Here is another example of Govt gone wild. A Pakistani Capt did a hard landing in a 737. He was found drunk and will be charged with a terrorist act along with other regs he has broken.
So the next time you think you are going to have that dinner drink and then drive remember you have voluntarily joined the forces of ISIS.
Unless the Capt. had sexy photos of ISIS leaders I cant see how they can tie in the terrorist charge.
By the way arent Muslims prohibited by Allah from drinking? Sorry no smiley, religion, terrorism, and drinking are serious topics especially when you roll them all in one.
People are held helpless in the air, especially if the pilot is drunk. You don’t need to be a jihadist to terrorize people. One really great way to do that is to threaten people on an airliner as this guy found out.
C210_Flyer wrote:
Unless the Capt. had sexy photos of ISIS leaders I cant see how they can tie in the terrorist charge.
I can. “Terror laws” usually have such broad scope that they can be used for almost anything. That is of course very convenient for the governments. Particularly governments of less democratic countries have used the “War on terror” as an excuse to impose laws directed against political opposition in general.
My favourite example is from the latest bank crisis in Europe. In brief, several Icelandic banks operating abroad, particularly in the UK, went bankrupt. The Icelandic government refused to save them. The UK government was rather upset by the refusal of Iceland to pay and decided to use their terrorism legislation to seize Icelandic assets in the UK. In the end the EFTA court decided that Iceland was in its right. (More information here.)
Are you sure that Wiki article is accurate?
I have not followed this one (apart from the obvious i.e. the UK Govt was liable for something like GBP 50k (75k today) for every UK individual with an Icelandic bank account i.e. most people who subscribe to the old tried and tested investment principle) but I have seen countless Wiki texts which were pure politically motivated drivel. The best stuff on Wiki is the scientific/engineering or other factual (e.g. biographical) stuff. The moment you get onto politics, it’s mostly a case of the person with the most time and the biggest ego doing the most writing, and most others being too busy with their lives to be bothered to dispute it. This famous cartoon comes to mind
But – back on topic – for sure GA is very vulnerable to getting hit with something nasty. Let’s face it… an aircraft is a reasonably good tool for doing a fair bit of damage. In the present climate we are IMHO doing well to not see some draconian stuff. Let’s hope it lasts…
I guess it tough sh*t when you dont play ball to bail out the bankers while expecting austerity on the populace by the actions of the banks that created the need for austerity to begin with. I dont see austerity being part of the bonus system of bankers though.
With this terrorist crap all throughout the “free world” our liberties have been stolen. Do you remember the book 1984? Now a new one came out by an author whose govt decided to banish him from the country. I guess that is better than beheading. 2084 same theme as 1984 but with a twist, religion as the totalitarian basis.
http://arablit.org/2015/10/06/2084/
Its good that we have other powers that might hold the rulers of the “free world’s” feet to the fire. A case can be made for such a counterbalance by the Russians.
Boy, I never in a million years thought I would ever say that.
Here is something most people dont know. The Patriot act in the US, now renamed into some other Bullsh*t nomenclature which allows just on suspicion to be jailed without trial and held indefinitely by labelling someone a terrorist. I have visions of Communist Hungary. Of course why would you worry if you have nothing to hide?
So like I said be careful about that drink since now a precedent had been set.
Peter wrote:
But – back on topic – Let’s face it… an aircraft is a reasonably good tool for doing a fair bit of damage. In the present climate we are IMHO doing well to not see some draconian stuff. Let’s hope it lasts
Well if you are a terrorist the idea to create terror everywhere. Would it not be easier to lob a grenade into a restaurant every week to a month rather than to take a small plane and crash it into something once? Its like taking a car and running it into a bus stop. How much damage?
Now a Ryder truck filled with fertilizer parked in front of a govt building going off gets peoples attention. Especially govt people. So do we ban all trucks?
Compared to what is possible using GA is really not a good terrorist tool.
C210_Flyer wrote:
Now a Ryder truck filled with fertilizer parked in front of a govt building going off gets peoples attention. Especially govt people. So do we ban all trucks?
I still remember the Sacramento Capitol attack in 2001. A truck slammed into the building and exploded. I do not think there were even any explosives involved. I lived in the CA Bay Area back then.
After 9/11 there was the Pirelli building crash in Milano.
I suppose one can say the damage done by the truck and the airplane were similar… But an airplane gets people’s imagination running wild.
Peter wrote:
GA is very vulnerable to getting hit with something nasty. Let’s face it… an aircraft is a reasonably good tool for doing a fair bit of damage
How many terrorist attacks have been carried out using small GA planes? Right. So let’s not always paint this picture on the wall ourselves, lest we might get the restrictions we always fear about. Counter-terrorism is never a 100 % sure thing, so it needs to be risk based as all other legislature and regulation. We are seeing numerous ways to carry out terror attacks that seem to be more effective.
The only way why GA is vulnerable (there I agree with you) is because GA pilots are a small minority that is not very popular in the general population, so it is an easy target to pick on if you want to be seen doing “something” as a politician without offending a lot of people.
Even if some day there was a terror attack involving a small plane, that wouldn’t justify any measures per se. I am not seeing any efforts to ban passing drivers’ licences or buying cars anywhere in the world, neither the manufacture and sale of rifles or knives.
Peter wrote:
Are you sure that Wiki article is accurate?
This particular article provides extensive references. Among other things to the piece of UK legislation seizing the icelandic assets, stored on a UK government website. The introduction to the legislation explicitly references the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 (note the year!). So there is no doubt that the key point of my posting is true.
Well, it does depend on whether the boom-bust in Iceland had “Crime” elements. You bet it did. Otherwise, nobody in Iceland made money out of all the people who lost money? It was criminal from top to bottom. Getting evidence is something else…
The “Security” angle is pretty obvious, too. The UK Govt was up for a lot of compensation. I would have done the same as they did.
Way off topic
I agree with you, Rwy20. And the lack of precedent for attacks using GA just shows that it is not a preferred method.
