[trapperjohn]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050105/D87DMD880.html

"Federal authorities Tuesday used the Patriot Act to charge a man with pointing a laser beam at an airplane overhead and temporarily blinding the pilot and co-pilot.

The FBI acknowledged the incident had no connection to terrorism but called David Banach's actions "foolhardy and negligent.""

[Art Eatman]

In this instance, it looks like the use of the Patriot Act is total BS. No intent to harm, as near as I can tell...

I'm trying to re-find a link to a website offering lasers about 100 times more powerful than our "gunsight" stuff. Around $500 or so. The ad says these units burn holes in thin plastic. I imagine the feds are worried about misuse of these lasers...

Any bright light into your eyes at some critical moment can be a truly Bad Thing. Technology + hostile idiots = disaster.

Art

[DelayedReaction]

Yeah, but how did they use the Patriot Act to charge this guy?

[Beren]

He "interfered with the safe operation of a mass transit vehicle," a crime which is evidently proscribed in the PATRIOT Act. I think the idiot needs to face civil and perhaps criminal penalties for his negligence, but yes, it just goes to show that the PATRIOT Act will be used for prosecution of non-terrorists. Don't give hammers to government.

[Dbl0Kevin]

I really want to know why you need a laser pointer to "look at stars". Last time I checked looking at stars required only your eyes....not a laser. That would be "pointing at stars".

[dave3006]

If it were a laser pointer, the beam would have been huge by the time it reached the cockpit. AND, it would have been in the microwatt range.

What a crock!

[Lone_Gunman]

I am glad Congress and President Bush are protecting us from terrorists, aren't yall?

:uhoh:

[BryanP]

Art,

You're probably thinking of the one that was offered at Lasershoppe.com. (http://www.lasershoppe.com) Unfortunately he's decided to stop selling them out of self defense due to the very issue we're discussing (more details at his site).

[Beren]

I really want to know why you need a laser pointer to "look at stars". Last time I checked looking at stars required only your eyes....not a laser. That would be "pointing at stars".

Presumption. Lasers are extremely valuable tools in astronomy, though I'm not current on amateur applications. However, observatories sometimes use them as part of an adaptive optics setup. The idea is to shine the laser up at a point in the sky. They then use that data to adjust their optics to "cancel out" atmospheric turbulence.

He doesn't need to justify pointing a laser at the sky. He does need to justify having bounced said beam off an airplane and blinding the pilots temporarily.

[Dbl0Kevin]

Presumption. Lasers are extremely valuable tools in astronomy, though I'm not current on amateur applications. However, observatories sometimes use them as part of an adaptive optics setup. The idea is to shine the laser up at a point in the sky. They then use that data to adjust their optics to "cancel out" atmospheric turbulence.

Interesting. Learn something new everyday. :cool:

[rick_reno]

I wouldn't want to be on a plane where the pilot/co-pilot were blinded someone with a laser. There is nothing wrong with using the Patriot Act in this instance..remember, President Bush is protecting our 2nd Amendment rights every day he is in office.

[why_me]

There is nothing wrong with using the Patriot Act in this instance..remember, President Bush is protecting our 2nd Amendment rights every day he is in office.

ewwhhhh!

[CentralTexas]

Oh, just Jefferson spinning in his grave....
CT

[Marko Kloos]

Oh, boy.

If the Patriot Act had been passed during the Gore administration, and the selfsame Democrat-headed DOJ was misusing it in this exact fashion, the resident conservatives would have rage-induced apoplexies.

But since the right team is in charge, it's a-OK.

Just wait until the next Democrat gets into the White House, and President Hillary gets her hands on the powers of the PATRIOT Act. It's not a question of "if", just one of "when". I just wonder if the conservative pom-pom wavers are even going to realize that they handed the .gov the tools for the destruction of the Bill of Rights. But it's all good, as long as the right people lose the rights we don't like anyway...

[R.H. Lee]

Marko's right and it's just a matter of time-the next 'regime change'. Stupid naive question: Do the 'Patriot Acts' have a sunset provision?

[dustind]

RileyMc: IIRC, part of it does, part of it does not.

A whole bunch of :cuss: has been passed since 9/11 that really kills privacy and rights, while doing almost nothing to fight terrorists.

