snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » Petty Bickering » Reporters Smuggle Knives Onto 14 Airline Flights During Labor Day Weekend (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Reporters Smuggle Knives Onto 14 Airline Flights During Labor Day Weekend
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay 121.575 pertains to alcoholic beverages. In that if one has a weapon the sterwardess can't server you an alcoholic beverage:

quote:
§ 121.575 Alcoholic beverages.

(a) No person may drink any alcoholic beverage aboard an aircraft unless the certificate holder operating the aircraft has served that beverage to him.

(b) No certificate holder may serve any alcoholic beverage to any person aboard any of its aircraft who --

(1) Appears to be intoxicated;

(2) Is escorting a person or being escorted in accordance with 49 CFR 1544.221; or

(3) Has a deadly or dangerous weapon accessible to him while aboard the aircraft in accordance with 49 CFR 1544.219, 1544.221, or 1544.223.

(c) No certificate holder may allow any person to board any of its aircraft if that person appears to be intoxicated.

(d) Each certificate holder shall, within five days after the incident, report to the Administrator the refusal of any person to comply with paragraph (a) of this section, or of any disturbance caused by a person who appears to be intoxicated aboard any of its aircraft.

[Doc. No. 6258, 29 FR 19219, Dec. 31, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 121-118, 40 FR 17552, Apr. 21, 1975; Amdt. 121-178, 47 FR 13316, Mar. 29, 1982; Amdt. 121-275, 67 FR 31932, May 10, 2002]




--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 24 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Beech: Correct, however it is part of the section of FARs governing the control of weapons in flight, and as such is slightly applicable. I think it is important to reassure the flying public that their airmarshals are not drunks.

However, if you'd care to post the other sections which I listed, you'll find that they were right on the mark.

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
For example (just to go easy on you guys)

quote:
Sec. 129.27

Prohibition against carriage of weapons.

(a) No person may, while on board an aircraft being operated by a foreign air carrier in the United States, carry on or about his person a deadly or dangerous weapon, either concealed or unconcealed. This paragraph does not apply to--
(1) Officials or employees of the state of registry of the aircraft who are authorized by that state to carry arms; and
(2) Crewmembers and other persons authorized by the foreign air carrier to carry arms.
(b) No foreign air carrier may knowingly permit any passenger to carry, nor may any passenger carry, while aboard an aircraft being operated in the United States by that carrier, in checked baggage, a deadly or dangerous weapon, unless:
(1) The passenger has notified the foreign air carrier before checking the baggage that the weapon is in the baggage; and
(2) The baggage is carried in an area inaccessible to passengers.

[Doc. No. 15286, Amdt. 129-6, 41 FR 30107, July 22, 1976]

and..

quote:
Sec. 135.119

Prohibition against carriage of weapons.

No person may, while on board an aircraft being operated by a certificate holder, carry on or about that person a deadly or dangerous weapon, either concealed or unconcealed. This section does not apply to--
(a) Officials or employees of a municipality or a State, or of the United States, who are authorized to carry arms; or
(b) Crewmembers and other persons authorized by the certificate holder to carry arms.

The application of each section would depend on the type of operation as laid out in the AOC.

Now, if you're really lazy, I can link you to the specific definitions of weapon which have been ammended, and the penalties involved. These (I believe in the USA) are laid out in the Service Standards or perhaps a bulletin.

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's 135.119:

quote:
§ 135.119 Prohibition against carriage of weapons.

No person may, while on board an aircraft being operated by a certificate holder, carry on or about that person a deadly or dangerous weapon, either concealed or unconcealed. This section does not apply to --

(a) Officials or employees of a municipality or a State, or of the United States, who are authorized to carry arms; or

(b) Crewmembers and other persons authorized by the certificate holder to carry arms.


Though it doesn't indicate what a deadly weapon is. Nor does it say anything about intent. As such, if one used a very liberal view of deadly weapon it would include kniting needles, box cutters, and scissors. Because intent is not part of the regulation though, the reports are no more subject to presecution then I am for bringing anything that could be used as a weapon on board.

