Greetings from your friendly, neighborhood, TERRORIST!

"Montblack" wrote in message
.. .
("Paul Tomblin" wrote)
At least you didn't commit the "crime" of photographing a bridge while
black. See http://69.93.170.43/


"My dear fellow! This isn't Spain ... this is England!"
A Man For All Seasons (1966)
Winner of six Academy Awards - including Best Picture

One of the best movies ever made, though a lot of people think it is boring.

Peter R. wrote in message ...
Nomen Nescio wrote:

"You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.

Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
military personnel?

On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?

Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? I did, much to my chagrin.

--
O.M.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
Peter R. wrote:

Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
military personnel?


can you say 'Patriot Act'?

The Patriot Act requires no such thing.

"Otis McNatt" wrote in message
om...
Peter R. wrote in message
...
Nomen Nescio wrote:

"You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.

Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
military personnel?

On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?

Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? I did, much to my chagrin.

Ah, if you voted for Bush, then military personnel have a right to order you
around. I suppose if you vote for Kerry this election and he wins, then
military personnel will have the right to order Democrats around.

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has not
gone far enough?

C J Campbell wrote:

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has not
gone far enough?

He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a fact of
life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the effect on
businesses and individuals is minimized."

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:

Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens
on
public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
military personnel?


can you say 'Patriot Act'?

The Patriot Act requires no such thing.

with the Patriot Act the authorities in the US can do almost whatever they
want.

Baloney.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction
put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has
not
gone far enough?

He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a
fact of
life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the
effect on
businesses and individuals is minimized."

Reminiscent of Bush saying that we should just continue to go about our
daily business.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction
put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has
not
gone far enough?

He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a
fact of
life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the
effect on
businesses and individuals is minimized."

Which means... what exactly? That he feels our pain but isn't going to
change anything?

-cwk.

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.

Guess I get to be the lone voice of dissent here.

In case you haven't noticed, there's at least a couple ten thousand loonies
out there who want to kill us in large numbers. Maybe that's GWB's fault,
maybe it isn't, but that doesn't change the situation on the ground *right
now.* You're hanging around off the edge of a runway next near an ANG base.
Sorry, but I can see where the guys are going to get a little edgy. Sounds
like the soldier was a little gruffer with you than he needed to be, but
that's not his first order of business.

And yes, I do know that of which I speak. I was grounded for three months
after 9/11 because of the massive BOS-NYC-DC TFRs that no one cared to
explain.

If we get hit again at home, and with the election right around the corner
there's plenty of reason to be on guard, we might lose everything. How about
a DC-style ADIZ over every single Class B? Mandatory flight plans for
everything? FAA can't handle it, tough ****, they'll just have a lottery for
VFR departure slots on weekends. What makes you think your non-pilot
neighbors won't surrender your freedom to fly without a second thought?

Don't get me wrong- I think the TSA is a mess and the current airline
security system, which is still the tagrte we need to worry the most about,
is a sickening morass of bureaucratic incompetence. So at best you've got a
marginal case to make that the ANG guy who harassed you should have been at
BDL searching peoples' carry-ons instead, or at the container terminal in
Boston. That's about it.

Best,
-cwk.

C, I see a disparity between this:

In case you haven't noticed, there's at least a couple ten thousand loonies
out there who want to kill us in large numbers. Maybe that's GWB's fault,
maybe it isn't, but that doesn't change the situation on the ground *right
now.* You're hanging around off the edge of a runway next near an ANG base.
Sorry, but I can see where the guys are going to get a little edgy. Sounds
like the soldier was a little gruffer with you than he needed to be, but
that's not his first order of business.
snip

And this:

What makes you think your non-pilot neighbors won't surrender your freedom
to fly without a second thought?

You probably don't mean it, but my interpretation is that your first
paragraph above is justifying what your second statement (removing the
"to fly") is condemning.

--
Peter