[Standing Wolf]

Why, this is nearly as much fun as the war on some drugs!

[mons meg]

Presumption. Lasers are extremely valuable tools in astronomy, though I'm not current on amateur applications. However, observatories sometimes use them as part of an adaptive optics setup. The idea is to shine the laser up at a point in the sky. They then use that data to adjust their optics to "cancel out" atmospheric turbulence.

He doesn't need to justify pointing a laser at the sky. He does need to justify having bounced said beam off an airplane and blinding the pilots temporarily.


So, did this guy get caught standing next to his fancy high tech telescope? PATRIOT is surely the wrong vehicle to prosecute this guy, but I can't help but thinking proper punishment is something along the lines of this guy being strung up by his ankles while the two pilots use him as a pinata. (sorry, can't find my special characters to properly spell peen-yatta).

Edit: Piñata....there! Thanks Art!

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yeah, our Republic is crumbling because of this atrocious use of law. Terrible, I say. What would Washington think of us now??:rolleyes:

The guy was interfering with pilots flying an airplane full of people. Why should he not be arrested and prosecuted? A laser to the eyes can easily cause blindness, and for the pilot's sake alone the twit should be charged. Nevermind the fact that blinding the pilot of a passenger plane in flight endagers everyone on board. How can this arrest be a bad thing?

Oh, wait, I understand it all now. Silly me... The applicable law is associated with the PATRIOT ACT, and is therefore inherently EVIL. I forgot, just for a moment, that we're all supposed to cry out in righteous anger at the faintest whisper of "Patriot Act". I hereby apologize for my failure to react in the appropriate knee-jerk, irrational fashion. I'll know better next time.:barf:

[joab]

As long as I can remeber it has been a crime to interfere with a flight crew.
Just because this has been incorporated into the Patriot Act does not mean that it is a new, or stupid, law.

The crew was supposedly temporarily blinded.

If this had actually ended bad we would all be calling for this guy's head.

So far the guy says that he was just pointinjg at stars, maybe maybe not.

When I was much younger and Q-Beam were just coming out we used to shine the planes coming in (the Tails) maybe this was just a new variation with newer toys

[CentralTexas]

after reading your post it seems you did react in a knee jerk fashion. We have civil & criminal laws for dealing with crime -then we have The PATRIOT act. For what reason? To prosecute terrorists, being a d*mba$$ doesn't make you a terrorist.
They are using the PATRIOT act to prosecute meth labs and bozos like this while terrorists at gitmo go uncharged and unprosecuted???
CT :scrutiny:

[lostone1413]

The Patroit Act is just away to take more of are freedoms. Does anyone really believe that it has anything at all to do with terrorism ?? When are leaders from GWB on down in both parties see nothing wrong with up to 4 million illegals just walking into the country every year.

[artherd]

If the Patriot Act had been passed during the Gore administration, and the selfsame Democrat-headed DOJ was misusing it in this exact fashion, the resident conservatives would have rage-induced apoplexies.

And the people who thing the Republicans and Democrats aren't actually working together on most levels, are even bigger fools.

[Lone_Gunman]

The guy was interfering with pilots flying an airplane full of people. Why should he not be arrested and prosecuted


What he did was already illegal I believe. So he should be arrested and prosecuted.

The Patriot Act though was intended to be used against terrorists, which he was not.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

after reading your post it seems you did react in a knee jerk fashion. We have civil & criminal laws for dealing with crime -then we have The PATRIOT act. For what reason? To prosecute terrorists, being a d*mba$$ doesn't make you a terrorist.

There is apparently some provision of the Patriot Act that makes it illegal to interfere with mass transit vehicles. This twit was interfering with a mass transit vehicle, and was duely arrested. What's wrong with this?

As with any man-made creation, the Patriot Act has its good aspects and its bad aspects. It can be used by good or evil people for good or ill purposes. In this particular instance, a good feature of the law was used with good intentions and for good results. Yet, just because it says "Patriot Act" at the top of the page, people automatically rail against it and claim, among other things, that the Founders are rolling in their graves.

I'd bet that nobody here would have had a problem if the law this twit was charged under had been part of some other bill and not the Patriot Act.

