it's hard for any pilot to see a
plane shot down . . .

[PPL-A (Canada)]

On Jul 1, 2:06 am, Dave S > wrote:
> Aviv Hod wrote:
>
> Without immediate
>
> > threat to life from the smuggling plane, this strikes me as heavy handed
> > to the extreme.
>
> > -Aviv
>
> And that is where we disagree.
>
> If you arent doing anything wrong, you have no reason to run.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no reason to stop.

>
> I frankly wish that US domestic law enforcement was empowered to
> terminate pursuits sooner rather than later.
>
> While this veers OT, I feel someone fleeing

Your use of the word "flee" presupposes that you have done something
wrong to be "fleeing" from, or that the person trying to convince you
to stop has the right to interfere with your activities.

police in a car/truck etc is
> behaving recklessly with a deadly weapon - the vehicle itself. That
> endangers the lives of innocents. That, in and of itself, justifies the
> use of force, and deadly force, to terminate a pursuit and protect the
> public in doing so.

One could just as easily argue that the pursuers pose just as much
threat to the public as the pursued ... and if anyone is hurt as much
if not more of the blame.

Consider also that when the police or military are given the authority
to arbitrarily stop and search or question (or "deadly force" against)
people ... then you have allowed your nation to become a police state!

>
> In the same vein, maybe some drug pilots will rethink their career
> choice if they know that they will be shot down for failure to comply
> with law enforcement or military directives to stop, land and be
> searched. Maybe the drug pilots will decide that their life isnt worth it.
>
> If this drug pilot wanted to live, he had the ability to make a simple
> choice. Divert and be inspected.

Or ... if he refused to divert, simply follow the plane until it was
forced to land somewhere when it ran out of fuel; perhaps resulting in
the location of more important criminals in the chain ... and their
arrest, if there is criminal activity involved in the flight in the
first place.

He made his choice, and he died because
> of it. Its a drug WAR.

By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
"war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.

People die in wars. And this pilot had more due
> process extended to him than any victim of a drug cartel's henchman.
>
> What is so hard about understanding that when a bad actor dies at the
> hands of the military or law enforcement, its a series of choices by the
> bad actor that leads to this outcome?

>What is so hard about putting
> blame where it belongs?

Nothing ... but do you immediately know every "bad actor" you
encounter? By exactly what signs or attributes can you so judge these
people, and know the good from the bad?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:

> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> If (big, big, IF in Central/South America) the local authorities on
>> the destination end of the flight would jump in and grab everyone at
>> the delivery point, that would seem to be a more just and effective
>> treatment.. Of course, the local policia at the destination are
>> probably getting a payoff and might not be happy with anyone putting
>> a hurt on their pocketbook...
>
> I agree that catching them upon landing is the preferred course of
> action, but given all of the talk about the border it is pretty
> obvious that they were heading to a "safe haven" country. If that
> really was the case (I'm only assuming that given the context), then
> I have no problem at all with the shoot-down.
>
I don't think that the death penalty is warranted solely on the basis of
suspicion. If this was a _known_ drug trafficing aircraft, why weren't
arrests made at the point of departure, the only place that such a fact
_could_ be known?

Neil

[Kyle Boatright]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:04:36 -0700, Airbus wrote:
>
>> Shooting them down is socially
>> constructive, and easily the right thing to do. It's like that.
>
> Most of the nations to south of the U.S.A. believe in expediency. It's
> much less expensive than a cumbersome due process system.
>
> Police states are an extremely effective and economical way to control
> crime.
>

I can't reconcile your last two statements with the high level of organized
crime in South/Central America....

KB

> --
> Dallas

[Bob Noel]

In article <2007063020175575249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom>,
C J Campbell > wrote:

> The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
> civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these treaties.

The US regularly fires at civilian aircraft?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Blueskies]

"Dave S" > wrote in message nk.net...
>
> What is so hard about understanding that when a bad actor dies at the hands of the military or law enforcement, its a
> series of choices by the bad actor that leads to this outcome? What is so hard about putting blame where it belongs?
>

The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no market there would be no 'value stream'...

[Blueskies]

"PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message ups.com...
>
> By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
> arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
> kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
> have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
> called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
> expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
> increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
> disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
> foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
> "war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
> bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
> another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
> justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
> we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.
>

Well stated, thanks!

[Blueskies]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message . ..
>
> "Dallas" > wrote in message .. .
>> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:04:36 -0700, Airbus wrote:
>>
>>> Shooting them down is socially
>>> constructive, and easily the right thing to do. It's like that.
>>
>> Most of the nations to south of the U.S.A. believe in expediency. It's
>> much less expensive than a cumbersome due process system.
>>
>> Police states are an extremely effective and economical way to control
>> crime.
>>
>
> I can't reconcile your last two statements with the high level of organized crime in South/Central America....
>
> KB
>


It is not crime if it is a part of the government is it? Mix the two together and shake...nice vicious cocktail...

[Blueskies]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007063020175575249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these
> treaties. This is behavior that we used to associate with the worst aspects of the Soviet Union and other rogue
> states.
>

It looks like the USA was helping with the tracking, but did not actually firing?

> On the other hand, these drug dealers are conducting what is basically a civil war against the government of Columbia,
> attempting to set up a criminal government providing a safe haven for all manner of gangsters and thugs.
>

The video was labeled from Brazil, yes? The 'border' was safe haven. What country were they talking about?


> So it is a hard question. Do you let the drug dealers take over a whole country, or do you violate international
> standards of behavior to prevent it? Personally, I have grave concerns about becoming what we are trying to stop.
>

Again, if the product were 'legal' somehow, there would be no black market...

> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

[Jay Honeck]

> The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no market there would be no 'value stream'...

So now it's the addict's fault that our inner cities are laced with
drugs and thugs? It's the user's fault that normal people dare not
set foot into the ghettos that exist in every major city in America?
All we have to do to fix this mess is "change the law"?