It is my understanding that in US law, deadly weapons are not generally designated as such until used in an assault. Thus my pocket knife is not considered a concealed weapon. But if I use it to repeatedly stab somebody, I would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Beach...can't find 129.27 so easily...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually Beech, civil laws are not readily applicable to aviation laws and as such the definition of weapon or "prohibited items" are laid out in list form in the service standards with all penalties etc determined directly by the FAA.

Geeze guys, you should appreciate what I'm giving you a bit more. Normally I get paid good money for this $hit.

So for your ease of access and viewing enjoyment;

http://www.tsa.gov/trav_consumers/aircraft_prohibit.shtm

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Edited to add: I was writing this while you guys were posting. Sorry for the duplication.

And yes, Jon, I do appreciate your efforts. Just send me the bill via snopes. [Big Grin]

OK. I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt here, but those regulations really tell me little.

FAR 129.27 says simply this:

quote:
(a) No person may, while on board an aircraft being operated by a foreign air carrier in the United States, carry on or about his person a deadly or dangerous weapon, either concealed or unconcealed. This paragraph does not apply to--
But it doesn't define a deadly weapon, nor does it provide any penalty. And it appears to apply only to "foreign air carriers." What about all those domestic carriers?

FAR 135.199 uses similar language, which deals with planes operated by certificate holders, whatever those may be.

What I am looking for, but cannot find, is the law prohibiting someone from carrying on, say, a box cutter, and providing a penalty if one does. Does a specific law like that exist? If not, what laws did these reporters break, if any?

Pogue

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Pogue: See the link in my last post. BTW, to whom should I be sending the invoice [Wink]

Here, I did a bit more research for you. I apologise for pointing you in the wrong direction. It turns out that you have a strange seperate department for aviation security (odd, clunky, and beaurocratic) but alas...

quote:
Transportation Security Regulations

The TSA issues and administers Transportation Security Regulations (TSRs), which are codified in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter XII, parts 1500 through 1699. Many TSRs are former rules of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that were transferred to TSA when TSA assumed FAA’s civil aviation security function on February 17, 2002. See Federal Register Notice 67 FR 7939.pdf for further information.

FAA 14 CFR Parts 91, 107, 108, 109, 121, 129, 135, 139, 191
TSA 49 CFR Parts 1500, 1520, 1540, 1542, 1544, 1546, 1548, 1550

This page provides links to TSRs, recent uncodified amendments and related interpretive guidance and Regulatory History documents. In cases where a regulatory amendment has not yet taken effect, the effective date is indicated. TSRs will not appear in the published version of the CFR until 2003.

Title 49 General TSR Contents

Subchapter A - Administrative and Procedural Rules

1500 - Applicability, terms, and abbreviations
1502 - Responsibilities of the Undersecretary of Transportation for Security
1503 - Investigative and Enforcement Procedures

1510 - Passenger civil aviation security service fees

1511 - Aviation security infrastructure fee
Subchapter B - Security Rules for All Modes of Transportation

1520 - Protection of sensitive security information

Subchapter C - Civil Aviation Security
1540 - Civil aviation security: general rules

1542 - Airport security

1544 - Aircraft operator security: air carriers and commercial operators

1546 - Foreign air carrier security

1548 - Indirect air carrier security

1550 - Aircraft security under general operating and flight rules


Subchapter A - Administrative and Procedural Rules

Part 1500 Applicability, Terms, and Abbreviations
This Part describes the scope of the TSRs in Chapter XII and contains definitions of terms used in the Chapter.

Regulatory History
Final Rule: Civil Aviation Security Rules (67 FR 8340.pdf, - published Feb. 22, 2002)

Part 1502 Responsibilities of the Undersecretary of Transportation for Security
This Part outlines the responsibilities of the Undersecretary of Transportation for Security and designates the Deputy Under Secretary of Transportation for Security/Chief Operating Officer as the "first assistant" to the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security for purposes of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.

Regulatory History
Final Rule: Responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security (67 FR 48048.pdf - Jul 23, 2002) effective July 17, 2002. [Summary]
Part 1503 Investigative and Enforcement Procedures
This part establishes interim investigative and enforcement procedural rules that TSA will use to address statutory and regulatory violations. This part provides rules of practice for civil enforcment of TSA's transportation security mandate.

