If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the military would have no other option but to shoot them down. So while the DC ADIZ does nothing, in my opinion, to make DC more secure, it may provide some measure of mitigating erroneous shoot downs of fellow airmen. You give our enemies far too little credit if you really believe this. Every single violation of the DC ADIZ to date has been erroneous - some grossly so (see "Hayden Shaeffer") while most were not. The ADIZ does nothing but separate those following the rules from those not following them. Assuming for the moment that Al Qaeda (or some similar outfit) were to use airplanes to cause mischief here in DC, I'd exect them to follow the rules right up to the last minute. Really, how hard do you think it would be to locate a vetted pilot, kidnap them and extract the information needed to penetrate the FRZ? You mean like the CIA did in Peru: You keep bringing that up like the CIA shot down the plane. They didn't. The Peruvians did after the CIA operatives told them *not* to shoot (admittedly after providing tracking/guidance for the Peruvians). Perhaps this incident made it obvious to our government, that it might be prudent to attempt to ascertain if the aircraft in question is 'friend or foe' _before_ shooting it down, and inspired the DC ADIZ. I think it's far more likely that various security agencies saw an opportunity to justify their budget requests. I agree; the DC ADIZ does nothing to make DC more secure. If this is the case, why do you keep arguing *for* the ADIZ? Don't get me wrong. I don't believe the FRZ is an effective measure against all hypothetical attacks on DC. I haven't seen any hypothetical attack where the FRZ is an effective countermeasure. Further, I feel that our government putting it's citizens in the cross hairs is repugnant in a free society. Yet you argue for just that when you want fighters intercepting errant aircraft in the ADIZ. What would you propose in place of the DC ADIZ and FRZ? Considering that *nobody* is claiming knowledge of any imminent attack, nothing. I'm not opposed to *temporary* restrictions in times of heightened threat, but most of the rest of the country now enjoys the same freedoms they had prior to 9/11 and February 2003 while those of us under the DC veil are still denied those freedoms - even in the absence of a heightened threat. By the way, where are those regular justifications for the ADIZ the FAA was mandated to provide to Congress? -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com ____________________ |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:59:58 GMT, Jose
wrote: Actually, first somebody else wrote: If those Muslims who are aware of terrorists in their midst were to inform on them... Then Jose said: Didn't communist China do this some years back? This kind of thing can be useful if it is appropriately contained, but it's hard to say where it should stop. Try England under the later Tudors. Denunciation and Star Chamber trial. Then the headsman. Or France under the Reign of Terror. Or Germany in the twentieth century. And France and Poland, and in fact, damn near everywhere except (for the most part) Holland and Denmark. Your next-door neighbor is often happy to denounce you if there's a chance of picking up your land. You know who resisted the temptation? Our parents and grandparents. There is story after story about Euro-americans looking after the property of Japanese internees during the war and returning their homes and business to them after it was over. I'd like to hope that the current generation has the same scruples, but I'd rather not have to find out. Don |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in
I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the military would have no other option but to shoot them down. Bull****. Do you still live with your mother? moo |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
... On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 16:48:10 -0400, "Happy Dog" wrote in :: Do you really believe that this is being considered to reduce clutter? I'm talking about radar screen clutter. Yes. I see no other rational reason for the DC ADIZ. Why do you think it was implemented? Political pressure. Absolute irrelevant bull****. As for clutter, have you visited a radar facility? It's a computer game. There is a huge amount of filtering that goes on specifically to reduce clutter. moo |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"It appears the government is protecting itself and could care less
about the public." SHACK!!! But even then, it is a farce. The extent of the existing ADIZ / NDA will provide no time for intercept if the TOI is a fast-mover, or a commercial flight out of IAD... This is purely an issue of the oligarchy trying to protect itself, and the USSS and Capitol Police completely out of their domain trying to figure it out with incremental elimination of freedom of movement. DoD got what it wanted last month with direct 'shoot-down' authority. Bear in mind as well that this Administration has an Iron Fist policy over the Executive Branch. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if Karl Rove and Fran Townsend did not personally approve. They know exactly what FAA has been ordered to do, and they hold the leash, so put the blame where it is deserved. The ONLY way the "Land of the Free and the Brave" will once again become Free and Brave is if this becomes an election issue in 2008. Cast aside any sad devotions to "political parties", having lived in the Beltway for many years I have concluded neither party represents the national interest anymore. Study the issues, figure out who is LIKELY to inact policies and laws commensurate with your beliefs, and THEN pull the handle... |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
It appears the government is protecting itself and could care less about the
public. If you mean bureaucratically, it's doing a find job. If you mean physically, then it's inviting Darwin to the party. Jose -- Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe, except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 01:00:47 -0400, "John T" wrote in
:: Larry Dighera wrote: I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the military would have no other option but to shoot them down. So while the DC ADIZ does nothing, in my opinion, to make DC more secure, it may provide some measure of mitigating erroneous shoot downs of fellow airmen. You give our enemies far too little credit if you really believe this. I fail to understand you inferred that from what I wrote. You will note that I made no mention whatsoever of enemies in that statement. My point was that the DC ADIZ's purpose most probably is to protect the innocent from lethal force. [...] I agree; the DC ADIZ does nothing to make DC more secure. If this is the case, why do you keep arguing *for* the ADIZ? I'm not in favor of the DC ADIZ. I'm just attempting to clarify its intended purpose. [...] Further, I feel that our government putting it's citizens in the cross hairs is repugnant in a free society. Yet you argue for just that when you want fighters intercepting errant aircraft in the ADIZ. Surely you must agree, that the attempt to identify flights violating the DC ADIZ as friend or foe preferable to downing all such flights. What would you propose in place of the DC ADIZ and FRZ? Considering that *nobody* is claiming knowledge of any imminent attack, nothing. I'm not opposed to *temporary* restrictions in times of heightened threat, but most of the rest of the country now enjoys the same freedoms they had prior to 9/11 and February 2003 while those of us under the DC veil are still denied those freedoms - even in the absence of a heightened threat. That seems a reasonable proposal. By the way, where are those regular justifications for the ADIZ the FAA was mandated to provide to Congress? Ask baby Bush. He's an expert at justifying inane actions. :-) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:59:58 GMT, Jose
wrote in : : There is another way to find Islamic terrorists. Islamic terrorists aren't the problem. Terrorists are the problem. Bill Maher recently expressed the opinion, that crashing airliners laden with hundreds of people was a faith based initiative. :-) [...] It is the evil ideas that must be stopped. But alas, there's something in the constitution about that. So if it's not possible to stop ideas, what action is appropriate? If those Muslims who are aware of terrorists in their midst were to inform on them... Didn't communist China do this some years back? This kind of thing can be useful if it is appropriately contained, but it's hard to say where it should stop. Or rather, it's easy to say, but hard to agree, and I don't trust this administration to agree with me. I'm just talking about Muslims coming forward of their own volition and exposing those in their ranks they believe to be terrorists. Such active cooperation would be an additional source of information, and paint the Muslim-American community as allies in the fight-for-right not the harborers of evil as they are currently being viewed. I fail to understand your fear of where "this kind of thing" should stop. Clearly we should encourage informants to out terrorists, drug kingpins, religious extremists, welfare abusers, deadbeat dads, athiests, jaywalkers, gays, and people who fly little airplanes "for fun". If you're doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't be afraid. Oh, you're concerned about informing in an Orwellian way. I understand now: kids informing to the government on their parents, and such. When you lump "people who fly little airplanes" and terrorists in the same group, it becomes difficult to take your words seriously. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 05:48:16 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote in :: On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:59:58 GMT, Jose wrote: Actually, first somebody else wrote: If those Muslims who are aware of terrorists in their midst were to inform on them... Then Jose said: Didn't communist China do this some years back? This kind of thing can be useful if it is appropriately contained, but it's hard to say where it should stop. Try England under the later Tudors. Denunciation and Star Chamber trial. Then the headsman. Or France under the Reign of Terror. Or Germany in the twentieth century. And France and Poland, and in fact, damn near everywhere except (for the most part) Holland and Denmark. Your next-door neighbor is often happy to denounce you if there's a chance of picking up your land. You know who resisted the temptation? Our parents and grandparents. There is story after story about Euro-americans looking after the property of Japanese internees during the war and returning their homes and business to them after it was over. I'd like to hope that the current generation has the same scruples, but I'd rather not have to find out. Don Thanks for the information. If exposing the evil in their midst is so fraught with possible abuse, what do you propose to assist in quelling terrorist activities? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 03:37:31 -0400, "Happy Dog"
wrote in : : "Larry Dighera" wrote in I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the military would have no other option but to shoot them down. Bull****. Do you still live with your mother? moo At the risk of having misinterpreted another of your outbursts, please let me request that you compose a cognate rebuttal worthy of rational discussion. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NAS and associated computer system | Newps | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 12th 04 05:12 AM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |