ravi_n
Dec 22, 02, 1:29 pm
The title says it all. I'm outraged and I wish I knew what could be done to correct this miscarriage of justice.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/monahan1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/monahan1.html
Newsstand - Airport "Security" or TSA Arrests Man for Reacting to his Pregnant Wife's Tears
View Full Version : Airport "Security" or TSA Arrests Man for Reacting to his Pregnant Wife's Tears
flowerchild
Dec 22, 02, 2:06 pm
Most people accept and *welcome* these gestapo searches? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif Unfortunately, those in charge can do anything and get away with it. I'm amazed that no one who witnessed this came forward at the time. I certainly would have given the wife my name. I guess this is the way they avoid liability.
[This message has been edited by flowerchild (edited 12-23-2002).]
[This message has been edited by flowerchild (edited 12-23-2002).]
Spiff
Dec 22, 02, 2:09 pm
Absolutely disgusting. Jackbooted, Nazi thugs at our airports and we are paying for their presence in more than one way.
Time to disenfranchise this sad experiment in federalized, unaccountable "security"!
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
Time to disenfranchise this sad experiment in federalized, unaccountable "security"!
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
Brian
Dec 22, 02, 2:17 pm
Spiff, while I do generally ignore all of these rants, I am compelled to point out that your use of the word Nazi is typical of hyperbolic and extremist speech, and an insult to the families of the millions who died, and many more who were materially harmed, at the hands of the Nazis.
Extremists will perhaps someday learn that the use of hyperbolic and frankly, deceptive language to make their point only marginalizes them, and their cause.
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-22-2002).]
Extremists will perhaps someday learn that the use of hyperbolic and frankly, deceptive language to make their point only marginalizes them, and their cause.
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-22-2002).]
bdschobel
Dec 22, 02, 2:23 pm
Let's see the TSA defenders explain this one! Most likely, they'll just accuse the person who was arrested of lying, but the story rings true to me.
Bruce
Bruce
mikey1003
Dec 22, 02, 2:28 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Spiff, while I do generally ignore all of these rants, I am compelled to point out that your use of the word Nazi is typical of hyperbolic and extremist speech, and an insult to the families of the millions who died, and many more who were materially harmed, at the hands of the Nazis.
Extremists will perhaps someday learn that the use of hyperbolic and frankly, deceptive language to make their point only marginalizes them, and their cause.
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-22-2002).]</font>
Sorry Brian,
I lost family in the camps. My response, like spiffs, ******* nazis
Spiff, while I do generally ignore all of these rants, I am compelled to point out that your use of the word Nazi is typical of hyperbolic and extremist speech, and an insult to the families of the millions who died, and many more who were materially harmed, at the hands of the Nazis.
Extremists will perhaps someday learn that the use of hyperbolic and frankly, deceptive language to make their point only marginalizes them, and their cause.
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-22-2002).]</font>
Sorry Brian,
I lost family in the camps. My response, like spiffs, ******* nazis
Plato90s
Dec 22, 02, 2:37 pm
So we have a first-hand, uncorroborated account, posted on a self-published web site which proclaims itself "anti-state" to begin with.
No possible bias in the story, huh?
It's just a wonder that no mainstream media (with attendant fact-checkers) picked up on this story. Just think how much of a headline this will make for a TV news segment or a newspaper article.
Yet nobody picked up on it. Only a self-published newsletter which does NO FACT CHECKING published the article.
Yeah, I'm convinced.
[/sarcasm]
No possible bias in the story, huh?
It's just a wonder that no mainstream media (with attendant fact-checkers) picked up on this story. Just think how much of a headline this will make for a TV news segment or a newspaper article.
Yet nobody picked up on it. Only a self-published newsletter which does NO FACT CHECKING published the article.
Yeah, I'm convinced.
[/sarcasm]
l'etoile
Dec 22, 02, 2:45 pm
I wish his case hadn't been settled already. I, and I'm sure a few more of us, might have helped come up with that $4000 legal retainer.
As for the skepticism about the story, what part do you disbelieve? If you ask the women on FT if they've ever had their breasts felt by security screeners I can't imagine any would say no. So I haven't broken down in tears because of it and my husband hasn't screamed at anyone about it, but I'm not sure those are unreasonable reactions. Having to prove you're pregnant by lifting your shirt, well I find that completely believable and the thought of it quite humiliating. Did this cause the Caesarean? That's a stretch as lots of things can cause a baby to turn into a breech position and the author admits that that's an unknown.
[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 12-22-2002).]
As for the skepticism about the story, what part do you disbelieve? If you ask the women on FT if they've ever had their breasts felt by security screeners I can't imagine any would say no. So I haven't broken down in tears because of it and my husband hasn't screamed at anyone about it, but I'm not sure those are unreasonable reactions. Having to prove you're pregnant by lifting your shirt, well I find that completely believable and the thought of it quite humiliating. Did this cause the Caesarean? That's a stretch as lots of things can cause a baby to turn into a breech position and the author admits that that's an unknown.
[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 12-22-2002).]
Spiff
Dec 22, 02, 2:49 pm
Newsflash and history lesson for you, Brian:
This kind of behavior is exactly the kind of behavior the Nazis exhibited when they got started.
They ought to replace the Eagle on the TSA logo with a swastika.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Spiff, while I do generally ignore all of these rants, I am compelled to point out that your use of the word Nazi is typical of hyperbolic and extremist speech, and an insult to the families of the millions who died, and many more who were materially harmed, at the hands of the Nazis.
Extremists will perhaps someday learn that the use of hyperbolic and frankly, deceptive language to make their point only marginalizes them, and their cause.
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-22-2002).]</font>
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
This kind of behavior is exactly the kind of behavior the Nazis exhibited when they got started.
They ought to replace the Eagle on the TSA logo with a swastika.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Spiff, while I do generally ignore all of these rants, I am compelled to point out that your use of the word Nazi is typical of hyperbolic and extremist speech, and an insult to the families of the millions who died, and many more who were materially harmed, at the hands of the Nazis.
Extremists will perhaps someday learn that the use of hyperbolic and frankly, deceptive language to make their point only marginalizes them, and their cause.
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-22-2002).]</font>
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
FWAAA
Dec 22, 02, 2:53 pm
Isn't PDX where the goons overreacted to Punki when she wanted to keep her purse in her line of sight?
eagle92
Dec 22, 02, 2:59 pm
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Giving unlimited power to people with the intelligence of a doorstooper is asking for trouble. And people wonder why there is so much dislike for America.
Newsflash!!! We are giving them all of the excuses (ahem - evidence) in the world.
The TSA is a $%%$@#$% joke!!!!!!!
[This message has been edited by eagle92 (edited 12-22-2002).]
Newsflash!!! We are giving them all of the excuses (ahem - evidence) in the world.
The TSA is a $%%$@#$% joke!!!!!!!
[This message has been edited by eagle92 (edited 12-22-2002).]
xyzzy
Dec 22, 02, 3:07 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
"Oh, and we did look at the videotape. Inconclusive."
But I thought it was destroyed?
</font>
And these are the folks who want to use videotape to ensure our unlocked luggage remains "secure" ...
"Oh, and we did look at the videotape. Inconclusive."
But I thought it was destroyed?
</font>
And these are the folks who want to use videotape to ensure our unlocked luggage remains "secure" ...
B Watson
Dec 22, 02, 3:32 pm
This story would be a great deal more interesting if it came from something other than a flake news source (the website - not the poster http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif ) Seriously, why was this not picked up by the national press - a FIELD day if the facts actually checked out.
Brian
Dec 22, 02, 5:47 pm
For those interested in any possible bias in the original article:
From LewRockwell.com, where the article was posted:
"Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala., and vice president of the Center for Libertarian Studies in Burlingame, Cal., is an opponent of the central state, its wars and its socialism."
Needless to say, this disqualifies it from further consideration, by me at least. Libertarianism is, in my opinion, a propoganda driven pack of unfounded generalizations designed to appeal to a minority of disenfranchised outsiders.
From LewRockwell.com, where the article was posted:
"Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala., and vice president of the Center for Libertarian Studies in Burlingame, Cal., is an opponent of the central state, its wars and its socialism."
Needless to say, this disqualifies it from further consideration, by me at least. Libertarianism is, in my opinion, a propoganda driven pack of unfounded generalizations designed to appeal to a minority of disenfranchised outsiders.
Radiocycle
Dec 22, 02, 9:42 pm
The TSA will be Posted more and more in 2003 once the checked luggage screening begins.
Good luck!
Good luck!
GUWonder
Dec 22, 02, 9:54 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
For those interested in any possible bias in the original article:
From LewRockwell.com, where the article was posted:
"Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala., and vice president of the Center for Libertarian Studies in Burlingame, Cal., is an opponent of the central state, its wars and its socialism."
Needless to say, this disqualifies it from further consideration, by me at least. Libertarianism is, in my opinion, a propoganda driven pack of unfounded generalizations designed to appeal to a minority of disenfranchised outsiders. </font>
But Brian... your beloved Republican party is full of libertarian ideologues. Oh that is right, you want the Pat Robertson/Graham Jr./Jerry Falwell Republicans who have successfully pulled a internal part coup and sidelined them along with more mainstream Republicans. ;-)
Once the war on terrorism and war on Iraq issues stop resonating so strongly within our nation, maybe some of the fence-sitting (more mainstream) Republicans will realize that the social agenda of the Republicans will always overshadow their economic libertarian agenda (at least in all non-defense related matters).
For those interested in any possible bias in the original article:
From LewRockwell.com, where the article was posted:
"Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala., and vice president of the Center for Libertarian Studies in Burlingame, Cal., is an opponent of the central state, its wars and its socialism."
Needless to say, this disqualifies it from further consideration, by me at least. Libertarianism is, in my opinion, a propoganda driven pack of unfounded generalizations designed to appeal to a minority of disenfranchised outsiders. </font>
But Brian... your beloved Republican party is full of libertarian ideologues. Oh that is right, you want the Pat Robertson/Graham Jr./Jerry Falwell Republicans who have successfully pulled a internal part coup and sidelined them along with more mainstream Republicans. ;-)
Once the war on terrorism and war on Iraq issues stop resonating so strongly within our nation, maybe some of the fence-sitting (more mainstream) Republicans will realize that the social agenda of the Republicans will always overshadow their economic libertarian agenda (at least in all non-defense related matters).
corbetti
Dec 22, 02, 10:27 pm
"Libertarianism is, in my opinion, a propoganda driven pack of unfounded generalizations designed to appeal to a minority of disenfranchised outsiders. "
As a libertarian, I find that highly offensive. But, like you said, that's your opinion. And opinions, as we all know, are like a**holes - everyone's got one.
As a libertarian, I find that highly offensive. But, like you said, that's your opinion. And opinions, as we all know, are like a**holes - everyone's got one.
Plato90s
Dec 22, 02, 11:13 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by letiole:
I wish his case hadn't been settled already. I, and I'm sure a few more of us, might have helped come up with that $4000 legal retainer.
As for the skepticism about the story, what part do you disbelieve? If you ask the women on FT if they've ever had their breasts felt by security screeners I can't imagine any would say no. So I haven't broken down in tears because of it and my husband hasn't screamed at anyone about it, but I'm not sure those are unreasonable reactions. Having to prove you're pregnant by lifting your shirt, well I find that completely believable and the thought of it quite humiliating. Did this cause the Caesarean? That's a stretch as lots of things can cause a baby to turn into a breech position and the author admits that that's an unknown. </font>
Let's recap. Pregnant woman undergoes search, and react badly.
Husband get mad, walks up to a checkpoint agent, and shouts in her face. Police arrests him, and thinks he's on drugs.
From an impartial perspective, what are the odds that Mr. Monahan sounded like a freakin' lunatic threatening a TSA employee?
Pretty darn good.
