NDAA Critic Stranded In Hawaii After Turning Up On No-fly List

[DeSwiss]

Source: RT

17 October, 2012, 20:15



Wade Hicks was en route to a US Navy base in Japan to see his wife when armed military guards informed him that they had other plans. Hicks, an American citizen with no criminal record, had just been put added to a federal no-fly list.

After being escorted off his plane during a routine re-fueling stop on the Pacific Island of Oahu, Hicks, 34, was left stranded in Hawaii this week. In an interview, he suggests that his opposition to a newly-created law that allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens at military prisons without charge or trial could be to blame for his mistreatment.

"I was very, very vocal about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and I did contact my representative” about it, Hicks tells talk show host Doug Hagmann. "I do believe that this is tied in some way to my free speech and my political view."

According to Hicks, he has little reason to believe otherwise. He tells Hagmann that he formerly worked as a contractor for the US Department of Defense and has undergone extensive background checks in order to obtain an enhanced license that allows him to carry a concealed firearm. Hicks says he also holds on to a special identification card issued by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the US Homeland Security Department sub-agency that administers pat-downs and screenings at airports across the country. An investigation carried out by Hagmann has led him to locating no criminal history for the man whatsoever.


Read more: http://rt.com/usa/news/no-fly-hicks-us-military-650/

---

[freshwest]

1. That picture is false advertising. He was left in Paradise, not flown to Purgatory.

[DeSwiss]

7. If you don't want to be in ''paradise''.....

...it can be purgatory. Or, hell

[freshwest]

26. Being inconvenienced is neither purgatory nor hell. Just sayin'

[PavePusher]

194. Wow. Just... wow. Being stranded thousands of miles from home and family is "inconvenienced"?

Being treated as a terrorist without evidence is "being inconvenienced"?

Being forced to prove your innocence (when it is, in the very founding principals of our Republic, the duty of the government to prove guilt), "being inconvenienced"?


Fuck. That. Vile. Noise.

[freshwest]

198. 'Fuck. That. Vile. Noise.' that I said that you didn't like. Did you read further down the thread?

Last edited Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:31 PM - Edit history (2)

Before you tell me I'm vile, or to fuck myself, read the noise on this guy's website:

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/

Do you think the people in charge of the plane might have been thinking about these innocent Americans when they did this horrible thing?

And he was not taken into custody to die in GITMO, as the OP promises, which is what this is really getting down to, isn't it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021223239

[JackRiddler]

74. Shame on you. Apologizing for a police state.

Maybe next time you travel you too can be evicted from your flight at a stop half an ocean away from your destination, on some nice island. What a paradise that will be for you! Of course, you may think there's no such danger for those who make absurd apologies for police states.

[msanthrope]

89. It was a military flight. What rights did he have to fly a military flight after he lost his

security clearances AND runs a website depicting the CIC as burning the Constitution--among other atrocities???

Birther Preppers nutbags??? They have a RIGHT to fly on a military flight?

[freshwest]

115. How about armed Birther Prepper nutbags? Just like everyone else, right?

[sabrina 1]

121. The same right any military spouse has. And why did he lose his clearances?

Did he lose them for political speech?

The military is not a separate government. The founders took great care to ensure that this would not become a country that was run by the military. The military is answerable to the US Government, to the CIC, to Congress.

Every member of the Military as well as every elected official take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. That is their primary duty.

If people can 'say what they want' but expect retaliation from the Government or the Military, then we do not need a Constitution. Everyone in every country in the world can do that.

But here, we are told that political speech is protected. Is it or is not?

[msanthrope]

128. See post 125. nt

[freshwest]

114. My post was not apology, you owe me one, but I won't hold my breath. Read the sign in the OP.

Last edited Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:53 PM - Edit history (2)

It says NDAA = GITMO for Everyone. Did it happen? No, it didn't, so it wasn't true.

Was he punished for exercising free speech or for encouraging the loons who want to kill Obama on his website? Is that hate speech, incitement to kill, or fine with everyone as the rigbtwingers say?

The story and picture are out of line to the event, feeding on CT fears. The military has different rules and he knew that. The story reeks of Tea hysteria. It doesn't give much in the way of facts, just goes whole hog on CT.

