Originally Posted by greedyairlineexec (Post 448504)

And the sad episode that you just described already happened here once during the "commi persecution years". Anyone read that in history class?it is as embarrassing as the segregation that lasted until well past the half point of the 20th century..... but doing it again goes beyond embarrassing...land of the free indeed :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 448151)

It's entirely likely, even probable, that one who is active in the muslim-immigrant community could rub elbows with bona fide AQ types...possibly without knowing who they are. e a different story.

Originally Posted by ryan1234 (Post 448214)

I had a hard time understanding what rights are being taken away from this person that are guaranteed in a Constituion. Liberty? ...effectively meaning freedom... it hasn't been taken away (limited, but not taken away), He and His wife aren't being held in some prison in Cuba. He is simply not able to work until he clears his name. Just because an ACLU lawyer says rights are being taken away, it doesn't mean rights are taken away. This man is not charged with anything... just on a "watch" list...he's not being held without Writ to Habeas Corpus or something like that.
Perhaps he has posted things on internet forums, etc, etc .. must be more to the story.

Originally Posted by FlyJSH (Post 448536)

At what point does trimming ones liberty become loss of liberty? What about the pursuit of happiness? And don't forget

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

IF he or his wife have done something illegal, I'll be the first to vote to lock them up. If Colgan wants to fire him for the beard, that is THIER right since (a) it probably violates the company's uniform and (b) by preventing a good seal on the O2 mask, it could endanger the aircraft and passengers.

Originally Posted by greedyairlineexec (Post 448605)

Why don't we just go back to basics and think over some very telling words that came out of the mouth (PEN) of a very smart and important man who was vital in the creation of waht we now know as the USA:

# "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
# "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

THE FELLOW WHO WROTE THOSE "INSANE " WORDS WAS NAMED BENJAMIN FRANKLING ( yes, one of the founding fathers...)

Originally Posted by greedyairlineexec (Post 448605)

Why don't we just go back to basics and think over some very telling words that came out of the mouth (PEN) of a very smart and important man who was vital in the creation of waht we now know as the USA:

# "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
# "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

THE FELLOW WHO WROTE THOSE "INSANE " WORDS WAS NAMED BENJAMIN FRANKLING ( yes, one of the founding fathers...)

Originally Posted by ryan1234 (Post 448596)

First off let's get a few things defined...
The ACLU lawyer was refering to the Fifth Amendment (due process) which does not mention the "pursuit of happiness" - to even mention this relates is not logical... I don't want to get too technical here but there are two types of due process... procedural and substansive... neither have anything to do with the "pursuit of happiness"... I could give you multiple examples in history of breaches of liberty (i.e the entire Lincoln admin.), this is not one of them. The Fifth Amendment also pertains to government bodies acting in such a manner.... there is an exemption for cases of Public Danger .

As far as the First Amendment goes
It has nothing to do with this context at all. No one is telling him he can't practice Islam with his wife.

The Government put this guy on a watch list... they didn't charge him with a crime and then not give him due process... they just put him on a watch list for whatever reason (Public Danger). His employer made the decision to deal with his employment is a particular manner.

When I was referring to limited liberty.... a better term would be "liberty with responsibility" ... we all are not free to do whatever we want. Would you use the "pursuit of happiness" term with a coke dealer... obviously not. If you read the entire context of the Declaration as well as the Constitution.. you'll see the limited liberty. Around the same time we were, the French were having a revolution... they were an example of liberty without responsibility.

Originally Posted by FlyJSH (Post 448636)

Pursuit of happiness I was referring to was the ability to make a living in a trade of his choosing. Would I use pursuit of happiness for a coke dealer? No. That is breaking the law. Would I use pursuit of happiness when refering to tobacco, alcohol, or gun companies? Yes, they are legal.

Liberty with responsibility.... not sure where you are going with this. Should he have be "responsible" and not married a woman who has certain convictions? Should he have kept his religious beliefs a secret?

The federal government has put him on a list which limits his ability to do his job, yet they have not charged him. Imagine if I posted fliers in your neighborhood saying Ryan MIGHT a pedophile.

I'm not saying you are, but folks might want to keep an eye on you.

I would have made you a pariah: unwanted in your own town. Is that responsible? Is putting him on a watch list that, while not technically public, will find its way into the public forum (as this has) responsible? Perhaps they should put ME on a watch list since I enjoy alcoholic beverages (I MIGHT fly a plane drunk). Don't forget everyone who looks at porn or goes to strip bars is a potential rapist.

There have been a number of folks on the watch list who have no business being there. When they have tried to clear their names, they have met huge obstacles or failed completely.

Where do the watch lists end?

I say charge him or let him be!