That may be the most naive thing I've ever seen written here -- and
*that* is not an easy cliff to scale!

If you had any experience in the inner cities of America, you would
know that drugs are the scrourge of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE there.
The "market" you speak of exists because of a drug cartel that
produces and provides cheap drugs for easy distribution to people who
apparently have nothing left to lose.

These people then think nothing of taking everything that anyone else
has to lose, in order to maintain their drug addiction -- and the
cycle of crime continues. Stretch this cycle out 40 years, and you
have what we have today in America -- large areas in every major city
that are essentially fenced off (by police, and common sense) from
regular citizens, so that the shooting war in the inner city can't
infect the rest of us.

A quiet, sad irony of America -- far more shooting deaths occur in our
inner cities every day than occur on the battlefields of Iraq and
Afghanistan. It's a shameful situation that BOTH political parties
and the mainstream media choose to ignore.

(Well, except after Hurricane Katrina, of course, when they were
shocked -- SHOCKED -- that there was poverty and violence going on in
New Orleans!)

Now, of course, you can say that eliminating drugs wouldn't fix the
ghettos, and you might be right. People who can look at a hypodermic
needle full of unknown **** and somehow make the leap to thinking
"Hey, it sounds like *FUN* to inject that into my arm!" are probably
beyond ANYONE'S help.

Stupid is incurable.

However, eliminating drugs (and the cartel behind them) would remove
a major fuel source for much of the violence that claims so many lives
there.

And, of course, you have to look at the reciprocal of what you are
proposing. If making drugs ILLEGAL is the problem, what would making
them LEGAL do?

When I contemplate legalized drugs, I get a vision from "The Matrix",
with entire segments of our society laying around hooked up to
intravenous tubes, oblivious to everything around them. Would
providing free drugs to the inhabitants solve the violence? Even if
it did, would it be the right thing to do?

I don't know the circumstances of the shoot-down in the video, but if
that plane was packed with cocaine or heroin that was destined for my
hometown -- a beautiful city on the shores of Lake Michigan that is
fighting for its life against a growing drug-and-crime-plagued ghetto
-- and the pilot had ignored every attempt to get him to land, he
deserved his fate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no market there would be no 'value stream'...
>
> So now it's the addict's fault that our inner cities are laced with
> drugs and thugs? It's the user's fault that normal people dare not
> set foot into the ghettos that exist in every major city in America?
> All we have to do to fix this mess is "change the law"?

Yes, Jay, it is really simple. If we simply eliminate all laws (no
reason to stop just with drug laws), we'll have no crime at all! You
can't have crime if you have no laws to break. And we'd need no judges
or lawyers or politicians! I'm warming up to this idea already. :-)

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, Jay, it is really simple. If we simply eliminate all laws (no
> reason to stop just with drug laws), we'll have no crime at all! You
> can't have crime if you have no laws to break. And we'd need no judges
> or lawyers or politicians! I'm warming up to this idea already. :-)

It's funny, but true, that there is a large contingent of people
(enough of whom vote) here in Iowa City who have repeatedly killed
plans to build a desperately needed larger prison, using essentially
your (tongue-in-cheek) argument.

Their claim is that the prisons are over-crowded because of drug
offenders, and that all we need to do is simply release them all, and
voila! -- no need for a bigger prison!

So, Johnson County ends up leasing space (at outrageous prices) from
empty jails around the state. In the ten years we've lived here, we
could have built five new prisons, and been money ahead...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-06-30 21:12:44 -0700, Jay Honeck > said:

>> The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
>> civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these treaties. This is
>> behavior that we used to associate with the worst aspects of the Soviet
>> Union and other rogue states.
>
> Just curious: When has the US ever fired on civilian aircraft?

Here we have a thread on the US helping to shoot down a civilian
aircraft, and you ask that question. Remember, too, that a few years
ago the Bush administration asked for funds in the Coast Guard
Reauthorization Act to shoot down suspected drug dealers within the
borders of the US itself.

The Navy has continually threatened to shoot down private aircraft that
violate its security zones or, in the words of our local Navy PR
officer, they may shoot down aircraft who get "too close" to the
security zone. No one knows what "too close" is. Since I live near such
a zone, I am concerned that if the Navy ever does open fire my house
could be showered with spent ordnance and aircraft debris, or even a
stray missile. When I expressed these concerns to the PR officer, he
said that protecting civilians was not the job of the Navy.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-01 05:02:43 -0700, "Blueskies" > said:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:2007063020175575249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>> The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
>> civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these
>> treaties. This is behavior that we used to associate with the worst
>> aspects of the Soviet Union and other rogue
>> states.
>>
>
> It looks like the USA was helping with the tracking, but did not
> actually firing?

Ah. <sarcastically> And Uriah was not killed by King David. If you hire
some thug to kill your wife, I assure you that you will be charged with
murder. The United States is responsible for the actions of its agents.
In this case, the US provided the weapon, located the target, and aimed
the weapon. Calling over someone else to actually pull the trigger does
not keep your hands clean.

>
>> On the other hand, these drug dealers are conducting what is basically
>> a civil war against the government of Columbia,
>> attempting to set up a criminal government providing a safe haven for
>> all manner of gangsters and thugs.
>>
>
> The video was labeled from Brazil, yes? The 'border' was safe haven.
> What country were they talking about?

I would suspect Peru or Venezuela.

>
>
>> So it is a hard question. Do you let the drug dealers take over a whole
>> country, or do you violate international
>> standards of behavior to prevent it? Personally, I have grave concerns
>> about becoming what we are trying to stop.
>>
>
> Again, if the product were 'legal' somehow, there would be no black market...

While I might agree with you, that does not excuse the United States
from responsibility for its current actions.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-01 04:55:18 -0700, "Blueskies" > said:

>
> "PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
>> arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
>> kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
>> have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
>> called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
>> expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
>> increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
>> disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
>> foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
>> "war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
>> bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
>> another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
>> justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
>> we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.
>>
>
> Well stated, thanks!

