I have to assume that by "commi persecution years" you are refering to the short era known as McCarthyism. This is a favorite subject for many to point out sweeping and out of control government action that is not targeted at a few individuals.
Fortunately we have had several of our Moslem friends on this board point out that this is not the case and they continue their flying duties here in the US, so the idea that this is a sweeping out of control program is unfounded.

 

I believe that is presumptuous of you. However, if you have data to support that, I would check into it. Until then, this kind of talk supports stereotypes and is even a threat to individual liberty, freedom and due process.

 

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.

 

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 refering 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.

 

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...)

 

It was Franklin, but you are correct. The founding Fathers had a vision which created the greatest country on earth. Let's try to preserve that and remember why so many have died to keep it that way.
Take a good look at their writings, history and motives.

 

The definition of liberty has been so misconstrued recently it bears little resemblance to the "liberty" quoted by Mr. Franklin. The whole context and message of the Founding Fathers must be understood to understand the liberty they speak of. It is a liberty with responsibility, that responsibility preserved by the government.

 

Ok as long as we are quoting the founding fathers, here's one from Thomas Jefferson.

"An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight".

How many of our population are sufficiently educated and enlightened on the issues to cast an informed vote. Remember the high school graduation rate in 2003 was 69.6%.

The Feds love the fact that the majority of the population is uninformed, makes it way easier to control them.

 

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!

 

I actually agree with most of what you're saying, I am just not sure what the solution should be as I still believe in profiling however with opportunities to clear ones name.

I also agree that many people on the no-fly list shouldn't even be there. I believe Ted Kennedy at one point was on it, correct? I just wish they'd kept his name on it...