Airline refuses to land with killer on board, worries about costs

A,

Gauntanamo and 'rendering' etc seems to be eroding precepts,


The understatement of the day...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In rec.aviation.piloting NotABushSupporter wrote:
Viperdoc wrote:
He thinks he's smarter than everybody else, but can't find or hold a job in
the US or France. Yet, he blames this on outsourcing, rather than seeing
this as a personal reflection on his abilities or personality.

Would YOU want to work with someone like him?



Like it or not, his post was on topic, unlike your followups.
I don't agree with what he said, but it was appropriate for the newsgroup.


Yes, but no.

Yes, on topic for rec.travel.air, which is geared more towards
commercial air travel (as per the r.t.a charter), but *not* for
rec.aviation.piloting, which is geared towards (general) aviation and
piloting (as per the r.a.p. charter):

http://www.faqs.org/ftp/usenet/news....rec.travel.air

ftp://ftp.isc.org/usenet/news.announ...aviation-reorg

So the OP should have kept this pertinent to the proper group,
instead of causing the issue we are seeing. That is now corrected.

Followups set now only to rec.travel.air.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGdOgpyBkZmuMZ8L8RAq37AJ9WHowEoJUBGDIIHCNlHz g3326EZACgxv9Y
KCY8zjam5886gTUBna6yqUg=
=48aj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

DevilsPGD wrote:
Not at all, rather, not worth delaying the plane since the accused can
be detained and returned at much lower expense.

What's the rush? It's not liked the murderee is getting any deader.


On the surface, this is quite true. However, once the plane lands in a
foreign country, the originating country must go through extradition
procedures to have the suspect returned for a trial. And this is lengthy
and costly and odds of the suspect not returning are not insignificant.

If the plane returns to the origin, the suspect can then be arrested and
dealt with "domestically" with local law.

The originating country could have offered to pay the fuel costs in
order for the plane to return.

Per NotABushSupporter:
They guy went through the "security" screening, so where was the danger
to the plane and/or passengers? The guy wasn't going anywhere. He was
detained in India.

Also, one would have to consider his possible reaction if/when he
found out the plane was returning to the USA. He's on the plane
to get to India - not to cause trouble and get himself
arrested... so as long as everything seems normal to him I'd hope
for him to keep his head down and his mouth shut.
--
PeteCresswell

Sometimes there is hope, however. Where we live, in Durham NC, the NC
bar association came down hard on Durham County DA Mike Nifong because
he ignored the presumption of innocence. His disbarment is the most
severe measure the association can take against him.

Mifong's problems are just starting. Now there is likely to be civil
and criminal charges brought against him.

My husband and I hope to soon to have the place where we live known
for its science and medicine, and not a rogue DA.



On Jun 17, 3:37 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
A,

Gauntanamo and 'rendering' etc seems to be eroding precepts,

The understatement of the day...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Nobody" wrote...
DevilsPGD wrote:
Not at all, rather, not worth delaying the plane since the accused can
be detained and returned at much lower expense.

What's the rush? It's not liked the murderee is getting any deader.


On the surface, this is quite true. However, once the plane lands in a
foreign country, the originating country must go through extradition
procedures to have the suspect returned for a trial. And this is lengthy
and costly and odds of the suspect not returning are not insignificant.

That's not true unless the suspect is actually "admitted" to the country.
If refused entrance at the airport Immigration barrier, he may be sent back
without paperwork, never officially having been subject to the new country's
laws. Very common occurrence, and illustrative of the teeny smidgen of
international law within the grasp of the non-flying Canuckistani cyclista,
Professor Numbnuts....


If the plane returns to the origin, the suspect can then be arrested and
dealt with "domestically" with local law.

Thus discommoding a plane full of pax and messing up the schedule.



The originating country could have offered to pay the fuel costs in order
for the plane to return.

Oh, horse ****....

TMO

"A Mate" wrote ...

The individual in question is a SUSPECT!!!

Americans in these post 9/11 days have developed a propensity to forget
that one of the basic tenets of British based legal systems is the
Presumption of Innocence. Suspects are innocent until found guilty in a
Court of Law.

....and with a warrant for his arrest issued/arrived after he had been
allowed to board and the flight had flown off.

You do understand that even in British courts with the similar presumption
of innocence, warrants are issued for "suspects" as a matter of routine
unless they are standing on the steps of the police station, arms
out-stretched for the cuffs. Everybody arrested is a "suspect", and those
who attempt to flee jurisdictions may (under both of our legal systems) be
held without bail.