Regulatory History

Interim Final Rule: Investigative and Enforcement Procedures (67 FR 51480.pdf - Aug 8, 2002) effective August 8. 2002. [Summary]

Part 1510 Passenger Civil Aviation Security Service Fees
This link takes you to the Part as first adopted, with amendments as noted at the end of each section. For amendments not appearing in this link, see the Regulatory History listed below.

This part prescribes a uniform fee to be paid by passengers of direct air carriers and foreign air carriers originating at airports in the United States to pay for the costs of providing certain U.S. civil aviation security services.

Regulatory History

Interim Final Rule: Imposition and Collection of Passenger Civil Aviation Security Service Fees (66 FR 67698.pdf - Dec 31, 2001) [Summary]

Amendment 1510-1. Interim Final Rule; Amendment; Reopening of Comment Period: Imposition and Collection of Passenger Civil Aviation Service Fee (67 FR 14879.pdf - March 28, 2002) effective March 28, 2002 [Summary]
Other History

Emergency Federal Register Notice: Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information Collection Under OMB Review, Part VI (67 FR 4866.pdf - Jan 31, 2002) [Summary]

Notice: Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements - OMB Approval of Agency Information Collection Activity, Part VII
(67 FR 7582.pdf - Feb 19, 2002) [Summary]

Part 1511 Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee
This link takes you to the Part as first adopted, with amendments as noted at the end of each section. For amendments not appearing in this link, see the Regulatory History listed below.

This part prescribes the imposition of a fee on air carriers and foreign air carriers to pay for the costs of providing certain U.S. civil aviation security services.

Guidance

Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee - Guidance on completing and submitting Appendix A on costs related to passenger and property screening for calendar year 2000 (67 FR 21582.pdf - May 1, 2002) [Summary]
Regulatory History

Interim Final Rule: Aviation Security Infrastructure Fees
(67 FR 7926.pdf - Feb 20, 2002) [Summary]

Correction: Aviation Security Infrastructure Fees
(67 FR 8579.pdf - Feb 25, 2002) [Summary]

Extension of Comment Period: Aviation Security Infrastructure Fees (67 FR 12954.pdf - March 20, 2002) [Summary]
Temporary Waiver of Audit Submission Requirements: Aviation Security Infrastructure Fees (67 FR 56496.pdf – Sep 4, 2002)
Other History

Notice: Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements - OMB Approval of Agency Information Collection Activity (67 FR 9355.pdf - Feb 28, 2002) [Summary]



Subchapter B - Security Rules for All Modes of Transportation

Part 1520 Protection of Sensitive Security Information

This part defines and requires the protection of “Sensitive Security Information,” which is sensitive but unclassified information related to transportation security that is provided to entities in the transportation sector on a need-to-know basis in order to carry out their security obligations.

Regulatory History

Final Rule: Civil Aviation Security Rules (67 FR 8340.pdf, published Feb. 22, 2002)


Subchapter C - Civil Aviation Security

Part 1540 Civil Aviation Security: General Rules
This link takes you to the Part as first adopted, with amendments as noted at the end of each section. For amendments not appearing in this link, see the Regulatory History listed below.

This part contains rules that cover all segments of civil aviation security. It contains definitions that apply to Subchapter C, and it contains rules that apply to passengers, aviation employees, and other individuals and persons related to civil aviation security, including airport operators, aircraft operators, and foreign air carriers.

Regulatory History
Final Rule: Civil Aviation Security Rules (67 FR 8340.pdf - Feb. 22, 2002)
Amendment 1540-1. Final Rule: Security Program for Aircraft 12,500 Pounds or More (67 FR 8205.pdf - Feb. 22, 2002) effective June 24, 2002. [Summary]

Amendment 1540-2. Final Rule/Request for Comments: Private Charter Security Rules (67 FR 41635.pdf - Jun 19, 2002) effective August 19, 2002 [Summary]
Other History

Notice: Security Programs for Aircraft 12,500 Pounds or More (67 FR 55308.pdf – Aug 28, 2002)
Notice: Security Programs for Certain Private Charter Operations (67 FR 55309.pdf – Aug 28, 2002)

Part 1542 Airport Security
This Part requires airport operators to adopt and carry out a security program approved by TSA. It describes requirements for security programs, including establishing secured areas, air operations areas, security identification display areas, and access control systems. This Part also contains requirements for fingerprint based criminal history record checks of specified individuals. This part describes the requirements related to Security Directives issued to airport operators.

