Pilot protests customs 'check' (from AVWEB)

[flyersfan31]

By "is," I meant "isn't."

OHHHHHHH, so THAAAAAAAT'S what the definition of "is" is.

 

[Clark1961]

I see few verifiable facts in this story. I'm sorry you cannot dissassociate yourself from your status as a pilot long enough to recognize this situation for what it is, and to take someone else's opinion - expert or not - as a contribution to the discussion instead of some affront. But yes, I will certainly give your advice all due consideration.

In other words you are incapable of taking advice. Oh well. Sorry about that. Good luck. Somewhere along the way maybe you'll realize just how wrong you are. I doubt it but it can't hurt to point it out to you even if you can't see the facts today.

 

[Clark1961]

Consider also that the common definition of a word is generally quite different from the legal definition/application of a word.

For instance, to utter, in the common sense, means to make a sound or to say something. In the legal sense, it means to pass a bad check.

And, there is a huge, HUGE, HUGE difference between "drawn" weapons and a description, by a layperson (and that person is a layperson, simply because he cites the 4th Amendment in a situation where the 4th Amendment is particularly applicable), of "brandished" weapons.

Big difference there, and if you can't see it, you're either unfamiliar with the use of the term brandishing or being purposefully obtuse.

It is clear that you miss my point entirely. I note that the pilot said that weapons were pointed at the aircraft and I also note that CBP admitted that weapons were drawn. From my experience that means that weapons were drawn and pointed at the aircraft. Of course LEO will try to deny any criminal action and minimize their culpability. The question to us is who do we believe. Personally, I'm long past give LEO any benefit of doubt. Your opinion may well be different.

To make a long story short, it is quite clear that any reasonable, unbiasased observer would note that the CBP and LEO actions were unwarranted given the public facts. There is absolutely no reason to draw weapons and point them at someone just for planing a trip out of the country. It is interesting to note that CBP claims additional information but fails to make that information or even the nature of that information available. It's too bad they expect the benefit of doubt when they don't offer the same to the rest of us. Nothing like a double standard, eh?

 

[flyersfan31]

In other words you are incapable of taking advice. Oh well. Sorry about that. Good luck. Somewhere along the way maybe you'll realize just how wrong you are. I doubt it but it can't hurt to point it out to you even if you can't see the facts today.

I think you need to go back and read the article, like i just did.

It is one man's report, uncorroborated by anything more than an admission by the LBPD that something happened. What facts?

What do we know about this guy? Nothing. Former military officer. Great. It's still his word alone.

We are all guilty of reading our own biases into this story. Nothing wrong with that, it happens all the time.

This story concerns me. I would like to know more. I don't like the idea of LE confronting innocent people with guns drawn (or brandished, or wielded, or whatever) but unlike that recent home invasion in MD, this story doesn't really have legs.

 

[Everskyward]

To make a long story short, it is quite clear that any reasonable, unbiasased observer would note that the CBP and LEO actions were unwarranted given the public facts.

There's the problem right there. We all groan about the way aviation news is presented in the media. I'm sure law enforcement news is the same way.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

It is clear that you miss my point entirely. I note that the pilot said that weapons were pointed at the aircraft and I also note that CBP admitted that weapons were drawn. From my experience that means that weapons were drawn and pointed at the aircraft. Of course LEO will try to deny any criminal action and minimize their culpability. The question to us is who do we believe. Personally, I'm long past give LEO any benefit of doubt. Your opinion may well be different.

To make a long story short, it is quite clear that any reasonable, unbiasased observer would note that the CBP and LEO actions were unwarranted given the public facts. There is absolutely no reason to draw weapons and point them at someone just for planing a trip out of the country. It is interesting to note that CBP claims additional information but fails to make that information or even the nature of that information available. It's too bad they expect the benefit of doubt when they don't offer the same to the rest of us. Nothing like a double standard, eh?

How can you square those two statements?

It sounds to me as if you've already prejudged the situation, whereas I'm: 1) telling you what the actual law is; and 2) saying, "gee, maybe there are more facts we don't know about."

