[Winstonm]

Here is a chilling bit of the new Americana. Professor Walter F. Murphy of Princeton, ex-marine and Korean war vet, detained at American Airlines. (emphasis added.)

Quote

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said.

Here's the link for the full story: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/another...-of-people.html

[mike777]

I just flew this weekend...what a horrible hassle with this new liquids rule. I flunked it going and coming. Lost most of my bathroom stuff. The bad guys have won?

I guess I have to take off all my clothes and empty all my bathroom items now...sigh.

Dont even get me started how my hotel (noise) and my car rental tried to rip me off on gass.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I just flew this weekend...

Something tells me you won't ever be on the terror watch list for participating in anti-war demonstrations or for making anti-Bush speeches.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 9 2007, 11:28 PM, said:

Quote

I just flew this weekend...

Something tells me you won't ever be on the terror watch list for participating in anti-war demonstrations or for making anti-Bush speeches.

Hey..Hey I was in Grant Park in 68...where were you and peter...I bet at Harvard...getting smart.

Ya me and the rest of the yippies..hippies long haired....hmmm scotch drinkers???

ok ok I was was way too young for scotch....in 68

[mike777]

As for antiBush speeches...have you listened to real Bush speeches....we sigh.....as red....Reps;.

[pbleighton]

"Hey..Hey I was in Grant Park in 68...where were you and peter...I bet at Harvard...getting smart."

Backgammon and bongs...

Peter

[helene_t]

I've heard of a few similar incidents, but there was also a comment on the blog that he was more likely to have been put on the watchlist by mistake.

As described here, it's beyond outrageous of course. I wouldn't expect something like this to happen in Iran, China or Russia. Maybe I'm naive.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Apr 10 2007, 08:02 AM, said:

I've heard of a few similar incidents, but there was also a comment on the blog that he was more likely to have been put on the watchlist by mistake.

As described here, it's beyond outrageous of course. I wouldn't expect something like this to happen in Iran, China or Russia. Maybe I'm naive.

Quote

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that."

This can't be accidental, though. Problem is, it violates a couple of Constitutional rights, like free assembly, free speech, et.

[barmar]

I'm no Constitutional Scholar, but I don't think it violates the First Amendment. They're not prohibiting you from participating in the marches. Furthermore, the rights in the First Amendment are not absolute -- safety concerns trump them (you can't claim free speech gives you the right to should "fire" in a crowded theatre).

[Winstonm]

barmar, on Apr 11 2007, 10:24 PM, said:

I'm no Constitutional Scholar, but I don't think it violates the First Amendment.  They're not prohibiting you from participating in the marches.  Furthermore, the rights in the First Amendment are not absolute -- safety concerns trump them (you can't claim free speech gives you the right to should "fire" in a crowded theatre).

You certainly have the right to publicly oppose the administration without the threat of being placed on the Terror Watch List. How can a speech in opposition to Bush's policies be considered a safety concern?

[helene_t]

I'll have to agree with Winston. One might argue that the North Korean regime does not prevent their citizens from criticizing the government, they just send them to resocializtion camps (or shoot them) if they do. But The First Amendment certainly prevents the government from harassing people for criticizing it.

[whereagles]

Isn't america great? I'm thinking of offering my services as a physicist at the Natanz enrichment plant

[P_Marlowe]

Winstonm, on Apr 9 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

Here is a chilling bit of the new Americana.  Professor Walter F. Murphy of Princeton, ex-marine and Korean war vet, detained at American Airlines. (emphasis added.)

Quote

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said.

Here's the link for the full story: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/another...-of-people.html

What is so supringsing about that?

A poem from Martin Niemoeller

"As the Nazis took the communist, I was silent,
because I was no communist.
As the Nazis took the social democrats, I was silent,
because I was no social democrats.
As the Nazis took the union members, I was silent,
because I was no union members.
As the Nazis took the Jew I was silent,
because I was no Jew.
As they took me, there was no one anymore,
who could have protested."

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pbleighton]

"I'm no Constitutional Scholar, but I don't think it violates the First Amendment. They're not prohibiting you from participating in the marches. Furthermore, the rights in the First Amendment are not absolute -- safety concerns trump them (you can't claim free speech gives you the right to should "fire" in a crowded theatre)."

You're right, it's not absolute. It's also true that the Constitution allows many (but not all) fascist laws and law enforcement practices. This is one such practice.

