Today two police cars showed up at the local airport to look if anybody flies and to make sure everybody know that the leader of the free world is around
I like the term "free". Especially in view of the fact that this "great Leader" has allowed the NSA to intrude on our lifestyles., to demand to know what we are doing when and who we are doing it with. It's no longer a case of "we have suspects in our sights and we are tracking them", it's more a statement of accusation: "You are no longer trustworthy, we believe you all to be terrorists intent on interfering with OUR aims".
In the words of Benjamin Franklin:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Maybe someone should point this out to Obama, he should realise that he cannot tar the population of the world with the same brush and have us all singing his praises......
This famous old chap once said there are no rights; there are only privileges 
Obviously it is debatable but I think there is a lot of truth in that.
Unfortunately today's terrorism-fear-fuelled climate means that a lot has changed since Franklin. It's not good and it's not right but there isn't a huge amount we can do about it.
"Is flying your airplane around Berlin really your right as a citizen of the EU?"
Yes, I can not tell about the EU but as a citizen of Germany the following applies:
Here we have the general principle that anything that is not forbidden is allowed. This is fundamental to our democracy. We start with an individual which has all the rights. Then if somebody else is harmed through his or her actions the state can pass a law which limits you in exercising all potential rights in order to protect others.
So to start with flying around Berlin in our right. Then we have a permanent restricted area around the city center which is justified by security after somebody crashed an ultalight just in front of the Reichstag. This is a limitation of our rights and not a reduction of the privileges granted (very important difference to me!)
Today we have an additional temporary 30NM radius restricted area which is a further reduction of our rights. Maybe it is necessary for security but again this is a reduction of our freedom to fly which must be justified in every detail and not a reduction of privileges kindly given to us by the government which they may extend or limit as they like.
This comes right down to what any political system worth fighting for is all about.
Looking at the restricted area over Berlin the usefulness for security is very small. According to German law you can not do anything about a plane just coming by, crossing right over the city and fly on. You can later put the pilot on trial but in the air the federal court just ruled that any shoot down or similar would be unlawful. So all you gain from the restriction is a bigger radius that makes sure if some plane enters you have some more lead time to protect anybody who is in need for protection. How many miles radius are appropriate for whom is a open topic but in general I thinks the radius increases a few NM each year…
Patrick,
There is a right of free movement. Following your logic would mean: Walking on the streets of Berlin is also a privilege granted to you by a democratically legitimated authority? What is the difference between airspace and streets?
Just the question IF what they're doing right now is "appropriate" is a matter of opinion and can be debated. But it's nothing to do with rights, I'd say?
I think I'd agree with that. Its APAIK, sure. From where I am based, last weekend all exit routes bar one going North were effectively blocked due to the Queen's flypast event. Maybe I'm not fussed about this, or other attempts to block GA (notably the Olympics last year), because generally there are either workarounds in place, or they are short lived and 99% of the time, its flyable. Then again had I been planning a route not going north and I found it blocked off at the very time I wanted to fly, I'd probably be here with a different message ;-)
There is a right of free movement. Following your logic would mean: Walking on the streets of Berlin is also a privilege granted to you by a democratically legitimated authority? What is the difference between airspace and streets?
Fair enough - so to be very accurate about this:
The right to "move" on the streets (in public) and in ("public") airspace is derived from the right of free movement.
The privilege to command an aircraft (or to drive a vehicle for that matter) is granted by a democratically legitimated authority to those who qualify.
Would that be correct?
I'd still say that the temporary or permanent closure of certain (air)space by such an authority is - although a nuisance maybe - nothing that infringes my rights as a citizen of a democratic country.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Maybe someone should point this out to Obama, he should realise that he cannot tar the population of the world with the same brush and have us all singing his praises......
The quote was not in reference to external threats, but in relation to the threat to liberty from government itself, which makes it directly in opposition to his fixed world view. I despise the man, and more specifically his ideas.
This famous old chap once said there are no rights; there are only privileges. Obviously it is debatable but I think there is a lot of truth in that.
Rights are not awarded by government, they are removed by government.
