US government bans toilet queues

It's the latest test by this scum government to see just how fretful &
compliant people can be made to be.

____________________________________

Den Mark Wichar

"First justice, then peace."

"Cogito, ergo VIRIDIS sum!"

"The greatest danger to the U.S.A. is the republican party."
____________________________________

Furthermore the US government must generally give permission to
be sued. In a case of "national security" don't hold your breath,
witness the years of waiting for reparations for the Japanese
American detainees from WWII.

And before this thread degrades to the usual American bashing, note
this paragraph from http://www.factmonster.com/spot/internment1.html

"In 1988, the U.S. Congress passed legislation which awarded formal
payments of $20,000 each to the surviving internees-60,000 in all.
This same year, formal apologies were also issued by the government
of Canada to Japanese Canadian survivors, who were each repaid the
sum of $21,000 Canadian dollars."

The Canadians were no better than the USA in this incident. But
I doubt if Canada would repeat it today.


Casey

"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Arthur Jackson wrote:

Just when you thought they'd got as silly as they could get.......

Does this apply to all flights to/from/within the US, or just Quantas?

Does it apply to all lav's on a plane, or just the one(s) near the
cockpit?

I've had it happen recently on both US domestic and International flights
over the past week with Northwest Airlines. This applied to all lavs and no
congregating anywhere (especially around the lavs).

On 12/27 I flew Northwest and United and this TSA mandate was not in effect.

On 12/30 I flew Northwest on one US domestic segment and one trans-Atlantic
segment and this policy was in effect on both flights and all flights I've
taken since then. The only flight where it was not announced was a
commuter flight I took yesterday on a Saab 340. Kind of hard to change
cabins, let alone congregate on one of those.

This policy is complete bull****, IMHO. While I was traveling in Business
Class on my recent trans-Atlantics, I had heard many passengers back in
economy were extremely upset and ****ed off with this new TSA security
mandate.

Additionally, upon returning to the US with this recent trip, there were
additional security policies in place which included an ID check in the
jetway in order to deplane and full secondary US customs for all ~300
passengers on the flight. I made it though quickly and jumped queue as a
business class passenger, but it took others hours to get through secondary
US customs and most passengers missed their connecting flights (and had to
overnight at DTW).

I had to overnight at DTW myself because of a mechanical cancellation on a
connecting flight, which is when I spoke with other pax (primarily college
students & families overseas for New Years) from my trans-Atlantic flight
who had missed their connections because of "increased security measures"
and the full secondary search everyone was put through by US Customs.

While I doubt it'll do much good, I plan on contacting my elected officials
with my .02 cents.... This bull**** and paranoia has gone way too far, IMHO.
I have several more upcoming trans-Atlantics in addition to some
ultra-long-haul trans-Pacific / trans-Polar flights.

Cheers,

Steve

Casey wrote:

Furthermore the US government must generally give permission
to be sued. In a case of "national security" don't hold your
breath ...

And before this thread degrades to the usual American bashing

The bashing has yet to begin. Forget the WW2 thing with the Japs.

Please explain a more recent, perhaps more insidious behavior of the
US gov't wrt to it's citizens.

I refer to US citizens who have sued Iran and Iraq over their
treatment by those countries (the former during the Iranian hostage
taking and the latter the treatment given to some POW's during the
1991 Gulf war). In both cases, US courts have awarded dammages to US
citizens that were to be paid out of Iranian and Iraqi assets frozen
by the US gov't. In both cases the US gov't argued on behalf of the
defendants and in the end quashed the rulings and denied the
plaintiffs the awards.

Again, please explain why the US gov't defended Iran and Iraq in these
situations to the detriment of it's own citizens (and soldiers!).

mrraveltay wrote:
The US directive was to not congregate near the lavs. It said nothing
about moving about the cabin.

