Federal pilots may get shootdown power

[Nav8tor]

Well looks likes things might get a bit more interesting...


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7956681/



Although I thought they already had the authority to shoot.

 

[poadeleted3]

Well looks likes things might get a bit more interesting...


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7956681/



Although I thought they already had the authority to shoot.

Coast Guard and the military does. Looks like Customs is also slobbering to get their chance to murder American men, women, and children who have committed no criminal act.

 

[arranna]

Coast Guard and the military does. Looks like Customs is also slobbering to get their chance to murder American men, women, and children who have committed no criminal act.

Sometimes I think stupidity can be criminal.

 

[Richard]

Bureaucratic indiscretion

Current intercept procedures are "...a rather tedious chore."? In consideration of the severe consequences of a shoot down I would think the acting secretary would have more carefully chosen his words. OTOH, perhaps his words accurately describe his position.

This is a serious matter, how many of the "hundreds" of transgressor flights have been terrorists or have exhibited nefarious intent? A shoot down is gonna' have heads rolling on a platter. Procedure or process be damned, this is intentional destruction of human life and if this were to actually occur there will be criminal prosecution of those responsible. I would not want to be in the chain of command involved in ordering a shoot down of what would most probably be a civilian guilty only of unintentionally wandering into the airspace. I think if I were in that chain I would willfully disobey the command--I'd much rather suffer that consequence than the other. How dare anyone--especially our federal govt leaders--show such arrogance and contempt that they should think this is a proper response.

While I do not condone the errant pilot I hardly believe he should pay with his life. One consequence would be a hue and cry across the land never before heard. The nation would be sick with grief made more terrible by the realization that it was sanctioned by US federal statute.

 

[woodstock]

wonder if we'll ever see a civil war in this country again.

 

[fgcason]

wonder if we'll ever see a civil war in this country again.

Taking a spear to a supersonic cruise missile fight doesn't serve much purpose beyond getting killed from over the horizon.

That's a veeeerrrrry slippery slope with a huge dropoff they're wanting to polish to totally frictionless. When you start threatening to execute citizens for what has turned out so far to be innocent/dumb mistakes... If they succeed you better start practicing your goose step.

 

[woodstock]

Taking a spear to a supersonic cruise missile fight doesn't serve much purpose beyond getting killed from over the horizon.

That's a veeeerrrrry slippery slope with a huge dropoff they're wanting to polish to totally frictionless. When you start threatening to execute citizens for what has turned out so far to be innocent/dumb mistakes... If they succeed you better start practicing your goose step.

you got it.

 

[wsuffa]

you got it.

Just do what we say, and everything will be OK.... after all, you have nothing to hide, do you?

I am one who believes that we're either in or on the verge of a civil war, but one unlike the ones ever fought before.

 

[corjulo]

wonder if we'll ever see a civil war in this country again.

Some would say where already in one. The extremes of the left and right base certainly act that way

 

[corjulo]

Taking a spear to a supersonic cruise missile fight doesn't serve much purpose beyond getting killed from over the horizon.

That's a veeeerrrrry slippery slope with a huge dropoff they're wanting to polish to totally frictionless. When you start threatening to execute citizens for what has turned out so far to be innocent/dumb mistakes... If they succeed you better start practicing your goose step.

Lets all be honest. This is going to happen. Some pilot is going to be sooooo careless that the point on no return is reached. That or ATC will screw up and send a pilot to his demise. OR, someone is actually trying to use a plane for no good and gets shot down. Either way its going to happen. It's the ground based missile systems I suspect will do the deed.

Yet, as we pilots all know, its the SUV or Rider truck loaded with fertilizer that can do the real damage.

 

[woodstock]

Lets all be honest. This is going to happen. Some pilot is going to be sooooo careless that the point on no return is reached. That or ATC will screw up and send a pilot to his demise. OR, someone is actually trying to use a plane for no good and gets shot down. Either way its going to happen. It's the ground bases missile systems I suspect will do the deed.

Yet, as we pilots all know, its the SUV or Rider truck loaded with fertilizer that can do the real damage.

or, maybe this will make all pilots sit up and take notice?

if some civilian gets shot down, wonder what changes will come into effect after that. any accountability from anyone?

 

[Ken Ibold]

if some civilian gets shot down, wonder what changes will come into effect after that. any accountability from anyone?

I, for one, would lobby for the impeachment and indictment of the president for letting it get to that.