 

[alaskaflyer]

To make a long story short, it is quite clear that any reasonable, unbiasased observer

Too bad we don't have any of those around.

 

[greentips]

Please provide actual examples, rather than rhetoric and hyperbole, to support any kind of finding that there is a widespread problem with the government, or reason to actually distrust the government.

Just because you think there's a problem doesn't mean there's a problem.

I'll wait for your actual facts and an argument that, despite the fact that for 1 out of every XXX,000 encounters with police there is poor judgment displayed, there is a problem.

[yawn]

I think Bierfeldt v. Napolitano might enlighten us as to the extent of the problem with the DHS and its daughter agencies the TSA and the CBP.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39930lgl20090618.html

The DHS/TSA/CPB is alleged in this action for declaratory and injunctive relief in a non-transborder situation to have specifically and directly violated the unreasonable search and seizure provisions.

So, we cannot ask what our rights are any more. We cannot not answer fishing expedition questions any more. We must answer the TSA or we'll be turned over to the DEA/FBI or arrested at gunpoint. Let's see, that pretty much covers the 4th and 5th amendments. Only have about 8 more to go...but give us time we'll soon have the 2nd taken care of. First will be a little harder, what with the internet and all, but soon, brothers, soon.

 

[mikea]

I think Bierfeldt v. Napolitano might enlighten us as to the extent of the problem with the DHS and its daughter agencies the TSA and the CBP.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39930lgl20090618.html

The DHS/TSA/CPB is alleged in this action for declaratory and injunctive relief in a non-transborder situation to have specifically and directly violated the unreasonable search and seizure provisions.

So, we cannot ask what our rights are any more. We cannot not answer fishing expedition questions any more. We must answer the TSA or we'll be turned over to the DEA/FBI or arrested at gunpoint. Let's see, that pretty much covers the 4th and 5th amendments. ...

Of course the TSA agents were suspicious!

It says right there he had a bunch of stuff marked "Liberty" and a Bible!

Clearly a subversive!

Edit: He had the presence of mind to turn on his iPhone to record the jerk(s). CNN has a transcript. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/20/tsa.lawsuit/index.html

 

[greentips]

I think Bierfeldt v. Napolitano might enlighten us as to the extent of the problem with the DHS and its daughter agencies the TSA and the CBP.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39930lgl20090618.html

The DHS/TSA/CPB is alleged in this action for declaratory and injunctive relief in a non-transborder situation to have specifically and directly violated the unreasonable search and seizure provisions.

So, we cannot ask what our rights are any more. We cannot not answer fishing expedition questions any more. We must answer the TSA or we'll be turned over to the DEA/FBI or arrested at gunpoint. Let's see, that pretty much covers the 4th and 5th amendments. Only have about 8 more to go...but give us time we'll soon have the 2nd taken care of. First will be a little harder, what with the internet and all, but soon, brothers, soon.

Oh, and I forgot. If you want to fly to DCA anymore, you have to allow the government to put an armed representative of the United States in your airplane. Sounds like quartering of troops to me, that takes care of the 3rd Amendment. Only 7 left to go and we'll be rid of this pesky Bill of Rights once and for all.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Oh, and I forgot. If you want to fly to DCA anymore, you have to allow the government to put an armed representative of the United States in your airplane. Sounds like quartering of troops to me, that takes care of the 3rd Amendment. Only 7 left to go and we'll be rid of this pesky Bill of Rights once and for all.

The Bill of Rights doesn't protect you from the quartering or assignment of troops or government agents to your workplace, transportation vehicle or even home. It protects you from the quartering of troops in your house during peacetime. As you might remember we have been at various states of declared and undeclared war, well, pretty much since the end of the Korean War. That political statement aside , we are in the state of war now, remember?

While I am at it: the 4th Amendment doesn't protect you from searches and seizures - it protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures as provided by law and precedent.

 

[greentips]

The Bill of Rights doesn't protect you from the quartering or assignment of troops or government agents to your workplace, transportation vehicle or even home. It protects you from the quartering of troops in your house during peacetime. As you might remember we have been at various states of declared and undeclared war, well, pretty much since the end of the Korean War. That political statement aside , we are in the state of war now, remember?
...

