On No-Fly List but WERE Allowed to Fly

I read the alarmist posting made not long ago about two women who were
stopped from boarding a flight at SFO. Well today I found another
article about this - the two women WERE allowed to fly that day -
after being questioned for a brief amount of time:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0927-01.htm

"Gordon and fellow War Times co-founder Jan Adams, 55, were briefly
detained and questioned by police at San Francisco International
Airport Aug. 7 after checking in at the American Trans Air counter for
a flight to Boston. While they were eventually allowed to fly, their
boarding passes were marked with a red "S" -- for "search" -- which
subjected them to more scrutiny at SFO and during a layover in
Chicago."

So they were allowed to fly, a fact left out of the original post.

I am not going to spurn an argument about who should and should not be
watched. But I would think that if you are in the business of putting
out a publication with a strong anti-US stance that it would be
reasonable, particularly post-9/11, to be questioned or watched a
little more closely when boarding an aircraft. (I also protested
against the war. So don't think I am some right-wing facist making
this posting.) Think of it the other way around - what if these two
people -who were admittedly openly anti-US - did hijack a plane? The
**** would hit the fan immediately and there would be an immediate
call to step up inspections at airports. It sounds like the
authorities were just doing their job and nothing more.

wrote in message
...
I read the alarmist posting made not long ago about two women who were
stopped from boarding a flight at SFO. Well today I found another
article about this - the two women WERE allowed to fly that day -
after being questioned for a brief amount of time:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0927-01.htm

This Article is 2 years old

It sounds like the
authorities were just doing their job and nothing more.

Believe me, the authorities don't have a clue about how to do their jobs.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:21:58 GMT, wrote:

openly anti-US

Could you please elaborate on the definition of anti-US activities
done by US citizens?

I noticed you said you also protested the war in Iraq. Do you also see
yourself as anti-US? I don't think disagreeing with a government
policy is per se anti-US, but where do you draw the line?

He thinks that opposing the government is being anti-US. Poor soul. FFM

Dick Locke wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:21:58 GMT, wrote:


openly anti-US


Could you please elaborate on the definition of anti-US activities
done by US citizens?

I noticed you said you also protested the war in Iraq. Do you also see
yourself as anti-US? I don't think disagreeing with a government
policy is per se anti-US, but where do you draw the line?

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 04:27:32 GMT, Dick Locke
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:21:58 GMT, wrote:

openly anti-US

Could you please elaborate on the definition of anti-US activities
done by US citizens?

I noticed you said you also protested the war in Iraq. Do you also see
yourself as anti-US? I don't think disagreeing with a government
policy is per se anti-US, but where do you draw the line?


Why do you want to pick an argument? You understand the point I was
making: that their publication takes a strong anti-US position -
anit-US-policy or whatever. You know what I mean. What's the point
of trying to twist in into an argument?

The more important fact was that the fact that the two women WERE
allowed to fly was completely left out of the original post - and I
think that is the important issue, as it would be to most people who
would have any reason to be concerned that they might be stopped or
questioned at an airport, myself included. I don't appreciate being
alarmed like that and not having the full facts of the situation
disclosed to me.

wrote:

Why do you want to pick an argument? You understand the point I was
making: that their publication takes a strong anti-US position -
anit-US-policy or whatever. You know what I mean. What's the point
of trying to twist in into an argument?

So what if it takes an anit US policy position? Many citizens disagree
with US policy, that doesn't make them terrorists. Freedom of speech is
a right listed in the Constitution. (Note, I will not say granted by the
constitution, because it is a something that no man can give you)

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 04:27:32 GMT, Dick Locke
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:21:58 GMT, wrote:

openly anti-US

Could you please elaborate on the definition of anti-US activities
done by US citizens?

I noticed you said you also protested the war in Iraq. Do you also see
yourself as anti-US? I don't think disagreeing with a government
policy is per se anti-US, but where do you draw the line?


Why do you want to pick an argument? You understand the point I was
making: that their publication takes a strong anti-US position -
anit-US-policy or whatever. You know what I mean. What's the point
of trying to twist in into an argument?

I don't want to pick an argument, but he made a good point -- is being
opposed to US policy sufficient grounds to subject someone to this kind of
treatment? There are some serious constitutional issues, here.



The more important fact was that the fact that the two women WERE
allowed to fly was completely left out of the original post - and I
think that is the important issue, as it would be to most people who
would have any reason to be concerned that they might be stopped or
questioned at an airport, myself included.

I, for one, would be more than a little upset if I were detained, questioned
by the police, and only then allowed to board if the sole basis for doing so
was my opposition to US policy.


I don't appreciate being
alarmed like that and not having the full facts of the situation
disclosed to me.

PTRAVEL wrote:


I, for one, would be more than a little upset if I were detained, questioned
by the police, and only then allowed to board if the sole basis for doing so
was my opposition to US policy.


Agreed. As long as they aren't condoning terrorism or the violent
overthrow of the government, it should not affect their treatment when
flying.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:21:58 GMT in rec.travel.air,
wrote:

But I would think that if you are in the business of putting
out a publication with a strong anti-US stance that it would be
reasonable, particularly post-9/11, to be questioned or watched a
little more closely when boarding an aircraft.

no it would not.

================================================== ===============
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin


http://www.ejuneau.net

But I would think that if you are in the business of putting out a
publication with a strong anti-US stance that it would be reasonable,
particularly post-9/11, to be questioned or watched a little more
closely when boarding an aircraft.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."

9/11 did not nullify the Constitution, contrary to the opinions of naive
fools like you.


Casey