 

[poadeleted3]

I, for one, would lobby for the impeachment and indictment of the president for letting it get to that.

I would lobby for the murder trial of anyone, and everyone, in the chain of command for butchering American citizens without trial. Summary execution of American citizens is not permissable, and is an act not at all different from Al Queda's actions. Terrorism is terrorism, whether from our government or outside forces. I'm hopeful that a pilot who actually shoots down a civilian plane is unable to walk the streets safely ever again.

 

[Carol]

I, for one, would lobby for the impeachment and indictment of the president for letting it get to that.

I'd help you.

 

[woodstock]

agree with everyone so far!

I really can't get my head around that they might really shoot down an innocent civilian. aren't we all innocent til proven guilty? what happened to that?

 

[grattonja]

Lets all be honest. This is going to happen. Some pilot is going to be sooooo careless that the point on no return is reached. That or ATC will screw up and send a pilot to his demise. OR, someone is actually trying to use a plane for no good and gets shot down. Either way its going to happen. It's the ground bases missile systems I suspect will do the deed.

Yet, as we pilots all know, its the SUV or Rider truck loaded with fertilizer that can do the real damage.

I figure we get a case where someone leaves a suicide type note, or message, and it becomes obvious they are going to use a little plane downtown DC for harm. Or announces the same on the radio. Wasn't there a link not long ago to some prominent instances of "suicide by radio"?

I agree that there will be a shoot down at some point. I agree with all that it will be a mess, someone will end up charged. Might even result in a regime change of some sort in DC.

Guess the flying weather in the NE has me pessimistic today.

Jim G

 

[Ken Ibold]

I really can't get my head around that they might really shoot down an innocent civilian. aren't we all innocent til proven guilty? what happened to that?

It's been amended to be "innocent until proven guilty unless the convenience of lawmakers is imperiled."

 

[corjulo]

I would lobby for the murder trial of anyone, and everyone, in the chain of command for butchering American citizens without trial. Summary execution of American citizens is not permissable, and is an act not at all different from Al Queda's actions. Terrorism is terrorism, whether from our government or outside forces. I'm hopeful that a pilot who actually shoots down a civilian plane is unable to walk the streets safely ever again.

That's out of line. If a pilot in our military is ordered to shoot a plane down then he was obeying an order...PERIOD. Hold his superiors accountable, certainly, but say that he can't walk the streets safely any more is outrageous.

 

[woodstock]

That's out of line. If a pilot in our military is ordered to shoot a plane down then he was obeying an order...PERIOD. Hold his superiors accountable, certainly, but say that he can't walk the streets safely any more is outrageous.

oh come on Dan. that isn't how it works in the real world. Abu Ghraib anyone?

 

[Richard]

Terrorism is terrorism, whether from our government or outside forces. QUOTE]

Joe, amend that to "...foriegn or domestic..." and it starts sounding very familiar, yes?

The pilot who obeys the order and shoots the ordnance is only following orders. That is not an excuse, but should not all of us be forgiven?

Elizabeth, I'm going to have to reread the US constitution and the Bill of Rights but I believe the innocent until proven guilty thing can be suspended or superceded by certain actions. That sounds weird, like I said I'll have to reread those documents.

 

[corjulo]

oh come on Dan. that isn't how it works in the real world. Abu Ghraib anyone?

So true and so sad.

 

[corjulo]

I figure we get a case where someone leaves a suicide type note, or message, and it becomes obvious they are going to use a little plane downtown DC for harm. Or announces the same on the radio. Wasn't there a link not long ago to some prominent instances of "suicide by radio"?

I agree that there will be a shoot down at some point. I agree with all that it will be a mess, someone will end up charged. Might even result in a regime change of some sort in DC.

Guess the flying weather in the NE has me pessimistic today.

Jim G

Unless its a high profile victim I doubt the public would be at all outraged. In fact I would bet that had the 150 got shot down, the public would approve by 70%.


Sad but True

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

agree with everyone so far!

I really can't get my head around that they might really shoot down an innocent civilian. aren't we all innocent til proven guilty? what happened to that?

Aside from the ineffective TFRs themselves that shouldn't even be there, et cetra, ignorance of the regs or laws is no good excuse, never has been, especially in aviation.

ITW:
If you're flying in a TFR/ADIZ improperly out of some form of stupidity, you ARE guilty. And stupidity should be painful (ideally only to the stupid) -just like the popular bumper sticker says...