-----------------
Okay, so now Mr. Monahan has an arrest, a court date, and missed his flight and the wedding.
-----------------
The pregnant Mrs. Monahan saw her husband taken away in cuffs. Cry. Now she had to go see him in a jail cell. The pregnant woman then has to convince the police her husband is not a lunatic.
High stress situation for the wife so far, right?
The stress causes the child to get out of position, and a c-section is now necessary.
----------------
Imagine for a minute the husband kept his cool. He wouldn't be arrested, and the wife wouldn't see her husband dragged away by police.
By escalation via a verbally abusive confrontation, Mr. Monahan created a situation which endangered himself. That event led to a worse one - a c-section for a distraught wife.
And all this could have been avoided by him keeping calm, because the search itself seems pretty ordinary to me. We'd need to have a female perspective on it, but I've certainly untucked my shirt (and shown some belly), turned over the button on my pants, etc... in the airport checkpoints.
----------------------
The analogy I'm looking for just occured to me.
Road Rage.
Let's say I am driving, and I cut you off on the highway. You're extremely upset and drive aggressively to run my car off the road. The police arrest you. You spend a few hours in jail, and ends up paying for damages. In the course of events, your pregnant wife gets so upset that she needs a c-section.
Is my bad-mannered driving the cause of the c-section and the out-of-pocket costs, or is it your "road rage" reaction??
I say "road rage", but you might blame me for everything, including your own bad temper.
[This message has been edited by Plato90s (edited 12-22-2002).]
I wish his case hadn't been settled already. I, and I'm sure a few more of us, might have helped come up with that $4000 legal retainer.
As for the skepticism about the story, what part do you disbelieve? If you ask the women on FT if they've ever had their breasts felt by security screeners I can't imagine any would say no. So I haven't broken down in tears because of it and my husband hasn't screamed at anyone about it, but I'm not sure those are unreasonable reactions. Having to prove you're pregnant by lifting your shirt, well I find that completely believable and the thought of it quite humiliating. Did this cause the Caesarean? That's a stretch as lots of things can cause a baby to turn into a breech position and the author admits that that's an unknown. </font>
Let's recap. Pregnant woman undergoes search, and react badly.
Husband get mad, walks up to a checkpoint agent, and shouts in her face. Police arrests him, and thinks he's on drugs.
From an impartial perspective, what are the odds that Mr. Monahan sounded like a freakin' lunatic threatening a TSA employee?
Pretty darn good.
-----------------
Okay, so now Mr. Monahan has an arrest, a court date, and missed his flight and the wedding.
-----------------
The pregnant Mrs. Monahan saw her husband taken away in cuffs. Cry. Now she had to go see him in a jail cell. The pregnant woman then has to convince the police her husband is not a lunatic.
High stress situation for the wife so far, right?
The stress causes the child to get out of position, and a c-section is now necessary.
----------------
Imagine for a minute the husband kept his cool. He wouldn't be arrested, and the wife wouldn't see her husband dragged away by police.
By escalation via a verbally abusive confrontation, Mr. Monahan created a situation which endangered himself. That event led to a worse one - a c-section for a distraught wife.
And all this could have been avoided by him keeping calm, because the search itself seems pretty ordinary to me. We'd need to have a female perspective on it, but I've certainly untucked my shirt (and shown some belly), turned over the button on my pants, etc... in the airport checkpoints.
----------------------
The analogy I'm looking for just occured to me.
Road Rage.
Let's say I am driving, and I cut you off on the highway. You're extremely upset and drive aggressively to run my car off the road. The police arrest you. You spend a few hours in jail, and ends up paying for damages. In the course of events, your pregnant wife gets so upset that she needs a c-section.
Is my bad-mannered driving the cause of the c-section and the out-of-pocket costs, or is it your "road rage" reaction??
I say "road rage", but you might blame me for everything, including your own bad temper.
[This message has been edited by Plato90s (edited 12-22-2002).]
kb0fhp
Dec 23, 02, 12:09 am
Assuming that this is true, and not hyped propaganda.. for a man, these searches may seem ordinary. However, for a hormonily enhanced pregnant woman, such a search could casue all kinds of emotional trauma. Example: My wife (about 8 months pregnant) and I go into a McDonalds for hot chocolate and some coffee for me. She bursts into tears because she thinks that some kids laughed at the way she looked....no basis in fact - just the hormones reacting.
Had the guy kept his cool, instead of going off on a rant, he would have been much better off.
His rant on a very extreme right-wing web page is obviously suspious. Especially his comment that the ACLU is only for minorities. A typical "Lottism", and what would be expected from a website devoted to "right-thinking" americans.....
The page has no credibility.
But then again, blame Ashcroft.... The conservative people of Missouri knew Ashcroft and the things that he is capable of... and they voted for the dead guy....
Had the guy kept his cool, instead of going off on a rant, he would have been much better off.
His rant on a very extreme right-wing web page is obviously suspious. Especially his comment that the ACLU is only for minorities. A typical "Lottism", and what would be expected from a website devoted to "right-thinking" americans.....
The page has no credibility.
But then again, blame Ashcroft.... The conservative people of Missouri knew Ashcroft and the things that he is capable of... and they voted for the dead guy....
Plato90s
Dec 23, 02, 12:30 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kb0fhp:
Assuming that this is true, and not hyped propaganda.. for a man, these searches may seem ordinary. However, for a hormonily enhanced pregnant woman, such a search could casue all kinds of emotional trauma. Example: My wife (about 8 months pregnant) and I go into a McDonalds for hot chocolate and some coffee for me. She bursts into tears because she thinks that some kids laughed at the way she looked....no basis in fact - just the hormones reacting.</font>
That's impossible. Mr. Monahan said so himself.
"After some more grumbling on my part they eventually finished with me and I went to retrieve our luggage from the x-ray machine. Upon returning I found my wife sitting in a chair, crying. Mary rarely cries, and certainly not in public. When I asked her what was the matter, she tried to quell her tears and sobbed, "I’m sorry...it’s...they touched my breasts...and..." That’s all I heard."
So you see, the explanation that pregnant women may become overly emotional from an ordinary search is quite impossible because Mrs. Mary Monahan simply won't cry in public unless something heinous happened.
[/sarcasm]
[This message has been edited by Plato90s (edited 12-22-2002).]
Assuming that this is true, and not hyped propaganda.. for a man, these searches may seem ordinary. However, for a hormonily enhanced pregnant woman, such a search could casue all kinds of emotional trauma. Example: My wife (about 8 months pregnant) and I go into a McDonalds for hot chocolate and some coffee for me. She bursts into tears because she thinks that some kids laughed at the way she looked....no basis in fact - just the hormones reacting.</font>
That's impossible. Mr. Monahan said so himself.
"After some more grumbling on my part they eventually finished with me and I went to retrieve our luggage from the x-ray machine. Upon returning I found my wife sitting in a chair, crying. Mary rarely cries, and certainly not in public. When I asked her what was the matter, she tried to quell her tears and sobbed, "I’m sorry...it’s...they touched my breasts...and..." That’s all I heard."
So you see, the explanation that pregnant women may become overly emotional from an ordinary search is quite impossible because Mrs. Mary Monahan simply won't cry in public unless something heinous happened.
[/sarcasm]
[This message has been edited by Plato90s (edited 12-22-2002).]
sdl
Dec 23, 02, 7:00 am
Ummmmm..... Guys?
You DID say you wanted a female's take on this, right?
First off, let me start by saying I'm more likely to quote Patrick Henry than G W Bush, and I agree with the gist of Spiff vs doctorres more often then not...
SO...
1) Yes, pregnant women are on the hormonal roller coaster, and having an anxious time getting pregnant can make you touchier.
2) Women are actually pregnant 10 months (that 9 month biz is propaganda!), and this woman was at 31-2 weeks at the time of the flight per the article and the final delivery date (usually exactly to 1 week prior to due date on a C-section).
Most airlines would refuse to fly a woman on anything but a short hop over her 26th week...what's up with that?
3) Yeah, I suspect the guy was projecting his irritation and reacted aggressively to the female TSA (who he was likely bigger than too).
I also think that the staff/cops reacted VERY heavy-handed here, and one or two pulling him back and talking him down might have been a better policy (heh, better policy by cops and TSA- I made an oximoron!)
4) Most of the @$$# http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif& listed about the efforts to reverse the breech position is muddle-headed new age crap- a child is NOT settled into final position until the last 2 weeks or less in ANY pregnancy, usually the last days or even during labor with a first child.
Unless this child was HUGE, it was roaming around in there for a while still.
AND, if the child was very large she would have had a C-section anyways! (basic physics there...)
5) What's with the 'decline' from ACLU?
They've been LOOKING for a reason to tackle the TSA on a 'regular Joe' rights issue for a while now, and this would have been a prime case for them in some ways...I wonder if that was untrue and just thrown in, or if they so thoroughly botched the description of what happened on the phone that it sounded like a non-case...
6) His claim of being unable to do the talking and contriteness but the wife could did not ring true- if the search embarassment caused her to fall apart, then the effort of pursuing all this during her final 2 months along with worrying about the baby would have been FAR too much for her to handle.
In summary, I also have my doubts about any 'Net source with no other corroborating data or references.
This was just a published letter that was maybe polished up a bit, and being linked at the bottom to "Donate" and "Subscribe" buttons is really tacky and may show the true reason it was published on this site...
S
You DID say you wanted a female's take on this, right?
First off, let me start by saying I'm more likely to quote Patrick Henry than G W Bush, and I agree with the gist of Spiff vs doctorres more often then not...
SO...
1) Yes, pregnant women are on the hormonal roller coaster, and having an anxious time getting pregnant can make you touchier.
2) Women are actually pregnant 10 months (that 9 month biz is propaganda!), and this woman was at 31-2 weeks at the time of the flight per the article and the final delivery date (usually exactly to 1 week prior to due date on a C-section).
Most airlines would refuse to fly a woman on anything but a short hop over her 26th week...what's up with that?
3) Yeah, I suspect the guy was projecting his irritation and reacted aggressively to the female TSA (who he was likely bigger than too).
I also think that the staff/cops reacted VERY heavy-handed here, and one or two pulling him back and talking him down might have been a better policy (heh, better policy by cops and TSA- I made an oximoron!)
4) Most of the @$$# http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/thumbsup.gif& listed about the efforts to reverse the breech position is muddle-headed new age crap- a child is NOT settled into final position until the last 2 weeks or less in ANY pregnancy, usually the last days or even during labor with a first child.
Unless this child was HUGE, it was roaming around in there for a while still.
AND, if the child was very large she would have had a C-section anyways! (basic physics there...)
5) What's with the 'decline' from ACLU?
They've been LOOKING for a reason to tackle the TSA on a 'regular Joe' rights issue for a while now, and this would have been a prime case for them in some ways...I wonder if that was untrue and just thrown in, or if they so thoroughly botched the description of what happened on the phone that it sounded like a non-case...
6) His claim of being unable to do the talking and contriteness but the wife could did not ring true- if the search embarassment caused her to fall apart, then the effort of pursuing all this during her final 2 months along with worrying about the baby would have been FAR too much for her to handle.
In summary, I also have my doubts about any 'Net source with no other corroborating data or references.
This was just a published letter that was maybe polished up a bit, and being linked at the bottom to "Donate" and "Subscribe" buttons is really tacky and may show the true reason it was published on this site...
S
dctorres
Dec 23, 02, 7:06 am
How did I end up in the fray? Doctorres? :-)
sdl
Dec 23, 02, 7:45 am
Whoops!
Sorry about the typo- don't know if this qualifies as late nights or early mornings at this point http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
S
Sorry about the typo- don't know if this qualifies as late nights or early mornings at this point http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
S
kb0fhp
Dec 23, 02, 8:04 am
Nice write-up SDL......
But unfortunately, the muddle-headed will believe and donate (something about a fool and his/her money).........