Where were the baggers when Bush and the GOP passed the Patriot Act, started up the TSA, and passed the continuing NDAAs of the past?

Nowhere until an upstart (in their special world view) got into the White House. Since then we've been treated to birtherism, Islamophobia, Police State charges on everything, as if something is going on that hasn't gone on before. This guy is an associate of Alex Jones and the patriot extremists. A short list of his films:

Police State I, II, etc, Terror Storm, End Game, The Obama Deception. And this guy was armed. A group of armed guys killed some people in their attempt to kill Obama, overthrow the government, take over an army base to start a resurrection, etc. :

Juan Cole on the white terrorist plot to assassinate the Commander in Chief

If one of them were named Mohammed, we'd be hearing a lot more about this.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13166-white-terrorist-plot-to-assassinate-the-commander-in-chief

A white terrorist cell on a military base in Georgia plotted to assassinate President Barack Obama and stage a military coup. It murdered two former members of the cell. It bought $87,000 of military grade weaponry and land in Washington state. It planned to bomb a dam in Washington and poison its apple crop. It planned to take over Fort Stewart in Georgia.

The National Security Agency is massively and illegally spying on ordinary Americans. Peace activists are bothered by police and put on watch lists. Journalists like Amy Goodman have been beaten up for covering peaceful protests. The NYPD conducted extensive espionage on American citizens of Muslim heritage not only in NYC but far beyond their jurisdiction. Rep. Peter King of New York keeps holding hearings on the alleged radicalization of American Muslims (who are mostly pillars of the American establishment; King himself supports IRA terrorism).

But extremist white Christian soldiers want to kill the president and privately stockhold thousands of dollars worth of military grade weapons? Apparently if they hadn't started murdering people they could have flown under the radar on all that.

All those right wing politicians and commentators who kept hammering Obama as a foreigner, a Muslim, illegitimate, a budding dictator– they created the hothouse atmosphere that fostered this kind of evil.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021223239

See what hothouse this guy was heating up here:

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/

People here can excuse the Obama hatred, but the fact is others have fallen victim to Tea terrorism that are much lower on the totem pole. Need I cite the examples to show why perhaps the military had other reasons other than this restricting this innocent lamb from flying with them?

The Jonesers and baggers have a goal that is against the purposes of DU. Not progressive, not liberal, not Democratic. In fact, against all of that. The end result of their agitation and fearmongering is libertarian paradise, no police, fire department, taxes, military, no government, just the big bigots with money and no respect running the show in a Christofascist nightmare for millions, but the dream of the Koch family.

I don't see this crowd he's a part of, located down in Texas, getting worked up about equal rights for all, a woman's right to choose, redefining rape, forcing women to consent to visitations of their chidren by rapists as is now legal in 27 states, telling them to stay at home with abusive spouses, transvaginal ultrasounds, etc.

They approve of banning all abortion, even at the cost of the mother's life. They want government, regulations, laws against discrimination. all of it swept away. So their much ballyhooed view of civil rights and authoritarianism don't move me.

When they start to care about the people I do, who are in the gunsights of these promoters of Teaparty values and shutting down others' right to speak, as they have done since the ACA was proposed, and at gunpoint and with acts of terror against citizens, I'll worry about their concerns, because they don't give a damn about mine.

[msanthrope]

85. He was on a military flight, no less. The military does not have to fly an asshole who

lost his clearances, and shows their Commander in Chief burning the Constitution on his website.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50309

[sabrina 1]

124. His wife is in the military. So you want him punished by depriving him of privileges all military

spouses are provided with because of his political views.

What if his wife dies as so many thousands of our troops have, if she is deployed to one of our various war zones? What will our Government say to him then? 'We support our troops, thank you for your sacrifice but sorry, we had to take away your privileges to go see your spouse, who is a HERO WHO DIED FOR OUR FREEDOMS because we didn't like your political views!

The military has no right to punish anyone for their political speech. What a scary thought that is.

I am having a hard time with your logic here: 'You have the right to say whatever you want, but we will retaliate against you if we don't like what you say'. So iow, we don't need a Constitution or a 1st Amendment since every living soul on the face of the earth has the exact same right.