I would suggest you read "How to Stop A War" and "A Quick and Dirty
Guide to War" by James Dunnigan. This is a war by any reasonable
definition of the term.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 05:56:28 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in m>:

>Now, of course, you can say that eliminating drugs wouldn't fix the
>ghettos, and you might be right.

Eliminating the profit in producing illicit drugs would deny illegal
drug cartels an incentive to continue producing them, much the same
way repeal of the Volstead Act brought an end to the most violent
period in American history. Isn't it apparent, that the source of the
illicit drug problem is the profitable black market that sustains it.

>However, eliminating drugs (and the cartel behind them) would remove
>a major fuel source for much of the violence that claims so many lives
>there.

The violence associated with illicit drugs is a result of the
financial battle for distribution territories and the black market's
artificial inflation of the street price, so that users are unable to
finance their habits.

>And, of course, you have to look at the reciprocal of what you are
>proposing. If making drugs ILLEGAL is the problem, what would making
>them LEGAL do?

My guess is, that it would do about the same as repealing the Volstead
Act did: remove the inflated profit motive thus providing a
disincentive for mafia involvement, end the violence associated with
criminal production and distribution, and make room for violent
criminals in the nation's overcrowded prisons.

>When I contemplate legalized drugs, I get a vision from "The Matrix",
>with entire segments of our society laying around hooked up to
>intravenous tubes, oblivious to everything around them.

Similar illusions were probably uttered at the thought of repealing
the prohibition against alcohol.

While the repeal of Prohibition did result in days of party binging at
certain air-themed motels and Air Venture campsites, would you
characterize that as Matrix-like?

>Would providing free drugs to the inhabitants solve the violence?

Regulating "illicit" drugs, and pricing them at a free market level
would make dope peddlers income less than flipping burgers, and enable
users to purchase their drugs instead of having to commit crimes.

> Even if it did, would it be the right thing to do?

Decriminalizing drug use, and seeing it for the medical concern it
truly is, seems like an enlightened step forward to me. But then, I'm
sure there are those who miss the days of hunting witches and burning
them at the stake.

In any event, restraining our government from seizing sovereignty over
the bodies of its citizens seems just.


Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[PPL-A (Canada)]

On Jul 1, 10:11 am, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-07-01 04:55:18 -0700, "Blueskies" > said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> >> By whose definition is this situation a WAR as you say ... some
> >> arbitrary fiat by some politicians in the 1980s? I think calling this
> >> kind of activity a war is insulting to the armed forces personnel that
> >> have fought and died for real causes in the last century. The so-
> >> called war on drugs is political posturing and always has been. To
> >> expand on this point, the public in the last decade or two is being
> >> increasingly deceived into a false sense of righteousness about any
> >> disagreements that politicians might have with any group, be they
> >> foreign or domestic, by the deceptive and devious use of the word
> >> "war" in order to justify to the public political activity that really
> >> bears no genuine resemblance to war whatsoever, but merely meddling in
> >> another sovereign nation's politics, or, what is worse perhaps,
> >> justifying ever greater intrusions into the privacy and freedoms that
> >> we used to understand as being rights in an open and free society.
>
> > Well stated, thanks!
>
> I would suggest you read "How to Stop A War" and "A Quick and Dirty
> Guide to War" by James Dunnigan. This is a war by any reasonable
> definition of the term.

So I am to understand that we are supposed to defer to the definitions
of, and ideas about war propogated by a person whose job and primary
claim to notoriety is design and authoring of war GAMES (that's
right ... board GAMES)? That's what James Dunnigan does right? You
know what they say about the man who has a hammer can see only nails?
I hope this makes my point.

I don't believe there's any reason to summarily drop the whole canon
of western philosophers', political scientists', military theorists'
thoughts about war (not to mention definitions set forth in
international law) in deference to some war GAMER ...

Sorry ... you gotta try better than that ... conflict (no matter how
angry you are at the other party) DOES NOT always equate
philosophically, legally, or ethically to a situation to which it is
appropriate to use the term "war".

I maintain my original position. "War", as it's coming to be used, is
a euphemism that is increasingly being deployed by devious politicians
to justify in the public conciousness any number of highly suspect
activities both domestic and international. This tactic, swallowed
whole and regurgitated to us by our increasingly uncrital media, is
gaining power as our populace loses touch with aging veterans who have
actual experience of genuine war.

No war game designer is going to change my mind on this. It's
absurd. Legal problem, social problem, international jurisdictional
problem, all true of the drug trade. War however it is not, except by
the flimsy definitions required to justify many of the inappropriate
responses to it by politicians, police, and military.

I also still maintain that any society that has handed over many of
its freedoms to the police (secret and otherwise) and military, and
perceives itself to be in a constant state of "war", has allowed
itself to become a police or military state.

> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[PPL-A (Canada)]