But unfortunately, the muddle-headed will believe and donate (something about a fool and his/her money).........
dctorres
Dec 23, 02, 8:38 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by sdl:
Whoops!
Sorry about the typo- don't know if this qualifies as late nights or early mornings at this point http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
S</font>
No worries ;-) But you weren't that far off, my wife is a doc. ;-)
Whoops!
Sorry about the typo- don't know if this qualifies as late nights or early mornings at this point http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
S</font>
No worries ;-) But you weren't that far off, my wife is a doc. ;-)
anrkitec
Dec 23, 02, 8:46 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
Let's recap...</font>
So let me get this straight: if this guy had just shut up, done what he was told, and accepted what was happening to both he an his wife without question, then everything would have been alright?
Lovely.
Assuming for a moment that the material facts presented in the article are correct...
Perhaps it is just me but I was unaware that any local, state, or federal police force has a Constitutionally enforceable duty to regulate polite public behavior. God help us all if I am wrong on this. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif
Once again and with a slightly Teutonic accent, "You vill stand quietly in z line and proceed tru de checkpoint saying nozing, OR ELSE!" LOL. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
What is most troubling to me personally though is how many 'ordinary' people are so willing to submit to and accept such things (and if this particular incident isn’t completely true there are at least hundreds of other similar, documented incidents that are). But a brief glance at world history shows that when a less, umm, questioning population feels that their personal safety and property is in jeopardy they will submit to any authority figure who offers to provide them with a false sense of security in exchange for any and/or all of their personal freedom.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 12-23-2002).]
Let's recap...</font>
So let me get this straight: if this guy had just shut up, done what he was told, and accepted what was happening to both he an his wife without question, then everything would have been alright?
Lovely.
Assuming for a moment that the material facts presented in the article are correct...
Perhaps it is just me but I was unaware that any local, state, or federal police force has a Constitutionally enforceable duty to regulate polite public behavior. God help us all if I am wrong on this. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif
Once again and with a slightly Teutonic accent, "You vill stand quietly in z line and proceed tru de checkpoint saying nozing, OR ELSE!" LOL. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
What is most troubling to me personally though is how many 'ordinary' people are so willing to submit to and accept such things (and if this particular incident isn’t completely true there are at least hundreds of other similar, documented incidents that are). But a brief glance at world history shows that when a less, umm, questioning population feels that their personal safety and property is in jeopardy they will submit to any authority figure who offers to provide them with a false sense of security in exchange for any and/or all of their personal freedom.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 12-23-2002).]
tazi
Dec 23, 02, 9:17 am
What a disgrace. and I certainly agree with Spiff in his use of the term "Nazi".
bdschobel
Dec 23, 02, 9:34 am
Me, too. And I had dozens of family members killed by the real Nazis.
Bruce
Bruce
Plato90s
Dec 23, 02, 9:36 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anrkitec:
What is most troubling to me personally though is how many 'ordinary' people are so willing to submit to and accept such things (and if this particular incident isn’t completely true there are at least hundreds of other similar, documented incidents that are). But a brief glance at world history shows that when a less, umm, questioning population feels that their personal safety and property is in jeopardy they will submit to any authority figure who offers to provide them with a false sense of security in exchange for any and/or all of their personal freedom. </font>
So the guy is probably lying, but he's got a good point anyways?
Although no evidence exists for "hundreds of other similar, documented incidents", you assume they exist.
How many airport searches end with an arrest plus a c-section?
Not a single verified instance, yet we have a claim that hundreds exists. This is just one of many reasons I find the anti-government protests on FT to be ridiculous. 5 people accepted this story at face value without applying any skepticism or common sense. They are ready to believe the worst.
When you wonder how some people could believe 9-11 was in fact a Israel-inspired, CIA-coordianted attack, look at this thread. People don't apply reason to ideology, and conspiracy theorists exists everywhere.
What is most troubling to me personally though is how many 'ordinary' people are so willing to submit to and accept such things (and if this particular incident isn’t completely true there are at least hundreds of other similar, documented incidents that are). But a brief glance at world history shows that when a less, umm, questioning population feels that their personal safety and property is in jeopardy they will submit to any authority figure who offers to provide them with a false sense of security in exchange for any and/or all of their personal freedom. </font>
So the guy is probably lying, but he's got a good point anyways?
Although no evidence exists for "hundreds of other similar, documented incidents", you assume they exist.
How many airport searches end with an arrest plus a c-section?
Not a single verified instance, yet we have a claim that hundreds exists. This is just one of many reasons I find the anti-government protests on FT to be ridiculous. 5 people accepted this story at face value without applying any skepticism or common sense. They are ready to believe the worst.
When you wonder how some people could believe 9-11 was in fact a Israel-inspired, CIA-coordianted attack, look at this thread. People don't apply reason to ideology, and conspiracy theorists exists everywhere.
anonplz
Dec 23, 02, 9:57 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
So the guy is probably lying, but he's got a good point anyways?...Although no evidence exists for "hundreds of other similar, documented incidents", you assume they exist...How many airport searches end with an arrest plus a c-section?...Not a single verified instance, yet we have a claim that hundreds exists. This is just one of many reasons I find the anti-government protests on FT to be ridiculous. 5 people accepted this story at face value without applying any skepticism or common sense. They are ready to believe the worst.</font>
You hit the nail right on the head - Remember that Time photo of the boy at the airport being wanded by the TSA, and how this was proof positive that things had gone overboard with the TSA, and we couldn't even determine if it was staged or real, but someone posted, "even if it's staged, it clearly demonstrates how over-the-top the TSA is..." http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif
Fact is, I believe there have been several informal FT surveys taken, and most people are in agreement that the TSA personnel today are a vast improvement over what we had before.
Personally, I remember two pre-9/11 incidents when I was verbally harrassed by "security" personnel at Miami and Chicago - unprofessional, arrogant, rude - you name it. Since the TSA took over, I find them to be very, very conscientious, polite if a bit firm in enforcing policies, and necessary.
[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 12-23-2002).]
So the guy is probably lying, but he's got a good point anyways?...Although no evidence exists for "hundreds of other similar, documented incidents", you assume they exist...How many airport searches end with an arrest plus a c-section?...Not a single verified instance, yet we have a claim that hundreds exists. This is just one of many reasons I find the anti-government protests on FT to be ridiculous. 5 people accepted this story at face value without applying any skepticism or common sense. They are ready to believe the worst.</font>
You hit the nail right on the head - Remember that Time photo of the boy at the airport being wanded by the TSA, and how this was proof positive that things had gone overboard with the TSA, and we couldn't even determine if it was staged or real, but someone posted, "even if it's staged, it clearly demonstrates how over-the-top the TSA is..." http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif
Fact is, I believe there have been several informal FT surveys taken, and most people are in agreement that the TSA personnel today are a vast improvement over what we had before.
Personally, I remember two pre-9/11 incidents when I was verbally harrassed by "security" personnel at Miami and Chicago - unprofessional, arrogant, rude - you name it. Since the TSA took over, I find them to be very, very conscientious, polite if a bit firm in enforcing policies, and necessary.
[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 12-23-2002).]
l'etoile
Dec 23, 02, 10:21 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Women are actually pregnant 10 months (that 9 month biz is propaganda!), and this woman was at 31-2 weeks at the time of the flight per the article and the final delivery date (usually exactly to 1 week prior to due date on a C-section).
Most airlines would refuse to fly a woman on anything but a short hop over her 26th week... </font>
Many US airlines have no restrictions on when pregnant women can fly. Some begin asking for doctor's notes between the 34 and 38th weeks (AA and America West ask for doctor's notes after the 36th week). Most will transport a woman up until seven days before her due date.
I'm not sure how you're counting the gestation period, but most doctors begin counting before one is ever pregnant starting with the first day of the last cycle. The event we're discussing occured 7.5 weeks prior to the C-section.
The focus in many of these posts is rather interesting. Would any of this occured if the husband had not gotten angry and most likely began behaving in a frightening manner to security? No, and I don't doubt for one second that the TSA can truthfully say he reacted in a threatening manner and so on. This story has a ring of truth because he admits he flew off the handle. Had he have said he politely questioned the security guard and then was hauled off in handcuffs, I wouldn't buy it either. Would his actions pass the reasonable-man test? If you asked most men in this country if they'd mind if someone touched their wife's breasts, do you think they'd say sure, no problem? Because it's for the "security" of our country is it OK for strangers to touch your or your wife's breasts? To what extent? Because I could wear a prothesis filled with explosives should they then be allowed to give me the equivalent of a breast exam? Is it OK to be required to lift your shirt and expose a pregnant belly to dozens of people because that also could be a prosthesis? What about overweight people? How do you know my legs are real if I'm wearing pants? I could be wearing a prosthesis packed with explosives. And guys I think you should drop your pants because you just never know where you might have hid something ...
Yes, they've touched my breasts. The last security screener who pat me down told me she needed to "touch my sexy body." Was I supposed to be flattered? I stand there and tolerate it because if I cause a fuss I won't fly and I won't win in this ridiculous state we've created. But if someone doesn't make a fuss, where does it stop? Maybe many of you find all of this fine and dandy and feel safer because of it, but I agree with those who say we're very much following in the path of the Nazis, with our rights eroding a little more each day.
Most airlines would refuse to fly a woman on anything but a short hop over her 26th week... </font>
Many US airlines have no restrictions on when pregnant women can fly. Some begin asking for doctor's notes between the 34 and 38th weeks (AA and America West ask for doctor's notes after the 36th week). Most will transport a woman up until seven days before her due date.
I'm not sure how you're counting the gestation period, but most doctors begin counting before one is ever pregnant starting with the first day of the last cycle. The event we're discussing occured 7.5 weeks prior to the C-section.
The focus in many of these posts is rather interesting. Would any of this occured if the husband had not gotten angry and most likely began behaving in a frightening manner to security? No, and I don't doubt for one second that the TSA can truthfully say he reacted in a threatening manner and so on. This story has a ring of truth because he admits he flew off the handle. Had he have said he politely questioned the security guard and then was hauled off in handcuffs, I wouldn't buy it either. Would his actions pass the reasonable-man test? If you asked most men in this country if they'd mind if someone touched their wife's breasts, do you think they'd say sure, no problem? Because it's for the "security" of our country is it OK for strangers to touch your or your wife's breasts? To what extent? Because I could wear a prothesis filled with explosives should they then be allowed to give me the equivalent of a breast exam? Is it OK to be required to lift your shirt and expose a pregnant belly to dozens of people because that also could be a prosthesis? What about overweight people? How do you know my legs are real if I'm wearing pants? I could be wearing a prosthesis packed with explosives. And guys I think you should drop your pants because you just never know where you might have hid something ...
Yes, they've touched my breasts. The last security screener who pat me down told me she needed to "touch my sexy body." Was I supposed to be flattered? I stand there and tolerate it because if I cause a fuss I won't fly and I won't win in this ridiculous state we've created. But if someone doesn't make a fuss, where does it stop? Maybe many of you find all of this fine and dandy and feel safer because of it, but I agree with those who say we're very much following in the path of the Nazis, with our rights eroding a little more each day.
anrkitec
Dec 23, 02, 10:22 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
So the guy is probably lying...</font>
Yes, I in fact believe that there hundreds of "documented instances" involving C-sections. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif Yes, that is exactly what I said.
Try pulling that intellectual zoom lens back a bit to a wider focal length. Clearly, to most here I believe, I was referring to the hundreds, if not thousands, of documented instances where the TSA and LEO’s have gone completely overboard in responding to how people have reacted to being harassed. But I assume that, in your self-appointed role of authoritarian apologist unless you personally witnessed it first-hand, it didn’t happen. Which is in fact convenient, I understand.
Also, I did not say, "the guy is probably lying." I have no idea if he is lying or telling the truth, as this is at this point still an anecdote. What I in fact said was, "Assuming for a moment that the material facts presented in the article are correct..."
