HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Pudentame wrote:
Walter Banks wrote:

Locked solid cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11 the plan
depended on
physical control of the airplane. The same controls hijackings.

To some extent, but there's evidence that at least one of the
hijackers
out of Logan was dressed in a pilot's uniform and was "extended the
courtesy" of riding in the cockpit by the flight crew.

We collectively have given up a lot of freedoms in exchange for
security. Surprisingly
we critisize countries for oppression that may actually have found
the
balance
between freedom and security.
We have collectively given up a lot of freedom. I don't see where we
have indeed have received security in return. From where I sit it
looks
kind of a lopsided exchange.
One would need MUCH more that a uniform to get into the cockpit!
As for giving up freedoms relative to flying now, as opposed to before
2001, just what freedoms? You mean taking off your shoes, or not
carrying a pocket knife is an 'essential freedom' to you? Still, no
one
forces you to fly, there are other means of transport not so restricted
as to what you can carry. Although on a recent cruise, the security
approached what you see on an airliner.
Ever heard of the 4th amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



A search's "reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment generally
depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued
upon probable cause. [U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83)].

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy
interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such
intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.'
[Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2]'

'Except in certain narrowly limited cases, the Court repeatedly has
stated its 'insist[ence] upon probable cause as a minimum requirement
for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution.' [Chambers v.
Moreny, 399 U.S. 42, 51 ('70)].'

'[t]he integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value in our
society,' searches that invade bodily integrity cannot be executed as
mere fishing expeditions to acquire useful evidence: 'The interests in
human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid
any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence might be
obtained.' [Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 769-70].'

Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in
the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v.
Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket
patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was
probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that
the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police
discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the
unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of
baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.

Yes, but one might argue that entering an airplane could be contingent
upon the individual agreeing to give up his 4th amendment rights, and
allow a search to take place.....Sort of like if I gave a private party
in my house, and told everyone that they aren't invited unless they agree
to be searched.....Do the airlines have the right to force their
customers to give up their 4th amendment rights? And, if not, then why
not?
Forced? In what way. One can always just walk away from that search.

This could be true, but there are some circumstances where this may not be
true.....If your only means of transportation is by plane, and you have to
transport yourself in order to live, or remain a functioning part of the
society, you might have the constitutional right to avoid such a search. -
It's sort of similar to the argument that the automobile is the normal,
accepted way of transporting oneself from state to state, and, since travel
between states is by constitutional law, not requiring of any license or
passport, the drivers license is therefore an illegal, unconstitutional
document. This has been successfully argued in the courts. incidentally.
By the same token, if ones only means of transport is by airplane, then
one should be allowed to fly without having ones 4th amendment rights
violated.......

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:34:50 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

I certainly don't mind modifying the Constitution....The method for doing
this is outlined in the document itself....What I object to is redefining
the English language in order to make the document mean something that its
drafters never meant for it to mean, and thereby usurping the method
outlined in the document for modification.

Yeah. And it's only words, anyway. America isn't strong because of
the Constitution. It's strong because of abundant resources. Cheap
labour (often from people the Constitution didn't seem to apply to)
helped too.

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:48:09 -0800, Ken Lucke
wrote:

Ever heard of the 4th amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Not terribly useful today, is it. So shall we stop hiding behind that
one?

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:25:50 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

This could be true, but there are some circumstances where this may not be
true.....If your only means of transportation is by plane, and you have to
transport yourself in order to live, or remain a functioning part of the
society, you might have the constitutional right to avoid such a search. -
It's sort of similar to the argument that the automobile is the normal,
accepted way of transporting oneself from state to state, and, since travel
between states is by constitutional law, not requiring of any license or
passport, the drivers license is therefore an illegal, unconstitutional
document.

You're very big on convenience of the individual, aren't you? Wait
until a madman starts running round YOUR town. Road-blocks and
blanket searches will suddenly sound like a VERY good idea.

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:29:10 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

Lets put it this way.....I am the only person who is completely familiar
with my own inadequacies and abilities.

But we're learning fast :-)

"William Graham" wrote:

But that wasn't the question. the question was why just talk about the
cost of a police effort, and not mention the cost of just letting the
criminals do whatever they please.

While I have an opinion on that question which hinges on such
things as responsibility, duty, and sovereignty, it's not the
question I was answering. I was challenging the assertion that
the framers of the U.S. Constitution succeeded to a great
extent in guarding against governments restricting freedoms.