 

[poadeleted3]

Terrorism is terrorism, whether from our government or outside forces. QUOTE]

Joe, amend that to "...foriegn or domestic..." and it starts sounding very familiar, yes?

The pilot who obeys the order and shoots the ordnance is only following orders. That is not an excuse, but should not all of us be forgiven?

No, it is no more an excuse than it was for the SS when they obeyed the orders of their superiors. Orders which were as lawful then as orders to execute American men, women and children who have broken no laws are today. A pilot who obeys such an order is a murderer and a terrorist. It's an order that should not be obeyed, and if it is the pilot is an enemy of our nation and Constitution.

 

[poadeleted3]

That's out of line. If a pilot in our military is ordered to shoot a plane down then he was obeying an order...PERIOD. Hold his superiors accountable, certainly, but say that he can't walk the streets safely any more is outrageous.

Dan, the pilot has the choice whether or not to obey such an order. If he obeys it, I hope he is strung up from the nearest light pole as the coward and murderer he will be. To support a pilot murdering innocent citizens because some of you are too fearful to live free is what is outrageous to me.

 

[poadeleted3]

Aside from the ineffective TFRs themselves that shouldn't even be there, et cetra, ignorance of the regs or laws is no good excuse, never has been, especially in aviation.

ITW:
If you're flying in a TFR/ADIZ improperly out of some form of stupidity, you ARE guilty. And stupidity should be painful (ideally only to the stupid) -just like the popular bumper sticker says...

When you have violated the ADIZ, you have committed no criminal act. The ADIZ is NOT criminal law. There is no legal basis for murdering American citizens for violating the ADIZ. The only justification is to sooth the fears of cowards who can't handle the risks of freedom, and prefer tyranny.

 

[Richard]

No, it is no more an excuse than it was for the SS when they obeyed the orders of their superiors. Orders which were as lawful then as orders to execute American men, women and children who have broken no laws are today. A pilot who obeys such an order is a murderer and a terrorist. It's an order that should not be obeyed, and if it is the pilot is an enemy of our nation and Constitution.

Yes, the famous example which came out at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal. What I didn't say--because of the risk of being too verbose--was that a subordinate has the option (even the duty) to disobey an order from a superior. You'd know more about it than I since I have not any military service. However, my point is they should be forgiven and not held accountable by a vengeful public for the rest of their lives.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

No, it is no more an excuse than it was for the SS when they obeyed the orders of their superiors. Orders which were as lawful then as orders to execute American men, women and children who have broken no laws are today. A pilot who obeys such an order is a murderer and a terrorist. It's an order that should not be obeyed, and if it is the pilot is an enemy of our nation and Constitution.

"A pilot who obeys such an order is a murderer and a terrorist. It's an order that should not be obeyed, and if it is the pilot is an enemy of our nation and Constitution."

Sure Joe, a pilot performing his/her sworn duties is supposed to risk her/his life and career and reputation with a capricious, short memoried and unthankful public and their government by second guessing, in order to protect (dubiously) some foghead blundering around in our airspace ?

They're not worth it and we shouldn't be protecting the stupidity of our citizens. What does it really accomplish of any real value ?

 

[Brian Austin]

They're not worth it and we shouldn't be protecting the stupidity of our citizens. What does it really accomplish of any real value ?

I'm curious what you'd say if a family of four, Dad, Mom and two kids, ended up in a ball of fire because of similar circumstances as the C150. Sure, Dad may have been negilent...but you just killed at least three innocents.

I'm with Joe. You're essentially convicting and executing someone with no trial.

 

[corjulo]

Dan, the pilot has the choice whether or not to obey such an order. If he obeys it, I hope he is strung up from the nearest light pole as the coward and murderer he will be. To support a pilot murdering innocent citizens because some of you are too fearful to live free is what is outrageous to me.

So, if he disobeys and the plane WAS a threat, say it plows into a school bus or starts throwing grenades out the window on the Mall. What then?

 

[woodstock]

So, if he disobeys and the plane WAS a threat, say it plows into a school bus or starts throwing grenades out the window on the Mall. What then?

and if it gets shot down, it will take out a whole bunch of people too.

quote from the English Patient: "People did die. just different people".