As for this,
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anonplz:
Fact is, I believe there have been several informal FT surveys taken, and most people are in agreement that the TSA personnel today are a vast improvement over what we had before.</font>
Yes, yes. The DOT reports that on U.S. highways last year there were 1.06% fewer alcohol related fatalities than the year before, QED ipso facto, there is no longer a drunk driving problem in this country. Wonderful. Trenchant.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 12-23-2002).]
So the guy is probably lying...</font>
Yes, I in fact believe that there hundreds of "documented instances" involving C-sections. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif Yes, that is exactly what I said.
Try pulling that intellectual zoom lens back a bit to a wider focal length. Clearly, to most here I believe, I was referring to the hundreds, if not thousands, of documented instances where the TSA and LEO’s have gone completely overboard in responding to how people have reacted to being harassed. But I assume that, in your self-appointed role of authoritarian apologist unless you personally witnessed it first-hand, it didn’t happen. Which is in fact convenient, I understand.
Also, I did not say, "the guy is probably lying." I have no idea if he is lying or telling the truth, as this is at this point still an anecdote. What I in fact said was, "Assuming for a moment that the material facts presented in the article are correct..."
As for this,
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anonplz:
Fact is, I believe there have been several informal FT surveys taken, and most people are in agreement that the TSA personnel today are a vast improvement over what we had before.</font>
Yes, yes. The DOT reports that on U.S. highways last year there were 1.06% fewer alcohol related fatalities than the year before, QED ipso facto, there is no longer a drunk driving problem in this country. Wonderful. Trenchant.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 12-23-2002).]
Brian
Dec 23, 02, 10:29 am
For those of you expressing support of the use "Nazi" as applied to the TSA, I decided to take a more circumspect approach than appeal to decency or reason.
Spiff's use of emotionally laden terms as applied to the TSA has long precedent; it is actually a well established propoganda technique. While studies differ in the way they approach the uses of propoganda, Spiff's technique is generally described as a variant of name calling. In context, and from propogandacritic.com:
"The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.
The name-calling technique was first identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) in 1938. According to the IPA, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we spot an example of name-calling.
-What does the name mean?
-Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name?
-Is an idea that serves my best interests being dismissed through giving it a name I don't like?
-Leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?"
I found the third point above particularly telling. I actually have entertained myself over the last few days attempting to deconstruct the various propoganda techniques that have been used in decrying the TSA. As threads here warrant, I will likely present them, so that the open-minded may reach their own conclusions.
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-23-2002).]
Spiff's use of emotionally laden terms as applied to the TSA has long precedent; it is actually a well established propoganda technique. While studies differ in the way they approach the uses of propoganda, Spiff's technique is generally described as a variant of name calling. In context, and from propogandacritic.com:
"The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.
The name-calling technique was first identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) in 1938. According to the IPA, we should ask ourselves the following questions when we spot an example of name-calling.
-What does the name mean?
-Does the idea in question have a legitimate connection with the real meaning of the name?
-Is an idea that serves my best interests being dismissed through giving it a name I don't like?
-Leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?"
I found the third point above particularly telling. I actually have entertained myself over the last few days attempting to deconstruct the various propoganda techniques that have been used in decrying the TSA. As threads here warrant, I will likely present them, so that the open-minded may reach their own conclusions.
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-23-2002).]
anrkitec
Dec 23, 02, 10:49 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
For those of you expressing support of the use "Nazi" as applied to the TSA...</font>
Interesting. Though I prefer to look at this from the perspective of the cultural or social anthropologist, i.e. observing actual behavior in a given context.
So lets see, we have a group that claims to be in authority committing intrusive and invasive acts upon us (pretty incontrovertible semantically regardless of any supposed justification). We are told to basically shut up and take it, that it is being done for our own good. And if we dare to question what is being done we are summarily hauled off to a cell.
Additionally no one can really point with any degree of accuracy to where the authority to do this comes from. There are nebulous references to Congress, the Patriot Act ( http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif ), executive orders etc. but nothing really firm, no specific statutes. We are now being told that if the TSA breaks or loses our personal property while they are searching it that they are not financially responsible. Once again, cite the statute please.
I think the problem here is that some are assuming that in order to appropriatley refer to Nazis the end result must also, perforce, lead to extermination camps. This is simply flawed reasoning. What is not flawed reasoning, again IMHO, is to refer to the Nazi’s in an historical context that shows us, in a relatively recent example, what can happen when an authoritarian, totalitarian regime that privileges secrecy above the right of the public to know, and infringes upon our personal freedom all the while telling us that it is for our own good.
To me this is far more about, as I have said, authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, governmental secrecy, and the erosion of personal freedom than it is about extermination camps. In this context the reference to the Black and Brown shirts is most apropos.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 12-23-2002).]
For those of you expressing support of the use "Nazi" as applied to the TSA...</font>
Interesting. Though I prefer to look at this from the perspective of the cultural or social anthropologist, i.e. observing actual behavior in a given context.
So lets see, we have a group that claims to be in authority committing intrusive and invasive acts upon us (pretty incontrovertible semantically regardless of any supposed justification). We are told to basically shut up and take it, that it is being done for our own good. And if we dare to question what is being done we are summarily hauled off to a cell.
Additionally no one can really point with any degree of accuracy to where the authority to do this comes from. There are nebulous references to Congress, the Patriot Act ( http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif ), executive orders etc. but nothing really firm, no specific statutes. We are now being told that if the TSA breaks or loses our personal property while they are searching it that they are not financially responsible. Once again, cite the statute please.
I think the problem here is that some are assuming that in order to appropriatley refer to Nazis the end result must also, perforce, lead to extermination camps. This is simply flawed reasoning. What is not flawed reasoning, again IMHO, is to refer to the Nazi’s in an historical context that shows us, in a relatively recent example, what can happen when an authoritarian, totalitarian regime that privileges secrecy above the right of the public to know, and infringes upon our personal freedom all the while telling us that it is for our own good.
To me this is far more about, as I have said, authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, governmental secrecy, and the erosion of personal freedom than it is about extermination camps. In this context the reference to the Black and Brown shirts is most apropos.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 12-23-2002).]
Brian
Dec 23, 02, 11:02 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by anrkitec:
Interesting. Though I prefer to look at this from the perspective of the cultural or social anthropologist, i.e. observing actual behavior in a given context.
So lets see, we have a group that claims to be in authority committing intrusive and invasive acts upon us (pretty incontrovertible semantically regardless of any supposed justification). We are told to basically shut up and take it, that it is being done for our own good. And if we dare to question what is being done we are summarily hauled off to a cell.
I think the problem here is that some are assuming that in order to appropriatley refer to Nazis the end result must also, perforce, lead to extermination camps. This is simply flawed reasoning. What is not flawed reasoning, again IMHO, is to refer to the Nazi’s in an historical context that shows us, in a relatively recent example, what can happen when an authoritarian, totalitarian regime that privileges secrecy above the right of the public to know, and infringes upon our personal freedom all the while telling us that it is for our own good.
To me this is far more about, as I have said, authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, governmental secrecy, and the erosion of personal freedom than it is about extermination camps. In this context the reference to the Black and Brown shirts is most apropos.
</font>
Let's continue our study of propoganda with anrkitec's post. While several techniques are in use here, the clearest is that of unwarranted extrapolation, which is, as it's name implies, using available evidence to go farther in conclusion than the facts warrant. A fuller explanation and example:
"Extrapolation is what scientists call such predictions, with the warning that they must be used with caution. A homely illustration is the driver who found three gas stations per mile along a stretch of the Montreal highway in Vermont, and concluded that there must be plenty of gas all the way to the North Pole. You chart two or three points, draw a curve through them, and extend it indefinitely."(Chase, 1952)"
In addition, our poster here attempts to perform a bit of logical sleight of hand with the following warps of reality:
-"we have a group that claims to be in authority committing intrusive and invasive acts upon us"
-"We are told to basically shut up and take it, that it is being done for our own good. And if we dare to question what is being done we are summarily hauled off to a cell."
And so on. I will not become pedantic explaining the obvious logical gaps here, as well as the obvious use of propoganda. Each reader is free to reach their own conclusion. My own practice is to look at each statement of supposed fact, and see if there are alternate credible outcomes or explanations. If there are, it essentially discredits the point of view of the writer, who in an attempt to persuade, goes past the boundries of logic and debate.
Interesting. Though I prefer to look at this from the perspective of the cultural or social anthropologist, i.e. observing actual behavior in a given context.
So lets see, we have a group that claims to be in authority committing intrusive and invasive acts upon us (pretty incontrovertible semantically regardless of any supposed justification). We are told to basically shut up and take it, that it is being done for our own good. And if we dare to question what is being done we are summarily hauled off to a cell.
I think the problem here is that some are assuming that in order to appropriatley refer to Nazis the end result must also, perforce, lead to extermination camps. This is simply flawed reasoning. What is not flawed reasoning, again IMHO, is to refer to the Nazi’s in an historical context that shows us, in a relatively recent example, what can happen when an authoritarian, totalitarian regime that privileges secrecy above the right of the public to know, and infringes upon our personal freedom all the while telling us that it is for our own good.
To me this is far more about, as I have said, authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, governmental secrecy, and the erosion of personal freedom than it is about extermination camps. In this context the reference to the Black and Brown shirts is most apropos.
</font>
Let's continue our study of propoganda with anrkitec's post. While several techniques are in use here, the clearest is that of unwarranted extrapolation, which is, as it's name implies, using available evidence to go farther in conclusion than the facts warrant. A fuller explanation and example:
"Extrapolation is what scientists call such predictions, with the warning that they must be used with caution. A homely illustration is the driver who found three gas stations per mile along a stretch of the Montreal highway in Vermont, and concluded that there must be plenty of gas all the way to the North Pole. You chart two or three points, draw a curve through them, and extend it indefinitely."(Chase, 1952)"
In addition, our poster here attempts to perform a bit of logical sleight of hand with the following warps of reality:
-"we have a group that claims to be in authority committing intrusive and invasive acts upon us"
-"We are told to basically shut up and take it, that it is being done for our own good. And if we dare to question what is being done we are summarily hauled off to a cell."
And so on. I will not become pedantic explaining the obvious logical gaps here, as well as the obvious use of propoganda. Each reader is free to reach their own conclusion. My own practice is to look at each statement of supposed fact, and see if there are alternate credible outcomes or explanations. If there are, it essentially discredits the point of view of the writer, who in an attempt to persuade, goes past the boundries of logic and debate.
anrkitec
Dec 23, 02, 11:23 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
Let's continue our study of propoganda </font>
Make and support your own argument then, if you can.
Let us assume that this article, the subject of this thread, and the many more similar anecdotal incidences reported here are more or less materially accurate.
"We have a group that claims to be in authority committing intrusive and invasive acts upon us (pretty incontrovertible semantically regardless of any supposed justification)."
Please cite the appropriate statute and relevant passage that clearly states that the TSA has the authority to nearly undress us at the checkpoints.
"We are told to basically shut up and take it, that it is being done for our own good. And if we dare to question what is being done we are summarily hauled off to a cell."
Please cite the statute that states that vociferously questioning what the TSA is doing to you or your wife (or even being rude while doing so) is a criminal act (and none of this 1950's 'disturbing the peace' and 'broken tail light' stuff please).
Show us all where my two statements are factually incorrect (though you may disagree with the tone?). I believe that you will find that for many here, with regards to these two statements anyway, the burden to prove or disprove (whichever you please) is on you (oh, and both of my statements are 'positives' so none of this, "I can't disprove a negative").
Now, you of course can say that you do not believe one word of this article and therefore will not accept any premise that is based on it. I suppose that would be an effective way of not dealing with the situation, but then there really isn’t a situation to begin with is there, everything is just A.O.K. (and yes, that is my bias).