[dustind]

I'd bet that nobody here would have had a problem if the law this twit was charged under had been part of some other bill and not the Patriot Act. Right, no one is against the guy being arrested if he did it on purpose, but since someone brought up the patriot act everyone decided to put their two cents in about that as well.

[spartacus2002]

I think this guy was using a green laser pointer. With a green laser pointer, at night you can see the laser beam like a faint line. The museum here has an observatory, and during the lunar eclipse they used it to point toward several stars to mark the North star, etc. Your eye can follow the light beam toward the sky.

As for the Patriot Act, etc, well, go read "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Meyer and "From Republic To Reich."

[CentralTexas]

you have never read the Patriot act, or a summary if you support the thing...
CT

[Lone_Gunman]

Headless, do you consider this man a terrorist?

[Ryan in the House]

you have never read the Patriot act, or a summary if you support the thing...

I've actually read summaries of it - from both sides of the argument. Then I went and viewed individual passages within it that were controversial and found only a few things to be particularly "right repressive."

If the Patriot Act had been passed during the Gore administration, and the selfsame Democrat-headed DOJ was misusing it in this exact fashion, the resident conservatives would have rage-induced apoplexies.

But since the right team is in charge, it's a-OK.

Oh come on; you know what they say about ASSuming, right? That'd be like saying if Gore enacted the Act, Democrats would instantly raise up their hands in praise and thank the Lord for giving us the Patriot Act. Do you really think I would support Bush's decision to turn around and make handguns illegal if he actually did that? Or because it's a "right-wing strategy" are you just going to assume that I would spread my buttcheeks and take it up my butt, because a Republican is doing it?

Here are some of the instances that debunk this rumor that the Act has no power in fighting terrorists:

-FBI efforts to nail the Lackawanna Six al Qaeda cell began in summer 2001. Separate teams probed their suspected drug and terrorist violations. According to the Justice Department's "July Report from the Field: The USA Patriot Act at Work," "there were times when the intelligence officers and the law enforcement agents concluded that they could not be in the same room during briefings to discuss their respective investigations with each other." Under the Patriot Act, these officials began exchanging data, pooled their energies, and jailed all six upstate New York terrorists for seven to ten years for pro-al Qaeda subterfuge.

-In the Portland Seven case, the Patriot Act let the FBI follow one terrorist's plans to attack domestic Jewish targets while other conspirators tried to reach Afghanistan to help al Qaeda and the Taliban battle American GIs. The FBI and prosecutors jointly imprisoned six of the Seven for three to 18 years. As the DOJ dryly adds: "Charges against the seventh defendant were dismissed after he was killed in Pakistan by Pakistani troops on October 3, 2003."

-The Palestinian Islamic Jihad Eight were indicted for materially supporting foreign terrorists. Before that, Patriot Act Section 219 let the supervising federal judge quickly issue a search warrant in another jurisdiction, rather than consume precious time by involving an additional, local jurist.

-The Virginia Jihad Nine have been jailed for four years to life for training in Pakistani and Afghan terror camps between 1999 and 2001 and for paramilitary jihad instruction in northern Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Patriot Act information-sharing language helped incarcerate these members of the Dar al-Arqam Islamic Center.

-Patriot Act Section 371 is helping the feds seize $659,000 that Alaa Al-Sadawi, a terrorist-linked New Jersey mullah, tried to smuggle to Egypt through his elderly parents. Customs agents found this cash in a Quaker Oats carton, a Ritz Crackers box, and two baby-wipes packages, all stashed in the imam's father's luggage.

-As Dick Morris recalled in the September 12 New York Post, under the Patriot Act, federal intelligence agents in March 2003 gave information to the NYPD gleaned from interrogations of al Qaeda honcho Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM). This prompted New York's Finest to guard the Brooklyn Bridge and arrest Iyman Faris before he could blast it into the East River.

-Similar intelligence sharing helped the NYPD unravel an al Qaeda plot to use a law-abiding Manhattan garment company to ship bombs and Stinger missiles into New York. Details massaged out of KSM foiled Islamist designs to fire these Stingers at jetliners departing Newark Airport.

