Pilot punished for YouTube video, photography is illegal

Aknazer · Mar 13, 2011

Dreamer said:
First, we need to define what and identify exactly WHO this elusive "enemy" really is...

Believe me, the REAL "enemy" already knows about weaknesses in our air security...

(wait for it , wait for it...)

Because they freaking DESIGNED the system themselves...

Here's a little clue for the hard of thinking:

Name a single "hijacker" that has gotten on a US flight in the last 20 years that WASN'T put on the plane or otherwise aided, trained, covered for, and/or directed by an "unidentified US intelligence/LE agency"...

We'll wait...

Let's just put it this way. It's a good thing that TSA is so utterly incompetent. Because if they actually DID the job they are supposedly tasked with, it would put a HUGE dent in the covert operations of the rogue factions of CIA, NSA, FBI, and DHS...

The hijackers of 9-11 weren't trained by any of those agencies. Instead they went to civilians to simply learn how to fly the planes (not take off or land, just fly).

Seriously, what type of conspiracy theory kool-aid have you been drinking. There are PLENTY of weaknesses out there that aren't being exploited because the bad guys simply don't know about them. Releasing those weaknesses would increase the security risk of the weakness being exploited.

An example of this would be if someone were to release clutter velocity and range-rate information on radars (that information could be exploited by hostile governments). People that know about radars know about this weakness in pulse doppler radars, but without knowing exactly how the radar is set up they're unable to fully exploit this weakness.

Sure some bad guys out there might already know this information, but that doesn't mean all of them do or that all of them have easy access to get this information. So by releasing the information you're basically doing the work for the bad guys.

Dreamer · Mar 13, 2011

Aknazer said:
Seriously, what type of conspiracy theory kool-aid have you been drinking.

The kind where the State Department let 15 of the 19 "highjackers" get entry Visas when their applications--on their face--were invalid, under orders from the CIA rep in Jeddah, and then tried to cover it up...

http://old.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/articles/visa011212.htm

The kind where as many as 7 of the "highjackers" have been found to be alive and well in their home countries:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

The kind where the FBI knew in April of 2001 that multiple known Al-CIAda members were in the US, attending flght schools, and planning attacks, but the reports of this were silenced in the FBI's command chain, and the reporting officers were bullied into silence by their superiors, who then tried for years to cover up their actions...

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131432&page=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700216.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5131524/ns/nightly_news/

I'd rather be a "conspiracy theorist" with truckloads of irrefutable evidence, than be a "coincidence theorist" like you, who just can't take the time to actually LOOK at the real evidence, can't be bothered with government admissions that have contradicted the "official story" so many times that the original 9/11 report has been disproved from cover to cover--with their own words, and is, because they have been utterly brainwashed by the media, schools, and innate lack of critical thinking skills, can't "connect the dots"...

Wake up...

Aknazer · Mar 13, 2011

Once again you're off the mark. Not a single one of the hijackers were directly "aided, trained, covered for, and/or directed by an "unidentified US intelligence/LE agency..." Instead the ONLY thing you can argue is that they were "aided" by the gross incompetence of the government (primarily the FBI). But indirect aid is far different than direct aid. Direct aid would be more like the whole Project Gunrunner fiasco.

And yes I read your articles. They show how the government wasn't following it's own rules in regards to visas, how it assumed attacks would be elsewhere, how they didn't follow up on potential leads, and other mistakes made. But at no point do those articles show that the government directly helped the hijackers.

Our government needs to clean up it's act, this isn't a surprise or anything new. But saying that the government directly aided them is flat out wrong. And making an in-direct aid via incompetence arguement is extremely weak as you could apply that to ANY situation. I mean you could say that the governement "indirectly aided" the whole AZ shooting recently, but that doesn't actually mean our government actually "aided, trained, covered for, and/or directed" the attack.

Oh and you might want to put your tin-foil hat on. The government might try to steal your thoughts next.

Dreamer · Mar 13, 2011

Aknazer said:
Oh and you might want to put your tin-foil hat on. The government might try to steal your thoughts next.

Anyone with even a moderate grasp of this sort of thing knows that tin foil hats don't work--in fact it's been scientifically proven they actually amplify certain microwave signals.

Grad students in engineering at MIT got funding a few years ago to study this and in fact, proved that foil hats actually AMPLIFY microwave signals in a certain frequency range...