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 12-23-2002).]
Let's continue our study of propoganda </font>
Make and support your own argument then, if you can.
Let us assume that this article, the subject of this thread, and the many more similar anecdotal incidences reported here are more or less materially accurate.
"We have a group that claims to be in authority committing intrusive and invasive acts upon us (pretty incontrovertible semantically regardless of any supposed justification)."
Please cite the appropriate statute and relevant passage that clearly states that the TSA has the authority to nearly undress us at the checkpoints.
"We are told to basically shut up and take it, that it is being done for our own good. And if we dare to question what is being done we are summarily hauled off to a cell."
Please cite the statute that states that vociferously questioning what the TSA is doing to you or your wife (or even being rude while doing so) is a criminal act (and none of this 1950's 'disturbing the peace' and 'broken tail light' stuff please).
Show us all where my two statements are factually incorrect (though you may disagree with the tone?). I believe that you will find that for many here, with regards to these two statements anyway, the burden to prove or disprove (whichever you please) is on you (oh, and both of my statements are 'positives' so none of this, "I can't disprove a negative").
Now, you of course can say that you do not believe one word of this article and therefore will not accept any premise that is based on it. I suppose that would be an effective way of not dealing with the situation, but then there really isn’t a situation to begin with is there, everything is just A.O.K. (and yes, that is my bias).
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 12-23-2002).]
Brian
Dec 23, 02, 11:38 am
While I personally do not believe the LewRockwell.com article to be true, that is a strictly personal belief. My own position is that the mainstream media is a business that needs stories like this to generate interest, attention, and participation of the public in order to grow. Were this story true and in any material sense verifiable, the mainstream media would be all over it. Free market competition guarantees it. That is, as I say, opinion, and unrelated to the balance of your post.
My argument, that the substance of your post is propoganda based, is grounded in my position that it uses several well established techniques of propoganda, as explored in my prior post, to reach conclusions that are not warranted by the available facts, but only by an unwarranted extrapolation of them.
I can think of multiple explanations and outcomes for the empirical "events" that are described here, none of which suggest totalitarianism, naziism, or the manifest loss of personal liberty. I continue to monitor these events, in case they do accelerate or otherwise become worrisome to the point where democratic action becomes necessary. If it does, the natural checks and balances that have worked for over 200 years will also work here.
Your logical fallacy is the presentation of the most extreme possible outcome as the most likely outcome. That is an established technique of propoganda, and why I descibe your post as propogandistic.
Incidentally, the posts being issued in this thread also make use of several other techniques of the propgandist. In fact, much of the libertarian argument is established on propoganda techniques. I just dont want to become academically boring by endlessly exploring every tiny detail. But since I find the study fascinating, I will probably continue to use these posts as demonstrations of the techniques used as propoganda.
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-23-2002).]
My argument, that the substance of your post is propoganda based, is grounded in my position that it uses several well established techniques of propoganda, as explored in my prior post, to reach conclusions that are not warranted by the available facts, but only by an unwarranted extrapolation of them.
I can think of multiple explanations and outcomes for the empirical "events" that are described here, none of which suggest totalitarianism, naziism, or the manifest loss of personal liberty. I continue to monitor these events, in case they do accelerate or otherwise become worrisome to the point where democratic action becomes necessary. If it does, the natural checks and balances that have worked for over 200 years will also work here.
Your logical fallacy is the presentation of the most extreme possible outcome as the most likely outcome. That is an established technique of propoganda, and why I descibe your post as propogandistic.
Incidentally, the posts being issued in this thread also make use of several other techniques of the propgandist. In fact, much of the libertarian argument is established on propoganda techniques. I just dont want to become academically boring by endlessly exploring every tiny detail. But since I find the study fascinating, I will probably continue to use these posts as demonstrations of the techniques used as propoganda.
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-23-2002).]
kb0fhp
Dec 23, 02, 11:49 am
You are making the assumption that the justice system exists for the "common person."
This is naive. The justice system only works for the rich, or politically connected. Anything position beyond that is laughable.......
.....but I am not a cynic http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
This is naive. The justice system only works for the rich, or politically connected. Anything position beyond that is laughable.......
.....but I am not a cynic http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
anonplz
Dec 23, 02, 11:59 am
Brian, as always you are spot on, but let me say this:
I often find myself laughing about the nonsense I read on these threads. I think that the people who aren't thinking make themselves obvious, and their posts warrant no response as it's simply a waste of time and energy - unless it makes me laugh, then an expression of gratitude is in order, IMO. After all, how can you refute, "spiff is right because I say so" or variants thereof? You can't.
As to the question about using Nazi to refer to the TSA, being referred to as a nazi has seemingly long since lost its sacredness and thus, its terrifying quality, since in today's era, everyone uses it to refer to anyone who opposes their notions of right and wrong. It's a cheap, easy term to stigmatize the opposition, but like anything cheap, it holds little value anymore. Thus, the next step in turning up the rhetorical volume is to throw in references to brown shirts, stormtroopers, and finally some snappy-sounding things like, "jackboot" "Gestapo" "sieg heil" "anti-semite" and you've made the murder of millions and destruction of so much of civilization by the true Nazis seem rather less shocking and appalling than how those events deserve to be seen.
You can't control that, but rather, try to fashion a new way of looking at the situation. I guess, in other words, those who refer to WWII and nazis have very tired arguments.
[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 12-23-2002).]
I often find myself laughing about the nonsense I read on these threads. I think that the people who aren't thinking make themselves obvious, and their posts warrant no response as it's simply a waste of time and energy - unless it makes me laugh, then an expression of gratitude is in order, IMO. After all, how can you refute, "spiff is right because I say so" or variants thereof? You can't.
As to the question about using Nazi to refer to the TSA, being referred to as a nazi has seemingly long since lost its sacredness and thus, its terrifying quality, since in today's era, everyone uses it to refer to anyone who opposes their notions of right and wrong. It's a cheap, easy term to stigmatize the opposition, but like anything cheap, it holds little value anymore. Thus, the next step in turning up the rhetorical volume is to throw in references to brown shirts, stormtroopers, and finally some snappy-sounding things like, "jackboot" "Gestapo" "sieg heil" "anti-semite" and you've made the murder of millions and destruction of so much of civilization by the true Nazis seem rather less shocking and appalling than how those events deserve to be seen.
You can't control that, but rather, try to fashion a new way of looking at the situation. I guess, in other words, those who refer to WWII and nazis have very tired arguments.
[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 12-23-2002).]
xyzzy
Dec 23, 02, 12:13 pm
I could have (and probably should have) just said "Godwin's law -- you lose (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html)" but the ensuing discussion has been rather amusing. For more info on this see this link:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
I, too, think Brian is spot on, btw. particularly with regard to the "If it bleeds it leads" attitude of the snooze media.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
I, too, think Brian is spot on, btw. particularly with regard to the "If it bleeds it leads" attitude of the snooze media.
anonplz
Dec 23, 02, 12:17 pm
ROFLMAO http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
EDIT: xyzzy, that is so frigging funny....
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 12-23-2002).]
EDIT: xyzzy, that is so frigging funny....
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
[This message has been edited by anonplz (edited 12-23-2002).]
anrkitec
Dec 23, 02, 12:23 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by xyzzy:
Godwin's law... </font>
Has already been proffered and refuted here long ago, too lazy to search the archives. The spectre of Godwin's Law is generally IMO just another way of avoiding the effort to make and support ones own argument.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 12-23-2002).]
Godwin's law... </font>
Has already been proffered and refuted here long ago, too lazy to search the archives. The spectre of Godwin's Law is generally IMO just another way of avoiding the effort to make and support ones own argument.
[This message has been edited by anrkitec (edited 12-23-2002).]
Just Passing Thru
Dec 23, 02, 12:25 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by xyzzy:
I could have (and probably should have) just said Godwin's law -- you lose" but the ensuing discussion has been rather amusing.</font>
Actually, Godwin's Law doesn't say anything about winning or losing; just that sooner or later, it's likely that Nazis are going to be trotted out in the discussion.
I could have (and probably should have) just said Godwin's law -- you lose" but the ensuing discussion has been rather amusing.</font>
Actually, Godwin's Law doesn't say anything about winning or losing; just that sooner or later, it's likely that Nazis are going to be trotted out in the discussion.
anonplz
Dec 23, 02, 12:40 pm
Oh, and another thing about nazi terminology. Ideally, if you use a word, it should be ugly and harsh in a rather Teutonic way. The word should be ideally two syllables, as un-poetic as possible. "Goosestep" is good. "Jackboot" is better. "Sieg Heil" is good, but is really two words, meaning something like "Hail war" or "holy war".
l'etoile
Dec 23, 02, 1:03 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">While I personally do not believe the LewRockwell.com article to be true ... </font>
I'm just curious from Brian or anyone else who feels this way exactly what you believe to be untrue.
Do you disbelieve that the woman had her breasts touched? That she was told to expose her belly? That her husband became enraged? That he was asked if he was on drugs? That he was hauled off to a cell? That TSA agents might downplay an incident to protect their jobs? Do you disbelieve that the entire event ever took place and perhaps they were never even at the airport that day? It would certainly be easy enough to confirm this in Portland seeing as there would be public records of the court appearance and judgment.
I don't see anyone supporting the contention that the TSA caused the C-section, but the author also admits he'll never know on that.
For those who say it's not true because it wasn't in the mainstream press, as someone who was once a part of the media I can tell you that if 20 people call you with stories of how they've been harrassed by security screeners and you've already done five similar stories on the subject recently, it's likely their stories won't get told. There's far more news out there than ever comes to light in the media.
[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 12-23-2002).]
I'm just curious from Brian or anyone else who feels this way exactly what you believe to be untrue.
Do you disbelieve that the woman had her breasts touched? That she was told to expose her belly? That her husband became enraged? That he was asked if he was on drugs? That he was hauled off to a cell? That TSA agents might downplay an incident to protect their jobs? Do you disbelieve that the entire event ever took place and perhaps they were never even at the airport that day? It would certainly be easy enough to confirm this in Portland seeing as there would be public records of the court appearance and judgment.
I don't see anyone supporting the contention that the TSA caused the C-section, but the author also admits he'll never know on that.
For those who say it's not true because it wasn't in the mainstream press, as someone who was once a part of the media I can tell you that if 20 people call you with stories of how they've been harrassed by security screeners and you've already done five similar stories on the subject recently, it's likely their stories won't get told. There's far more news out there than ever comes to light in the media.
[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 12-23-2002).]
kb0fhp
Dec 23, 02, 1:17 pm
Because of the location that the rant is posted, I am skeptical. Not believing or believing - just skeptical.
But then, I used to live in Missouri, where people were taking up guns against the government for $350/yr in property taxes. Anything is possible...even black heliocopters
But then, I used to live in Missouri, where people were taking up guns against the government for $350/yr in property taxes. Anything is possible...even black heliocopters
Brian
Dec 23, 02, 1:25 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by letiole:
I'm just curious from Brian or anyone else who feels this way exactly what you believe to be untrue.
Do you disbelieve that the woman had her breasts touched? That she was told to expose her belly? That her husband became enraged? That he was asked if he was on drugs? That he was hauled off to a cell? Do you disbelieve that the entire event ever took place and perhaps they were never even at the airport that day? It would certainly be easy enough to confirm this in Portland seeing as there would be public records of the court appearance and judgment.
I don't see anyone supporting the contention that the TSA caused the C-section, but the author also admits he'll never know on that.
For those who say it's not true because it wasn't in the mainstream press, as someone who was once a part of the media I can tell you that if 20 people call you with stories of how they've been harrassed by security screeners and you've already done five similar stories on the subject recently, it's likely their stories won't get told.
[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 12-23-2002).]</font>
I disbelieve the accuracy and completeness of the original article for three primary reasons:
1. It is published by a website with a very specific, and very extreme outlook on the role of government in society, and one which the article heavily supports.