Regulatory History

Final Rule: Civil Aviation Security Rules
(67 FR 8340.pdf, published Feb. 22, 2002)
Part 1544 Aircraft Operator Security: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators
This link takes you to the Part as first adopted, with amendments as noted at the end of each section. For amendments not appearing in this link, see the Regulatory History listed below.

This Part applies to certain aircraft operators holding operating certificates for scheduled passenger operations, public charter passenger operations, private charter passenger operations, and other aircraft operators. This Part requires such operators to adopt and carry out a security program approved by TSA. It contains requirements for screening of passengers and property. This Part also describes requirements applicable to law enforcement officers flying armed aboard an aircraft, as well as requirements for fingerprint based criminal history record checks of specified individuals. This Part describes the requirements related to Security Directives issued to aircraft operators.

Regulatory History
Final Rule: Civil Aviation Security Rules (67 FR 8340.pdf, published Feb. 22, 2002)

Amendment 1544-1. Final Rule/Request for Comments: Security Program for Aircraft 12,500 Pounds or More - (67 FR 8205.pdf - Feb. 22, 2002) effective June 24, 2002. [Summary] <67 FR 8205 Summary.txt>

Amendment 1544-2. Final Rule/Request for Comments: Private Charter Security Rules (67 FR 41635.pdf, Jun 19, 2002) effective August 19, 2002 [Summary]
Other History

Notice: Security Programs for Aircraft 12,500 Pounds or More (67 FR 55308.pdf – Aug 28, 2002)
Notice: Security Programs for Certain Private Charter Operations (67 FR 55309.pdf – Aug 28, 2002)

Part 1546 Foreign Air Carrier Security
This part applies to foreign air carriers operating in the United States and holding a permit issued by the Department of Transportation under 49 U.S.C. 41302 or other appropriate authority issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board or the Department of Transportation. This Part requires such carriers to adopt and carry out a security program approved by TSA. It describes requirements for screening of passengers and property and other requirements.

Regulatory History

Final Rule: Civil Aviation Security Rules (67 FR 8340.pdf, published Feb. 22, 2002)
Other History
Notice: Intent To Request Renewal From the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of One Current Public Collection of Information; Security Programs for Foreign Air Carriers (67 FR 52772.pdf published - Aug 13, 2002) [Summary]
Part 1548 Indirect Air Carrier Security

This part applies to indirect air carriers, such as freight forwarders. It requires such carriers to adopt and carry out a security program and describes requirements for preventing the carriage of unauthorized explosives or incendiaries aboard passenger aircraft.

Regulatory History

Final Rule: Civil Aviation Security Rules [67 FR 8340.pdf, published Feb. 22, 2002)
Part 1550 Aircraft Security Under General Operating and Flight Rules

This part applies to the operation of aircraft for which there are no security requirements in other Parts of Chapter XII, including general aviation aircraft.

Regulatory History

Final Rule: Civil Aviation Security Rules
(67 FR 8340.pdf, published Feb. 22, 2002)

learn more here: http://www.tsa.gov/law_policy/law_policy_index.shtm

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
Pogue: See the link in my last post.

Ok. That link has a list of banned items. But it clearly does not call for the arrest of everyone who tries to bring such items aboard a plane. Indeed, it specifically allows for the disposal of such items at the security check point.

So let me get back to the basic question that has been brought up time and again in this post. Why should these reporters be arrested? What did they do that was different from the old lady attempting to bring on her knitting needles, or even me with my nail clippers?