Another 'scumbag' who insulted the POTUS who should also lose any privileges s/he has to go visit their spouse in the military. The military doesn't have to cart his/her ass around either on a military plane and any security clearances s/he had should be removed.

Well, not in my opinion. I would have been up in arms if this had happened to him/her or anyone else who chose to express their political views this way.

[ekb]

156. I am the "asshole's" wife...

Sir or ma'am,

I would ask you to get your facts straight before committing libel against my husband. He has never lost his clearances. He has never committed a crime, he has never had a felony, he is under no investigation, and he certainly does not have a webpage that depicts the CIC burning the constitution. His story has spread to so many places as of now that I cannot verify if any of those sites have taken the story and run with it, and those sites might depict some such idea, but it has not come from my husband.

As for this Military flight issue. If you research Space Available flights, you will see that spouses are allowed to travel when there is room and no other passengers with higher priority are available. I had a special letter drafted for him, which is standard procedure for military who are deploying.

Here are the FACTS of the case from the wife of the man who when through it. (I speak as a private citizen and do not represent the military or the U.S. Government)

My husband believes in the constitution and people's rights. He has recently passed an FBI background investigation to obtain a concealed carry permit. He was robbed at gun point last year and has since decided it would be better if he could defend himself. he was not carrying on the plane. He boarded in San Francisco like any other normal person with his only intent to come visit me. in Honolulu he was detained for 4 days calling congressmen, the press and anyone else we could think of because they would not let him leave. If you would like this to happen to you then ignore his story and continue to call him an asshole... I do periodically but I'm his wife. I'm supposed to

[msanthrope]

158. If you are that asshole's wife, then I can only congratulate you, Lieutenant, on your

choice of groom. You've married a birther/prepper, a man who proudly depicts your Commander in Chief as someone destroying the Constitution:

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/

Your husband no longer has his DoD clearances, and you know that. That he managed to get a CCW in a red state isn't exactly proof that he's not nuttier than squirrel poo.

Good luck in your Naval career.

FYI--this is a site for Democrats. So I guess you are voting for Barack Obama?

[brooklynite]

163. 1 Post?

What amazing timing...

[struggle4progress]

2. This dude is a 9/11 truther and Tea Party activist in Mississippi. Far-rightwing sources

Last edited Wed Oct 17, 2012, 11:15 PM - Edit history (1)

are pushing this story and claiming it's how Obama treats his opponents

Personally, I think I'll want a much better source than the Russian government propaganda site before I have much of any opinion about these claims, one way or the other

[sabrina 1]

9. And what do his political views have to do with this? Is it a crime now to have political views

that are not on some 'approved' list?

Are you supporting putting anyone who does not agree with your political views on the infamous No Fly List?

[msanthrope]

65. I absolutely support putting people on the No-Fly based on their beliefs. I'd have started with the

19 hijackers. Richard Reid, Anwar Aw-laki, Luis Carriles--all dudes who should not be on a plane, based on their beliefs, no?

[Nihil]

69. Wow ...

> I absolutely support putting people on the No-Fly based on their beliefs. I'd have started with the
> 19 hijackers. Richard Reid, Anwar Aw-laki, Luis Carriles--all dudes who should not be on a plane, based on their beliefs, no?

Didn't realise we had a sales rep for White Christian All-American Airlines on board!

[msanthrope]

81. I have no doubt Luis Carriles claims to be a Christian. But I'd gladly add

Tim McVeigh to that list, or Eric Robert Rudolph. What say you?

[Nihil]

93. I'd say I'm glad you're not in a position of power ...

... given your apparent paranoia and irrational criteria for "banning people from flying" according
to your perception of their beliefs - especially now that you appear to be defending said paranoia
by picking out weird murderous individuals who share practically nothing in common until they
actually killed someone ... I suspect that Msanthrope Airways would have an awful lot of empty seats ...

[msanthrope]

94. Tell me, please, why a military flight must carry a person who has lost his

security clearances, and who depicts the CIC as burning the Constitution?

What right does he have to fly on a military flight???? Or did you forget that little detail?

[Nihil]

155. Read my first post on this thread and your post to which it applied.

I am not defending the person in the OP article.

