AAAGGHHHHHH!!! How can any of you even argue for giving up any freedoms or your right to privacy! Drop the Fear, people! 1984 is here 20 years late! Fight Big Brother!
I don’t think we should wait until there is a wave of rich, white Republicans hijacking planes; can we lock them up now also? “Could happen” does not equal “will happen”, or even “may happen”.
Is an appeals court at the Federal level good enough for you? Because if so, then I can do even better: a state misdemeanor third-degree battery conviction which was deemed an aggravated felony for Federal immigration purposes. No inherent threat of severe bodily injury or death required, even.
I’ll have to look for more stuff later, because I don’t have access to LEXIS at work; my firm practices strictly immigration and nationality law, so criminal issues only come up on those (thankfully) rare occasions where we discover that a client has a record. So except for a couple of attorneys who have access to other materials to write briefs in those situations, we only have research tools that are strictly immigration-related.
But in the meantime, here is a case in which a conviction for an offense (simple assault) that was considered a misdemeanor under the applicable state law, and even under Federal law as cited in the decision, was considered an “aggravated felony” under immigration law because it was a “crime of violence.” Lots of good legislative history and cites in there for you lawyer types. This was the first case I pulled up on a search of immigration-related cases; I’m sure there are lots more.
http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/bia/Decisions/Revdec/pdfDEC/3481.pdf
This case is recent, and the way things have been going lately, I see less and less common sense being used in determining who does and does not pose a security risk. And yes, it bothers me. And yes, I think that the public’s ability to get completely incensed over bullshit like ex post facto imposition of additional restrictions on people not contemplated at the time of their sentencing is one of the things that makes this country great.
And now, if you’ll excuse me, I must redirect my attentions to the Huddled Masses for the moment, for they yearn to breathe free.
Here’s a few reasons that would qualify you for the “Do not fly” list, at least in Michigan. (violent felony as defined in state law)
Drunk driving with injury
Fleeing and eluding with injury
Leaving the scene of an accident with injury
Felonious assault; violation of subsection (1) in weapon free school zone.
Assault with intent to commit felony not otherwise punished.
Assault with intent to rob and steal; unarmed.
Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree; misdemeanor. (Statutory rape)
Unarmed robbery
Well, personally, I think the DHS is missing the point completely. Anyone can see that the real danger on flights is from drunken rock musicians, not violent felons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/64844.stm
Seriously, though, I am aware that unruly passengers are a major airline concern. What I am not aware of is any correlation between convictions for violent felonies and hijackings, nor of incidents of so-called “air rage”. I will admit I didn’t have a huge amount of time available to research this.
In any event, I object to this aspect of the proposed rule on the basis that it a) will unfairly restrict the ability to travel of a certain percentage of the population without materially increasing passenger safety, and b) assuming that persons with such convictions are actually banned from flying, it unfairly ladles additional, retroactive and permanent punishment on persons who, presumably, have already completed paying their debt to society.
daresay that at this very moment, there may be hundreds, or even thousands, of persons with convictions for violent felonies somewhere in their pasts, flying willy-nilly around the country. Yet we are not reading in the press of the wave of violent crimes aboard commercial aircraft that this new rule is supposedly protecting us from.
Whoops, ignore the para fragment at the end there.
You mean, the way the Bristish cops use the anti-terrorist laws to harrass the Irish, resident in the so-called UK?
Just asking. :rolleyes:
I have relatives from Ireland who have indeed been harassed by British police - admittedtly the worst case was some time ago, when my aunt was locked in a cell in Stranraer for a day while trying to board a ferry home, threatened with having her children taken into care, presumably because her not-uncommon name matched one on a watchlist.
If msmith was being sarcastic, I’d like to sincerely offer his sentiments.
Someone explain to me again why reinforcing cockpit doors is not sufficient?
[quote]
Yes, those extra fifteen minutes it takes to get through airport security aren’t worth the thousands of lives that were lost in the WTC attacks, or the lives that would be lost if such a disaster were to ever occur again.
[/quotes]
Unless you can prove that those lives could have been saved by harrassing people and acting like the big police state, I’d think it isn’t worth it. We know that those sleeper agents that commited the acts of terrorism on 9/11 made sure to have perfectly clean records. So, I am of the opinion that terrorists might have a harder time with these measures, but will still find a loophole in the system. The average joe however will be pestered and harrassed, a part of his personal freedom taken away, all in the name of security.
I for one will avoid US airports and will book a direct flight to Canada when I’m going there in April. It’s a shame that I cannot visit my friends in the US though; hopefully that whole overblown hysterical security nonsense will be reduced to a sensible amount before long.
I love the reasoning of “potential” danger - the Bush administration justified a whole war with it and you can also justify “putting people in metal boxes” with it. But why limited this to “felons”: Everyone is a potential security threat - Age, if they put you in a metal crate for security reasons, would you really be comfortable with that?
Age is a white male conservative lawyer. He can’t picture himself in a cage screaming “Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don’t care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!” Oppression happens to other people, so it’s OK.
Note: Contrary to popular opinion, I have no issue with improved security, or even a Dept. of Homeland Security as such. However, the devil is in the details. For example, Congress gave INS a mandate, complete with deadline, years ago to develop an entry/exit tracking system for people in temporary immigration classifications (something that has never existed in any comprehensive way), but it took an event like 9/11 for the Feds to get their collective ass in gear to do something about it. This is just common sense; how can you enforce deadlines if you don’t even know for sure who has entered the U.S. at all, let alone whether they’re still here?
The problem I have is with preventing people (notice the word “preventing,” I don’t have an issue with a 15-minute delay, either, if there is genuine cause for concern about a particular person) from participating in everyday activities like boarding a plane, without an opportunity to stick up for themselves in any real terms.
And I’ve seen enough anecdotal evidence about who is “profiled” for more extensive searching that I really don’t believe it’s either a) random, or b) based on actual intelligence information.
The country can have all the airport security technology it wants. However, when it comes down to it, it is up to individuals who decide whether you board or not. It has been my travelling experience that many of the meeters, greeters and other airline/sercurity personnel with whom I must run the gauntlet don’t have the people skills nor believe the “intelligence” when making a decision. And this is now two years after 9/11.
Oh, worse than that - I am aware of at least one commercial pilot with a “violent felony convinction” in his past (no more details provide to protect his privacy). I’m sure there are many others.
Before everyone screams in horror - this man’s crime was committed over 35 years ago. He served his time. He has stayed out of trouble since his relase from prison So… is he really a threat? Seriously.
Why let people out of prison at all if you give them no chance to reform, to make a living, to rejoin society?
So he is now in the situation where he can fly aircraft for a living (as he has been doing for a decade now) but he’s not allowed to board one as a passenger. This, to put it bluntly. is freakin’ nuts.
Sure, I can see a rationale for restricting the movement of someone newly released as part of probation, but not forever. At a certain point it should be obvious that the individual has realized the error of his (or her) prior mistake and will not repeat it - or said person has committed another crime and demonstrated the lesson hasn’t been learned. If you don’t give people the opportunity to return to society you take away all incentive for them to reform. And people can and do reform.
Well thats rediculous. Of course you have to wait until it happens at least once, or there is nothing supporting your contention other than bigotry. How can you establish the likelyhood of something happening in a given circumstance if it has never happened in that circumstance?? You cant.
Your and others’ contention that felons - who have served their time and paid their debt by the way - are more likely to cause trouble on airlines, is based on what exactly? Of all the years felons have been allowed and have flown on the airlines, how many times have they caused trouble and/or endangered anyone?
If the percentage is the same as people who are not felons, then the government has not and cannot show a strong enough correlation to warrent the restrictions. Bigotry is not a sound basis for law.
What I’d like to know is why felons are more dangerous on a plane than anywhere else. A person no more likely to detonate a bomb on a plane than on a train, on a boat, or in a mall.
If we don’t trust them not to do that, we should still have them locked up.
is no more likely.
:smack:
Why can’t I ever make a post without an error of some sort?
And on further consideration, I know that planes are more dangerous because they can be hijacked and flown into buildings, whereas boats, trains, and malls cannot. But individuals can be prevented from hijacking a plane with some fairly simplistic security measures, some of which have been implemented.