As for being overwrought about GITMO, you do remember that back in 1945, the
UK and US didn't release all the German POWs at the end of hostilities.
Investigations and war crimes trials went on for several years.

Now, we might debate over which of the prisoners at GITMO were combatants,
since none had uniforms, but neither of us (and the Australian and other
troops in Afghanistan getting shot out/targeted by bombs) would allow that
the "war was over", so it seems to me, aside from those apprehended who
weren't combatants (and since 6 of those released earlier ended up showing
back up in Afghanistan and getting killed in combat, that's tough to
decide), I'm of the opinion we ought to simply follow precedent and keep'em,
GITMO being a nice warm place even in the winter (although they don't get to
use the pretty beach and the golf course (which I have, having been there
long ago with the Navy).

Are they mistreated? Accounts vary. They certainly are clothed, fed,
provided water and indoor plumbing, occasional showers, religious materials
and opportunity to practice the religion. None of the various outside
inspectors have managed to provide much if any evidence of "durance vile",
although keeping the prisoners separate and not allowing them a structured
military organization violates Geneva and other accords. Of course, nobody
wants to admit being a "senior officer", so allowing them to exist as part
of a military organization simply doesn't happen. Orange jump suits? Well,
unlike military prisoners in uniform (or who may be supplied replacement
uniforms by their own country), these folks had no uniforms, and no parent
military or country to send them uniforms. When assigned to duty aboard an
a/c in the Navy, I was issued (admittedly, a long time ago) an orange flight
suit to wear, same colors as those of the prisoners. I suppose we could
have issued them pink ones. Flip-flops? 'Bout right for GITMO's climate,
although you wouldn't want to run through the cactus in them.

I do recall that the wool Winter uniforms in which many German and Italian
prisoners were captured in weren't comfortable in the Texas Summers. I do
recall (as a youngster) seeing them working (the Italians with no fences,
and constantly escaping, not to go home, but to stay) in the fields clad in
US Army fatigues with big "P" stenciled on them. Were those more "legal" or
"suitable" than orange jump suits? I also recall the murderous riots (at an
island prison camp operated by the ROK and Allies, inc. Australia) among the
Korean war NK and Chinese POWs, busily murdering who didn't want to be
returned in droves. Prisoners are not always quiet, docile and
non-dangerous. The ones in GITMO are on the record pretty bad about
assaulting guards, throwing urine and feces, etc., not actions designed to
get you shipped home with a new set of clothes and a $10 bill...

TMO

wrote in message
oups.com...
Sometimes there is hope, however. Where we live, in Durham NC, the NC
bar association came down hard on Durham County DA Mike Nifong because
he ignored the presumption of innocence. His disbarment is the most
severe measure the association can take against him.

Mifong's problems are just starting. Now there is likely to be civil
and criminal charges brought against him.

My husband and I hope to soon to have the place where we live known
for its science and medicine, and not a rogue DA.



You do understand that Durham and Duke existed for decades only because of
profits from growing tobacco and selling cigarettes, a bit of an
equivocating issue in your moral stance.....

.....and youall did elect the guy, so don't disclaim responsibility. The
lawsuits by the lacrosse players will be against the county, and you as
taxpayers will have to pay for the defense and any settlements. They may
sue the exDA personally, but his pockets are likely shallow, whereas the
County (if he was the County DA, as in most states) will be the deep pocket
defendant in civil actions.

The local paper hasn't mentioned that?

TMO

Per TMOliver:
I'm of the opinion we ought to simply follow precedent and keep'em,
GITMO being a nice warm place even in the winter (although they don't get to
use the pretty beach and the golf course (which I have, having been there
long ago with the Navy).

Has anybody else heard Colin Powell's comments on that option?

They were something to the effect of "Close the place.... not
next week... not tomorrow.... but *this afternoon*."

--
PeteCresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per TMOliver:
I'm of the opinion we ought to simply follow precedent and keep'em,
GITMO being a nice warm place even in the winter (although they don't get
to
use the pretty beach and the golf course (which I have, having been there
long ago with the Navy).

Has anybody else heard Colin Powell's comments on that option?

They were something to the effect of "Close the place.... not
next week... not tomorrow.... but *this afternoon*."

On the grounds that "x" percent are bad guys and "x" were captured by us,
the NA or Pakistan while engaged in combat or proceeding to do so or
departing from having done so, where would you like to keep them during the
sorting out?

I'm sure Colin Powell would be happy to endorse their travel warrants to
your home town....

TMO