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

When you have violated the ADIZ, you have committed no criminal act. The ADIZ is NOT criminal law. There is no legal basis for murdering American citizens for violating the ADIZ. The only justification is to sooth the fears of cowards who can't handle the risks of freedom, and prefer tyranny.

I see your points.
And certainly agree that the real risks of freedom ain't for cowards. But cowards do like freedom to be risk free.

BTW:
I think the White House should stand out there just like every other city in the USA does, without any airspace restrictions, and just defend itself as well as is possible for the instant if it feels national security is threatened.

I doubt they (DC) would do much better than the rest of us, like NYC that just have to take the first hits, no matter what.

 

[Frank Browne]

That's out of line. If a pilot in our military is ordered to shoot a plane down then he was obeying an order...PERIOD. Hold his superiors accountable, certainly, but say that he can't walk the streets safely any more is outrageous.

I have never served in the military, but I thought that unlawful or immoral orders didn't have to be followed.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I'm curious what you'd say if a family of four, Dad, Mom and two kids, ended up in a ball of fire because of similar circumstances as the C150. Sure, Dad may have been negilent...but you just killed at least three innocents.

I'm with Joe. You're essentially convicting and executing someone with no trial.

"Like Begets Like".

The damage Daddy has caused the rest of us because of his negligence, both real and potential, is not worth his life nor those others in danger because he has placed them in his proximity.

Besides, if they got hammered with a SAM and some lived, or in any event someone in the rest of the extended family, would bring suit against Cessna or Honeywell or Garmin or whomever for Daddy's not being able to navigate properly. And the a bunch of dumb .... jurors would award them essentially our $ .

Then they'd get a lot of money and wouldn't have the handicap of Daddy being around.

 

[poadeleted3]

"A pilot who obeys such an order is a murderer and a terrorist. It's an order that should not be obeyed, and if it is the pilot is an enemy of our nation and Constitution."

Sure Joe, a pilot performing his/her sworn duties is supposed to risk her/his life and career and reputation with a capricious, short memoried and unthankful public and their government by second guessing, in order to protect (dubiously) some foghead blundering around in our airspace ?

They're not worth it and we shouldn't be protecting the stupidity of our citizens. What does it really accomplish of any real value ?

That pilot's duty is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution does not support murdering our citizens without trial. A pilot who obeys a such a shoot down order will have betrayed his/her oath, his/her duty, and the Constitution. Public opinion has nothing to do with it, nor does soothing the rattled nerves of those who can't hold their water when they hear a propellor.

 

[arranna]

agree with everyone so far!

I really can't get my head around that they might really shoot down an innocent civilian. aren't we all innocent til proven guilty? what happened to that?

Is the rapist who enters your domicile at 3 A.M. considered innocent until proven guilty?

The pilot(s) in question violated numerous, repeat numerous, FAR's. The act of violating these FAR's made them incapable of claiming "innocence." Of their guilt there is no doubt whatsoever.

 

[Greebo]

That pilot's duty is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution does not support murdering our citizens without trial. A pilot who obeys a such a shoot down order will have betrayed his/her oath, his/her duty, and the Constitution. Public opinion has nothing to do with it, nor does soothing the rattled nerves of those who can't hold their water when they hear a propellor.

For that matter,

As far as I understand it, the Constitution also prohibits the use of the United States Armed Forces against United States Citizens, doesn't it?

Or am I really confused?

 

[Brian Austin]

The pilot(s) in question violated numerous, repeat numerous, FAR's. The act of violating these FAR's made them incapable of claiming "innocence." Of their guilt there is no doubt whatsoever.

FARs aren't criminal code, it's civil. Big difference in responses.

 

[Skip Miller]

I have never served in the military, but I thought that unlawful or immoral orders didn't have to be followed.

The problem with this is that the pilot of the F-16 has no way of knowing what his superiors on the ground know. So he has no means of evaluating the validity of the order. So he must follow orders.

-Skip

 

[poadeleted3]

For that matter,

As far as I understand it, the Constitution also prohibits the use of the United States Armed Forces against United States Citizens, doesn't it?

Or am I really confused?

You are thinking of Posse Commitatus, I think. That still doesn't prohibit the use of military forces against US citizens, just prohibits US military forces from performing certain law enforcement functions.

The oath of enlistment requires the members of the military to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Use of the US military against the citizenry is clearly contemplated. I don't think a valid case can be made that Mom, Dad, and their two kids are enemies of the United States because they violated civil law or an administrative rule when they got lost.