Mid-flight sexual play lands US couple afoul of anti-terrorism law

The News International ^ | Nov 14, 2006 | anonymous

[hunter112]

A passenger threatened a crewmember during a flight.

When did threatening to report a subordinate's behavior to a superior become criminalized? Public agency, or private business, a 'customer' should always retain that right, unfettered by the law.

Otherwise, what's the deterrent to outrageous behavior by employees?

[TommyDale]

"To a male flight attendant, "excuse me" can sound threatening."

Actually, to a male flight attendant, heterosexual activity can be threatening!

[Osage Orange]

Can someone charge the lawyer for lying out his....................

[wideawake]

Thanks for the idiotic reply which confirms my original impression of your brainpower.

[bigdcaldavis]

I support AMENDING it to where it does not run afoul of the constitution. I also think an amendment should be added to it to make sure that the Patriot Act cannot be used for Mickey Mouse bullsh*t things such as using the Patriot Act to go after sellers of knock-off Rubik's Cubes. What do Rubik's Cubes have to do with terrorism? Absolutely nothing.

If nothing is done about this, then we are going to see EVERY American put in some federal database for the slightest of infractions such as failing to wear a seat belt or talking on a cellphone while driving. There's already a national sex offender registry on the books. Just imagine if Hitlery forces anybody convicted of a hate crime (and yes, that includes "using hate speech" because that's how the neo-libs roll) to register in a federal bias/hate offender registry.

People like Alex Jones are saying that HR6166 declares non-allegiance to Bush is terrorism. Well, with Hitlery in the WH, it would be "non-allegiance to Hitlery is terrorism". You know, just by calling her Hitlery, I will probably be declared a terrorist by Hitlery. By calling PETA the "Vegan Taliban" and by calling Ingrid Newkirk "Osama Bingrid Newkird", I will probably be declared a terrorist. And the knowledge of how these neo-libiots are going to completely defecate all over the constitution and flush it down the crapper for their "precious" North American Union makes me MAD.

[wideawake]

the section in the Patriot Act that deals with this undefined "threat" by the passenger on a single attendant

Were you really under the impression that it is legal to threaten a single crewmember and it is only illegal to threaten multiple crewmembers?

Section 1993 makes it illegal to threaten any crewmember - it makes no allowance of a numerical limit of crewmembers you are allowed to threaten before you incur penalties.

[traditional1]

Not necessarily explicit in the Patriot Act, but prosecutable under the U.S. Code:

9-63.110 Interference with Flight Crew Members and Attendants

Section 46504 of Title 49, United States Code (formerly section 1472(j) of Title 49 Appendix) sets forth the offense of interference with a flight crew member or flight attendant within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2). The statute applies to any "individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties." The statute provides for up to 20 years imprisonment, and further provides for imprisonment for any term of years or life if a dangerous weapon is used. Interference with a flight crew member or attendant is a general intent crime, and does not require a specific intent either to intimidate the flight crew member or attendant or to interfere with t he performance of his or her duties. United States v. Grossman, 131 F.3d 1449 (11th Cir. 1997).

The duties interfered with would be to maintain order and decorum on the aircraft by the Flight Attendant.

Under: 9-63.000

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC ORDER

[Sir Gawain]

Thanks for the idiotic reply which confirms my original impression of your brainpower.

You hurled the first insult. So you can dish it but can't take it I see. Why don't you cry me a river bootlicker.

[Muleteam1]

[wideawake]

When did threatening to report a subordinate's behavior to a superior become criminalized?

It hasn't.

The passenger claims that he told the crewmember he would report him to a supervisor.

The crewmember has a different recollection - that the passenger threatened that the crewmember would suffer "serious consequences."

I'm sure the many witnesses present will be able to determine the gist of what was said.

My assumption is that the crewmember's version is correct: what would the passenger have told the supervisor exactly ? That his employee wouldn't let the passenger engage in sex acts in a public area? That's an immediately hollow threat which would likely have provoked laughter, not concern.

I seriously doubt law enforcement would have wasted their time on the requisite paperwork if his only threat had been "I'll tell your boss!"

[wideawake]

You're crying.

I'm observing your imbecility and noting it for the record.

Don't assume you're the first tough-talking little coward I've encountered online.

[Sir Gawain]

Section 1993 makes it illegal to threaten any crewmember - it makes no allowance of a numerical limit of crewmembers you are allowed to threaten before you incur penalties.

There is no Section 1993 in the Patriot Act. Section 1993 of the USC doesn't support your argument either.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001993----000-.html

[Sir Gawain]

Ooh scary. A keyboard commando. /yawn

[wideawake]

There is no Section 1993 in the Patriot Act.

The patriot Act itself contains a modification of USC 1993 and this modification is incorporated in the act.

And of course it supports my argument - people have been successfully tried and convicted under that section for interfering with crewmembers' discharge of their duties.

Just like this lecherous clown will be.

[Froufrou]

"They have been placed under legal surveillance until their trial on February 5"

Gives new meaning to Big Brother watching you ping...

[Sir Gawain]

And of course it supports my argument - people have been successfully tried and convicted under that section for interfering with crewmembers' discharge of their duties.

And how did the interfere with the attendant's duties? You must have a lot of inside information not presented to the rest of us. Either that or you're making assumptions and displaying your predisposed biases. Of course you'll cry loudest when the Patriot Act gets misapplied toward you and lands you in prison. But don't worry, I'd even support someone like you in that case even though you would have gotten your just desserts.

[Sir Gawain]

how did the = how did they

[RinaseaofDs]

Getting thirty years for a threat is a bit much, however, don't you think?

Sandy Berger got what for stealing secrets? How about John Deutch?

[Sloth]

So, how did SHE end up getting charged for HIS comment?

[WrightWings]

If nothing is done about this, then we are going to see EVERY American put in some federal database for the slightest of infractions such as failing to wear a seat belt or talking on a cellphone while driving.

Spot on. This is precisely why many conservatives were against the "Patriot" Act as it was written/signed into law. The ability for it to be used against our own citizenry for purposes other than fighting terrorism.

Nice power grab by the Republican-led Congress and signed by a Republican president.

I sure am glad they're on our side. /sarc