| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5 |
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18385
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
you know at one time Democrats loved America and hated communism as much as Republicans. Now the Democrats embrace the hate of America and use Karl
Marx for economic planning! |
come off it, DK. you are unbalanced and delusional to think such
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
The issue at hand is quite simple, the available resources are not being used to stop illegal immigration, nor is there much evidence of a threat of
terror nor evidence to support dismantling the USA constitution.
It appears the actions on the border, at the airport, and throughout the USA is absurd and has little to do with terror or illegal immigration. It
does clearly have dividing, chaotic and confusing effect.
I am as uncomfortable with DK's insults as I am with justification for his insults. Both are disruptive and distracting from the issues we face, in
particular, this case where the officers acted in a manner to target lawful people, disregard their 4th amendment rights which only adds to our
discomfort and fails to accomplish the task of improving border security.
We are in this together, we must act independently and look to each other for support to bring reasonable approaches to law enforcement without
succumbing to intimidation, or falling victim to emotional pleas to forgo our rights and responsibilities.
Let's continue to support the victims here, both those who had their 4th amendment rights violated at the airport and others who are subjected to
illegal searches.
Finally, we must resist the urge to forgo lawful actions for emotional pleas for increased security.
We need to come together with reasonable approaches which are not based in insults, name calling, or lawlessness, yet are based in truth which is
backed by evidence.
DK has made his case, it holds no water and has been backed up by nothing but emotional pleas and insults. Enough is enough, Let's work together to
bring on reasonable solutions and respect for the law and each other.
[Edited on 6-10-2009 by gnukid]
|
|
|
capt. mike
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8085
Registered: 11-26-2002
Location: Bat Cave
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sling time!
|
|
regards filing eAPIS and airport of departure - for Airmech et al
here's the deal - right now the eAPIS forms only allow certain ports that have on field CBP offices to be listed as AOD (airport of departure).
so - when i try to complete the form it won't accept my home base as the airport i am leaving from, which is phx Deer Valley, cause we don't have
customs here and you can't clear in here from mexico either
- sooooo the genius staff who designed this fricking piece of #$%^ system makes you list an airport from which you might not be leaving! on mine, i
have to enter Phx sky harbor as the AOD or the form will not allow you (me) to continue! and - you have to continue untill all the ridiculous entries
are made so you can submit the form and get your email response telling you that you have permission to leave the GD country!
it all reverses on the return notice required including email approval in ADVANCE before you can come back in. Ever try to obtain an email from bum
$#%^ mexico or baja??!! very convenient on your morning of departure back the the states when you might have to react to weather or other variables
that affect your flight and safety.
so - how do they "know" where you are leaving from Stateside when you are forced to enter a faux departure?? EASY!! you STILL have to file separately
with FAA an ADIZ border crossing flight plan just as we did the last 40 some years.
what have they gained? just control.....more needless control of our lives every chance they get.
it takes now more than one haand to count the guys who now have privately said to me that they are quitting the mexico trips - just not worth it no
more - too much hassle plus these precidents now since May 18th on the record with the overboard gestapo tactics..... enough already.
formerly Ordained in Rev. Ewing\'s Church by Mail - busted on tax fraud.......
Now joined L. Ron Hoover\'s church of Appliantology
\"Remember there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over....\"
www.facebook.com/michael.l.goering |
|
|
DanO
Super Nomad
Posts: 1923
Registered: 8-26-2003
Location: Not far from the Pacific
Member Is Offline
|
|
With so many posts, mistakes are inevitable
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Look how nice Qadaffi of Libya is now, compared to before!
|
David, I am loathe to stick my whatever into this political bickering, and likely won't do it again. But you really don't have a clue on this one.
Here is a quote from a 2004 article by someone eminently more qualified on the subject than any of us: Martin Indyk, director of the Brookings
Institution Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel (1995-97, 2000-01), Assistant Secretary of State for Near East
Affairs, U.S. Department of State (1997-2000), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, National
Security Council (1993-95), Executive Director, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University. Yeah, he
worked for Clinton, so he has cooties (or maybe a semen-stained dress), but he happens to have been there when it all went down. Read on:
"In fact, Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD programmes more than four years ago, at the outset of secret negotiations with US officials.
In May 1999, their offer was officially conveyed to the US government . . . . Back then, Libya was facing a deepening economic crisis produced by
disastrous economic policies and mismanagement of its oil revenues. United Nations and US sanctions that prevented Libya importing oilfield
technology made it impossible for Mr. Gadaffi to expand oil production. The only way out was to seek rapprochement with Washington.