Indeed, I'll even note that some threw away the pepper spray before getting on the plane. Wouldn't that show they meant no harm?

quote:
BTW, to whom should I be sending the invoice [Wink]
I've got a twoonie in my drawer from my last visit to Canada. Will that be sufficient? [Big Grin]

Pogue "and a loonie somewhere, too" Mahone

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Pogue: I kind of flanked ya by ammending my last post with the an introduction to the TSA and TSRs (which did in fact used to be included in the FARs and FSSs). That said, I think you'll find that the ammended post adequatly answers your questions.

The twoonie won't cut it.. You'r up to about $500 and counting [Wink]

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
Pogue: I kind of flanked ya by ammending my last post with the an introduction to the TSA and TSRs (which did in fact used to be included in the FARs and FSSs). That said, I think you'll find that the ammended post adequatly answers your questions.

I appreciate the work. Looks like I've got some reading to do!

quote:
The twoonie won't cut it.. You'r up to about $500 and counting [Wink]
That's Canadian, right? [Big Grin] No problem.

Pogue

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
Pogue: I kind of flanked ya by ammending my last post with the an introduction to the TSA and TSRs (which did in fact used to be included in the FARs and FSSs). That said, I think you'll find that the ammended post adequatly answers your questions.

The twoonie won't cut it.. You'r up to about $500 and counting [Wink]

$500 Canadian, isn't that something like $20 American?

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Island Manta
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Island Manta   E-mail Island Manta   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:
$500 Canadian, isn't that something like $20 American?

Youre thinking Oz $$. Canadian makes it about $200 [Laughing out loud]

-K

Posts: 3569 | From: USVI | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 102 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Naw Beech... In aviation, all dollar amounts are quoted in american bucks.

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
HazyCosmicJive
The First USA Noel


Icon 19 posted      Profile for HazyCosmicJive     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
At the risk of disrupting light-hearted banter, after putting in the effort to read this entire thread, I feel the need to throw my full support behind Zen in the "Great Debate of Zen vs. Jon and Co."

Here's what I saw:

1) Jon said that if people believed they were "safe," they'd been lied to. (Inference: The powers that be were telling lies, and the public was believing them.)

2) Zen said that the powers that be admitted that there was still work to be done, ergo no lies were being told.

3) In an unrelated incident, Jon commented that people were willing to die for civil rights.

4) Zen interpreted that Jon's comments were in regard to the thread at large rather than in regard to one specific post, and commented accordingly. IMO, this was a quite rational interpretation, since Jon neither quoted nor referred to the specific post to which he was responding.

5) Jon went off the deep end regarding Zen's reply in #4, and tossed gratuitous insults. Flame war erupts, causing parties to harp on points #1 and #2, often taking them out of context.

In short, I think Jon reacted irrationally and Zen has done a good job of keeping his cool under the circumstances.

Not that anyone cares about my opinion. [Razz]

In any case, in regard to the question of whether the reporters should be arrested and prosecuted, I agree with what others have said regarding the primary question being that of intent. The reporters took the weapons aboard not to cause harm, but in the name of a story that is of interest and concern to the public at large. Indeed, conducting operations of dubious legality in the name of bringing interesting and relevant news to the public has long been a function of the media. I don't believe that the public wants it any other way, despite what is being cried here. No actual harm was either intended or carried out, ergo I don't believe any crime was committed in the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

--------------------
Suddenly she realizes that amongst a crazy drunken schoolmarm, a navy swim instructor with a food fetish, a southern hick farmer, a porn star turned used car dealer, and a horny ex-football player, she won't be this strange outsider.

Posts: 701 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
shoebox
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
My take is a bit different.

Jon commented on security and indicated that aerodromes are not secure. If one thinks they are secure, one is being lied to.

Jon was summarily dismissed as being hysterical.

Zen bantered on a good bit out trivial matters. Certainly he knows much more about what posters say than -hmmm- the poster

Jon indicated that Zen does not know the difference between shit and peanutbutter. -I'll let the posts be the deciding factor on that-

Zendude decided that the hanfull of media interpretations of airport security were cannon.

Oh wait, we *were* talking about airport security and the *legal issues* surrounding that. I think I've answered both. I'll leave my magic badge behind on this. You're right, this thread is about aviation and security.

Jon "Who is the weakest link" Up North

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
My take is a bit different.