On Jul 1, 8:56 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no market there would be no 'value stream'...
>
> So now it's the addict's fault that our inner cities are laced with
> drugs and thugs? It's the user's fault that normal people dare not
> set foot into the ghettos that exist in every major city in America?
> All we have to do to fix this mess is "change the law"?
>
> That may be the most naive thing I've ever seen written here -- and
> *that* is not an easy cliff to scale!
>
> If you had any experience in the inner cities of America, you would
> know that drugs are the scrourge of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE there.
> The "market" you speak of exists because of a drug cartel that
> produces and provides cheap drugs for easy distribution to people who
> apparently have nothing left to lose.
>
> These people then think nothing of taking everything that anyone else
> has to lose, in order to maintain their drug addiction -- and the
> cycle of crime continues. Stretch this cycle out 40 years, and you
> have what we have today in America -- large areas in every major city
> that are essentially fenced off (by police, and common sense) from
> regular citizens, so that the shooting war in the inner city can't
> infect the rest of us.
>
> A quiet, sad irony of America -- far more shooting deaths occur in our
> inner cities every day than occur on the battlefields of Iraq and
> Afghanistan. It's a shameful situation that BOTH political parties
> and the mainstream media choose to ignore.
>
> (Well, except after Hurricane Katrina, of course, when they were
> shocked -- SHOCKED -- that there was poverty and violence going on in
> New Orleans!)
>
> Now, of course, you can say that eliminating drugs wouldn't fix the
> ghettos, and you might be right. People who can look at a hypodermic
> needle full of unknown **** and somehow make the leap to thinking
> "Hey, it sounds like *FUN* to inject that into my arm!" are probably
> beyond ANYONE'S help.
>
> Stupid is incurable.
>
> However, eliminating drugs (and the cartel behind them) would remove
> a major fuel source for much of the violence that claims so many lives
> there.
>
> And, of course, you have to look at the reciprocal of what you are
> proposing. If making drugs ILLEGAL is the problem, what would making
> them LEGAL do?
>
> When I contemplate legalized drugs, I get a vision from "The Matrix",
> with entire segments of our society laying around hooked up to
> intravenous tubes, oblivious to everything around them. Would
> providing free drugs to the inhabitants solve the violence? Even if
> it did, would it be the right thing to do?
>
> I don't know the circumstances of the shoot-down in the video, but if
> that plane was packed with cocaine or heroin that was destined for my
> hometown -- a beautiful city on the shores of Lake Michigan that is
> fighting for its life against a growing drug-and-crime-plagued ghetto
> -- and the pilot had ignored every attempt to get him to land, he
> deserved his fate.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

"I don't know the circumstances of the shoot-down in the video, but
if
that plane was packed with cocaine or heroin that was destined for my
hometown -- a beautiful city on the shores of Lake Michigan that is
fighting for its life against a growing drug-and-crime-plagued ghetto
-- and the pilot had ignored every attempt to get him to land, he
deserved his fate. "

Don't you think that simply following this plane until it ran out of
fuel and had to land might have resulted in the arrest of far more
important people in the chain of drug distribution ... if indeed that
was what was going on? And if it was heading for your home town,
would you rather not have simply let the plane get there and while it
was getting near prepare the proper authorities to investigate and
perhaps arrest the people that were waiting for it at the other end?
The mule isn't the real problem. If the recipients of the drugs are
still waiting, they will just call for another shipment and write off
the shot down plane as "cost of doing business". You need to get to
the leaders of the organization, not just shoot the low level
employees.

[Dave S]

PPL-A (Canada) wrote:

>
> Don't you think that simply following this plane until it ran out of
> fuel and had to land might have resulted in the arrest of far more
> important people in the chain of drug distribution ...

And if the plane was about to cross a soverign border, where you could
not legally go forward to track them.. and the other country was not
willing nor equipped to track them, nor was willing to arrest and
extradite the crew of the plane... then how do you propose to track and
follow the plane?

The pilot knew what he was doing. He was making a run for the border,
and freedom. He gambled and lost.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Dave S > wrote:

> PPL-A (Canada) wrote:
>
> >
> > Don't you think that simply following this plane until it ran out of
> > fuel and had to land might have resulted in the arrest of far more
> > important people in the chain of drug distribution ...
>
> And if the plane was about to cross a soverign border, where you could
> not legally go forward to track them.. and the other country was not
> willing nor equipped to track them, nor was willing to arrest and
> extradite the crew of the plane... then how do you propose to track and
> follow the plane?
>
> The pilot knew what he was doing. He was making a run for the border,
> and freedom. He gambled and lost.


One problem here (other than the moral problem of capital punishment for
suspicious behavior) is that the video did not establish whether or not
the plane was warned, or merely fired upon without warning.

[Flydive]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
>> civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these treaties. This is
>> behavior that we used to associate with the worst aspects of the Soviet
>> Union and other rogue states.
>
> Just curious: When has the US ever fired on civilian aircraft?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


I kind of remember something about an Iranian Airbus......

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Flydive" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
>>> civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these treaties. This is
>>> behavior that we used to associate with the worst aspects of the Soviet
>>> Union and other rogue states.
>>
>> Just curious: When has the US ever fired on civilian aircraft?
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>
> I kind of remember something about an Iranian Airbus......

That was violating several ICAO rules, IIRC.

[Flydive]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Flydive" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
>>>> civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these treaties. This is
>>>> behavior that we used to associate with the worst aspects of the Soviet
>>>> Union and other rogue states.
>>> Just curious: When has the US ever fired on civilian aircraft?
>>> --
>>> Jay Honeck
>>> Iowa City, IA
>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>>
>>
>> I kind of remember something about an Iranian Airbus......
>
> That was violating several ICAO rules, IIRC.
>
>
So death penalty then? As the Corean 747, the Russian were right then?
And anyway it was a Civilian Aircraft and it was shot down by the US as
per question.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Flydive" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
>>> civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these treaties. This is
>>> behavior that we used to associate with the worst aspects of the Soviet
>>> Union and other rogue states.
>>
>> Just curious: When has the US ever fired on civilian aircraft?
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>
> I kind of remember something about an Iranian Airbus.

The Airbus incident was indeed tragic. But, the context was completely
different. The Airbus shoot-down was a horrible mistake involving its
mistaken identity as an immediate threat. This occurred in the vicinity of
ongoing hostilities. The shoot-down of the <presumed> drug runner was the
intentional stalking and shoot down of a civilian aircraft which posed no
immediate threat.

One question... Was the drug runner shoot-down during daylight hours? You
would think the intelligent drug runner would fly at night when
<essentially> day, VFR fighters wouldn't be effective.

KB

[Flydive]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Flydive" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
>>>> civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these treaties. This is
>>>> behavior that we used to associate with the worst aspects of the Soviet
>>>> Union and other rogue states.
>>> Just curious: When has the US ever fired on civilian aircraft?
>>> --
>>> Jay Honeck
>>> Iowa City, IA
>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>>
>>
>> I kind of remember something about an Iranian Airbus.
>
> The Airbus incident was indeed tragic. But, the context was completely
> different. The Airbus shoot-down was a horrible mistake involving its
> mistaken identity as an immediate threat. This occurred in the vicinity of
> ongoing hostilities. The shoot-down of the <presumed> drug runner was the
> intentional stalking and shoot down of a civilian aircraft which posed no
> immediate threat.

