Posted on 01/04/2005 4:27:48 PM PST by Las Vegas Dave
NEWARK, N.J. - Federal authorities Tuesday used the Patriot Act to charge a man with pointing a laser beam at an airplane overhead and temporarily blinding the pilot and co-pilot.
The FBI (news - web sites) acknowledged the incident had no connection to terrorism but called David Banach's actions "foolhardy and negligent."
Banach, 38, of Parsippany admitted to federal agents that he pointed the light beam at a jet and a helicopter over his home near Teterboro Airport last week, authorities said. Initially, he claimed his daughter aimed the device at the helicopter, they said.
He is the first person arrested after a recent rash of reports around the nation of laser beams hitting airplanes.
Banach was charged only in connection with the jet. He was accused of interfering with the operator of a mass transportation vehicle and making false statements to the FBI, and was released on $100,000 bail. He could get up to 25 years in prison and fines of up to $500,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I'm a conservative Republican not a conservative of the ACU variety. If nothing else, the government must protect us from aggression from those who are determined to destroy our way of life. If Patriot helps our government to do this, I stand behind it. The ACU naively misunderstands the Islamicists and how dangerous they are. The Justice dept does realize the danger, thankfully. Social issues like Medical marijuana and “right to die” are issues on which I have firm opinions and they are not of the ACU variety.
As for your comments about the constitution...it's not a perfect document written by perfect people. Even the founding fathers understood its imperfections by building in so many checks and balances. It's an evolving document. As such, in a democracy we should be able to amend, interpret, and rescind parts of it.
I was not saying the NJ guy's laser was a 40 mw, I was saying that 40 mw handhelds are out there and available.
as for safety, FAA has a rule out, see my post 101.
A 5mW pointer has a power density of about .5 microwatts at two miles, if you take into account rapid beam spread after the Rayleigh distance. If you use linear beam divergence it's going to be maybe twice that, but unless you are in a Lser Free Zone a 5 mW pointer will always be safe, according to the FAA rules, no matter what color.
Out in the Sensitive Flight Zone you can splash around laser beams with a 100 uW power density, so away from an airport a 50 mW beam would be below the limit.
Feds lie to us every damn day. What about them?
So, if I understand what you are saying. . .
Yes the light is visible and noticable and may be even a bit distracting, but not at damaging or more dangerous than any other light shown upward from the ground at that height and distance, right?
Hardly seems like an act of terrorism or a reason to invokvethe Patriot Act.
Ditto.
Your antagonist doesn't think that there is much that the government cannot do.
No human is perfect, but the Constitution is a brilliant document considering that it was the first of it's kind ever written. The failure has been that of we the people to hold those elected to government to account for their abuse of that document.
The checks and balances were also part of their brilliance. Again, pandering politicians and greedy citizens were all to willing to overlook those transgressions for their own benefit.
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!
It's NOT an evolving document unless you follow the proper procedures to AMEND it. The words of the Founders -- the authors -- are to be read in the context of their day, not ours. Meanings have changed, but original intent is still there and any 'interpretation' is to be in holding with that intent.
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!
We were never meant to to be...thankfully.
Your point is?
"Again, pandering politicians and greedy citizens were all to willing to overlook those transgressions for their own benefit."
Yes and that is precisely why we have checks and balances.
The point?
Did you forget that you wrote that 'in a democracy'? You said that we were a democracy.
The checks and balances -- indeed, our government -- will only work as long as the people are willing to hold politicians to their sworn oath. The people have failed in their duty when they ask the government to take money from others to give in their name for charity as much as when others ask for causes that you don't agree with.
When the congresscritters know that you are willing to overlook their actions to do what you want, they know that you don't have a leg to stand on when you b*tch about it for other things.
Where is (another) RR when we really need him?
I know that Reagan wasn't perfect, but I think that he saw the big picture better than anyone. If he didn't have such an antagonistic Democrat Congress to contend with, I wonder what all he could have accomplished.