-Despite its caricature as an anti-Islamic nightstick, the Patriot Act helped save a mosque. Jared Bjarnason allegedly e-mailed the El Paso Islamic Center April 18 and threatened to torch it if hostages were not freed in Iraq. Patriot Act Section 212 let the FBI locate Bjarnason through his Internet service provider and cuff him before he could set the mosque ablaze.

The Patroit Act is just away to take more of are freedoms. Does anyone really believe that it has anything at all to do with terrorism ?? When are leaders from GWB on down in both parties see nothing wrong with up to 4 million illegals just walking into the country every year.

This is a discussion about the Patriot Act, and not about the immigrants coming in from Mexico, or more importantly, your soap box to bash Bush. I don't like Bush's policy on border security - I don't know many Conservatives who have said they have - but supporting the Patriot Act is completely different. About the Act dealing with terrorism... well, since it has worked to stop the funding of Al Qaeda by American citizens and track down terrorists within this country by expanding the communications levels between our agencies, I'd say it has a lot to do with fighting an enemy that hides in the shadows.

Headless, do you consider this man a terrorist?

When it says "do not interfere with mass transit vehicles" it does not mean "do not interfere with mass transit vehicles if you are a terrorist" it means "do not interfere with mass transit vehicles." He does not have to have connections with Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden's cell phone number in his back pocket to be arrested for something that goes against a provision in the Patriot Act. It's not the Patriot Act being "misused," it's the Patriot Act being used.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Nope, I don't consider him a terrorist. I think he's an immature little twit.

Whether or not he's a terrorist is irrelevant. The Patriot Act and terrorism in general are irrelevant to this story. The author of the original article included the tenuous link between the twit with a laser and the Patriot Act largely for shock value. The thin connection turns an otherwise boring story into the subject of controversy (witness the responses here).

"Patriot Act used against local man - Terrorism not suspected" sez the article, and suddenly you have instant controversy, and instant circulation. Patriot Act!! Everyones' rights are being violated!! We're all being spied on by our own government!! It's Guantanamo Bay for all of us!!!

Or is it?

You have to read deeper, and possibly think deeper, to realize that the portion of the Patriot Act used here was a harmless and reasonable part that says it's illegal to interfere with mass transit vehicles. There was no spying, no warrantless searches, no jackbooted-thugs kidnapping citizens in the night. The Constitution was not violated, our rights were not abrogated, the Republic was not destroyed, and the sky is not falling. The Founders are not spinning like turbine engines in their graves. Indeed, they have no reason to.

Relax, folks. Take a breath. Our great nation did not die the moment this man was arrested.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

you have never read the Patriot act, or a summary if you support the thing...

Don't make any unwarranted assumptions. I do NOT support the Patriot Act. And I HAVE studied the Patriot Act, as best a lay person can within the constraints of a real life.

Like I said earlier, the PA has its good parts and its bad parts.

The good is generally that it allows our intelligence resources to spy on terrorists, and arrest/detain those who are about to harm Americans. This is a Good Thing, but let's not argue about that here and now.

The bad, and ultimately fatal, aspect of the PA is that it does not adequately define who a terrorist is. The fearsome possibility is that the anti-terrorism powers could be directed against an honest man. There is little protection against this, save to trust in the good character of our leaders.

It also turns out that there is a lot of routine and ordinary stuff in the PA. Under this catagory we find that it's now illegal to interfere with mass transit vehicles. I ask again, how is this a bad thing?

[CannibalCrowley]