2. The article has not been picked up by the mainstream press, in spite of the fact that the interests of the mainstream press would argue for very heavy play, were it true.
3. There is no fact checking, or evidence provided in support of the incident having taken place. No police reports or other documents are reproduced, no officials on the other side were contacted for rebuttal or comment. The entire article lives on a non-mainstream site that is essentially self published.
I just can't give any credibility to an article based on these basic lapses. Your empirical story about the mainstream media being uninterested in stories that are shopped around has some minor merit, but in a story of this magnitude, would have been overcome in 2 minutes or less. If the site wishes to provide it's source material, and fact checking for outside scrutiny, I would be happy to verify or debunk it.
[This message has been edited for various grammatical and spelling idiocies by Brian (edited 12-23-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-23-2002).]
I'm just curious from Brian or anyone else who feels this way exactly what you believe to be untrue.
Do you disbelieve that the woman had her breasts touched? That she was told to expose her belly? That her husband became enraged? That he was asked if he was on drugs? That he was hauled off to a cell? Do you disbelieve that the entire event ever took place and perhaps they were never even at the airport that day? It would certainly be easy enough to confirm this in Portland seeing as there would be public records of the court appearance and judgment.
I don't see anyone supporting the contention that the TSA caused the C-section, but the author also admits he'll never know on that.
For those who say it's not true because it wasn't in the mainstream press, as someone who was once a part of the media I can tell you that if 20 people call you with stories of how they've been harrassed by security screeners and you've already done five similar stories on the subject recently, it's likely their stories won't get told.
[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 12-23-2002).]</font>
I disbelieve the accuracy and completeness of the original article for three primary reasons:
1. It is published by a website with a very specific, and very extreme outlook on the role of government in society, and one which the article heavily supports.
2. The article has not been picked up by the mainstream press, in spite of the fact that the interests of the mainstream press would argue for very heavy play, were it true.
3. There is no fact checking, or evidence provided in support of the incident having taken place. No police reports or other documents are reproduced, no officials on the other side were contacted for rebuttal or comment. The entire article lives on a non-mainstream site that is essentially self published.
I just can't give any credibility to an article based on these basic lapses. Your empirical story about the mainstream media being uninterested in stories that are shopped around has some minor merit, but in a story of this magnitude, would have been overcome in 2 minutes or less. If the site wishes to provide it's source material, and fact checking for outside scrutiny, I would be happy to verify or debunk it.
[This message has been edited for various grammatical and spelling idiocies by Brian (edited 12-23-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 12-23-2002).]
sansbury
Dec 23, 02, 4:12 pm
I'm a right-wing political junkie and LewRockwell.com is widely known to have a higher-than-normal "loony quotient." YMMV.
While I've found the TSA guys to be fairly aggressive in their search techniques, I've also found them to be extremely courteous, much more so than the pre-TSA mouth breathers.
Of course, going from McDonald's to GS scale pay and benefits should improve quality a lot.
-cwk.
While I've found the TSA guys to be fairly aggressive in their search techniques, I've also found them to be extremely courteous, much more so than the pre-TSA mouth breathers.
Of course, going from McDonald's to GS scale pay and benefits should improve quality a lot.
-cwk.
rawbert
Dec 23, 02, 5:27 pm
Maybe this accounting is embelished, maybe it's not, I do not have enough information to determine that. But...I have found some additional articles, from mainstream sources, where this type of thing is happening.
Appears Ms. Monahan and her husband are not the only ones who don't want her breast touched.
rawbert
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1713646p-1794002c.html
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/special42/articles/0207frisk07.html
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/07/3dca065c9384c
Appears Ms. Monahan and her husband are not the only ones who don't want her breast touched.
rawbert
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1713646p-1794002c.html
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/special42/articles/0207frisk07.html
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/07/3dca065c9384c
Brian
Dec 23, 02, 6:24 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by rawbert:
Maybe this accounting is embelished, maybe it's not, I do not have enough information to determine that. But...I have found some additional articles, from mainstream sources, where this type of thing is happening.
Appears Ms. Monahan and her husband are not the only ones who don't want her breast touched.
rawbert
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1713646p-1794002c.html
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/special42/articles/0207frisk07.html
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/07/3dca065c9384c
</font>
The articles you highlight represent portray reprehensible conduct that should be vetted by appropraite action, which includes:
1. Disciplinary action against the employee
2. Criminal action against the employee if the allegations meet the criminal burden of proof.
3. Tortuous litigation against the screener/agency, if the lower burden of proof can be met.
I know of no credible evidence that the TSA promotes, condones, or supports this kind of activity.
Maybe this accounting is embelished, maybe it's not, I do not have enough information to determine that. But...I have found some additional articles, from mainstream sources, where this type of thing is happening.
Appears Ms. Monahan and her husband are not the only ones who don't want her breast touched.
rawbert
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1713646p-1794002c.html
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/special42/articles/0207frisk07.html
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/07/3dca065c9384c
</font>
The articles you highlight represent portray reprehensible conduct that should be vetted by appropraite action, which includes:
1. Disciplinary action against the employee
2. Criminal action against the employee if the allegations meet the criminal burden of proof.
3. Tortuous litigation against the screener/agency, if the lower burden of proof can be met.
I know of no credible evidence that the TSA promotes, condones, or supports this kind of activity.
bdschobel
Dec 23, 02, 8:41 pm
Also, while I am no defender of the TSA, the incidents reported in those stories seem to be from the pre-TSA period. Things really are getting better under the TSA, but they have quite a ways to go.
Bruce
Bruce
rawbert
Dec 23, 02, 8:48 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Also, while I am no defender of the TSA, the incidents reported in those stories seem to be from the pre-TSA period. Things really are getting better under the TSA, but they have quite a ways to go.
Bruce</font>
I didn't catch that when I posted it. Only one of the articles, the Michigan Daily is current, November 2002. The others go back to February of 2002.
When I did my search I received a ton of hits, I posted just posted the first few.
I was just trying to make the point that even though the original post article may be tainted, there does not appear to be a shortage of similar complaints out there.
rawbert
Also, while I am no defender of the TSA, the incidents reported in those stories seem to be from the pre-TSA period. Things really are getting better under the TSA, but they have quite a ways to go.
Bruce</font>
I didn't catch that when I posted it. Only one of the articles, the Michigan Daily is current, November 2002. The others go back to February of 2002.
When I did my search I received a ton of hits, I posted just posted the first few.
I was just trying to make the point that even though the original post article may be tainted, there does not appear to be a shortage of similar complaints out there.
rawbert
rmiller
Dec 23, 02, 10:11 pm
Rawbert's first link contains the name Janice Monahan as an America West spokeswoman in the Sacramento Bee article on inappropriate touching dated 2/28/02. Now there is the October story of the inappropriate touching of a woman also named Monahan. Skeptical persons might say that the former spawned the latter but wouldn't that be a stretch?
Plato90s
Dec 23, 02, 11:40 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by rawbert:
Maybe this accounting is embelished, maybe it's not, I do not have enough information to determine that. But...I have found some additional articles, from mainstream sources, where this type of thing is happening.
Appears Ms. Monahan and her husband are not the only ones who don't want her breast touched.
rawbert
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1713646p-1794002c.html
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/special42/articles/0207frisk07.html
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/07/3dca065c9384c
</font>
And thus it's no surprise that one of the principles the TSA operate on is that only same-sex screeners can do the hand-search, even by wand.
And the single current article cited by the Michigan Daily didn't include any egregious behavior like a male screener fondling female passengers and FA's. In fact, the actions in question in one of the 2 scenarios seems like a misunderstanding.
The screener wants to see your belt, not your midriff. It's quite possible to simply unbuckle the belt without exposing anything, if you are uncomfortable showing midriff.
As for being "searched on her backside in such a way that it seemed the screener had intentions beyond protection", not only is it hearsay, I don't even understand how to quantify this. Is her friend implying the screener of has homosexual tendencies and was feeling her up?
Maybe this accounting is embelished, maybe it's not, I do not have enough information to determine that. But...I have found some additional articles, from mainstream sources, where this type of thing is happening.
Appears Ms. Monahan and her husband are not the only ones who don't want her breast touched.
rawbert
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1713646p-1794002c.html
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/special42/articles/0207frisk07.html
http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/11/07/3dca065c9384c
</font>
And thus it's no surprise that one of the principles the TSA operate on is that only same-sex screeners can do the hand-search, even by wand.
And the single current article cited by the Michigan Daily didn't include any egregious behavior like a male screener fondling female passengers and FA's. In fact, the actions in question in one of the 2 scenarios seems like a misunderstanding.
The screener wants to see your belt, not your midriff. It's quite possible to simply unbuckle the belt without exposing anything, if you are uncomfortable showing midriff.
As for being "searched on her backside in such a way that it seemed the screener had intentions beyond protection", not only is it hearsay, I don't even understand how to quantify this. Is her friend implying the screener of has homosexual tendencies and was feeling her up?
l'etoile
Dec 24, 02, 10:50 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The screener wants to see your belt, not your midriff. It's quite possible to simply unbuckle the belt without exposing anything, if you are uncomfortable showing midriff.</font>
I'm afraid you're missing the point. They are not looking for metal weapons when they ask a woman to expose her belly to prove she is pregnant. The wands and machines you walk through don't pick up bombs only metal. For those who disbelieve one might be required to show their stomach or have their breasts felt, wouldn't this be extreme lax security if they didn't? It would be so easy to sneak bombs past security hidden in a phony girth.
The question is at what price security?
Edited to add: I'm also not sure if this was TSA or the rent-a-screeners this guy dealt with at PDX. His story is from mid-Oct. Was TSA at PDX then?
[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 12-24-2002).]
I'm afraid you're missing the point. They are not looking for metal weapons when they ask a woman to expose her belly to prove she is pregnant. The wands and machines you walk through don't pick up bombs only metal. For those who disbelieve one might be required to show their stomach or have their breasts felt, wouldn't this be extreme lax security if they didn't? It would be so easy to sneak bombs past security hidden in a phony girth.
The question is at what price security?
Edited to add: I'm also not sure if this was TSA or the rent-a-screeners this guy dealt with at PDX. His story is from mid-Oct. Was TSA at PDX then?
[This message has been edited by letiole (edited 12-24-2002).]
beergut
Dec 24, 02, 12:15 pm
Didn't Diana Ross make an objection when a female security guard " touched " her breast when frisking her at Heathrow. She found it so offensive she grabbed the security officers breasts and got arrested and cautioned.
Trouble is she herself grabbed and " jiggled " Lil Kim's breast at an MTV music award!
Nigel
Trouble is she herself grabbed and " jiggled " Lil Kim's breast at an MTV music award!
Nigel
Sydneysider
Dec 25, 02, 10:54 am
I've been refraining from posting in this thread, mainly because I'm still 'chewing' on the story and trying to decide if it is credible. Not to mention that others here have more than adequately articulated the opinions I share with them.
Now, however, it appears there is some independent verification of this story.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30159
WND is an online publication and does not attempt to hide its right-leaning editorial bias, but reading it here is no different from reading the same thing at Salon.com, except that the slant is different.
As a news organization, my presumption is that their staff have done the relevant fact checking.
I also want to point out that just because AP/Reuters, NY Times, et al don't carry a story, does not mean the story isn't a credible one. 'Mainstream' media is corporate, and if you don't believe important stories get killed (for whatever reason or interest) then you are wearing blinders.
As to some posts that Brian has made, I have a question for him: Brian, it seems that you consider yourself to be quite an objective analyst. Are you claiming that your viewpoint is objective?
Edited to point out a fallacious assumption Brian has made. He has attempted to discredit the points made by anrkitec by labeling them as propaganda (ironically, another use of that technique). The incorrect assumption here is that propaganda cannot contain truth, when in fact it can.
