You are a wise man, JimB. The infringements on civil liberties that have been enacted in the "war on terror" will go down as a shameful page in our nation's history. It will be looked back upon like McCarthyism, probably worse.

I am pleased to think I have lured you back into the forum, albeit under unfortunate circumstances. I am further pleased for some odd reason to see your tpying and speeling are as ever <g>. You have a good soul and that's what matters.

Apropos of nothing, here is the scene outside my loft office. Snow is still coming down heavy, refuting again the meteorologists who said the snow dump would be between midnight and 6 a.m. It's windy and the snow comes down first west to east and then east to west. It's monochromatic, just shades of white and pale gray. Quite peaceful, actually. I have always enjoyed snowstorms.

A gaggle of geese -- isn't that the right term, a gaggle? -- just flew by like they were shot from a cannon. Getting the hell out of Dodge.


>Jim,
>
>That's why my message started out agreeing with your position in general. I just wanted to clear up (not necessarily to you) that the decision in this specific situation was the result fo the aricraft Captain evaluating a lot of circumstances and reaching a conclusion. From the information that I have seen on this incident I think the captain was correct in his action.
>
>However, I strongly agree with you overall statemetns about fear. One of my questions is "When are the American people going to rise up and put and end to our grvernment taking away our freedom in the name of fear and safety?"
>
>I realize only too well that 911 was a horrible occurance. There are many horrible occurances that happen. Air travel today has become teh epitome of non-freedom and government invasion of privacy and rights without specific cause. Here in Connecticut in the recent election we had an imcumbent's ad that said her opponent wanted the government to get a court order to intercept a private telephone conversation when there is a possibility that that conversation may be related to terrorism. Everytime I saw that ad I though Damn right! The government has no right to eaves drop on a telephone conversation without a proper court order. That is part of the foundation of our freedom and right to privacy. I have no doubt that the government wouold have no problem using the terrorist card to eaves drop on conversations that have nothing to do with terrorism but rather are of interest to them in some other way and then use the terrorism card to justify their violations.
>
>It was a couple of hundred years ago that the american people rose up and revolted against the government then in power over taxation without representation. Those founding fathers set down a constitution and a bill of rights to limit what the government can and cannot do. Freedom comes with a price and sometimes that price can be high. I am deeply troubled to see the American people sitting back and allowing the government to take away our rights little by little. It won't be long before the bill of rights becomes nothing more than an historic curiosity.
>
>>Jim,
>>
>>I was the first to reply to the OP and my "position" was that if these people were indeed trying to be ejected from the flight they succeeded in that "officials" took the bait.
>>
>>My challenge has little to do with the specific case cited, and my original reply should make that clear enough. My problem is with this expectation - almost being claimed as a "right" - that being fearful of some passenger should naturally result in the feared passenger being removed from the flight. Without even knowing his accuser too!
>>To me it is clear as a bell that that is wrong by every imaginable yardstick.
>>
>>I learned long ago that there are at least 2 sides to every story. In my opinion we have only 1 side represented here, and my read saw some bias in the "reporting".
>>It's criminal here too to disobey instructions of flight crews. But you don't become a "criminal" until you are found guilty in a court of law.