Do you really think shouting " fire" in a crowded theater is a valid analogy to participating in a peace march?

Peter

[luke warm]

whereagles, on Apr 12 2007, 02:55 AM, said:

Isn't america great?

i'd say that a country that freed a large part of the earth, east and west, from the tyranny that had encaptured it has at least a kernel of greatness

but a simple "thanks" would have done

[the hog]

luke warm, on Apr 14 2007, 05:51 AM, said:

whereagles, on Apr 12 2007, 02:55 AM, said:

Isn't america great?

i'd say that a country that freed a large part of the earth, east and west, from the tyranny that had encaptured it has at least a kernel of greatness

but a simple "thanks" would have done

Whoah Jimmy, you are drawing a long bow with that comment.
What tyranny are you talking about here? If you are talking about WW1, then you know that the US entered the war quite late and for economic purposes, not for altruistic reasons. Also WW1 was an imperialist war with all powers equally to blame.

If you are talking about WW2, then "yes", the US did a good job in Europe and the Pacific, but again they entered after Pearl Harbour, and not in the early days of Hitler's aquisition of Europe.

If you are talking about Korea, then I would remind you that that was a UN mission; I would also remind you that Macarthur wanted to escalate the war by attacking China. I will admit that the US supplied by far the bulk of any comittment.

If you are talking about Vietnam, then I totally disagree with you, as this was a civil war which could largely have been avoided had puppets like Diem not been installed and supported and had attempts been made at rapprochement. Dulles' policy of the falling dominoes and containment has been largely discredited by History. A country like Laos, where I know live, is still suffering the after effects of this policy today.

If you are talking about Kuwait, then ok I agree. But again this was a UN sanctioned action.

If you are talking about the Middle East now, then I think you know what my opinion is. Iraq is a disaster that should never have happened, and if anything has largely destabilised the region.

We could also ask "What happened, (or better didn't happen), in Kampuchea, the Congo, Sudan, Bosnia etc, where no oil or economic interests were at stake? There are other things that I could mention - the invasion of Grenada, a laregly disasterous and futile policy aimed at Cuba etc etc.

[mike777]

Thanks Jimmy

But with Homeland security so massive now can they not spend their time and energy putting peace or antipeace marchers in jail and protecting us in our bedrooms? People die every day falling out of bed, where is the government?

As for getting involved one way another in civil wars via the armed forces, CIA or Haliburton, it seems we are missing a bunch of them? Why?

[Winstonm]

Quote

But with Homeland security so massive now can they not spend their time and energy putting peace or antipeace marchers in jail

The answer is yes and no. Homeland Security can put non-citizens in jail, but the arbitrary arrest and jailing of U.S. citizens (enemy combattants) must be done by the military.

That ought to make you feel all warm and snuggly in bed tonight.

[Winstonm]

The New Bill of Rights
(The Wish List)

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law that the President cannot ignore.


Amendment II
The right of the people to keep arms depends on whether arm removal duing torture will obtain a confession.


Amendment III
No soldier shall be quartered; however, the enemy may be drawn and quartered.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is totally up to the president, his staff, and any member of the unitary executive branch.


Amendment V
Cancelled.


Amendment VI
Cancelled.


Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the corporations always win.

Amendment VIII
Cancelled.


Amendment IX
Cancelled.

Amendment X
The powers delegated by the Constitution are reserved for the unitary executive branch.

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 14 2007, 12:51 AM, said:

whereagles, on Apr 12 2007, 02:55 AM, said:

Isn't america great?

i'd say that a country that freed a large part of the earth, east and west, from the tyranny that had encaptured it has at least a kernel of greatness

but a simple "thanks" would have done

Actually, I'm thankful to the U.S. soldiers who freed us from the Nazis, as well as to the U.S. politicians who made them do that.

This, however, means absolutely nothing for my feelings towards present-day U.S. politicians. We have an anualy ceremoni in Breda where Canadian WW II veterans come over to be celebrated by the locals. I think this is a beautiful thing but damn any North American politicans (in this case Canadians, but similar ceremioies involve U.S., British, Australian and recently Morocan veterans) who might try to take advantage of this to polish their own glory.

If we agree that the U.S. has a kernel of "greatness" then it makes the current U.S. government even more contemptible. If Bush had transformed an already lousy country into a slightly more lousy country, it would not have been such a big deal. But before Bush, the U.S. goverment was generally respected abroad as well as at home.