[This message has been edited by ender83 (edited 12-25-2002).]
Now, however, it appears there is some independent verification of this story.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30159
WND is an online publication and does not attempt to hide its right-leaning editorial bias, but reading it here is no different from reading the same thing at Salon.com, except that the slant is different.
As a news organization, my presumption is that their staff have done the relevant fact checking.
I also want to point out that just because AP/Reuters, NY Times, et al don't carry a story, does not mean the story isn't a credible one. 'Mainstream' media is corporate, and if you don't believe important stories get killed (for whatever reason or interest) then you are wearing blinders.
As to some posts that Brian has made, I have a question for him: Brian, it seems that you consider yourself to be quite an objective analyst. Are you claiming that your viewpoint is objective?
Edited to point out a fallacious assumption Brian has made. He has attempted to discredit the points made by anrkitec by labeling them as propaganda (ironically, another use of that technique). The incorrect assumption here is that propaganda cannot contain truth, when in fact it can.
[This message has been edited by ender83 (edited 12-25-2002).]
SkyPrincess
Dec 25, 02, 11:12 am
While it would seem that perhaps a bit of bias exists in the article, I can tell you from first hand experience that things similar to this do happen.
Flying home from my grandmother's 100th birthday party last month I was made to remove my sweater at the security checkpoint at MHT. I approached the metal detector and for the 1st time in ages, didn't set it off. Passing through I was called over to the side for an additional search. I was directed to remove my jacket. I explained that it was actually just a zip-up sweater and I wasn't wearing anything underneath but undergarments and a mock turtleneck (material that covers one's neck but ends just below the neckline). The screener advised me that I would not be allowed to board my flight if I didn't remove my "outerwear" so it could be X-rayed. I asked for a supervisor again offering to open the sweater without completely removing it. The screener continued to argue with me and a police officer was summoned. Once again, I explained that I was not wearing anything under my sweater. The screener continued to insist and the police officer agreed that I must remove my "outerwear". At this point I was beyond aggravated and whipped it off. There I stood in the middle of the terminal wearing a bra and mock turtleneck. "OK- what now?” I sweetly asked. You should have seen those people move to get my sweater back to me.
I realize that my reaction was completely juvenile but at some point further discussion is futile (and it sure did feel good to witness their discomfort, even if just for a moment). They made it perfectly clear that 1. I would not be permitted to board my flight and 2. They were not the least bit concerned with my privacy. Had I not been in fairly good physical shape I might have been extremely embarrassed.
Obviously this situation isn't exactly the same as what the author and his wife claim to have endured. I wasn’t touched inappropriately in any manner. I simply offer it for consideration to those who insist that the TSA doesn’t use heavy-handed techniques and intimidation to force compliance.
Flying home from my grandmother's 100th birthday party last month I was made to remove my sweater at the security checkpoint at MHT. I approached the metal detector and for the 1st time in ages, didn't set it off. Passing through I was called over to the side for an additional search. I was directed to remove my jacket. I explained that it was actually just a zip-up sweater and I wasn't wearing anything underneath but undergarments and a mock turtleneck (material that covers one's neck but ends just below the neckline). The screener advised me that I would not be allowed to board my flight if I didn't remove my "outerwear" so it could be X-rayed. I asked for a supervisor again offering to open the sweater without completely removing it. The screener continued to argue with me and a police officer was summoned. Once again, I explained that I was not wearing anything under my sweater. The screener continued to insist and the police officer agreed that I must remove my "outerwear". At this point I was beyond aggravated and whipped it off. There I stood in the middle of the terminal wearing a bra and mock turtleneck. "OK- what now?” I sweetly asked. You should have seen those people move to get my sweater back to me.
I realize that my reaction was completely juvenile but at some point further discussion is futile (and it sure did feel good to witness their discomfort, even if just for a moment). They made it perfectly clear that 1. I would not be permitted to board my flight and 2. They were not the least bit concerned with my privacy. Had I not been in fairly good physical shape I might have been extremely embarrassed.
Obviously this situation isn't exactly the same as what the author and his wife claim to have endured. I wasn’t touched inappropriately in any manner. I simply offer it for consideration to those who insist that the TSA doesn’t use heavy-handed techniques and intimidation to force compliance.
rawbert
Dec 25, 02, 11:41 am
"As WND reported, experts say, because of the way new airport security laws are written, unhappy passengers have little recourse to complain; airport security personnel have been given absolute authority, and any passenger-caused problems, no matter how petty or minor, could result in prison terms of up to 20 years.
Firearms expert Charlie Cutshaw told WND that the new security measures "do little toward actual security but set the stage for an incipient police state by acclimatizing people to being body searched for no real reason. ... The bottom line is that you must not protest when they strip you down at the airport," he said, because security personnel "have 'zero tolerance' for dissent."
Gotta love this. God Bless America. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif
rawbert
[This message has been edited by rawbert (edited 12-25-2002).]
[This message has been edited by rawbert (edited 12-25-2002).]
Firearms expert Charlie Cutshaw told WND that the new security measures "do little toward actual security but set the stage for an incipient police state by acclimatizing people to being body searched for no real reason. ... The bottom line is that you must not protest when they strip you down at the airport," he said, because security personnel "have 'zero tolerance' for dissent."
Gotta love this. God Bless America. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif
rawbert
[This message has been edited by rawbert (edited 12-25-2002).]
[This message has been edited by rawbert (edited 12-25-2002).]
Plato90s
Dec 25, 02, 2:07 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ender83:
I've been refraining from posting in this thread, mainly because I'm still 'chewing' on the story and trying to decide if it is credible. Not to mention that others here have more than adequately articulated the opinions I share with them.
Now, however, it appears there is some independent verification of this story.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30159
WND is an online publication and does not attempt to hide its right-leaning editorial bias, but reading it here is no different from reading the same thing at Salon.com, except that the slant is different.
As a news organization, my presumption is that their staff have done the relevant fact checking.</font>
I disagree that WND has done ANY fact checking. The article being linked quotes Mr. Monahan's monlogue, but at no point did WND confirm any part of his story to be true.
What WND did was to pose questions to both the TSA and the police in a "what if" scenario. The questions were aimed at determining the proper procedure, assuming the story was true.
But at no point did WND actually list any corroborating evidence or its belief that Mr. Monahan told the truth about how he acted.
I've been refraining from posting in this thread, mainly because I'm still 'chewing' on the story and trying to decide if it is credible. Not to mention that others here have more than adequately articulated the opinions I share with them.
Now, however, it appears there is some independent verification of this story.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30159
WND is an online publication and does not attempt to hide its right-leaning editorial bias, but reading it here is no different from reading the same thing at Salon.com, except that the slant is different.
As a news organization, my presumption is that their staff have done the relevant fact checking.</font>
I disagree that WND has done ANY fact checking. The article being linked quotes Mr. Monahan's monlogue, but at no point did WND confirm any part of his story to be true.
What WND did was to pose questions to both the TSA and the police in a "what if" scenario. The questions were aimed at determining the proper procedure, assuming the story was true.
But at no point did WND actually list any corroborating evidence or its belief that Mr. Monahan told the truth about how he acted.
kb0fhp
Dec 25, 02, 3:35 pm
As my 16 year old daughter days...."Question authority before authority questions you....."
rawbert
Dec 25, 02, 3:49 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kb0fhp:
As my 16 year old daughter days...."Question authority before authority questions you....."</font>
Just don't question authority at the airport unless you want to risk prosecution for being disruptive.
rawbert
As my 16 year old daughter days...."Question authority before authority questions you....."</font>
Just don't question authority at the airport unless you want to risk prosecution for being disruptive.
rawbert
bdschobel
Dec 25, 02, 4:57 pm
Plato,
Sometimes your skepticism is healthy, and sometimes it's not. This time it's not.
The TSA has admitted that it's being sued over the Monahan incident. We can make a reasonable assumption that some sort of incident occurred, or no suit would have been filed. You may believe that the Monahans simply made up the whole story, but that's just too incredible for most people to believe. Anyway, the TSA likely would have said something like this: "We have no record of any such incident." They didn't, so obviously something happened. (I spent a number of years developing public statements for a Federal agency and know something about how it's done.)
Similarly, if the TSA believed that everything was handled exactly right, they likely would have said so, perhaps as follows: "We believe that proper procedures were followed, and the facts will come out in court." They didn't. Instead, they said that they couldn't discuss the case because of pending litigation. That suggests to me that they are nervous and maybe planning to settle. Note that I used the word "suggests"; obviously, I can't prove this.
Intelligent people can deduce certain things from statements made and not made. If you choose to ignore logical conclusions, that's up to you. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Bruce
Sometimes your skepticism is healthy, and sometimes it's not. This time it's not.
The TSA has admitted that it's being sued over the Monahan incident. We can make a reasonable assumption that some sort of incident occurred, or no suit would have been filed. You may believe that the Monahans simply made up the whole story, but that's just too incredible for most people to believe. Anyway, the TSA likely would have said something like this: "We have no record of any such incident." They didn't, so obviously something happened. (I spent a number of years developing public statements for a Federal agency and know something about how it's done.)
Similarly, if the TSA believed that everything was handled exactly right, they likely would have said so, perhaps as follows: "We believe that proper procedures were followed, and the facts will come out in court." They didn't. Instead, they said that they couldn't discuss the case because of pending litigation. That suggests to me that they are nervous and maybe planning to settle. Note that I used the word "suggests"; obviously, I can't prove this.
Intelligent people can deduce certain things from statements made and not made. If you choose to ignore logical conclusions, that's up to you. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Bruce
Plato90s
Dec 25, 02, 6:00 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Plato,
Sometimes your skepticism is healthy, and sometimes it's not. This time it's not.
The TSA has admitted that it's being sued over the Monahan incident. We can make a reasonable assumption that some sort of incident occurred, or no suit would have been filed. You may believe that the Monahans simply made up the whole story, but that's just too incredible for most people to believe. Anyway, the TSA likely would have said something like this: "We have no record of any such incident." They didn't, so obviously something happened. (I spent a number of years developing public statements for a Federal agency and know something about how it's done.)
Similarly, if the TSA believed that everything was handled exactly right, they likely would have said so, perhaps as follows: "We believe that proper procedures were followed, and the facts will come out in court." They didn't. Instead, they said that they couldn't discuss the case because of pending litigation. That suggests to me that they are nervous and maybe planning to settle. Note that I used the word "suggests"; obviously, I can't prove this.
Intelligent people can deduce certain things from statements made and not made. If you choose to ignore logical conclusions, that's up to you. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Bruce</font>
Can you tell us where you see TSA being sued? The only reference I see is that the legal department is reviewing the Monahan case. That could be for any number of reasons, including as a possible precedent for chaning airport procedures.
That is not an indication that there has been any lawsuit filed.
The facts are Mr. Monahan has pleaded no contest, ie. guilty, to a misdemeanor. That admission of guilt will put any possible lawsuit by him at a severe disadvantage.
The words "pending litigation" does not appear anywhere in the article. The TSA said "litigation going foward". That implies the already-filed and already-judged case of TSA vs. Monahan which Mr. Monahan has pled no contest to. There was a fine assessed, but no mention of payment. Hence it's quite possible that the case is not closed and hence should not be discussed.
Again, no evidence of a lawsuit filed against the TSA, as opposed to a lawsuit which WAS filed against Mr. Monahan.
So the entire argument of "TSA knows it was wrong" is based on the unsupported assumption that Mr. Monahan (or someone on his behalf) has filed a lawsuit against the TSA when all the proven facts point the other way.
[edited to tone down the response a bit]
[This message has been edited by Plato90s (edited 12-25-2002).]
Plato,
Sometimes your skepticism is healthy, and sometimes it's not. This time it's not.