Under this catagory we find that it's now illegal to interfere with mass transit vehicles.Are you saying that prior to the PA, it was legal to interfere with mass transit vehicles?You have to read deeper, and possibly think deeper, to realize that the portion of the Patriot Act used here was a harmless and reasonable part that says it's illegal to interfere with mass transit vehicles.Actually it brands you as a terrorist if you interfere with mass transit vehicles.The bad, and ultimately fatal, aspect of the PA is that it does not adequately define who a terrorist is.No, it's even worse than that. It's definition of terrorism is far too broad. A couple kids getting into a scuffle at a bus stop are technically terrorists.There is little protection against this, save to trust in the good character of our leaders.In other words we're screwed.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Thompson Gunner
Under this catagory we find that it's now illegal to interfere with mass transit vehicles.
Quote:
Are you saying that prior to the PA, it was legal to interfere with mass transit vehicles?
No, I imagine they coulda found something to charge hime with before, but having something specific like this probalby helps.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Thompson Gunner
You have to read deeper, and possibly think deeper, to realize that the portion of the Patriot Act used here was a harmless and reasonable part that says it's illegal to interfere with mass transit vehicles.
Quote:
Actually it brands you as a terrorist if you interfere with mass transit vehicles.
I'm not so sure this is correct. The article specifically quotes investigators saying that the twit with the laser isn't considered a terrorist. Can you cite something specific?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Thompson Gunner
The bad, and ultimately fatal, aspect of the PA is that it does not adequately define who a terrorist is.
Quote:
No, it's even worse than that. It's definition of terrorism is far too broad. A couple kids getting into a scuffle at a bus stop are technically terrorists.That's pretty much what I said, though I used less dramatic terms. This matter of defining just who can and cannot be considered a terrorist by investigators is the part of the law that needs to be fixed. The Patriot act would be acceptable, just barely, if only this issue was addressed. (Before you ask, I have absolutely no problem with real terrorists being denied Constitutional protections, so long as the rights of non-terrorists are safeguarded.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Thompson Gunner
There is little protection against this, save to trust in the good character of our leaders.
Quote:
In other words we're screwed. Yeah, we've lost three people from my family in the last month, and it's not long before they come for the rest of us. We're all screwed! The sky is falling! :rolleyes:

[Wildalaska]

Hey since we are in this debate so heavy, may I ask..

Does anyone know the facts of the case....?

O nevermind, I guess it was in the newspapers, them be the facts. Hey I bet some of those facts came form the arrested guys lawyer, gol dang it they must be true.

WildheymaybetheguywasaterroistnawifhewastheNYTimeswouldhavesaidosAlaska

[thorn726]

i hate to say it but this really seems like exactly the type of thing the patriot act is for, and is one of the few parts of it i agree with.
HOWEVER= i am highly suspicious that this guy's intentions were not what they
are being made out to be. I want to know why this guy was doing this before he gets 20 years.
no matter what , this is pretty dangerous , but it wasnt for very long , hardly could cause a crash.
factor in if he is just some regular guy, or a guy with a record=
if he has no record, any time in a state prison is going to mess him up so bad.
he definitely needs to go away for a few years, and if it was discovered he had some plans of taking down planes, i would call him a terrorist and throw him away.
but so far we hear nothing other than he lied about who pointed the laser,
but get no reason why

[lostone1413]

Can anyone really think an open border doesn't have anything to do with are safety?? With 4 million a year just walking in. As far as the Patroit ACT goes this great American sums it up the best. They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin
Franklin

[Lone_Gunman]

Ryan in the House and Headless, I do not think you understand the Patriot Act.

Ryan sez:

When it says "do not interfere with mass transit vehicles" it does not mean "do not interfere with mass transit vehicles if you are a terrorist"

Actually the patriot act does say it is intended for use against terrorists very clearly.The preamble of the Patriot act states the purpose of the act is:

"To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes".

This is a direct quote from the Patriot Act which clearly states its intent is to stop and punish terrorism.

Since the purpose of the Patriot Act is to stop terrorism, using it against someon who is not a terrorist makes no sense. It was already illegal under federal law to tamper with or interfere with a commercial aircraft, and this man should have been charged, but since he is not a terrorist, just and idiot, he should not be charged under patriot.

Thus, when Headless says:

Whether or not he's a terrorist is irrelevant.

I would say it most certainly is relevant since the Patriot Act is intended to be used against terrorists, not just simple idiots who do something stupid.

[Augustwest]

it just goes to show that the PATRIOT Act will be used for prosecution of non-terrorists

don't think this was ever in question...

[CannibalCrowley]

I'm not so sure this is correct. The article specifically quotes investigators saying that the twit with the laser isn't considered a terrorist. Can you cite something specific?Under Section 808 Definition of Federal Crime of Terrorism, the US code was amended to include "relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems".

