"GaryP" wrote:
...
Didn't the FBO agree to the charter, which is after all one of their
sources
of revenue, until they became suspicious of the passengers? ... What
possible parallel can you draw between the FBO and a crooked car
dealer?

I was implying a case where the FBO went ahead and flew them, without
the security awareness they should have. I don't agree with NBC's
judgment on the potential GA security threat, but this is only what
they were looking for, same as hidden camera looking for cockroaches
in a restaurant kitchen.

When they engage in an illegal activity, e.g. armed terrorist
suspects
attempting to bypass airport security, that is another.

You cited a crime whch doesn't exist, unless local law prohibits
carriage of even a Stanley utility knife onto this airport property.
That's the case if you do that at an air carrier airport, but only
past the security point, under federal law. If thery broke a law,
nothing yet on google news that says which one it was.

Illegal is illegal no matter what the motive.

Believe that's exactly correct. Criminal intent means only that the
person had or should have had knowledge he did something the law
forbids. So in the case of your college kid on a do-good mission, he
can be prosecuted and maybe was. Applies to media too, and they have
been at least arrested once as I recall. But gov't should think hard
about prosecuting media due to the 1st Amendment issue. We've shut
down selected media in Iraq and now are letting the Iraqis do it.
This is not the flower of a Middle East democracy Bush promised, and I
don't think we want to go near that stuff here.

And...if media could get an actual gun onto an airliner, wouldn't you
really want to know that? Gov't knows the small but real probability
it's airport security measures can be breached--they quietly test it.
Prosecuting media who try to find out what they will never tell us
doesn't sound good to me.

F--