Jon commented on security and indicated that aerodromes are not secure. If one thinks they are secure, one is being lied to.

Jon was summarily dismissed as being hysterical.



Jon was, or his notion that some mysterious group is out there spreading lies that airports are secure was? Cause as the OP showed, it sure wasn't the government.

quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
Zen bantered on a good bit out trivial matters. Certainly he knows much more about what posters say than -hmmm- the poster

Jon indicated that Zen does not know the difference between shit and peanutbutter. -I'll let the posts be the deciding factor on that-



O dear, we certainly do have a conundrum then. Zen in the third post on page 3 in response to Gwenfritz agreed with Jon and the TSA that airports are not yet secure. Since Jon, the TSA and Zen are in agreeance on the point, and since Zen doesn't know the difference between shit and peanutbutter, what does that say about Jon and the TSA?

I've seen many types of arguments presented in my day, some more subtle than others, but it's an entirely new one to launch a personal attack on someone who believes as the arguer does and then claim it somehow strengthens the arguer's position.

Or maybe it's just that Jon has some personal insecurities to deal with.

quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
Zendude decided that the hanfull of media interpretations of airport security were cannon.
Jon "Who is the weakest link" Up North

Cite? You might want to pair up with Manta in the search on that as I made the same request of her when she posted substantially the same.

At the very least go back and reread what I quoted from that article. I think you'll find the only thing I presented as canon on the part of the media was that the TSA quote they presented was, well, an actual TSA quote.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HazyCosmicJive:
At the risk of disrupting light-hearted banter, after putting in the effort to read this entire thread, I feel the need to throw my full support behind Zen in the "Great Debate of Zen vs. Jon and Co."

Thank you [Smile]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Island Manta
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 217 posted      Profile for Island Manta   E-mail Island Manta   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon:

At the very least go back and reread what I quoted from that article. I think you'll find the only thing I presented as canon on the part of the media was that the TSA quote they presented was, well, an actual TSA quote.

You're quite right. You quoted the TSA article.

Then you chose to interject your opinion-which I countered with links... it's really evident to me that you've not bothered to even try to see the point I was trying to make (which didn't particularly have anything at all to do with Jon's-mine was focused on reporter's choice of targets), so I'm not going to bother trying to be any more clear.

-K

Posts: 3569 | From: USVI | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
dofwai
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 108 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Guys, please!

This was just getting back to a rational discourse. Can we please leave the "he said I said he said this, and he's wrong" stuff behind?

I think Pogue raises an interesting point about whether laws were broken. Thanks, Jon, for all the research. I am waiting for a legal interpretation (did I mention I'm not a lawyer, and also too lazy to read through all the relevant statutes?). I feel (feeling only, see above disclaimer) that there was in fact a violation of the FAR. I realize intent has some place in the discussion, because one wouldn't want to prosecute everyone who accidentally left a corkscrew in their carryon. There have to be laws which can be enforced, including penalties, otherwise, how would we prosecute those would-be hijackers who are captured red-handed with weapons before they try to do their deed?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Island Manta
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 217 posted      Profile for Island Manta   E-mail Island Manta   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Dofwai...you know what really yanks my chain about all this "you can have this but not this"? last time I flew I did a little poking around on the FAA's lists of permissables...even printed it! They say it's OK to take nail clippers in carryons on board (at the time I only needed an overnight bag-so I didn't have any checked baggage).

Guess what gets confiscated at the checkpoints? Yeppers.

*shrug*

hangnails be damned! I guess that's why I have teeth [Big Grin]

-K

Posts: 3569 | From: USVI | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Things seem to have taken a drastic turn towards the ugly with this post:

quote:
Zen your ability to place words in my mouth and know exactly what I am thinking is Uncanny. First you distilled years of experience in the aviation industry to the simple fact that I was hysterical...

Now dear Zen, if you put down the paper airplanes for a minute you'll notice I was not talking about security screening, but rather civil liberties. You see, Zen, you could tell what I was talking about by something called context. A poster said they'd gladly give up civil liberties to prevent deaths, and then I came back and commented on civil liberties.