Under Title 8 Strengthing the Criminal Laws Against Terrorism, we find that the penalty for acts including "whoever willfully -- interferes with, disables, or incapacitates any dispatcher, driver, captain, or person while they are employed in dispatching, operating, or maintaining a mass transportation vehicle or ferry, with intent to endanger the safety of any passenger or employee of the mass transportation provider, or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life;"

Of course this is all moot since the actual title of the act is Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. If the act is allowed to be used for purposes other than such, then it's already overstepping it's bounds. So either he is a suspected terrorist and the act should be used against him, or he isn't and it shouldn't be used.

Before you ask, I have absolutely no problem with real terrorists being denied Constitutional protections, so long as the rights of non-terrorists are safeguarded.So you believe that a citizen's rights are forfeit if he's merely suspected of being a terrorist? I must have missed the part of the Constitution where it said "except for terrorists or those suspected as such".

[tech]

Best case scenario this guy was using incredibly bad judgment. Worst case, he was trying to commit multiple homicides. Either way this guy was wrong. Two different aircraft is not accidental furthermore he lased one at least three times. Does someone need to actually bring down a plane before someone calls foul? So you don't like what they are using to charge the guy, that’s ok, but it does not negate his actions and he needs to answer for them. Oh…. I forgot we are now a society that does not believe in personal accountability.

Mike

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So you believe that a citizen's rights are forfeit if he's merely suspected of being a terrorist? I must have missed the part of the Constitution where it said "except for terrorists or those suspected as such".

The short answer to that is YES. I firmly believe that anyone who is evil enough to perpetrate mass murder forfeits his rights. Such a person should be, at best, locked up until the end of time. The firing squad is probably more just, but we live in times where that wouldn't be appropriate.

A quote comes to mind, but I can't recall the specifics. I think it was John Adams who said something to the effect of "Our Constitution is meant only for honest men. It is wholly inadequate for governing all others."

It was common practice in Revolutionary times for captured enemy spies and similar agents to be summarily executed upon no further authority than the order of the commanding officer. How is this any different than the Patriot Act?

I'll say again what I said earlier. I have absolutely no problem with the full powers of the Patriot Act being used against true terrorists, so long as honest, non-terrorists are properly safeguarded.

[CannibalCrowley]

So you don't like what they are using to charge the guy, that’s ok, but it does not negate his actions and he needs to answer for them. Oh…. I forgot we are now a society that does not believe in personal accountability.Did you even read the thread? I can't recall anyone here stating that he shouldn't be punished for his actions. Of course people should be upset when an act about terrorism is used to charge someone who they say isn't a terrorist.

[roo_ster]

Why is this a surprise?

fed.gov already uses the RICO law(s) to persecute those ladies who protest outside of abortion clinics.

Using the PA against any & all will be SOP.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Christ, people! Just because the PA is about terrorism doesn't mean it can't be used in similar, related non-terrorist actions!

My SUV is all about driving off-road, but that doesn't mean I can't use it to drive to the grocery store when I need to.

The guy took an action that might have knocked a passenger airliner out of the sky, yet we can't prosecute him simply because he says he's not a terrorist? How much sense does that make???

So what if he isn't a terrorist? He broke a law and was duely arrested and charged. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS???

I say again that the only "problem" most of you have is that you're allergic to the Patriot Act. The facts of the case and merits of the law are being ignored.

[Lone_Gunman]

Headless, do you not understand that what he did was already against the law???

What is so hard for you to understand that???

Law Enforcement is not using this law as it is intended.

[R.H. Lee]

Hey I bet some of those facts came form the arrested guys lawyer, gol dang it they must be true.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I occasionally am), but isn't a defense attorney an "officer of the court", and is not allowed to purposefully lie?

I know politicians lie, but attorneys? Say it aint' so.

[Wildalaska]

I know politicians lie, but attorneys? Say it aint' so.

First thing they teach ya in law school....how not to tell the truth without lying..

Ask Bill Clinton

WildpolygraphAlaska

[Hawkmoon]

The guy was interfering with pilots flying an airplane full of people. Why should he not be arrested and prosecuted? A laser to the eyes can easily cause blindness, and for the pilot's sake alone the twit should be charged. Nevermind the fact that blinding the pilot of a passenger plane in flight endagers everyone on board. How can this arrest be a bad thing?
It's not his arrest that's bad, it's the use of a law intended to combat terrorism for a purpose and incident unrelated to terrorism.

