My understanding is that all people within the US do have rights under the Consititution. Someone legally in the country is no more subject to improper search and seizure, has the right of habeus corpus, etc. etc. every bit as much as a citizen.

"We hold these truths to be self evdident: that all men are created equal ..." I hope has not yet become " ... all Americans are equal among themselves and all others are inferior." Though there is some evidence that this is a working propostion.

To the idea that mass murder is something troublesome to the public, I would respond that we didn't seem too troubled by all the people killed in order to "liberate" their country for them by replacing the existing tyrant with an new one.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337881

Mass detention was also rationalized away as over 10,000 people were detained for up to 10 and 11 months - the vast, vast majority for no good or even known reason other than being males of military age.

Perhaps we have succumbed to the idea that people in other lands are not, after all, real people?

Isn't this the basis for allowing sub-par treatment of people anywhere - inside the country or out?

Best wishes,

Teacher49

Teacher49, with regard to the constitutional law question, I would respectfully refer you to the majority's dicta in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ regarding the 4th Amendment, the relevant portions of which I will paste here for your convenience:

That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words [494 U.S. 259, 266] "person" and "accused" used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases....

The available historical data show, therefore, that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government;

Granted, the case I have cited is not directly on point with the issue we are discussing, but its a good exercise to contrast the viewpoints expressed in that opinion with those held by you and the ALCU. We could probably debate the merits of this issue all day. I do not claim to know all there is to know about constitutional law, but I certainly think a strong argument can be made that aliens are not entitled to equal 4th Amendment rights as citizens.

Thanks for that counter-argument. An argument could be made using "original intent" and those same sections above to indicate that "the people of the United States" also applied to non-Americans legally residing in, conducting business in, or travelling through the United States at the time during and after ratification and that long-standing custom prevailing since the time of the Founders indicates that said persons have been considered part of the "people of the United States" even if they were not considered citizens (full or partial).

GU, you're absolutely right that the argument can be made ^

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Will we have to prove our citizenship (show ID) to avoid being harassed? How would you like to have other countries treat you that way?

no taxation without representation!

[puts on warpaint and throws tea into harbor]

I think you're starting to nitpick a bit here. ;) We all know that weather, atc routings, traffic, ground delays, etc, can easily stretch a 3 hour flight into 5 or 6. My guess is that your points will be more palatable if you stick to the important issues rather than try to rip apart every 3rd word in her story.

Just an observation. :)

Check out NW 327 from that day. It doesn't allow for 5 or 6 hours that day. ;) Arriving at 13:51 local LA time. Departed no sooner than 12:22 local Detroit Time.;)

This woman finds "links" like the Bush Adminstration finds "links" between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein -- if you know what I mean. ;)

haha!

My honest opinion on the article...she very well may have witnessed some very suspicious behavior. It's not a secret that some terrorist cells are still scoping flights, looking for loopholes and vulnerabilities, etc. I think, however, that she tried too hard to make a very large and informative (and political) article out of her experience - and in the process, has made it into something much more than it was.

We should learn from those experiences; we should all be aware of our neighbors and surroundings when we fly - but rather than observe and learn from it, she's tried to inject many other issues into her article in order to beef it up.

JMHO, as always.

Part II is even better.

Therein she contrasts the fact that "blond haired boys" might be searched by the TSA "while middle eastern men" might not.

I agree that the TSA operates according to lousy guidelines, I just find the language amusing and a little too reminiscent of dark days long gone?

"OK, all you with blond hair go ahead and board. Those of you not quite so, so, so Ary.. um, .... well,in that line there."

Best wishes,

Teacher49

I sincerely doubt that she witnessed anything that she did not invent in her own mind.

The take home lesson, boys and girls, is not to fly like a paranoid, racist jackass. If groups of men who appear to Arabic make one nervous to the point of being terrorized, on should just stay home in the friendly confines of Whitey World and not go out into the part of the country where one might encounter these "potential terrorists". Hiding under the bed is a good option too.

I really feel sorry for this nitwit's kids. :( No doubt they'll also be schooled to also be paranoid, racist jackasses.

^^

The kids will dream that they are the stormtrooper-heroes of tomorrow.... all while they will never volunteer to serve in the armed forces themselves.

Thanks for the warning, Teacher - I won't even read Part II then. I think anything relevant she might have had to say has been lost to this line of thinking.

Personally...I think we ought to screen everyone according to the same standards. I don't care if you're blonde, brown, red, whatever...the blonde boy could be Tim McVeigh's more evil counterpart, a CEO ready for a psychotic break (ever hear about the guy who defecated on top of a serving cart?), some drunk schmuck who's angry that his wife left him, whatever. I think you're all nuts till proven otherwise. :D :D

Just to clarify, this reference actually comes from an email she received from someone identifying himself as a pilot.