What ****en jurisdiction does the USA have in the middle of the Pacific ?
SYD-LAX flight only overfly USA airspace for a very short period of time.
During that time, the USA can stipulate nobody goes to toilet etc, but once
outside of US airspace, Qantas should be free to operate its flights the way
it wants.

Australia used to be a very independant (and proudly so) country, and I cannot
understand what has happened to cause it to become just a loyal terrier to the
Bush regime. Qantas should have told the USA to get lost.

Does anyone know if Air New Zealand flights will comply or will NZ retain its
own jurisdiction over Air NZ flights ?

Since Air NZ is the only major carrier between USA and NZ, would the USA block
Air New Zealand ? It can block/harass Qantas since United still flies to Australia.

In article , Fly Guy wrote:

Casey wrote:

Furthermore the US government must generally give permission
to be sued. In a case of "national security" don't hold your
breath ...

And before this thread degrades to the usual American bashing

The bashing has yet to begin. Forget the WW2 thing with the Japs.

Please explain a more recent, perhaps more insidious behavior of the
US gov't wrt to it's citizens.

I refer to US citizens who have sued Iran and Iraq over their
treatment by those countries (the former during the Iranian hostage
taking and the latter the treatment given to some POW's during the
1991 Gulf war). In both cases, US courts have awarded dammages to US
citizens that were to be paid out of Iranian and Iraqi assets frozen
by the US gov't. In both cases the US gov't argued on behalf of the
defendants and in the end quashed the rulings and denied the
plaintiffs the awards.

Again, please explain why the US gov't defended Iran and Iraq in these
situations to the detriment of it's own citizens (and soldiers!).

They haven't. The judgements stand, it is just they don't have access
to the assets frozen in the U.S... In the case if Iraq, that money has
been returned to the iraq. Some of it is being used for reconstruction
purposes though. The plaintiffs have gotten a bad deal IMO.

jay
Wed, Jan 7, 2004


--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

mrraveltay wrote in message ...
Peter L wrote:

"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...

Most US airlines that I've flown recently have implemented the same
procedure.


I have not encountered that. What's the purpose?

I have only encountered it regarding the ones that are close to the
cockpit. This congregation around any lav rule is ridiculous.

It's pretty stupid. The implimentations I've seen basically start
to complain when it's more than about 3 or 4 congregates. My personal
impression is that it is the pilots and FA's pushing the TSA to help
them clear up a general problem they've had for years (people congregating
near galleys and blocking up the works). More TSA window dressing.
Make it look like they're doing something.

"Casey" wrote in news:ljMKb.23816$lo3.218
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

Furthermore the US government must generally give permission to
be sued. In a case of "national security" don't hold your breath,
witness the years of waiting for reparations for the Japanese
American detainees from WWII.

And before this thread degrades to the usual American bashing, note
this paragraph from http://www.factmonster.com/spot/internment1.html

"In 1988, the U.S. Congress passed legislation which awarded formal
payments of $20,000 each to the surviving internees-60,000 in all.
This same year, formal apologies were also issued by the government
of Canada to Japanese Canadian survivors, who were each repaid the
sum of $21,000 Canadian dollars."


No American bashing in it, just a bit of histroical perspective on suing
governments. One can only sue the crown (figuratively here of course but
basdd upon the common law of England) if the crown gives permission.
This is called Sovreignity. So sue Quantas for listening but don't look
for anything from the US or Australian governments.

Steve wrote:

Additionally, upon returning to the US with this recent trip, there were
additional security policies in place which included an ID check in the
jetway in order to deplane and full secondary US customs for all ~300
passengers on the flight. I made it though quickly and jumped queue as a
business class passenger, but it took others hours to get through secondary
US customs and most passengers missed their connecting flights (and had to
overnight at DTW).

What do you mean by 'secondary US Customs'?

No American bashing in it, just a bit of histroical perspective

I was not referring to you. I thought others would take the thread
into la-la land. You were quite correct about attempting to sue
the American government. Much better to pound sand with a club.


Casey