I am merely appalled that a long-time DUer openly states that you see absolutely nothing
wrong with - and actively support - preventing people from flying without any reason
whatsoever other than your interpretation (through paranoia) of their beliefs.

I don't give a flying fuck about a person being kicked off a military flight if he has
no right to be on it.

I do care about arbitrary, inconsistent and totally irrational rules (e.g., the "no-fly list&quot
being applied to members of the public.

But, like I said in my previous reply, I'm just glad that you are not in a position
of authority.

[msanthrope]

157. Well, yes, you are defending this man. It's not my fault you didn't avail yourself

of the pertinent facts that 1) this was a military flight, 2) there's no evidence he's on the actual commercial No-Fly list, and 3) he's a Prepper/Birther nutbag.

As for people being kept from flying because of their beliefs, well, YES. Think about it--you wanna be on a plane with some freak who thinks they are going to better afterlife if they bring an airliner down?

You wanna be on a plane with someone who thinks Eric Robert Rudolph had the right idea of how to handle disputes with the government?

I agree with the ACLU in Latif v. Holder--citizens should have a transparent process to challenge their designation. But I won't deny the government the right to make a No-Fly.

[Nihil]

202. If you knew how to read, you wouldn't have written that reply.

Accepting that random people should be kept from flying because of one individual's interpretation
of "their beliefs" is totally opposite to being either "progressive" or "liberal" but totally consistent with
being a fascist authoritarian bastard.

You view this as acceptable.

That is your right as an individual.

Don't expect people who fight fascism to be supportive of your view.

[sabrina 1]

70. Are you comparing terrorist suspects to Americans who belong to the Republican Party or the

Libertarian Party? They should be put on the No Fly List simply because they are not Democrats?

Then again, that seems to be the policies we live under in today's US of America. During the Bush administration a member of the Green Party was put on the no fly list. An author of a book not complimentary to Karl Rove and Bush was put on the List.

I guess you were okay with that then. Green Party members were obviously considered to be very threatening by the Bush administration.

So now you think Republicans and Libertarians are equally threatening.

Well at least we Democrats are safe for the next four years, but what if a Republican gets into the WH in 2016?

[msanthrope]

82. No, I'm comparing terrorists to a kook no military flight should have to countenance.

I find it interesting that you've conveniently forgotten to mention that he was on a military flight.

One look at his web page might indicate to you that the military is not obliged to carry people who depict the Commander in Chief burning the Constitution.

Guess he'll have to pay full freight, then.

[sabrina 1]

96. He's a kook ...

Should all kooks be on the No Fly List?

Is what he did a crime?

Or was it political speech protected by the Constitution?




How many Progressives depicted Bush burning the Constitution? Should they all have been on the No Fly List also? There were a few, Green Party member, author of Bush's Brain who landed on the List. And we were outraged.

Was that outrage about principles, about protecting even speech we vehemently disagree with?

Or was it just situational?

[msanthrope]

104. Speech is protected. Military flights subsidized by the taxpayers are not. nt

[sabrina 1]

108. And when critics of Bush landed on the No Fly List you no doubt fully supported

them being punished for their political views?






They could say what they want, but they should have been on the No Fly List and refused the privileges normally granted to spouses of military members.

Was that your position back then also?

[msanthrope]

113. Explain to me how this dude is owed a tax-payer subsidized military flight? Because he

hasn't produced a shred of proof that he's actually on a No-Fly--merely that the military wasn't interested in his shit.

So we will see how he gets off of Hawaii.

[sabrina 1]

118. That did not address my question. Never mind 'this dude'. You stated that

the Government should not be 'carting his ass around' even though he has that privilege due to his wife's military service.

I asked if you felt the same way about people who depicted Bush this way:



It's a simple question. Did this artist deserve retaliation from the military/government for that depiction of Bush?

[msanthrope]

126. see post 125. nt

[sabrina 1]

132. I saw it, it doesn't answer the question.

Same kind of political speech. It's a very simple question. Should this artist have been punished by being put on a No Fly List, and/or had his military spousal privileges removed as punishment for his/her political speech?