Reinforcing this economic imperative was Mr. Gadaffi's own quest for respectability. Fed up with pan-Arabism, he turned to Africa, only to find
little support from old allies there. Removing the sanctions and their accompanying stigma became his priority.
From the start of President Bill Clinton's administration, Mr. Gadaffi had tried to open back-channels, using various Arab interlocutors with little
success. Disappointed, he turned to Britain, first settling a dispute over the shooting of a British policewoman in London and then offering to send
the two Libyans accused in the Lockerbie PanAm 103 bombing for trial in a third country. For the US, accepting this offer had the advantage of
bringing Libyan terrorists to justice. But it also generated pressure in the UN Security Council to lift sanctions. The task of US diplomacy then
was to maintain the sanctions until Mr. Gadaffi had fulfilled all other obligations under the UN resolutions: ending support for terrorism, admitting
culpability and compensating victims' families.
That was why the Clinton administration opened the secret talks on one condition—that Libya cease lobbying in the UN to lift the sanctions. It did.
At the first meeting, in Geneva in May 1999, we used the promise of official dialogue to persuade Libya to co-operate in the campaign against Osama
bin Laden and provide compensation for the Lockerbie families.
Libya's representatives were ready to put everything on the table, saying that Mr. Gadaffi had realised that was not the path to pursue and that Libya
and the US faced a common threat from Islamic fundamentalism. In that context, they said, Libya would actively co-operate in the campaign against
al-Qaeda and would end all support for Palestinian "rejectionist" groups, endorse US peace efforts in the Middle East and help in conflict resolution
in Africa.
On the issue of WMD, the US at the time was concerned about Libya's clandestine production of chemical weapons. Expressing a preference for a
multilateral forum, Libyan representatives offered to join the Chemical Weapons Convention and open their facilities to inspection. In a subsequent
meeting in October 1999, Libya repeated its offer on chemical weapons and agreed to join the Middle East multilateral arms control talks taking place
at the time. Why did we not pursue the Libyan WMD offer then? Because resolving the PanAm 103 issues was our condition for any further engagement.
Moreover, as Libya's chemical weapons programme was not considered an imminent threat and its nuclear programme barely existed, getting Libya out of
terrorism and securing compensation had to be top priorities. We told the Libyans that once these were achieved, UN sanctions could be lifted but US
sanctions would remain until the WMD issues were resolved.
The fact that Mr. Gadaffi was willing to give up his WMD programmes and open facilities to inspection four years ago does not detract from the Bush
administration's achievement in securing Libya's nuclear disarmament. However, in doing so, Mr. Bush completed a diplomatic game plan initiated by
Mr. Clinton. The issue here, however, is not credit. Rather, it is whether Mr. Gadaffi gave up his WMD programmes because Mr. Hussein was toppled,
as Mr. Bush now claims. As the record shows, Libyan disarmament did not require a war in Iraq."
To put it simply, Qaddafi had already been brought to heel before the Iraq war. You'll need a better example of an evil emperor who peed his pants
because we removed Saddam.
Turning to the meta aspect, I for one am tired of having to wade through political hijacks of threads on non-political fora, regardless of who is
responsible. Gone are the days when you could ignore an entire thread because you could tell from the title where it was aimed at. Now, half a dozen
decent and informative or entertaining threads on any given day are shot through with this crap. I'm not remotely suggesting that the right to
express oneself should be abridged. You and the rest of the irrepressible idealogues on both ends of the spectrum who can't resist these shouting
matches should just take it out in the hall, wherever that is (I believe they serve turtle soup there). But you won't, because I believe that none of
you are truly interested in discussion, just monologue. IMHO, the content and credibility of the non-political fora on this board suffers as a
result.
Rant over. Further affiant sayeth not.
\"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.\" -- Frank Zappa
|
|
|
airmech
Nomad
Posts: 184
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Murrieta Ca
Member Is Offline
Mood: Expeditionary
|
|
capt mike,
So you think FSS contacted CBP when this guy filed his flight plan and thats how they knew when he was taking off? Now that I think about it, Long
Beach is a pretty big airport so I'm wondering how they knew where his hanger was. Unless he already contacted clearance delivery or ground control.
About putting a different airport on the eAPIS for departure; aren't they then forcing you to write false documentation which can allow the FAA to
take revoke your liscense.
For you non-pilots that wrote earlier about the CBP should point guns at innocent people when doing a random check because the officers dont know what
the people are going to do or who they were. The FAA does random ramp checks all the time. They don't know the people in the airplane, they don't
know what the people are going to do when they walk up do to the ramp check either. And they don't carry guns.