I agree.
Also, maybe the initial part of the tape is missing, so were there
warnings before? And I did not see the normal intercept procedures as
per ICAO




> One question... Was the drug runner shoot-down during daylight hours? You
> would think the intelligent drug runner would fly at night when
> <essentially> day, VFR fighters wouldn't be effective.
>
> KB
>
>

[Ken Finney]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no
>> market there would be no 'value stream'...
>
> So now it's the addict's fault that our inner cities are laced with
> drugs and thugs? It's the user's fault that normal people dare not
> set foot into the ghettos that exist in every major city in America?
> All we have to do to fix this mess is "change the law"?
>
> That may be the most naive thing I've ever seen written here -- and
> *that* is not an easy cliff to scale!
>
> If you had any experience in the inner cities of America, you would
> know that drugs are the scrourge of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE there.
> The "market" you speak of exists because of a drug cartel that
> produces and provides cheap drugs for easy distribution to people who
> apparently have nothing left to lose.
>

< snip >

Jay- you presuppose it is possible to eliminate the "drug cartels", yet
pretty much all the evidence shows that the harder you clamp down on
"cartels", the profit increases which provides more incentive for the cartel
to exist in the first place. I know we both have had family members with
"issues", and yes, I do blame the addicts. Will legalizing drugs cause an
increase in suffering short term? Yes. But the present course of action
will probably result in more suffering.

[Jim Logajan]

Flydive > wrote:
> I kind of remember something about an Iranian Airbus......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ps.com...
>> The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no market there would be no 'value stream'...
>
> So now it's the addict's fault that our inner cities are laced with
> drugs and thugs? It's the user's fault that normal people dare not
> set foot into the ghettos that exist in every major city in America?
> All we have to do to fix this mess is "change the law"?
>
> That may be the most naive thing I've ever seen written here -- and
> *that* is not an easy cliff to scale!
>


OK, so I suppose you think that prohibition was right. There should be no alcohol consumed by anyone in the USA. Hey,
wait, that is what brought Dillinger to fame, and some mega bucks to the Rockefellers...

Naive, huh?

[Jay Honeck]

>I know we both have had family members with
> "issues", and yes, I do blame the addicts.

To some degree I agree with you. However, once a drug abuser is past
a certain point, they are no longer operating of their own free
will. These are the people that the drug cartels breed and feed, and
it's disgusting and pathetic.

I understand the impulse to legalize this stuff, and it's easy to
compare it to alcohol Prohibition -- but I think we're talking about
an exponentially worse problem than beer and wine here.

Incidentally, IMHO marijuana (aside from the health aspects of
inhaling any tobacco products) is certainly a drug that should be
legalized, standardized, and controlled. However, with the strong
societal move toward outlawing ALL smoking, I don't see that EVER
happening now.

Cocaine, heroin, meth, crack -- all of these are far too damaging to
simply allow on the streets in "legal" doses. Anyone who has ever had
to deal with a person who is addicted to any of these substances knows
that we are dealing with a whole different set of problems than the
folks who drink a 12-pack of Pabst per day are facing...

I'm afraid that we, as a society, have little choice but to try to
stop illicit drug use. It's a real Catch-22, since one of mankind's
strongest (and oldest) urges is to alter reality.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >> The rules are wrong, therefore the blame lies in the law. If there was no
> >> market there would be no 'value stream'...
> >
> > So now it's the addict's fault that our inner cities are laced with
> > drugs and thugs? It's the user's fault that normal people dare not
> > set foot into the ghettos that exist in every major city in America?
> > All we have to do to fix this mess is "change the law"?
> >
> > That may be the most naive thing I've ever seen written here -- and
> > *that* is not an easy cliff to scale!
> >
>
>
> OK, so I suppose you think that prohibition was right. There should be no
> alcohol consumed by anyone in the USA. Hey,
> wait, that is what brought Dillinger to fame, and some mega bucks to the
> Rockefellers...
>
> Naive, huh?

Kennedys -- not the Rockefellers -- THEY stole the oil rights before the
Kennedys ran booze into the country.

[Jay Honeck]

> While the repeal of Prohibition did result in days of party binging at
> certain air-themed motels and Air Venture campsites, would you
> characterize that as Matrix-like?

"Binging"? Please.

One of the reasons we like pilots as our "target market" is that they
cannot be alcoholics or binge drinkers and long maintain their
privileges as airmen.

This makes it easy for us to lend them our courtesy van, and rent them
suites with thousands of dollars in artwork and memorabilia in them,
since we *know* they aren't going to get snockered and tear the place
apart, or wrap the van around a pole.

This is NOT true of our non-pilot crowd, BTW, and it's something we
monitor quite closely. (It's also why we never, EVER lend our van to
non-pilots, under ANY circumstances.) Over the years we've had a few
incidents with guests who have drank themselves into a stupor, and
it's never fun to deal with -- but these have NEVER been pilots.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dallas]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 07:17:03 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

> I can't reconcile your last two statements with the high level of organized
> crime in South/Central America....

I could see why you would say that, but the Narco-states don't fit the
classic definition of a police state because the drug factions can
effectively match firepower with the official state governments and corrupt
its police force.

A classic police state has a disarmed population like Haiti and requires
considerably fewer police per capita to achieve effective crime control.
They achieve this by not granting any rights to the populace. When the
police choose to solve a crime, they simply start rounding up people and
applying very effective methods of interrogation.

Getting back on topic, the legal systems of most of our neighbors to the
south are not based on English Common Law and as a result they are
historically less interested in human rights and more interested in
results.

--
Dallas

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > While the repeal of Prohibition did result in days of party binging at
> > certain air-themed motels and Air Venture campsites, would you
> > characterize that as Matrix-like?
>
> "Binging"? Please...