They were imperfect men who created an imperfect document.
They did recognize this and built in an amendment process, but
also built in a clause which effectively negated all of those
rights in case of rebellion or invasion. They then proceeded
to ignore those freedoms immediately at the State level, and
with a decade at the Federal level.

I'd argue that the second best safeguard against government
abuse in the U.S. system isn't found in the Constitution. It
was invented by John Marshall in the dicta of a petty little
political patronage case, a case he should have recused himself
from hearing at all. Such are the accidents of history.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:18:24 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Ah. Mr. Heinlin. Writes a very good yarn, but his attitudes are
somewhat to the right of Genghis Kahn.
No, he merely, like many good SF authors took certain trends and
extrapolated them to a fantastic degree, to the exclusion of other
concurrent trends.

It's possible he was extrapolating redneck chauvinism. But I think
not. Authors' attitudes show through. I'm a long-time SF enthusiast,
not just judging on one or two books.

Depends on which story. Different stories extrapolated different things.
And some stories appear to be merely to take a goofy idea and see how
far you can run with it.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:25:50 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

This could be true, but there are some circumstances where this may not be
true.....If your only means of transportation is by plane, and you have to
transport yourself in order to live, or remain a functioning part of the
society, you might have the constitutional right to avoid such a search. -
It's sort of similar to the argument that the automobile is the normal,
accepted way of transporting oneself from state to state, and, since travel
between states is by constitutional law, not requiring of any license or
passport, the drivers license is therefore an illegal, unconstitutional
document.

You're very big on convenience of the individual, aren't you? Wait
until a madman starts running round YOUR town. Road-blocks and
blanket searches will suddenly sound like a VERY good idea.

BTDT. They're not a good idea because they're not effective.

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Pudentame
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Pudentame
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:

Uh, no. Sorry. The human pelvis is wider than that, even crushed.
Just because an octopus can squeeze itself out though a hole no bigger
than its beak, doesn't mean a human will squirt out a window similarly.

I see you still don't have an example. Cite ONE case where a human
being was blown out through an airliner window sized hole. Note the
parameters here, which are in line with the original discussion of
fireams in an airliner cabin.
3 November 1973; National Airlines DC10; over New Mexico, USA: The
aircraft had an uncontained failure of one of the wing mounted engines.
A piece of the engine struck the fuselage and broke a passenger window.
One of the 116 passengers was sucked out of the aircraft during a rapid
decompression. The remains of the passenger were not found.

NTSB Identification: DCA74AZ031
Does it specify that the hole remained only the size of the window, or
did the damage extend the aperture (g to use a photog term and have
some relevance to this group)? I'd wager on the latter.

Nope. You lose your bet.

Here's a photograph of the side of the aircraft, showing one missing
window. There's no enlargement of the window opening at all.

http://faalessons.workforceconnect.o...f_50e2efdca602

or

http://tinyurl.com/y69ed9

OK, I'll buy that one - if you look at the window size, in relation to
normal airliner window sizes that I'm used to, it's much larger -

Bull****!

Bill Funk wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:50:46 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Pudentame
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:

Uh, no. Sorry. The human pelvis is wider than that, even crushed.
Just because an octopus can squeeze itself out though a hole no bigger
than its beak, doesn't mean a human will squirt out a window similarly.

I see you still don't have an example. Cite ONE case where a human
being was blown out through an airliner window sized hole. Note the
parameters here, which are in line with the original discussion of
fireams in an airliner cabin.
3 November 1973; National Airlines DC10; over New Mexico, USA: The
aircraft had an uncontained failure of one of the wing mounted engines.
A piece of the engine struck the fuselage and broke a passenger window.
One of the 116 passengers was sucked out of the aircraft during a rapid
decompression. The remains of the passenger were not found.

NTSB Identification: DCA74AZ031
Does it specify that the hole remained only the size of the window, or
did the damage extend the aperture (g to use a photog term and have
some relevance to this group)? I'd wager on the latter.

Nope. You lose your bet.

Here's a photograph of the side of the aircraft, showing one missing
window. There's no enlargement of the window opening at all.

http://faalessons.workforceconnect.o...f_50e2efdca602

or

http://tinyurl.com/y69ed9

Who was the ejected pax? A child or full-size adult?


Christ! Do some fu&%^ Google of your own!