How silly of me to forget. We are actually at war on a number of fronts. War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Illegal immigrants, War on Underage drinking, war on global warming, war on .... At least they haven't appointed an autocrat of great power, oh wait, they did, it's the Energy Czar.

I see you are correct, scratch Article 3 Section 8. Little by little they whittle away.



-----
"Rabbi Is there a proper prayer for the Czar? " "Yes. May the Lord Bless and Keep the Czar, .....far away from us!"

 

[wsuffa]

How silly of me to forget. We are actually at war on a number of fronts. War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Illegal immigrants, War on Underage drinking, war on global warming, war on .... At least they haven't appointed an autocrat of great power, oh wait, they did, it's the Energy Czar.

I see you are correct, scratch Article 3 Section 8. Little by little they whittle away.

We're in a war on everything. That's the way the pols and unelected folks in charge weild power over us. It makes things sound worse than they are.

War on the constitution....

 

[ScottM]

The Bill of Rights doesn't protect you from the quartering or assignment of troops or government agents to your workplace, transportation vehicle or even home. It protects you from the quartering of troops in your house during peacetime.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Emphasis mine. Says that in time of war the government may decide, by a law, to insist that troops be quartered in a person's home. Currently there is no such law.

 

[Clark1961]

How can you square those two statement

Easily. What is your problem with them? I suggest that you deal with exactly what I wrote and not what you want to have read.

It sounds to me as if you've already prejudged the situation, whereas I'm: 1) telling you what the actual law is; and 2) saying, "gee, maybe there are more facts we don't know about."

Well isn't that just special! Anybody can make up unknown facts and say that those unknown facts change the situation. CBP had the opportunity to fully disclose. If they didn't, well, then that is their problem.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Easily. What is your problem with them? I suggest that you deal with exactly what I wrote and not what you want to have read.

You wrote that you wouldn't give law enforcement any benefit of the doubt - a/k/a you're biased. You then wrote that any unbiased observer would share what is, quite obviously, your opinion.

I was just pointing out the intellectual dishonesty in that. If you're unable to see it, that's ok.

Well isn't that just special! Anybody can make up unknown facts and say that those unknown facts change the situation. CBP had the opportunity to fully disclose. If they didn't, well, then that is their problem.

Ummm...I didn't make up any facts. All I said is that maybe there are some facts that the news reports - or the guy who claims to have had his 4th Amendment rights violated (despite the fact that they're severely abrogated to the point of non-existence in his situation, meaning he's not as up-to-speed on his civil rights as he seems to think he is, apparently a common affliction among pilots) - don't know about, have left out, etc.

But, in light of the fact that you've already stated that you're biased, I suppose it's not too surprising that you're overlooking that little issue in favor of whatever suits your already-chosen side.

 

[Anthony]

Not to justify anything, but there is a push now to stop the flow of firearms from US into Mexico.

And what flow is that? You mean the flow of fully automatic military weapons? Sorry, they're not coming from the U.S.

 

[Clark1961]

You wrote that you wouldn't give law enforcement any benefit of the doubt - a/k/a you're biased. You then wrote that any unbiased observer would share what is, quite obviously, your opinion.

I was just pointing out the intellectual dishonesty in that. If you're unable to see it, that's ok.

There is no intellectual dishonesty in my statements. You chose to see dishonesty because you disagree with me.

First off, not giving someone the benefit of doubt is not a bias against that person in particular as long as I give no one the benefit of doubt.

Now consider that just because I note that the conclusions of an unbiased observer would agree with mine does not make those conclusions invalid or biased.

At this point, I conclude that logic and objective evaluation are not your strong suits.

Ummm...I didn't make up any facts. All I said is that maybe there are some facts that the news reports - or the guy who claims to have had his 4th Amendment rights violated (despite the fact that they're severely abrogated to the point of non-existence in his situation, meaning he's not as up-to-speed on his civil rights as he seems to think he is, apparently a common affliction among pilots) - don't know about, have left out, etc.