Jay, you have an aviation-theme for much of your hotel. I don't know what
an "air-themed motel" is... :-)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> I'm afraid that we, as a society, have little choice but to try to
> stop illicit drug use.

I agree, but what we've been doing for so long very closely fits the
colloquial definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results.

The War on Drugs is a monumental failure. We've wasted billions annd created
fabulously wealthy drug empires around the world with our
prohibition/enforcement strategy. That we have failed to do anything
significant to reduce the flow of dope is illustrated by the street price of
cocaine, which has been going steadily *down* every year since the '80s. Why?
Because the supply is going up. The tons of the stuff we seize is just a cost
of doing business to the narco-lords. There's plenty more where that came
from.

I propose we stop our knee-jerk policy and try something different.
De-criminalize drugs and attack the real problem: addiction. Treatment does
work, if it'a available to those who want it, and we could treat every addict
in the country for a tenth of what we're spending on the WoD.

As for those who want to keep using, fine; let 'em. But they can't work for
my company 'cause we drug test. They can't go to school or college 'cause
we'll drug test there, too. If they get caught driving under the influence,
driver's license gone; second time: felony. Bottom line: if you want to be a
drug user you can't participate in society with the rest of us; it's up to
you.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> I propose we stop our knee-jerk policy and try something different.
> De-criminalize drugs and attack the real problem: addiction. Treatment does
> work, if it'a available to those who want it, and we could treat every addict
> in the country for a tenth of what we're spending on the WoD.

Unfortunately, treatment of drug and alcohol addiction is an abyssmal
failure, far surpassing the failure to stop the flow of drugs.

Not because of lack of money (although there *is* that), but because
it just doesn't work -- period. Take a look at the stats, and it's
absolutely appalling how few people succeed.

People who are addicted to drugs and alcohol are usually damaged in
other ways. I've never yet met a homeless person who wasn't either
mentally ill, addicted to drugs and/or alchol, or all three. My
sister has been in an out of treatment programs for 30 years -- to no
avail. And now, after years of abuse, she is so mentally screwed up
that she couldn't hold a job even if she were cold stone sober.

Multiply her times 10 million, and you see the magnitude of the
problem.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message oups.com...
>> I propose we stop our knee-jerk policy and try something different.
>> De-criminalize drugs and attack the real problem: addiction. Treatment does
>> work, if it'a available to those who want it, and we could treat every addict
>> in the country for a tenth of what we're spending on the WoD.
>
> Unfortunately, treatment of drug and alcohol addiction is an abyssmal
> failure, far surpassing the failure to stop the flow of drugs.
>

Citations?


> Not because of lack of money (although there *is* that), but because
> it just doesn't work -- period. Take a look at the stats, and it's
> absolutely appalling how few people succeed.
>


The amount of money spent on prevention and treatment is fractions of what has been spent on this so-called war. If we
spent as much money on treatment and prevention of addiction as we have spent in the vain attempt to prevent this stuff
from getting in to the country we would not have the problems you see. I'll bet we could give each 'additcted' person
$30,000 a year just to stay in a home and we would be money ahead...


> People who are addicted to drugs and alcohol are usually damaged in
> other ways. I've never yet met a homeless person who wasn't either
> mentally ill, addicted to drugs and/or alchol, or all three. My
> sister has been in an out of treatment programs for 30 years -- to no
> avail. And now, after years of abuse, she is so mentally screwed up
> that she couldn't hold a job even if she were cold stone sober.
>
> Multiply her times 10 million, and you see the magnitude of the
> problem.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


This is kind of like my naive dream that some day there VFW will disappear. There will no longer be any veterans of
foreign wars because it has been so long since there was a war that the last veteran passed away and none were left...

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 06:58:16 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>:

>
>I propose we stop our knee-jerk policy and try something different.
>De-criminalize drugs and attack the real problem: addiction. Treatment does
>work, if it'a available to those who want it, and we could treat every addict
>in the country for a tenth of what we're spending on the WoD.

Hasn't that been the British policy for a long time?*

>As for those who want to keep using, fine; let 'em.

As though you could successfully stop them?

>But they can't work for my company 'cause we drug test. They can't go to school
>or college 'cause we'll drug test there, too. If they get caught driving under
>the influence, driver's license gone; second time: felony.

If the tests to which you refer test for _impairment_, not systemic
evidence of past use, I would agree with your view.

>Bottom line: if you want to be a drug user you can't participate in society with
> the rest of us; it's up to you.

That is as it should be. But society's rejection of drug users should
be based on their unacceptable behavior or incompetence, not the mere
use of a drug. And there should be provision for appropriate
medical/psychological treatment in lieu of incarceration.

Just as military strategies are not appropriate for the resolution of
_all_ conflicts and disagreements, incarceration is not a rational
approach to changing all unacceptable behaviors.


* http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/bookstore/bingspear.cfm

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:06:41 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in . com>:

>My
>sister has been in an out of treatment programs for 30 years -- to no
>avail. And now, after years of abuse, she is so mentally screwed up
>that she couldn't hold a job even if she were cold stone sober.

Do you feel that incarceration is appropriate for her?

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> The War on Drugs is a monumental failure.
>

I hate to say it, but:

Like so many recent Wars led by god's own country - and all for the
same basic reason.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> I propose we stop our knee-jerk policy and try something different.
>>> De-criminalize drugs and attack the real problem: addiction. Treatment
>>> does work, if it'a available to those who want it, and we
>>> could treat every addict in the country for a tenth of what we're
>>> spending on the WoD.
>>
>> Unfortunately, treatment of drug and alcohol addiction is an abyssmal
>> failure, far surpassing the failure to stop the flow of drugs.
>>
>
> Citations?
>
>

95% failure rate for 12 step programs

www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>
> [...] But society's rejection of drug users should
> be based on their unacceptable behavior or incompetence, not the mere
> use of a drug.
>
The difficulty is that unacceptable behavior is neither rigidly defined
nor equitably enforced, whether or not drugs are involved.