Interestingly enough, it's the exact same spectrum sequestered by the FCC for use by the DOD for GPS satellite signals, and communications from spy satellites...

http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/

Just sayin'...

If you can't even get your snarky remarks correct, then I don't see how you can expect anyone to take anything you purport to be "fact" as being on the mark...

Aknazer · Mar 13, 2011

Dreamer said:
Anyone with even a moderate grasp of this sort of thing knows that tin foil hats don't work--in fact it's been scientifically proven they actually amplify certain microwave signals.

Grad students in engineering at MIT got funding a few years ago to study this and in fact, proved that foil hats actually AMPLIFY microwave signals in a certain frequency range...

Interestingly enough, it's the exact same spectrum sequestered by the FCC for use by the DOD for GPS satellite signals, and communications from spy satellites...

http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/

Just sayin'...

If you can't even get your snarky remarks correct, then I don't see how you can expect anyone to take anything you purport to be "fact" as being on the mark...

*whoosh*

That's the sound of you missing the sarcasm and trying to disprove my "snarky comment" while completely ignoring everything else. And here is the definition as taken from wikipedia as for why I was saying you might want to put on your hat:

"The concept of wearing a tin foil hat for protection from such threats has become a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and persecutory delusions, and is associated with conspiracy theorists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

My comment had nothing to do with it being able to actually block brainwave transmission or anything like that and is simply a figure of speech. But once again good job at side-stepping everything else and ignoring the fact that none of those links show any direct help from the government and only show the government being incompetent and then trying to cover up the incompetence.

Dreamer · Mar 13, 2011

Yes, you are right, Aknazer. The government is our friend, and is there ONLY to do good, and would NEVER do anything to harm, oppress, or otherwise molest or lie to the good people of this Nation...

Except for Native Americans...

Or passengers on the Lusitania...

Or Black men in Tuskeegee...

Or hemophiliacs...

Or children in Guatemala...

Or the media, with regards to the Gulf of Tonkin...

Or the creation of the Taliban...

Or Agent Orange-created cancer in Viet Nam vets...

Or the fact that autism among the children of US servicemen is nearly 10 times the national average...

Or the fact that the State Department flew special charter flights the day after 911 to evacuate the Bin Laden family members who were in the US...

Or that the guy who was accused of bombing the WTC the first time had his bomb built by FBI bomb-making specialists...

Or with regards to the safety of the air at Ground Zero, as tested by the EPA and OSHA...

Or the widows and orphans of US Service members who have had their death benefits stolen by Prudential...

Or Serbian children who were kidnapped, transported across international boundries, and sold into sexual slavery to UN officials and corporate execs by Halliburton and Dyncorp...

Or Border Patrol agents who are shot with guns that were supplied to the Mexican drug Cartels by OUR OWN GOVERNMENT...

No, the government would NEVER lie to us about the killing, infecting, molesting, falsification of evidence, or covering up negligence or outright deceit for the sake of making a few bucks for, and catering to the twisted, psychopathic desires of their sociopathic cronies in the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex...

Never happens...

since9 · Mar 14, 2011

HandyHamlet said:
So exercising one's Constitutional rights is okay as long as they check with you first.

Me? No.

What part of "he signed a non-disclosure agreement" don't you get? What part of "revealing sensitive information which puts others at risk" don't you get?

Apparently neither part.

Dreamer, the TSA may be exorbitantly expensive and largely imcompetant, but the pilot violated his charter nonetheless. Such agreements are mandatory before being read into many programs. The First Amendment doesn't trump the agreement. The agreement is a voluntary waiver on one's First Amendment rights. Without an agreement, one isn't read into these programs. Once you sign a non-disclosure agreement and are read into the program, you're EXPECTED to adhere to your agreement, and federal laws are on the books providing for some fairly stringent punishments if one doesn't not.

What that piolot did was stupid, reckless, irresponsible, and half a dozen other negatives.

Above all, it violated the principle of integrity. If he can't adhere to the agreement and keep his trap shut, he never should have been read into to the program, and quite frankly, I don't trust him at the controls of any airplane on which myself or my family might be flying! There are other agreements taken by pilots, such as 12 hours bottle to throttle, not flying under the influence or the aftereffects, keeping up with one's training on the aircraft and the skies, getting plenty of rest before stepping into the cockpit, etc.

If you can't trust a pilot to keep his word with respect to a simple non-disclosure agreement, how in the world can you expect him to adhere to all the additional demands required of a pilot?"

Answer: You can't.

Marshaul, you'll not see me publishing bomb specs online. Just like the pilot, I signed a non-disclosure agreement (security debriefing document, actually) with the military. Perhaps the only difference is that if I blabbered like the utter fool of the pilot, things would go just *a bit* more harsh than removing my cockpit firearm authorization.

This thread is about a pilot who violated the law. It's not about tin-foil hats or government conspiracy theories.

Please stay on topic. Thanks.

HandyHamlet · Mar 14, 2011

since9 said:
Me? No.

What part of "he signed a non-disclosure agreement" don't you get? What part of "revealing sensitive information which puts others at risk" don't you get?

...the part where you don't see a whistleblower who has the balls to expose yet another rogue government agency for the multi-billion dollar fraud it is as a national hero?

Aknazer · Mar 14, 2011

Dreamer you're still not showing any proof of direct aid from the government and are just drawing your own conclusions by saying "since it has happened before it MUST be happening here." You also have failed to show any proof that the terrorists were the ones who designed the systems. Now if you mean that the real "enemy" is our own government, well that's generally what I would expect from people who are anarchists.

Which leads right back to the actual topic, and that is that what the pilot did can be directly exploited by enemies of the U.S. who previously had no knowledge of it. Also as since9 pointed out he directly violated his NDA which is another issue. It's also hard to call him a responsible whistleblower given that he didn't fully exhaust his options, it released sensitive information, and no illegal activity was going on.

Citizen · Mar 14, 2011

since9 said:
SNIP The First Amendment doesn't trump the agreement. The agreement is a voluntary waiver on one's First Amendment rights. Without an agreement, one isn't read into these programs. Once you sign a non-disclosure agreement and are read into the program, you're EXPECTED to adhere to your agreement, and federal laws are on the books providing for some fairly stringent punishments if one doesn't not.

I'm no expert on these agreements; didn't even know they existed.

But, I cannot and do not accept they always trump 1A rights. I'm sure every person who knew about MK-Ultra and Cointellpro was sworn to secrecy. It is a violation of conscience to even try to bind someone to silence in the face of something of this importance.

Also, what happens if a fella refuses the voluntary waiver? Meaning, is it really voluntary, or does the refuser face economic sanction, e.g. he can no longer fly, or some other diminishment?

Also, was the pilot lied to in the agreement? Was the extent and nature of TSA's deceit, over-reach, incompetence, and waste fully disclosed? (rhetorical question).

We cannot possibly always play by "the law". The constitution empowers the fedgov, and it is the fedgov who decides what it means. And, decides what our rights are under the constitution. We all know how that has worked out.

Based on the information I have so far, I am of the opinion the pilot was right to reveal.

Aknazer · Mar 14, 2011

With an NDA it is 100% voluntary. But in refusing to sign it you aren't allowed to participate in the program. For example, when I got my Secret clearance for the military I had to agree not to release the information. Had I refused that NDA prior to joining I would have been denied my clearance and had to find another job (refusing to sign after joining can have other repercussions, but for different reasons). Likewise when I signed up I agreed to not being able to do certain things (such as talking bad about superiors and participating in certain events like riots and what not) and had I refused I simply wouldn't of been able to join.

Yes you "can" break your NDA, but if you do it had better be for a VERY good reason. We're talking about things like there had better be illegal activities, cover-ups, etc going on. Breaking your NDA simply because you didn't get the result you wanted and don't want to go through all of the proper channels first is NOT a valid reason to break it.

Dreamer · Mar 14, 2011

since9 said:
What part of "he signed a non-disclosure agreement" don't you get? What part of "revealing sensitive information which puts others at risk" don't you get?

An NDA is a contract, and like ANY contract is only binding if BOTH parties uphold their terms and obligations. If an employer is tasked with providing a safe working enviroment, and fails to do so through neglect, incompetence, or outright collusion, then the contract is null and void, and should not be considered binding.

Basic contract law, actually...

Gunslinger · Mar 15, 2011

Dreamer said:
+1,000,000

The Military is tasked with providing security against all enemies foreign and domestic. Revealing their operational techiques to the enemy would be treason.

Commercial airlines are tasked with providing safe transport to the general public. When someone reveals--to the very public they are tasked to transport safely--that their policies actually pose a THREAT to the safety of said passengers, that, my dear friends is NOT a crime--it is a PUBLIC SERVICE, and should be applauded and hailed as an act of heroism.