But, in light of the fact that you've already stated that you're biased, I suppose it's not too surprising that you're overlooking that little issue in favor of whatever suits your already-chosen side.

Ummm, I believe you are making up facts and changing your argument to fit the moment. The complaint was about the way the search was conducted, not that the search was conducted but then I'm sure you chose to overlook that little issue since it destroys your argument.

Look, you can argue until you're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that guns were used but nothing was found and no arrests made. Something was really rotten and CBP is obviously the culprit. Maybe they had bad information. Maybe they just screwed up. It is certain they didn't come clean and give a satisfactory explanation. Maybe you like that form of government agency function. I don't.

HAND

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

It won't change the fact that guns were used but nothing was found and no arrests made.
....

Leaving aside the rest of your post, which is stool of fairly poor consistency, you might want to review how the 4th Amendment works. The ends have no bearing upon the means.

Put in perhaps more comprehensible terms, the fact that contraband wasn't found in no way negates cause for a search or the manner of the search, just as the discovery of contraband in no way creates cause for either.

 

[EdFred]

Paging Orville Reddenbacher
Paging Orville Reddenbacher

 

[flyersfan31]

Ummm, I believe you are making up facts.... It won't change the fact that guns were used but nothing was found and no arrests made. Something was really rotten and CBP is obviously the culprit.

At this point, I have to ask, WHAT FACTS?

You have the uncorroborated CLAIMS of one person. Go back and read the article.

I don't like the way the story sounds, but I'm not going to go man the barricades based on "evidence" this flimsy.

 

[alaskaflyer]

...meaning he's not as up-to-speed on his civil rights as he seems to think he is, apparently a common affliction among pilots...

Seldom is so much said in one little phrase as this. But places like the Red and Blue Boards would be so much more boring if the opposite were true.

 

[Clark1961]

Leaving aside the rest of your post, which is stool of fairly poor consistency, you might want to review how the 4th Amendment works. The ends have no bearing upon the means.

Put in perhaps more comprehensible terms, the fact that contraband wasn't found in no way negates cause for a search or the manner of the search, just as the discovery of contraband in no way creates cause for either.

At this point it is obvious to all that you are quite confused. No one is making constitutional arguments. Can you even begin to comprehend that? Frankly, I doubt it.

As I wrote before: it is the manner in which the search was performed that is objectionable. If I point a gun at someone it is potentially a felony. Is it suddenly ok for LE to point a gun at someone just because they are told to by CBP? No, of course it isn't. Can you even begin to grasp the problem here?

The fact that nothing was found is a major point. Obviously CBP had bad information and no system of checks and balances to prevent the assault on a private citizen. Once again I have to ask if you can begin to understand the problem here. From your statements it is obvious that you are incapable of grasping the fudamental facts, reality, and consequences.

As I wrote before, HAND. I suggest you either agree to disagree or drop it before you embarrass yourself further.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

At this point it is obvious to all that you are quite confused. No one is making constitutional arguments. Can you even begin to comprehend that? Frankly, I doubt it.

Did you not read the letter written by the actual pilot's association involved? Do you fail to understand that the Constitution is what all of this turns upon? Have you ever even read the Constitution? Do you know how it works? Do you know how criminal procedure works? Do you even conceive of the fact that you only have grounds to object to the occurrence of a search - not how it's carried out, unless it rises to a level of constitutional offensiveness?

Or are you just going to insist, "them wrong, me right"? "Me not know law, me not know Constitution, me not even there; but me know they wrong?"

You might not like it, but them's the rules.

As I wrote before: it is the manner in which the search was performed that is objectionable. If I point a gun at someone it is potentially a felony. Is it suddenly ok for LE to point a gun at someone just because they are told to by CBP? No, of course it isn't. Can you even begin to grasp the problem here?

Objectionable on what grounds? Are you going to cite something that's actually of legal effect, or are you going to prattle in an uninformed fashion about something that doesn't please you?

Again, you might not like it, but them's the rules. You don't have a right to international travel, and you don't have a right to be free from what you might deem to be unreasonable government intrusion or action at a border check point. Get over it.