Neil

[Montblack]

("Bob Noel" wrote)
> Jay, you have an aviation-theme for much of your hotel. I don't know what
> an "air-themed motel" is... :-)


http://www.oxynate.com/OxygenBar.html
It starts in the bar :-)


Paul-Mont

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> And there should be provision for appropriate
> medical/psychological treatment in lieu of incarceration.

Who should pay for this treatment?

I'm OK with the concept of doing what you will with your own body. Just
don't ask me to pay to clean it up. If one's actions run afoul of societal
norms, society should not have to pay to fix it. Yes, incarceration is paid
for by society, but the inmate pays in freedom. If a drug user (legal or
otherwise) wants to clean up, they should do it on their own dime.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Private]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Police states are an extremely effective and economical way to control
> crime.
>

Unfortunately they usually control criminal activity (and corruption) by
running it. We could accomplish the same thing (and save the
citizen/taxpayer some big money?) by subcontracting police, and justice (and
tax collection) work to the Mafia and the Hell's Angels. I doubt that the
citizen/taxpayers would consider it a bargain. Of course some would suggest
that we already have.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 10:03:55 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>
>95% failure rate for 12 step programs

What of Antibuse for alcoholics?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:26:00 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>:

>Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>>
>> [...] But society's rejection of drug users should
>> be based on their unacceptable behavior or incompetence, not the mere
>> use of a drug.
>>
>The difficulty is that unacceptable behavior is neither rigidly defined
>nor equitably enforced, whether or not drugs are involved.
>

While that may be true currently, it is no excuse for failing to
address the issues you raise, unless, of course, the motivation is
other than to address the negative impact of drug use.

What would happen to DEA funding, DARE funding, military funding of
drug interdiction programs, prison operation contractor funding, ...,
if such a rational approach to the issue were instituted?

Follow the money.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:37:52 -0400, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> And there should be provision for appropriate
>> medical/psychological treatment in lieu of incarceration.
>
>Who should pay for this treatment?

The funds saved as a result of not incarcerating users would more than
pay for it.

>I'm OK with the concept of doing what you will with your own body.

That is a very enlightened point of view, unfortunately not shared by
the clergy nor the majority of Americans, IMHO.

>Just don't ask me to pay to clean it up.

You don't get a choice. There will always be a segment of the
population that is less productive, or in need of specialized care.
It's unavoidable least we institute executions for cripples and
incompetents. We are bigger than that, aren't we?

>If one's actions run afoul of societal norms, society should not have to
>pay to fix it.

That is a good argument for not incarcerating users, curtailing DARE
programs, etc. The accomplish nothing but siphoning your tax money
into the hands of privatized prison contractors, and Law Enforcement
Officers; and are proven ineffective.

>Yes, incarceration is paid for by society, but the inmate pays in [loss of]
>freedom.

Are you intimating that vengeance against drug users is appropriate?

>If a drug user (legal or otherwise) wants to clean up, they should do it
>on their own dime.

That's reasonable for those who are able. But it is society's
misguided prohibitions that are the root of most of the problems,
because they make the drugs unaffordable.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:26:00 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:
>>>
>>> [...] But society's rejection of drug users should
>>> be based on their unacceptable behavior or incompetence, not the
>>> mere use of a drug.
>>>
>> The difficulty is that unacceptable behavior is neither rigidly
>> defined nor equitably enforced, whether or not drugs are involved.
>>
>
> While that may be true currently, it is no excuse for failing to
> address the issues you raise, unless, of course, the motivation is
> other than to address the negative impact of drug use.
>
I'm not completely sure I'm following your train of thought here. The
issues I've raised are that our society is ambivilent about which
behaviors are acceptable, and those deemed to be unacceptable are not
independent of the individuals exhibiting those behaviors. If we are
unwilling to address these basic facts, all it would do is provide a
"cover" for such rejection that is far less objective than whether one is
found to be a user of a particular substance.

> What would happen to DEA funding, DARE funding, military funding of
> drug interdiction programs, prison operation contractor funding, ...,
> if such a rational approach to the issue were instituted?
>
> Follow the money.
>
The buck starts at the top. Considering the container loads of illicit
substances that make its way into the country on a daily basis, it's
unreasonable to think that those in authority are ignorant of how and
where this is happening. In much the same way, the airplane that was shot
down could not be be involved in "known drug traffic" unless the
authorities saw it being loaded with drugs (and could have intervened at
that point). This is another silly exercise in making it appear that
something is being done to address the drug problem when it's really
highly unlikely.

Neil

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
>> If a drug user (legal or otherwise) wants to clean up, they should
>> do it on their own dime.
>
> That's reasonable for those who are able. But it is society's
> misguided prohibitions that are the root of most of the problems,
> because they make the drugs unaffordable.

Even if drugs were "affordable"*, users wanting to clean up should do so
with their own funds. They're able to find the money for the vice, they
should be able to find the willpower, funds, etc. to kick the habit they
formed of their own free will. This is not to say privately funded or
volunteer organzations shouldn't or wouldn't exist to help with this task. I
just don't think it's a fair or wise expense of tax money.

* One can argue they're "affordable" now since there is still a significant
demand despite the inflated prices of the black market.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >I know we both have had family members with
>> "issues", and yes, I do blame the addicts.
>
> To some degree I agree with you. However, once a drug abuser is past
> a certain point, they are no longer operating of their own free
> will. These are the people that the drug cartels breed and feed, and
> it's disgusting and pathetic.

And without the cartels it would be much different?

>
> I understand the impulse to legalize this stuff, and it's easy to
> compare it to alcohol Prohibition -- but I think we're talking about
> an exponentially worse problem than beer and wine here.

The problem with your analogy is that it's not the drugs, or the booze,
it's the addict.

At least under a system of legalization, the addicts can come out of the
closet earlier and get help before the problem is exacerbated.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>> I'm afraid that we, as a society, have little choice but to try to
>> stop illicit drug use.
>
> I agree, but what we've been doing for so long very closely fits the
> colloquial definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over
> again and expecting different results.
>
> The War on Drugs is a monumental failure. We've wasted billions annd
> created fabulously wealthy drug empires around the world with our
> prohibition/enforcement strategy. That we have failed to do anything
> significant to reduce the flow of dope is illustrated by the street price
> of cocaine, which has been going steadily *down* every year since the
> '80s. Why? Because the supply is going up. The tons of the stuff we
> seize is just a cost of doing business to the narco-lords. There's plenty
> more where that came from.
>
> I propose we stop our knee-jerk policy and try something different.
> De-criminalize drugs and attack the real problem: addiction. Treatment
> does work, if it'a available to those who want it, and we could treat
> every addict in the country for a tenth of what we're spending on the WoD.

Agree 110%!!

Perhaps more significantly, drugs are a problem to a subset of the
population, but the crime and CORRUPTION that goes with the drug war is a
bane to EVERYBODY.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Flydive" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Flydive" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>> The United States is signatory to treaties prohibiting firing upon
>>>>> civilian aircraft, but regularly violates these treaties. This is
>>>>> behavior that we used to associate with the worst aspects of the
>>>>> Soviet
>>>>> Union and other rogue states.
>>>> Just curious: When has the US ever fired on civilian aircraft?
>>>> --
>>>> Jay Honeck
>>>> Iowa City, IA
>>>> Pathfinder N56993
>>>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>>>
>>>
>>> I kind of remember something about an Iranian Airbus......
>>
>> That was violating several ICAO rules, IIRC.
> So death penalty then?


Pardon?

> As the Corean 747, the Russian were right then?

There was a battle zone in the area?

> And anyway it was a Civilian Aircraft and it was shot down by the US as
> per question.

Your sense of omnipotence during battle, especially for aircraft not
following ICAO procedures is bizzare. Your comparison to the KAL 007 is
obscene.

If you're going to make a point, understand the contextual differences and
get that GD agenda back up your spincter.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> Not because of lack of money (although there *is* that), but because
>> it just doesn't work -- period. Take a look at the stats, and it's
>> absolutely appalling how few people succeed.

Probably because addiction is a manifestation of something more insideous.

>>
>
>
> The amount of money spent on prevention and treatment is fractions of what
> has been spent on this so-called war. If we spent as much money on
> treatment and prevention of addiction as we have spent in the vain attempt
> to prevent this stuff from getting in to the country we would not have the
> problems you see. I'll bet we could give each 'additcted' person $30,000 a
> year just to stay in a home and we would be money ahead...

Of course, such a program would feed Congress' addiction to spending money.

>> People who are addicted to drugs and alcohol are usually damaged in
>> other ways. I've never yet met a homeless person who wasn't either
>> mentally ill, addicted to drugs and/or alchol, or all three.

And if your trace back their individual histories,, you'll find they had
problems LONG before drugs became an issue.

Think of one of widest addications in the US, that being the braindead abuse
of television. Imagine the young of today 20-30 years from now.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Private" > wrote in message
news:E_8ii.79395$xq1.33945@pd7urf1no...
>
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> Police states are an extremely effective and economical way to control
>> crime.
>>
>
> Unfortunately they usually control criminal activity (and corruption) by
> running it.

Police States have never, ever, been concerned with crime other than against
the powers-that-be.

Ever.

Even the rah-rah "law & order" types are much more likely to be not so much
against real crime, but behavior they find "annoying", or against their
sensibilities, etc.

[Flydive]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Flydive" > wrote in message

>>>>>
>>>> I kind of remember something about an Iranian Airbus......
>>> That was violating several ICAO rules, IIRC.
>> So death penalty then?
>
>
> Pardon?
>
Well it seemed like you are justifying shooting down an airliner just
because it is violating ICAO procedures, that sounds a bit like death
penalty.


>> As the Corean 747, the Russian were right then?
>
> There was a battle zone in the area?

No, but I believe it was heading for some very restricted airspace and
not answering/following ATC instruction. What would happen today
(granted, we are post 9/11) in a similar situation in the USA?

>
>> And anyway it was a Civilian Aircraft and it was shot down by the US as
>> per question.
>
> Your sense of omnipotence during battle, especially for aircraft not
> following ICAO procedures is bizzare. Your comparison to the KAL 007 is
> obscene.
>

Sense of Omnipotence? Granted it was an accident, a terrible mistake
that should not have happened, still is a civilian aircraft being shot
down, is the US navy unable to make the difference between an Airbus and
a fighter. Please can you tell what are the ICAO violations that justify
the shooting, or that led to believe that the Airbus was attacking the
fleet?


> If you're going to make a point, understand the contextual differences and
> get that GD agenda back up your spincter.
>

GD agenda? please explain, I do not know what it means.

> get that GD agenda back up your spincter.
>

And anyway it is alway nice to have a civil and respectfull
conversation.......

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
>>
>>> If a drug user (legal or otherwise) wants to clean up, they should
>>> do it on their own dime.
>>
>> That's reasonable for those who are able. But it is society's
>> misguided prohibitions that are the root of most of the problems,
>> because they make the drugs unaffordable.
>
> Even if drugs were "affordable"*, users wanting to clean up should do so
> with their own funds. They're able to find the money for the vice, they
> should be able to find the willpower, funds, etc. to kick the habit they
> formed of their own free will. This is not to say privately funded or
> volunteer organzations shouldn't or wouldn't exist to help with this task.
> I just don't think it's a fair or wise expense of tax money.

Salvation Army (who I donate to), and a slew of other organizations provide
help with "kicking the habit". IIUC, the annual donations run into
$$$billions in the US alone.

[[email protected]]

>
> And anyway it is alway nice to have a civil and respectfull
> conversation.......

Matt Barrow has difficulty having a civil and respectful
conversation, as does Kontiki...