Both optimists and pessimists contribute to the society. The optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist the parachute.
— George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DanO
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Look how nice Qadaffi of Libya is now, compared to before!
|
David, I am loathe to stick my whatever into this political bickering, and likely won't do it again. ... |
Connecting the dots here ... on the contrary, it is entirely reasonable to see the inter-connectedness to all of these things which do revolve around
our wonderful Baja.
The discussion so far illustrated exactly the circumstances surrounding this issue and was incredibly enlightening, not only to see disparate views
but to understand the philosophy, justification, deep-rooted psychology, and inter-connectedness for the airport action and a reasonable defense to
reduce inappropriate use of our resources.
The result is likely as intended, top-down, deter US travelers from transiting freely to Mexico, cause confusion and chaos, create division,
infighting and reduce civil liberties.
Now, what is the appropriate response?
Thoughtful consideration?
Beyond, reporting on this matter, can the victims suggest peaceful action?
We could use our energies to collectively support them in this case irregardless.
[Edited on 6-10-2009 by gnukid]
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1593
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
Check out the CBP response to the Long Beach eapis incident.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/CustomsBorderProtection...
|
|
|
capt. mike
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8085
Registered: 11-26-2002
Location: Bat Cave
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sling time!
|
|
just a guess Airmech.
i have no idea how they know where you are based excepting that the eAPIS manefest does take in where the plane is based.
What i think is coming respective to what you enter for your departure point is that soon instead of filing a directo a baja or another mexico AOE
(airport of entry) from whever you are, legal today - they are going to require that you can exit the USA ONLY from a CBP port - ergo - i'll have to
1st stop in Nogales, Tucson, Douglas, Yuma etc and file out from there. in that way CBP can check us all out conveniently as we are LEAVING this place
just as they do now when we re enter.
That is a freedom restriction IMO since i have the range to fly non stop from my base at phoenix DVT to all 7 current baja AOEs as well as many
mainland ports.
if i have to puddle jump to the USA border stop 1st it amounts to a time and cost penalty, time on the ground when i could be making miles in the air
- and cost from a let down and gear cycle having to take off and climb back to cruise again. I burn 22 gph in a full power climb! don't want to have
to do that twice!
formerly Ordained in Rev. Ewing\'s Church by Mail - busted on tax fraud.......
Now joined L. Ron Hoover\'s church of Appliantology
\"Remember there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over....\"
www.facebook.com/michael.l.goering |
|
|
k-rico
Super Nomad
Posts: 2079
Registered: 7-10-2008
Location: Playas de Tijuana
Member Is Offline
|
|
"Ivahnenko said in an interview on Tuesday that there was a "heightened alert" involved in the Long Beach operation but she also said she could not
discuss the circumstances that led to a more aggressive posture than normal by the CBP and local police. "
They had a tip something was up.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
K-Rico, you seem to be quite a promoter of tyranny? And predictably so, interesting. As such, you must be aware that part of the False War on Terror,
we have been at heightened alert since Bush declared the Axis of Evil would be attacking soon, or I'm sure you have better info. So for example you
can explain what code Orange means as opposed to Red and have been predisposed to World Health Organizations plans for declaration of Level 6 Pandemic
and mandatory vaccination in coming in days or moments.
So why not rush out for your 3 h1n1 vaccinations in advance too, due to heightened concern about the flu, even though it appears more people have
adverse reactions to flu vaccines than benefit from them?
But I am sure you'll come up with a reasonable justification for Tyranny along with your pal DK and the WOT Chorus. Sing it! Ya shill.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
I think its clear to reasonable people that, just because someone declares heightened alert doesn't make it okay to break policy, or break the law.
For example, even when the president signs an executive order as an exception, for example the 100 border exception to the constitution doesn't make
it legal, not at all.
And each officer's job is to defend the constitution, so they know they can't follow illegal orders from superiors. Sure, there are legal wranglers
like John Yoo who wrote arguments to defend torture, still doesn't make it legal for Cheney to order torture. Sure, apparently there are death squads
in Iraq, its still not legal.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090622/bauer
Its not hard to make the distinction, the constitution is the law of the land. Breaking the law regardless of what you where told still makes it
illegal. In this case there are many questions about the operation, however heightened alert is no justification for their actions. In fact there are
never any justification for breaking laws if that is what happened.
We know no contraband was discovered, no illegal aliens, nothing to support the search either before or after it occurred meaning there was no
reasonable cause for search or the level of aggression or "level of force" which appears to have been inappropriate. That is why, the CBP precedent
with eAPIS and attempt to use it to change how we treat innocent people is alarming and an unfortunate set of circumstances.
