Comments on: Mile High Couple Cited Under PATRIOT Act

By: Darla Nash

Darla Nash — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:17:08 +0000

I support Dawn and my brother. Things are not as they seem. Most of the head liners and stories I've read are just ridiculous. Sex on a major airline? What ever! It seems that the steward may have over abused his power and was unable to recognize a threat of speaking to his supervisor, not a threat to harm him. My brother is as harmless as a stuffed teddy bear. Love you bro.

By: Dawn Sewell

Dawn Sewell — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:31:58 +0000

Just to point out at how opinions can be reached without all of the information: The flight attendant (or glorified cocktail waitress as some of you are saying) is not a "she" FA1 is a "he". There are a lot of allegations being made, most untrue. The truth will come out in court. My attorneys have advised me not to talk about it until then, but just remember, things are not always what they seem. And Andrea, I share your concern. If someone can be kicked off a plane for praying or breast feeding, you never know what could happen next.

By: andrea

andrea — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:22:26 +0000

Well, from what I've read ALL over the internet, I am now completely scared to have my little girl sleep in her Mama's lap due to the fact I might be charged with child abuse if I, god forbid, "Smile". Give me a break!!!
To the passengers that complained.... GET over your little selves, read your book, watch the movie or just ignore the couple sleeping on eachother in the next row.....Oh wait the woman accused was smiling so I guess that is grounds for a major complaint! NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET A LIFE people.

By: legion

legion — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:47:19 +0000

I'm with you & Steven, anderson - given that they're not apparently being treated as terrorists, I no longer have any issue at all with how this went.

That Rumsfeld image tho - EWWW! I need brain cleaner now...

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:55:41 +0000

I forgot to comment on my 100% agreement with Mr. Plunk in this thread, which I hope inaugurates a new era of peace and understanding. Just so long as Rumsfeld doesn't do any vaginal nuzzling mid-flight.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:53:45 +0000

Kerr link. Now, if they want to make it a terrorist act to bray into one's cell phone in public, I might be better disposed to the PATRIOT Act.

By: Steven Plunk

Steven Plunk — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:19:28 +0000

I should have said are NOT being brought under the Patriot act. Sorry.

By: just me

just me — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:55:12 +0000

I might have more empathy for the couple, if there wasn't the threat, but I don't care what law the charges are being brought under, threatening a flight attendent shouldn't be a consequence free speech.

Should they go to jail for 20 years? Nope, not even sure if i this case jail is warranted, but I don't think threats should go unpunished either.

I am not sure that I care much what legislation the charges are being brought under, if there is a law that says it is illegal to threaten a flight attendant, then you don't threaten flight attendants. I wonder if the threats about bombs in the airport security line are also now under the Patriot act-although that law has been around far longer than 9-11, I have a feeling they probably are.

By: Steven Plunk

Steven Plunk — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:28:09 +0000

A quick update. According to Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy Blog the charges are being brought under any portion of the Patriot act.

We now know clearly that this is not anti-terrorism legislation gone haywire.

By: Jaibones

Jaibones — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:06:30 +0000

Terrorism, my ass. This is nothing that a $50,000 fine won't cure. They need to quit screaming Wolf! and leave the Patriot Act (and RICO, etc.) for their intended purposes.

Having sex on a commercial air flight was never a good idea, even before the Patriot Act. Deal with it.

By: Steven Plunk

Steven Plunk — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:30:36 +0000

Charges are brought by prosecutors and then the judge and jury get the case. The appropriate legal process has been followed. Any citizen has a right to object to inappropriate behavior, this glorified cocktail waitress is also responsible for the safety of the passengers and with that responsibility comes the power to maintain order in the cabin.

They are not being charged as terrorists. They are being charged with specific crimes that happen to be included in the Patriot act. Airline safety and Airport security measures were included in the act but to say these people are being charged as terrorists is silly. It's also silly to equate this with freedom of speech, they didn't follow the instructions of the flight attendant and created their own trouble. I see no constitutional right to be a jerk when it is contrary to the law which in this case it was.

I have no idea if they will ever be able to fly "unmolested" again. I would think that is not the case. However, perhaps they should not fly until they grow up at least.

By: Links… « 4&20 blackbirds

Links… « 4&20 blackbirds — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:27:46 +0000

[...] Meanwhile the Patriot Act was used to bust a “mile-high club” contending couple. Inappropriate, yes, but terrorism? [...]

By: Boyd

Boyd — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:19:09 +0000

rim-shot for Anderson

Good one, dude!

By: Anderson

Anderson — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:28:49 +0000

That means, in case you’ve forgotten, that even if they’re not convicted, they’ll never be able to fly unmolested again.

It seems like the lady was having trouble flying unmolested in the 1st place.

By: frank

frank — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:27:39 +0000

Seems plausible that the threat was non violent in nature, after all how many times have we asked to speak to a supervisor when we are not pleased with service or employee attitude. Obviously, most of the times the servants have no recourse and have to swallow their pride and get their boss.
In this case, the accused used, perhaps, inappropriate language to make his "request". Taking advantage of both his mistake and the absurdities of our times, this servant used his words as ammunition for her defense and counterattack. Indeed, this case should be thrown out. The BS this guy is getting should be enough penalty for his poor choice of words.
To Mr. Plunk, I sincerely hope you don't believe the comments that you write. They are an embarrassment to our nation, to the police, and should be to yourself. Most policemen are professionals, and would certainly study a situation before "ruff and cuff", and to compare an air waitress to a police man is short sighted.