You telling me that out of the hundreds of thousands of pages of federal laws and regulations that existed prior to the Patriot Act, they couldn't find even ONE law or regulation this guy violated?

C'mon.

[spartacus2002]

The short answer to that is YES. I firmly believe that anyone who is evil enough to perpetrate mass murder forfeits his rights. Such a person should be, at best, locked up until the end of time. The firing squad is probably more just, but we live in times where that wouldn't be appropriate.

A quote comes to mind, but I can't recall the specifics. I think it was John Adams who said something to the effect of "Our Constitution is meant only for honest men. It is wholly inadequate for governing all others."

It was common practice in Revolutionary times for captured enemy spies and similar agents to be summarily executed upon no further authority than the order of the commanding officer. How is this any different than the Patriot Act?

I'll say again what I said earlier. I have absolutely no problem with the full powers of the Patriot Act being used against true terrorists, so long as honest, non-terrorists are properly safeguarded.

You don't know if he's a terrorist until he has been proven to be one. Our system of law says he's not proven to be one until he's had a fair trial with due process. Otherwise, the system is too rife for abuse. Under your system, what is there to prevent me from giving false evidence and naming YOU as a terrorist?

Our system is law isn't built so much on what it tries to accomplish as what it tries to prevent. If you don't like it, then move to a totalitarian police state.

[lostone1413]

Long read about the Patroit Act but good reading. http://www.gunowners.org/fs0307.htm

[why_me]

.

[Ryan in the House]

Thanks for that page, that's a pretty thorough analysis of the Patriot Act.

Sounds like most of the stuff is speculation on what "could" happen (in context, the word "may" shows up far more than "will" ;))- it looks very much like a scare tactic to me. I'll look at the page more when I get the time.

[Ryan in the House]

Actually the patriot act does say it is intended for use against terrorists very clearly.The preamble of the Patriot act states the purpose of the act is:

"To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes".

This is a direct quote from the Patriot Act which clearly states its intent is to stop and punish terrorism.

Since the purpose of the Patriot Act is to stop terrorism, using it against someon who is not a terrorist makes no sense. It was already illegal under federal law to tamper with or interfere with a commercial aircraft, and this man should have been charged, but since he is not a terrorist, just and idiot, he should not be charged under patriot.

What does not matter to me is that they used a law that was created to deter terrorist activities to take down someone who was endangering lives all the same. What does matter is whether or not they're going to prosecute him as a terrorist; if he doesn't have ties, then it would be unreasonable for them to try him as one. How he was initially caught does not matter. How he is punished does.

[Lone_Gunman]

So if they charge him under the Patriot Act as a terrorist, and then if he is released later because a jury determines he is not a terrorist, you would consider that a proper outcome?

If they have charged him with being a terrorist, I think they will try him for that.

[CannibalCrowley]

Yeah, we've lost three people from my family in the last month, and it's not long before they come for the rest of us. We're all screwed! The sky is falling! :rolleyes: They're only making us wear stars, it's not like they'll actually treat us any different. :rolleyes: So you believe that a citizen's rights are forfeit if he's merely suspected of being a terrorist? I must have missed the part of the Constitution where it said "except for terrorists or those suspected as such".The short answer to that is YES. I firmly believe that anyone who is evil enough to perpetrate mass murder forfeits his rights. Such a person should be, at best, locked up until the end of time. The firing squad is probably more just, but we live in times where that wouldn't be appropriate.So if your neighbor has a beef with you one day and reports to the feds that you own a number of guns and have spoken out against the government before and you might be a terrorist. So you'd be fine if they locked you up for life or executed you?What does not matter to me is that they used a law that was created to deter terrorist activities to take down someone who was endangering lives all the sameSo you'd be fine with the unPATRIOTic act being used to investigate anyone who might be endangering someone's life?How he was initially caught does not matter. How he is punished does.First off, did you read the article? Secondly, why the difference? Either the PA was intended to help fight terrorism or it was intended as a way to simply give the govermnet even more power. You can't pick and choose it's an either or situation.

[RealGun]

Kind of reminds me of bogus readings of interstate commerce jurisdiction being used for gun control.