I'm not the brightest guy out there, but if I was talking about Airport Screenings, I would have writen "a-i-r-p-o-r-t s-c-r-e-e-n-i-n-g-s" rather than "C-i-v-i-l l-i-b-e-r-t-i-e-s". Just as when I refer to apples I say apples rather than oranges.

Get it? Good boy, you can have your paper airplanes back.

Jon

Which went too deep in sarcasm for my taste.

That said, Jon has attempted to good points which somehow got lost in the semantics. I am paraphrasing the first one, and I leave it to Jon to tell me if I got it right.

(1) Airports are not secure. If somebody is telling you otherwise the are not telling the truth.

It seems the Zen took this as an accusation directly against the TSA; which in fairness is quite a logical leap.

(2)
quote:
What strikes me as odd is that up until this point, people were willing to die to protect their civil liberties. Think of all those folks who died to help earn civil liberties.


This statement is general and doesn't reference any particular post, but still germain to the discussion. Thousands of Americans have gladly given life for liberty. Now we give liberty for life. Beautiful irony.

Beach...not taking sides, just pointing out that Jon has some good points that shouldn't be lost in the pissing contest...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:
That said, Jon has attempted to good points which somehow got lost in the semantics. I am paraphrasing the first one, and I leave it to Jon to tell me if I got it right.

(1) Airports are not secure. If somebody is telling you otherwise the are not telling the truth.

It seems the Zen took this as an accusation directly against the TSA; which in fairness is quite a logical leap.

Beach...not taking sides, just pointing out that Jon has some good points that shouldn't be lost in the pissing contest...Life!

How so? Is there another stakeholder involved in airport security whose comments to the contrary could be construed as "lying"? If my neighbor, who is in real estate, earnestly tells me airports are secure, has she lied to me, or has she expressed an opinion which she considers truthful? Seems to me the only group in a postion to "lie" would be the group responsible for the thing.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
How so? Is there another stakeholder involved in airport security whose comments to the contrary could be construed as "lying"? If my neighbor, who is in real estate, earnestly tells me airports are secure, has she lied to me, or has she expressed an opinion which she considers truthful? Seems to me the only group in a postion to "lie" would be the group responsible for the thing.
Think about it, there are lots of stakeholders in airport security. The airlines come to mind first. Followed by anyone who has something to gain in planes flying, including airport administration, and the government. To be honest, the TSA is probably the last place I'd go if I wanted to know whether airports were safe.

Beach...again, I'm just guessing, Jon is going to have to give the details as to what he really meant...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:
quote:
How so? Is there another stakeholder involved in airport security whose comments to the contrary could be construed as "lying"? If my neighbor, who is in real estate, earnestly tells me airports are secure, has she lied to me, or has she expressed an opinion which she considers truthful? Seems to me the only group in a postion to "lie" would be the group responsible for the thing.
Think about it, there are lots of stakeholders in airport security. The airlines come to mind first. Followed by anyone who has something to gain in planes flying, including airport administration, and the government. To be honest, the TSA is probably the last place I'd go if I wanted to know whether airports were safe.

Beach...again, I'm just guessing, Jon is going to have to give the details as to what he really meant...Life!

The question wasn't "who are the stakeholders in airport security?" it was "Is there another stakeholder involved in airport security whose comments to the contrary could be construed as 'lying'?"

The airlines and airport administration have ceded authority over security to the TSA, so any comment they make regarding security can only constitute their opinion as they are no longer able to direct and control security operations. In order to "lie" they would have to promulgate information they knew to be untrue.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon:
quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:
quote:
How so? Is there another stakeholder involved in airport security whose comments to the contrary could be construed as "lying"? If my neighbor, who is in real estate, earnestly tells me airports are secure, has she lied to me, or has she expressed an opinion which she considers truthful? Seems to me the only group in a postion to "lie" would be the group responsible for the thing.
Think about it, there are lots of stakeholders in airport security. The airlines come to mind first. Followed by anyone who has something to gain in planes flying, including airport administration, and the government. To be honest, the TSA is probably the last place I'd go if I wanted to know whether airports were safe.