The TSA has admitted that it's being sued over the Monahan incident. We can make a reasonable assumption that some sort of incident occurred, or no suit would have been filed. You may believe that the Monahans simply made up the whole story, but that's just too incredible for most people to believe. Anyway, the TSA likely would have said something like this: "We have no record of any such incident." They didn't, so obviously something happened. (I spent a number of years developing public statements for a Federal agency and know something about how it's done.)
Similarly, if the TSA believed that everything was handled exactly right, they likely would have said so, perhaps as follows: "We believe that proper procedures were followed, and the facts will come out in court." They didn't. Instead, they said that they couldn't discuss the case because of pending litigation. That suggests to me that they are nervous and maybe planning to settle. Note that I used the word "suggests"; obviously, I can't prove this.
Intelligent people can deduce certain things from statements made and not made. If you choose to ignore logical conclusions, that's up to you. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Bruce</font>
Can you tell us where you see TSA being sued? The only reference I see is that the legal department is reviewing the Monahan case. That could be for any number of reasons, including as a possible precedent for chaning airport procedures.
That is not an indication that there has been any lawsuit filed.
The facts are Mr. Monahan has pleaded no contest, ie. guilty, to a misdemeanor. That admission of guilt will put any possible lawsuit by him at a severe disadvantage.
The words "pending litigation" does not appear anywhere in the article. The TSA said "litigation going foward". That implies the already-filed and already-judged case of TSA vs. Monahan which Mr. Monahan has pled no contest to. There was a fine assessed, but no mention of payment. Hence it's quite possible that the case is not closed and hence should not be discussed.
Again, no evidence of a lawsuit filed against the TSA, as opposed to a lawsuit which WAS filed against Mr. Monahan.
So the entire argument of "TSA knows it was wrong" is based on the unsupported assumption that Mr. Monahan (or someone on his behalf) has filed a lawsuit against the TSA when all the proven facts point the other way.
[edited to tone down the response a bit]
[This message has been edited by Plato90s (edited 12-25-2002).]
bdschobel
Dec 25, 02, 7:44 pm
I'm basing my thoughts on the phrase "litigation going forward," which refers to the future, in my opinion, not a closed case. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
Bruce
Bruce
Plato90s
Dec 25, 02, 7:53 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
I'm basing my thoughts on the phrase "litigation going forward," which refers to the future, in my opinion, not a closed case. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
Bruce</font>
Lawyers are very precise, and "pending" is very different from "going forward". The latter phrase is only used after a case has been filed and is in progress.
If there's a case underway, it'd be public record and easy to verify. The case against Mr. Monahan is easy to prove, as he's already pled guilty. No case is underway against the TSA, thus "going forward" can only apply to Mr. Monahan's offense.
In any case, if Mr. Monahan wanted to litigate the matter, he wouldn't plead no contest to the criminal count. Once he has pled on the case, he is admitting culpability and thus has a much higher barrier to filing a civil suit.
If Mr. Monahan were to file a lawsuit, it's possible additional charges based on his original offense may be filed. After all, he could have be charged with a felony and was only dropped down to a misdeameanor as a judgment call by the police/DA. That doesn't preclude the prosecutor from bringing charges later on, pending the statute of limitation. If the TSA gets sued in civil court, it's possible they would reach for a more aggressive response.
There is nothing to support the allegation that anyone is planning a lawsuit against the TSA over this incident.
I'm basing my thoughts on the phrase "litigation going forward," which refers to the future, in my opinion, not a closed case. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
Bruce</font>
Lawyers are very precise, and "pending" is very different from "going forward". The latter phrase is only used after a case has been filed and is in progress.
If there's a case underway, it'd be public record and easy to verify. The case against Mr. Monahan is easy to prove, as he's already pled guilty. No case is underway against the TSA, thus "going forward" can only apply to Mr. Monahan's offense.
In any case, if Mr. Monahan wanted to litigate the matter, he wouldn't plead no contest to the criminal count. Once he has pled on the case, he is admitting culpability and thus has a much higher barrier to filing a civil suit.
If Mr. Monahan were to file a lawsuit, it's possible additional charges based on his original offense may be filed. After all, he could have be charged with a felony and was only dropped down to a misdeameanor as a judgment call by the police/DA. That doesn't preclude the prosecutor from bringing charges later on, pending the statute of limitation. If the TSA gets sued in civil court, it's possible they would reach for a more aggressive response.
There is nothing to support the allegation that anyone is planning a lawsuit against the TSA over this incident.
kb0fhp
Dec 25, 02, 8:33 pm
Mr Monahan pleaded "no contest" not "guilty". Or a "nolo" THere is a big difference. No Contest means that the Government has a strong case that he sees no point in contesting or chance of winning. This is different than pleading guilty. It has the same effect however in sentencing..
Sydneysider
Dec 26, 02, 12:03 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kb0fhp:
Mr Monahan pleaded "no contest" not "guilty". Or a "nolo" THere is a big difference. No Contest means that the Government has a strong case that he sees no point in contesting or chance of winning. This is different than pleading guilty. It has the same effect however in sentencing..</font>
Exactly. To say that:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The facts are Mr. Monahan has pleaded no contest, ie. guilty, to a misdemeanor. That admission of guilt will put any possible lawsuit by him at a severe disadvantage.</font>
is nonsense. A plea of 'No Contest' in no way indicates ones guilt or innocence; rather, it is an accused choosing not to fight the charges brought against him or her, again, without admission of guilt or profession of innocence.
Mr Monahan pleaded "no contest" not "guilty". Or a "nolo" THere is a big difference. No Contest means that the Government has a strong case that he sees no point in contesting or chance of winning. This is different than pleading guilty. It has the same effect however in sentencing..</font>
Exactly. To say that:
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The facts are Mr. Monahan has pleaded no contest, ie. guilty, to a misdemeanor. That admission of guilt will put any possible lawsuit by him at a severe disadvantage.</font>
is nonsense. A plea of 'No Contest' in no way indicates ones guilt or innocence; rather, it is an accused choosing not to fight the charges brought against him or her, again, without admission of guilt or profession of innocence.
Plato90s
Dec 26, 02, 12:29 am
"no contest" is the same as guilty in this matter.
http://www.scselfservice.org/crim/mist.htm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">No Contest: The defendant does not contest the charge. This plea has the same effect as a guilty plea, except that the subsequent conviction cannot be used against the defendant as evidence of liability in a civil lawsuit. </font>
Mr. Monahan would be shielded from a civil suit filed AGAINST him, but the conviction can be used as evidence if he should attempt to file litigation in which he was the plaintiff.
Whether he pled guilty or no contest, Mr. Monahan remains convicted of the charge. Please note that when there are legal forms for things like job applications, etc... they ask whether you have been "convicted of a crime", not "found guilty". That's because besides "no contest", there's also conviction by default (when the defendant doesn't show up to contest the charges).
So if you'd prefer, how about I just say Mr. Monahan has been convicted of the charges filed against him, and thus any further civil litigation he might attempt would be severly hindered.
http://www.scselfservice.org/crim/mist.htm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">No Contest: The defendant does not contest the charge. This plea has the same effect as a guilty plea, except that the subsequent conviction cannot be used against the defendant as evidence of liability in a civil lawsuit. </font>
Mr. Monahan would be shielded from a civil suit filed AGAINST him, but the conviction can be used as evidence if he should attempt to file litigation in which he was the plaintiff.
Whether he pled guilty or no contest, Mr. Monahan remains convicted of the charge. Please note that when there are legal forms for things like job applications, etc... they ask whether you have been "convicted of a crime", not "found guilty". That's because besides "no contest", there's also conviction by default (when the defendant doesn't show up to contest the charges).
So if you'd prefer, how about I just say Mr. Monahan has been convicted of the charges filed against him, and thus any further civil litigation he might attempt would be severly hindered.
Sydneysider
Dec 26, 02, 5:10 am
Time for Intro to Law 101, I guess...
A plea of nolo contendere :
"A plea entered by the defendant in response to being charged with a crime. If a defendant pleads nolo contendere, she neither admits nor denies that she committed the crime, but agrees to a punishment (usually a fine or jail time) as if guilty. Usually, this type of plea is entered because it can't be used as an admission of guilt if a civil case is held after the criminal trial."
(Emphasis added.)
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/dictionary/dictionary_listing.cfm/Term/053EC922-BDF9-4D49-B97126F46620FECF/alpha/N
I did not dispute that Mr. Monahan was convicted; this plea allows the judge to do just that. And that is precisely why he had to pay the fine to the city of Portland.
Your assertion, however, that there was an "admission of guilt" by Mr. Monahan remains incorrect. Please reference the definition of his plea above.
As to the value of this plea in any future litigation filed by Mr. Monahan, considering the circumstances of his plea the value is dubious at best.
A plea of nolo contendere :
"A plea entered by the defendant in response to being charged with a crime. If a defendant pleads nolo contendere, she neither admits nor denies that she committed the crime, but agrees to a punishment (usually a fine or jail time) as if guilty. Usually, this type of plea is entered because it can't be used as an admission of guilt if a civil case is held after the criminal trial."
(Emphasis added.)
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/dictionary/dictionary_listing.cfm/Term/053EC922-BDF9-4D49-B97126F46620FECF/alpha/N
I did not dispute that Mr. Monahan was convicted; this plea allows the judge to do just that. And that is precisely why he had to pay the fine to the city of Portland.
Your assertion, however, that there was an "admission of guilt" by Mr. Monahan remains incorrect. Please reference the definition of his plea above.
As to the value of this plea in any future litigation filed by Mr. Monahan, considering the circumstances of his plea the value is dubious at best.
Plato90s
Dec 26, 02, 12:17 pm
Convicted is convicted.
nolo contendere may shield you from civil litigation for that specific incident, but it doesn't prevent your conviction being used against you in the future on unrelated matters. For example, if Mr. Monahan loses his temper again in another airport, the prosecutor could cite this previout conviction and press for the felony indictment since he's a repeat offender.
The matter is not closed with just a fine paid. He's a convicted criminal now, no matter how the verdict is arrived at.
nolo contendere may shield you from civil litigation for that specific incident, but it doesn't prevent your conviction being used against you in the future on unrelated matters. For example, if Mr. Monahan loses his temper again in another airport, the prosecutor could cite this previout conviction and press for the felony indictment since he's a repeat offender.
The matter is not closed with just a fine paid. He's a convicted criminal now, no matter how the verdict is arrived at.
Sydneysider
Dec 27, 02, 1:28 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
Convicted is convicted.
nolo contendere may shield you from civil litigation for that specific incident, but it doesn't prevent your conviction being used against you in the future on unrelated matters. For example, if Mr. Monahan loses his temper again in another airport, the prosecutor could cite this previout conviction and press for the felony indictment since he's a repeat offender.
The matter is not closed with just a fine paid. He's a convicted criminal now, no matter how the verdict is arrived at.</font>
As I indicated in a previous post, I agree that he's been convicted. And, obviously, my view of the dubious value of this conviction in future litigation is my opinion. As we are blessed by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, feel free not to share it. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
Convicted is convicted.
nolo contendere may shield you from civil litigation for that specific incident, but it doesn't prevent your conviction being used against you in the future on unrelated matters. For example, if Mr. Monahan loses his temper again in another airport, the prosecutor could cite this previout conviction and press for the felony indictment since he's a repeat offender.
The matter is not closed with just a fine paid. He's a convicted criminal now, no matter how the verdict is arrived at.</font>
As I indicated in a previous post, I agree that he's been convicted. And, obviously, my view of the dubious value of this conviction in future litigation is my opinion. As we are blessed by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, feel free not to share it. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
Counsellor
Dec 28, 02, 7:55 am
Whenever I run onto one of these internet-circulated stories, I check with the "Urban Legends" folks at snopes.com
Here's what they say about it:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/airport.htm
Here's what they say about it:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/airport.htm
dave99
Dec 28, 02, 8:33 am
The original article is made especially "touching" by the donate button at the end. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif