..but the Patriot Act is there to protect you from terrorists

ya right.
And they said it wouldn't be abused.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/14/061114235323.5hvb8xln.html

article wrote:

According to their indictment, Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell were allegedly snuggling and kissing inappropriately, "making other passengers uncomfortable," when a flight attendant asked them to stop.

...

On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

....

They have been placed under legal surveillance until their trial on February 5. If found guilty, they both could be sent to jail for up to 20 years.

phreaks wrote:

ya right.
And they said it wouldn't be abused.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/14/061114235323.5hvb8xln.html

article wrote: According to their indictment, Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell were allegedly snuggling and kissing inappropriately, "making other passengers uncomfortable," when a flight attendant asked them to stop. ... On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone. .... They have been placed under legal surveillance until their trial on February 5. If found guilty, they both could be sent to jail for up to 20 years.

By merely suggesting that the Patriot Act is being used inappropriately, I think you are giving comfort and aid to the terrorists. And I can't help but wonder that the terrorists are smiling and knowing "they've won" when reading your posting..

Oh, sorry.. I was channelling Alberto Gonzalez. Sorry, I hate it when that happens.

Good. I am not sure why it is that some people believe that rules do not apply to them on an airplane.

harumscarum wrote:

Good. I am not sure why it is that some people believe that rules do not apply to them on an airplane.

Right, so let's lock them up for 20 years under the pretense of Homeland security.

phreaks wrote:



harumscarum wrote: Good. I am not sure why it is that some people believe that rules do not apply to them on an airplane.

Right, so let's lock them up for 20 years under the pretense of Homeland security.

You have to make an example of someone.

Yeah! How dare they kiss and cuddle on a plane, don't they realise how that affects others? Merely watching a couple who are clearly in love can melt a person's brain!

Prison's too good for them, I say this is a good use of the death penalty!

The article is so vague about what actually occured and what the actual charges are against the couple that you can draw any conclusion you want to draw - gulty, innocent, overblown, appropriate, etc.

Note that since way before the Patriot Act it has been against various federal laws to fail to follow the instructions of the flight crew.  

Every year or two, you hear about some dolt who failed to follow some sort of simple instructions from a flight attendant and was arrested after landing.  The story is always that the person's actions were "misinterpreted" and the incident was "overblown" and the charges are "excessive".

You never much hear about whether the person was actually convicted of anything.

BruceMorgan wrote:

Note that since way before the Patriot Act it has been against various federal laws to fail to follow the instructions of the flight crew.

And to threaten to injure someone:

The article wrote:

On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

And later claimed that the consequences were a letter to the Boss. There's not enough information in the article to jump to any sort of conclusion about what they were up to.

But using the Patriot act in this case is ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as the guy who got chucked out of the labour party conference for heckling and was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism act.

CannotResolveSymbol wrote:



BruceMorgan wrote: Note that since way before the Patriot Act it has been against various federal laws to fail to follow the instructions of the flight crew.

And to threaten to injure someone:

The article wrote: On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

Injure? Consequences = injury?
They couple claim the 'consequences' would be reporting the incident to the attendants manager.

NEWS wrote:

	Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell have been charged under the Patriot Act and placed under surveillance for snuggling and kissing in a way that made other passengers uncomfortable while flying from Los Angeles to Raleigh, North Carolina.
	The pair were arrested when the plane landed. The indictment filed by the FBI states that Persing was kissing Sewell on the neck and "elsewhere". A flight attendant warned them twice and was allegedly threatened with "serious consequences" by Persing.
	Persing's lawyer claims that his client's actions have been misinterpreted, saying that Persing placed his head in Sewell's lap because he was feeling unwell. He also said that the only threat made was to report the flight attendant to superiors.

http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=58344&CFID=9255517&CFTOKEN=92703211

The patriot act is allegedly about Homeland security and specifically regarding terrorists.

One small leap to a police state when you let these types of issues be misused. Charge them if you want, but not under the guise of the Patriot Act. It is an abuse of power.

I was on a plane, once, and there was a couple in the back necking loudly, they exploded, the plane went down and there were no survivors.

Don't let it happen to you!

JohnAskew wrote:

I was on a plane, once, and there was a couple in the back necking loudly, they exploded, the plane went down and there were no survivors.

Don't let it happen to you!

Ahh, now I get it. the newest Al-Queda method.
The lover bomb...

If there were no survivors, then what are you doing here?

phreaks wrote:



CannotResolveSymbol wrote:  BruceMorgan wrote: Note that since way before the Patriot Act it has been against various federal laws to fail to follow the instructions of the flight crew. And to threaten to injure someone: The article wrote: On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone.

Injure? Consequences = injury?
They couple claim the 'consequences' would be reporting the incident to the attendants manager.

NEWS wrote: Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell have been charged under the Patriot Act and placed under surveillance for snuggling and kissing in a way that made other passengers uncomfortable while flying from Los Angeles to Raleigh, North Carolina.   The pair were arrested when the plane landed. The indictment filed by the FBI states that Persing was kissing Sewell on the neck and "elsewhere". A flight attendant warned them twice and was allegedly threatened with "serious consequences" by Persing.   Persing's lawyer claims that his client's actions have been misinterpreted, saying that Persing placed his head in Sewell's lap because he was feeling unwell. He also said that the only threat made was to report the flight attendant to superiors.

http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=58344&CFID=9255517&CFTOKEN=92703211

The patriot act is allegedly about Homeland security and specifically regarding terrorists.

One small leap to a police state when you let these types of issues be misused. Charge them if you want, but not under the guise of the Patriot Act. It is an abuse of power.

Sorry, but the highlighted portion about "charged under the Patriot Act" is just about meaningless.

Extreme analogy: there is a difference between "charged with first degree murder" and "charged with jaywalking" although it would be true to say either counts as "charged under the laws of the State of Washington".

The article does say something about "up to 26 years in prison" or some such, but there are a whole lot of laws that have "5 to 25 years" sentencing ranges.  Perhaps they're charged with 6 counts and five counts has a max of 5 years and one has a max of 1 year and thus "up to 26 years".  

Again, make any conclusion that you'd like that fits your worldview.

OK, fine, but can we all at least agree that it would be a BadThing(tm) to end up serving 26 years in prison for trying to get in to the Mile High club?

I don't see why the Patriot Act is necessary here. I thought it was always a federal law that you need to follow the directions of the crew while on a plane. Making threats to the crew certainly isn't doing that.

BruceMorgan wrote:



phreaks wrote:  CannotResolveSymbol wrote:  BruceMorgan wrote: Note that since way before the Patriot Act it has been against various federal laws to fail to follow the instructions of the flight crew. And to threaten to injure someone: The article wrote: On a second warning from the flight attendant, Persing snapped back threatening the flight attendant with "serious consequences" if he did not leave them alone. Injure? Consequences = injury? They couple claim the 'consequences' would be reporting the incident to the attendants manager. NEWS wrote: Carl Persing and Dawn Sewell have been charged under the Patriot Act and placed under surveillance for snuggling and kissing in a way that made other passengers uncomfortable while flying from Los Angeles to Raleigh, North Carolina.   The pair were arrested when the plane landed. The indictment filed by the FBI states that Persing was kissing Sewell on the neck and "elsewhere". A flight attendant warned them twice and was allegedly threatened with "serious consequences" by Persing.   Persing's lawyer claims that his client's actions have been misinterpreted, saying that Persing placed his head in Sewell's lap because he was feeling unwell. He also said that the only threat made was to report the flight attendant to superiors. http://www.shortnews.com/shownews.cfm?id=58344&CFID=9255517&CFTOKEN=92703211 The patriot act is allegedly about Homeland security and specifically regarding terrorists. One small leap to a police state when you let these types of issues be misused. Charge them if you want, but not under the guise of the Patriot Act. It is an abuse of power.

Sorry, but the highlighted portion about "charged under the Patriot Act" is just about meaningless.

Extreme analogy: there is a difference between "charged with first degree murder" and "charged with jaywalking" although it would be true to say either counts as "charged under the laws of the State of Washington".

Not if the conviction of Jaywalking resulted in having a record that included "Domestic terrorism". (See Section 802 of the patriot act)

BruceMorgan wrote:


The article does say something about "up to 26 years in prison" or some such, but there are a whole lot of laws that have "5 to 25 years" sentencing ranges.  Perhaps they're charged with 6 counts and five counts has a max of 5 years and one has a max of 1 year and thus "up to 26 years".  

Then why the need to charge them under the specifications and regulations of the Patriot Act? Could it be because the preponderance of evidence is much lower, just maybe, or because it removes specific provisions of liberty and due process and carries higher penalties and prison terms.

BruceMorgan wrote:


Again, make any conclusion that you'd like that fits your worldview.

Right, because charging someone with domestic terrorism for ANYTHING other than what it is intended for, is my attempt at conjecture.

Again, spewing contempt on C9 is your perogative and right as an MS employee.

Treat others as you would have them treat you, you want to make assumptions about my intent, that is also your perogative and right.

I thought we were having a contempt free discussion until you showed up. Thanks for being so user friendly.

Excuse me, but in the realm of the law, it sounds like you have little or no credibility to speak with any authority.

Bruce Morgan's analogy is correct.  And you are just a bozo.

troposphere wrote:

Excuse me, but in the realm of the law, it sounds like you have little or no credibility to speak with any authority.

Bruce Morgan's analogy is correct.  And you are just a bozo.

Awe, now your hurting my feelings.

Look,  I'm a Bozo! I have opinions that disagree with Bruce Morgan, OMG, I must be a bozo!

Hey while we are at it, why don't we start charging jay Walkers with Domestic terrorism, Makes sense, right?

I didn't realize mr Morgan held any Law degree's, so pardon my ignorance.

And What are your credentials on the matter again?