Beach...again, I'm just guessing, Jon is going to have to give the details as to what he really meant...Life!

The question wasn't "who are the stakeholders in airport security?" it was "Is there another stakeholder involved in airport security whose comments to the contrary could be construed as 'lying'?"

The airlines and airport administration have ceded authority over security to the TSA, so any comment they make regarding security can only constitute their opinion as they are no longer able to direct and control security operations. In order to "lie" they would have to promulgate information they knew to be untrue.

I know that airports aren't safe. So if I told you they were, I'd be lieing. Authority doesn't have anything to do with it. I lie when I present something as true that I beleive to be false.

Beach...and even the TSA will never 'know' for 100% certainty that airports are safe...Life!

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beach Life:
I know that airports aren't safe. So if I told you they were, I'd be lieing. Authority doesn't have anything to do with it. I lie when I present something as true that I beleive to be false.

Beach...and even the TSA will never 'know' for 100% certainty that airports are safe...Life!

Not quite, you can only "know" what you're in a position to verify, you can only "believe" otherwise. Authority has everything to do with it, and "belief" therefore is no indicator of underlying "truth," simply that you have some degree of "faith."

You can lie about what you believe because presumably you know what you believe.

This is starting to sound like a religious argument.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The thread began with the report that reporters smuggled banned items on board an aircraft. The article itself, and that the article was notable enough to start a thread to discuss, suggests that there is some level of suprise that something like that could happen. There were a few posts of a generel OMG type. I responded with a statement which was intended to convey 'I'm suprised you guys thought airports were secure' (ie why the heck are you shocked that this happened). Of course certain folks either expect absolute post-by-post references for certain points (and by extention completely miss general points) or don't read the entire post at all.

As for my sarcasm to ZenZit.. Well, it is explainable by a short little story. I've been trying to convince my doc to give me a vasectomy for some time. He's reluctant to let me do so. I've told him flat out on numerous occasions "Doc, I HATE CHILDREN". Still he doesn't seem to get it.

My reaction to ZenZit is further proof that I hate children.

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Up North:
My reaction to ZenZit is further proof that I hate children.

That, or you've got a raging inferiority complex.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes I have a raging inferiority complex. I am very envious of you. One day I hope to be the same kind of cancerous polyp on the anus of humanity you are.

Fortunatly, it is nearly the end of the afternoon so your highschool computer-lab will be closing soon and I won't have to put up with the mental puss you call posts.

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Nonny Mouse, on Santa's laptop
Once in Royal Circuit City


Icon 304 posted      Profile for Nonny Mouse, on Santa's laptop   Author's Homepage   E-mail Nonny Mouse, on Santa's laptop   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Knock it off, both of you, or I'm cancelling that trip to the circus.

Nonny

--------------------
When there isn't anything else worth analyzing, we examine our collective navel. I found thirty-six cents in change in mine the other day. Let no one say that there is no profit in philosophy. -- Silas Sparkhammer

Posts: 10141 | From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jon Up North
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 24 posted      Profile for Jon Up North   E-mail Jon Up North   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Noony,

No worries, it is knocked off. Zenzit's HS computer lab closes at 2pm Pacific time and his parents have grounded him from using the computer at home.

--------------------
We're not insured for pickles.

Posts: 2358 | From: Fort McMurray, Alberta | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ms.Hollywood
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 206 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
will you two please kiss and make up.

And remember, don't go to bed angry.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Island Manta
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 217 posted      Profile for Island Manta   E-mail Island Manta   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ms.Hollywood:
will you two please kiss and make up.

And remember, don't go to bed angry.

I'd be willing to bet Jon doesn't swing that way...Got no clue about ZenKnight. [Laughing out loud]

-K "Gone until ...another 10 days"

--------------------
"You never know when you will be attacked by a wild tortilla" - José Zavala
"Happiness isn't happiness without a violin playing goat"
Be good and you will be lonesome

Posts: 3569 | From: USVI | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
darth_borehd
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 209 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Airports are going the wrong direction in searching for weapons anyway.

Passengers should be encouraged to be armed. There should be armed guards on every flight. You make weapons illegal and then only criminals have weapons.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2