The fact that nothing was found is a major point. Obviously CBP had bad information and no system of checks and balances to prevent the assault on a private citizen. Once again I have to ask if you can begin to understand the problem here. From your statements it is obvious that you are incapable of grasping the fudamental facts, reality, and consequences.

As I wrote before, HAND. I suggest you either agree to disagree or drop it before you embarrass yourself further.

I'll refer you to this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Read it, and get back to me. You'll want to pay particular attention to the 4th Amendment. The 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments will also be of interest on this subject, but it's really the 4th.

Sorry, chief, but I've told you what the law is, and you: 1) are making factual judgments on less than all the facts; and 2) are sticking your fingers in your ears as to what the law says. You can do that if you like, but you'll remain among the ignorant.

Or, are you just going to resort to statements like "HAND," the definition of which I'm not privy to, and consider the argument to have gone in your favor?

Anyway, get yourself in the same situation, and file a lawsuit. See what happens.

 

[flyersfan31]

As I wrote before, HAND. I suggest you either agree to disagree or drop it before you embarrass yourself further.

Okey dokey.

 

[greentips]

Did you not read the letter written by the actual pilot's association involved? Do you fail to understand that the Constitution is what all of this turns upon? Have you ever even read the Constitution? Do you know how it works? Do you know how criminal procedure works? Do you even conceive of the fact that you only have grounds to object to the occurrence of a search - not how it's carried out, unless it rises to a level of constitutional offensiveness?

Or are you just going to insist, "them wrong, me right"? "Me not know law, me not know Constitution, me not even there; but me know they wrong?"

You might not like it, but them's the rules.



Objectionable on what grounds? Are you going to cite something that's actually of legal effect, or are you going to prattle in an uninformed fashion about something that doesn't please you?

Again, you might not like it, but them's the rules. You don't have a right to international travel, and you don't have a right to be free from what you might deem to be unreasonable government intrusion or action at a border check point. Get over it.



I'll refer you to this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Read it, and get back to me. You'll want to pay particular attention to the 4th Amendment. The 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments will also be of interest on this subject, but it's really the 4th.

Sorry, chief, but I've told you what the law is, and you: 1) are making factual judgments on less than all the facts; and 2) are sticking your fingers in your ears as to what the law says. You can do that if you like, but you'll remain among the ignorant.

Or, are you just going to resort to statements like "HAND," the definition of which I'm not privy to, and consider the argument to have gone in your favor?

Anyway, get yourself in the same situation, and file a lawsuit. See what happens.

Got to agree with you here. A reasonable search is permitted under the Amendment. It hinges on what constitutes a reasonable search. I have been searched at gunpoint before, when going about my lawful business. Just never in the United States or Western Europe. I hope that never happens to anyone here.

I think the salient question is: What constitutes a reasonable search and what constitutes an unreasonable search?

Law abiding Americans are not accustomed to being treated by their government like criminal suspects under the worst of circumstances, unless, of course they are criminal suspects and have committed a crime. It's pretty cool to watch the Albuquerque police roust a suspect out of a car by patrol cruisers on "COPS" and never think that perhaps the same approach might lawfully be used with them. Generally police/customs etc. don't do that, because we don't need to as a country of law abiding citizens.

The government has been granted the authority and the responsibility, exclusively to use force and the threat of force to enforce the laws, within certain very strict limits. Those limits were put in place, dating back to the Magna Carta, for very good reasons. The government, like the King, has retained certain immunities from that use of force, which it calls Soverign Immunity, derived from the theory that the "King can do no wrong." The limit on this authority is codified in the Bill of Rights, which some in colonial America were strongly opposed because it would make the government too limited in its ability to do its job. The wise prevailed and we are fortunate to have it.

Government is testing the limits of what it can get away with.

Those limits will be set so far in favor of the government that we will no longer enjoy expected liberties and privacy. I think it is our responsibility to call the government on its behaviors and hope that the Court will exercise the checks it is capable of to draw firm lines that the government may not cross in its zeal to protect us form ourselves and others.

I am not optimistic.

See this: http://forums.aopa.org/showpost.php?p=1004227&postcount=38