This pilot should get a medal, not threatened with a jail sentence...

Absolutely. Whatever happened to Hank T, btw?

Dreamer · Mar 15, 2011

Aknazer said:
Now if you mean that the real "enemy" is our own government, well that's generally what I would expect from people who are anarchists.

Yeah, like those pesky radicals, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine and George Washington, who held the central Government to be so utterly trustworthy that they wanted no restrictions on it...

WTF?

Aknazer · Mar 16, 2011

Dreamer said:
Yeah, like those pesky radicals, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine and George Washington, who held the central Government to be so utterly trustworthy that they wanted no restrictions on it...

WTF?

WTF indeed. Those people didn't view OUR government as the enemy, but they did think that it should be small and have plenty of checks in place to try and prevent it from becoming too powerful. But that is different than flat out thinking of the government that THEY MADE as the enemy.

So once again just what "enemy" are you talking about? Because by saying that the "enemy" built the system is to say that our government is directly our enemy, which is a pretty anarchist thing to say.

Dreamer · Mar 17, 2011

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson

He didn''t say "all governments, save ours". He made a universal statement, and it is in fact (and unfortunately) bearing out to be true.

I'm pretty sure that, in light of where our "government" has gone in the last 100 years, if we hooked an alternator to Jefferson's grave, we could power the entire east cost of Virginia with it...

END_THE_FED · Mar 17, 2011

Dreamer said:
Yes, you are right, Aknazer. The government is our friend, and is there ONLY to do good, and would NEVER do anything to harm, oppress, or otherwise molest or lie to the good people of this Nation...

Except for Native Americans...

Or passengers on the Lusitania...

Or Black men in Tuskeegee...

Or hemophiliacs...

Or children in Guatemala...

Or the media, with regards to the Gulf of Tonkin...

Or the creation of the Taliban...

Or Agent Orange-created cancer in Viet Nam vets...

Or the fact that autism among the children of US servicemen is nearly 10 times the national average...

Or the fact that the State Department flew special charter flights the day after 911 to evacuate the Bin Laden family members who were in the US...

Or that the guy who was accused of bombing the WTC the first time had his bomb built by FBI bomb-making specialists...

Or with regards to the safety of the air at Ground Zero, as tested by the EPA and OSHA...

Or the widows and orphans of US Service members who have had their death benefits stolen by Prudential...

Or Serbian children who were kidnapped, transported across international boundries, and sold into sexual slavery to UN officials and corporate execs by Halliburton and Dyncorp...

Or Border Patrol agents who are shot with guns that were supplied to the Mexican drug Cartels by OUR OWN GOVERNMENT...

You left out;

MK-UlTRA, Operation Midnight Climax, the testing of mustard gas on US Servicemen, spraying Whooping Cough in Tampa Bay, spraying Bacterial agents in San Fransisco, injecting hospital patients with plutonium and uranium, and exposing prisoners to large amounts of Agent Orange.

There are of course many many others. And this is just the stuff that is released to the public record.

Dreamer said:
I'm pretty sure that, in light of where our "government" has gone in the last 100 years, if we hooked an alternator to Jefferson's grave, we could power the entire east cost of Virginia with it...

Just so you now I am stealing this line.

jbone · Mar 22, 2011

since9 said:
Apparently, the pilot demonstrated that TSA's security isn't iron-clad. I don't think that's much of a surprise to anyone with half a brain.

However, plastering the details of those gaps in security all over the Internet where anyone with an axe to grind, was about seven cylinder's shy of a V8, and I'm not referring to the vegetable drink.

Photography of Air Force flight lines has been verbotten since I first signed up, as has the military dissemination to the enemy of battle plans, estimates of troop strengths and weaknesses, and details of a base's perimeter security.

How in the world is this any different? Seriously, folks - would any of you post your address on Twitter or Facebook along with your two-week vacation plans and the fact that you've been meaning to fix your home alarm, but never got around to it?

"Loose lips sink ships," and that's directly applicable in this situation.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I will add, don't cross the "Blue Line".

marshaul · Mar 22, 2011

jbone said:
I will add, don't cross the "Blue Line".

What does this have to do with the TSA?

jbone · Mar 22, 2011

Nothing, why you ask!

Pilot punished for YouTube video, photography is illegal

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member