[45 Carry]

How long were they blinded by this laser? A nanosecond, a millisecond, 5 seconds? It would be hard to get the pilot and co-pilot in the eyes at the same time and keep the beam in their eyes, tracking the plane as it flew. I guess it could be serious but it sounds, to me, like the typical over reaction to a non problem. Rubber Bands are now banned in schools because they could be used as a weapon. This is nuts.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Thompson Gunner
The short answer to that is YES. I firmly believe that anyone who is evil enough to perpetrate mass murder forfeits his rights. Such a person should be, at best, locked up until the end of time. The firing squad is probably more just, but we live in times where that wouldn't be appropriate.

Quote:
So if your neighbor has a beef with you one day and reports to the feds that you own a number of guns and have spoken out against the government before and you might be a terrorist. So you'd be fine if they locked you up for life or executed you?I see little profit in continuing this discussion if you can't see a difference between perpetrating mass murder and owning a few guns.

I'll say it one last time: I have no problem with real terrorists being denied a few rights. I value the lives of my family, friends, and fellow Americans more than I value the rights of a few evil, fanatical, murderous thugs. If this makes me a bad person in your mind, then so be it.

Lemme get one other thing straight: I don't support the Patriot Act. It has some serious flaws that need to be addressed. Primary among those flaws is a lack of any way to ensure that non-terrorists are properly distinguished from real terrorists. But those flaws can be corrected, and all of our rights properly safeguarded. Our great Republic is NOT going to fall simply because of this law.

Why does everyone insist that the end of the world is near?

[Lone_Gunman]

Gunner, I agree the Republic won't fall because of the Patriot Act, but do you think the Patriot Act might be a stepping stone to other, more draconian regulation of our rights by the government?

In no aspect of our lives are we less regulated by the government than we were a generation ago. Federal law and centralization of power has increased steadily. To think that the Patriot Act is as far as the government is willing to go to "protect us" is naive.

I personally am not willing to deny the rights of even real terrorists if they are US citizens. Remember, it is the government that decides if you are a terrorist, and they don't decide it in a court of law. All they have to do is say you are a terrorist, and then can use the Patriot Act as they see fit.

I don't think the Patriot Act has made us any safer. I don't think it has prevented any terrorist acts. I am not even sure any real terrorists have been prosecuted under it.

[Croyance]

Although the Bush Administration assured Senators, Congressmen, and the public that the powers granted by the Patriot Act would be used only to fight terrorism, the Justice Department issued internal memos almost immediately on how they could use the Patriot Act on other crimes. Within six months of passage, the Justice Department supposedly had in house seminars on the same subject. In other words, there wasn't any intent on limiting the use of the Patriot Act.

[xinul22]

"... Banach, 38, of Parsippany admitted to federal agents that he pointed the light beam at a jet and a helicopter over his home near Teterboro Airport last week, authorities said. Initially, he claimed his daughter aimed the device at the helicopter, they said..."

Gee, what kind of person would try to pin it on his daughter?!?! :what:

If there is a law making being a sleaze a crime, he should get the death penalty!

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Gunner, I agree the Republic won't fall because of the Patriot Act, but do you think the Patriot Act might be a stepping stone to other, more draconian regulation of our rights by the government?

I dunno. Mebbe it is such a stepping stone, or mebbe it isn't. In all honesty, I don't think it matters. Our government will continue it's slow slide towards more draconian laws no matter what, Patriot Act or no Patriot Act.

Nor do the presence or absence of laws make any difference when it comes to how oppressive or tyrannical our government is. Good, honest men in office will not abuse the people regardless of what kind of power the law gives them. Corrupt and evil men in office will always abuse their authority, no matter what the law says.

Bill Clinton, for instance, used the FBI to spy on and intimidate thousands of citizens without the Patriot Act. He also had quite a few people murdered (Waco, Vince Foster...) despite strong laws against murder.

It's their character that matters, not the law, and we as voters control the character of our leaders.

[Lone_Gunman]

I agree with your sentiments Gunner. Evil men will always do evil things. But do you want to give them extra weapons to do their work? Thats the danger of the patriot act. An corrupt politician armed with the Patriot Act is more dangerous than a corrupt politician without it.