I am sure that we find out more about the case, I know little about it.
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1593
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
Here's some more comment from AVWEB on the Long Beach incident.
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/GA_A_Soft_Target_For_Secu...
|
|
|
airmech
Nomad
Posts: 184
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Murrieta Ca
Member Is Offline
Mood: Expeditionary
|
|
Of course they had "information". Does anyone think CBP would draw guns and threaten innocent people and then admit they were wrong???
Both optimists and pessimists contribute to the society. The optimist invents the aeroplane, the pessimist the parachute.
— George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
Skeet/Loreto
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4709
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Airmech:
I think that you would find it interesting to yourself and this Board if you could do some research on the "New" things that are to be done regarding
Boats and Airplane in relation to the Movement of Drugs to the states/Money/Guns to mexico.
I appreciate your original Post even through I disagree that there was anything Brutal about It.
The taking of that information and trying to Excite peope to Riot, Scare therm into Hiding, then blame it on a "Vast Theory" or "Jack- Booted Antics
is one of the most Childless things I have seen Posted.
What is Happening to our Youg? Are they so tied up in playing "Games' that they have lost all sense of Observation, Reason??
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
A perfect mirror of hypocrisy
What happened to our Senior Population: They used to stand behind our Constitution, Laws, doing What's RIGHT.
Nowadays, The Retirees seem complacent, tired, Lacking energy. Their collective Yawn is a Shame.
I wonder if they ever do anything but Watch TV!
Har Har Harumph.
|
|
|
bajalou
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4459
Registered: 3-11-2004
Location: South of the broder
Member Is Offline
|
|
I don't believe you can protect a people by taking away their constitutional rights. If you scare them, some will say "OK do it". The framers of the
constitution were VERY much concerned about excesses of the government.
No Bad Days
\"Never argue with an idiot. People watching may not be able to tell the difference\"
\"The trouble with doing nothing is - how do I know when I\'m done?\"
Nomad Baja Interactive map
And in the San Felipe area - check out Valle Chico area |
|
|
Skeet/Loreto
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4709
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Well Kid, this ole 78 year old does not watch TV, Why? Because it is so False with so much Spin we get disgusted with it.
We do wonder at the Sadly Clothed Kids with Metal in their Ears, Eyes, Nose and other Places, all DRUGGED out along with the others who only know how
to push the buttons on a Handheld of somekind.
We attempt to get their attention and teach them Respect, Honor, Kindness, Caring and all those things we still have, but Atlas they do not have the
Sense even thro they be 40 years old,having graduated from a good Liberal College where they were taugh by the BOOK, not by FACT!!!
Still more Folks going to Church than watching the Movies on the weekend.
You Liberals remind me of "GroundHogs" Dive in your Holes everytime some one yells:The Sky is Falling" then stick your head up out of your Hole to
see if anything is around that might Scare You.
What a Bunch of Freeloaders, can.t wait for the next generation to grow up, maybe, just maybe they will have better Sense.
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4411
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Good comments SKEET thank goodness we have you and your wisdom.
Is the issue here that the posters on the aviation site are concerned about the attempt by CBP to ignore the law, to change the traditions of our
country and to circumvent the existing jurisdiction of law enforcement divisions?
If so, do you acquaint changes in our traditions of law and order used on apparently well established retirees as an issue to be associated with
liberalism and disrespectful youth? Is that what you meant to imply?
For example, defenders of law, such as aviation group who brought this to our attention , defending the US Constitution would be by default
Conservative?
Militia acting well outside of their normal jurisdiction changing hundreds of years of procedure among local police would be considered Radical,
correct?
However, I think its a bit superficial to categorize any discussion as simply liberal vs conservative as you and DK have done, which is why I
mentioned the association with TV, where that simplistic argument is so often projected, falsely.
I wounder how you feel about our American Tradition, respect for our basic values and laws?
Do you want to see radical changes and dismantling laws and jurisdiction to allow these freshman border patrol without much experience, to travel the
interior of the states pulling weapons on established American retirees, without reasonable cause, just because someone said so?
At what point would you say that respect for our law, our country and for seniors requires youth to follow the constitution and at what point would
you say that breaking procedure is wrong, even though there is a order to do so.
The question is do you SKEET believe that every individual should follow the law or not? Should law enforcement follow the law? When is it okay to
follow orders and break laws?
I appreciate your wisdom and vision.
[Edited on 6-11-2009 by gnukid]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