First of all, I used the word "democracy" in its philosophical sense, not as a specific reference to how our nation functions.
As to the rest of what you say - the problem of the people letting government take their money etc etc - stems from the secularization of our nation---we are no longer willing as a nation of individuals to take responsibility for our communities and each other in the name of spiritual values; we would rather let the impersonal State do it for us.
BS. Here are your words in context, as you typed them:
"As such, in a democracy we should be able to amend, interpret, and rescind parts of it.
Rationalize if you want, but that is not how operate system is supposed to work no matter how many people believe otherwise. The Constitution is ignored, but until is is denounced by the government as dead, or amended as required by the Founders, I still expect it to be honored as it now stands. When it lives, as you suggest, then it begins to die.
"As to the rest of what you say - the problem of the people letting government take their money etc etc - stems from the secularization of our nation---we are no longer willing as a nation of individuals to take responsibility for our communities and each other in the name of spiritual values; we would rather let the impersonal State do it for us."
You put the cart before the horse. Giving dropped after government started the welfare state not the other way around. Even still, the American people are the most generous in the world. If we still had our whole paycheck, giving would soar. The government set the pace during the Depression and people got used to sucking on the government teat.
I am concerned that you are letting some agenda get in the way of understanding what I write.
What I said was that secularization and all that it entails (ceding to the govt many of the functions that previously were handled at the local level - education, charity, etc) has led to many of the problems we have including our allowing the state to handle the social issues facing our communities. Once that happened, there was no stopping the trend. Secularists - bureacrats call them what you will can never be satisfied with involving themselves in people's lives.
But now we see a more conservative trend taking shape and that trend should make some inroads on this bureacracy if we keep voting conservatives into power. And that I why I am optimistic. And you are not apparently.
My only agenda is liberty through smaller government and lower taxes.
I read your statement to mean exactly what you wrote to clarify, and needed no clarification.
Yes, there is a problem, but you seem to think that we ceded caring for others to the government and I believe that the government started to assume that role in the 30's and has almost totally usurped that role (even though private charity still thrives) with the welfare state. As the government took over more of that role and raised our taxes to exorbitant levels, the opportunity and desire to care for others did drop and given the circumstances, why wouldn't they?
You also seem to believe that the Bush Administration is actually doing something to reverse the trend. I don't and no, I'm not optimistic that Bush will do the right thing. He's too compassionate to say NO! to anyone.
"My only agenda is liberty through smaller government and lower taxes. "
Me too except that I would specify that I want smaller government and lower taxes in time of peace not war.
A fatalistic attitude such as yours does not do any good and does not reflect well of conservatives who do not consider the sacrifices and persistance of the generations of conservatives who have fought against far higher odds than today's.
Bigger government started in the 30's? I would set the date earlier than that.
So I'm guessing you agree with the left when they say the constitution is a living breathing document. Want to change the constitution? Well the founders thought of a way to do that, the amendment process.
The amendment process...that's what I support.
Problem is that activist liberal judges have been "legislating from the bench" thus circumventing the amendment process.
There has been growth in size and scope and cost of government in more than just defense / military spending. It has been growing since Bush took office even faster than when Clinton was there. At least Congress fought Clinton to some degree. They don't seem to have what it takes to oppose Bush. And of course, Congress has their own grandiose plans and Bush hasn't seen fit to use his veto pen.
"A fatalistic attitude such as yours does not do any good and does not reflect well of conservatives who do not consider the sacrifices and persistance of the generations of conservatives who have fought against far higher odds than today's."
You call it fatalistic, I prefer to call it realistic. You seem to believe that we are more free today than in the past. I see more and more intrusions that Americans of years past would never have accepted.
"Bigger government started in the 30's? I would set the date earlier than that."
The growth was much slower and much less aggressive until the 30's. Roosevelt turned on the spigots full force and LBJ broke the dam. No one has done much to slow it or reverse it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.