Student Pilot Gets Five Months In Prison

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

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



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


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

I have no sympathy for the applicant.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"arbitrary questions that further restrict your rights"

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

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

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

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

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

"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
.. .

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

Amen.

Rich "resigned burrocrap" S.

Rich S. wrote:

"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
.. .

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

That was my main complaint of jls's post. Turning it into a political bash.
John
By the way his response something to the effect I 'turned his name in' is so
bogus, I do not take anything I read or write here beyond here. I never
defamed his name to anyone.

Ernest Christley wrote:

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

Theorem wrote:

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




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



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

I have no sympathy for the applicant.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


"arbitrary questions that further restrict your rights"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"UltraJohn" wrote in message
ink.net...
Rich S. wrote:

"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
.. .

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

That was my main complaint of jls's post. Turning it into a political
bash.
John
By the way his response something to the effect I 'turned his name in' is
so
bogus, I do not take anything I read or write here beyond here. I never
defamed his name to anyone.


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

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

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

" jls" wrote:

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

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

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

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
" jls" wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

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

jls wrote:


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

Yeah it's called CYA!

grin
John "not big, just Ultra" P

" jls" wrote:

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
.. .
" jls" wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

To sum it up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another bastion of journalistic integrity - heh heh heh.

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

Mark Hickey wrote:
" jls" wrote:


"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
. ..

" jls" wrote:


I think you're correct and apologize. The culprit was a lilliputian who
called himself Big John.
Just weeks before 9-11 Bush was laid back at his ranch in Crawford, TX

when

he received a daily briefing warning that Osama Bin Ladin had a cell of
terrorists in this country planning to fly airliners into skyscrapers.

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true


To sum it up:

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

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

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

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

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


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


Another bastion of journalistic integrity - heh heh heh.

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

Forget it, Mark, jls seems to have a fetish for conspiracies.

Dan, .S. Air Force, retired