[PavePusher]

195. Military flights for dependents are not regulated by political beliefs, nor should they be...

unless one is calling for violence.

Is this man calling for violence?

[LanternWaste]

83. Mere thoughts should indeed, prevent and deny people from many things, including flight

Mere thoughts should indeed, prevent and deny people from many things, including flight... and although that's quite the dogmatic religious view that I may disagree with, I can certainly understand why so many people are in fact, afraid of the thoughts of others.

[msanthrope]

91. This was a military flight. If you depict the CIC burning the Constiution, host a website calling

for armed insurection in its forums, and are a nutbag Birther/Prepper, who has lost their security clearances, then perhaps you should not be too surprised when the MILITARY doesn't want to carry your ass.

[LanternWaste]

100. You appear to be adding additional qualifiers to your original premise of mere thought.

You appear to be adding additional qualifiers to your original premise of mere thought being enough to refuse a flight. Hosting a web site, depicting the CIC burning the Constitution, etc, are far beyond mere thought...

And tpo be honest, I'm not to worried about the intersection of the MILITARY and my ass...

[msanthrope]

105. LA--how do we know thoughts? Through speech and action. I'm not a mind reader. But if

someone is stupid enough to express a thought like "blowing up airliners is a great idea," well, I would say that the expression of that thought is enough to put you on the No-Fly.

Military flights subsidized by the taxpayers are not a right.

[markpkessinger]

197. Then you are no different from Joe McCarthy n/t

[struggle4progress]

67. You don't read carefully or well. Let me repeat what I said: "I'll want a much better source

than the Russian government propaganda site before I have much of any opinion about these claims, one way or the other"

[sabrina 1]

71. RT is more far more reputable than CNN, Fox and most of our Corporate run 'news' organizations

here. I have not yet seen a false news story reported on RT. Nor have I seen them use morons like Ann Coulter as 'political experts' as our MSM has done. Nor seen them turn to Glenn Beck as a person worthy of handing a political talk to as CNN has. Or treat Andrew Breitbart or James O'Keefe as if they were trustworthy individuals as our Corporate media has.

RT is definitely NOT a 'Russian government propaganda site' and there are only two reasons why someone would make such a ridiculous statement. I'm assuming, since that statement is SO ridiculous, that you have never watched them.

We have a DU member here who has appeared on RT's excellent show Crosstalk. I have asked him if he has ever been influenced by anyone as to what he could say or instructed by anyone not to talk about any subject. He has stated that he has said whatever he wanted to say with no influence from anyone whenever he appeared on RT.

I wish we could say the same for our own Corporate controlled media.

If this story turned out to be false, RT will make a correction. I don't doubt the story. Members of the Green Party, authors, political activists, all have ended up on that vile list. Nothing surprises people anymore.

[struggle4progress]

73. Allow me to explain to you just how far you've wandered into the land of fruitcakes and mixed nuts

The US is a very large country, with hundreds of millions of citizens, who do not all agree with each other. If -- as lying fuckwad rightwinger Wade Hicks claims -- a US government refused to let folk in the US fly because they belonged to the Tea Party or because they held a concealed carry permit or because they opposed the NDAA or for any similar reason, then millions of people could be organized to oppose that policy and that government. The conservative media would be delighted, and most media sources would treat it as a major story. You could get many many folk in Congress to take a stand against such policy. In fact, if there were such a policy, we wouldn't only hear about it from Wade Hicks -- because, frankly, nobody but nobody really gives much of a rat's ass whether Wade Hicks of Gulfport, Mississippi, belongs to the Tea Party or holds a concealed carry permit or opposes the NDAA

You're welcome to go take your stand with the wackos and looney-tunes and anti-Obama propagandists at Russia Today. But don't expect many people to follow you there

[sabrina 1]

80. Your nasty persoal attacks mean nothing to me, so I will not alert on them but rather let them

stand for all to see.

As for the rest of your comment, all I can say is 'where have you been?

a(1) US government refused to let folk in the US fly because they belonged to the Tea Party or because they held a concealed carry permit or because they opposed the NDAA or for any similar reason, then millions of people could be organized to oppose that policy and that government. The conservative media would be delighted, and most media sources would treat it as a major story..... (2)You could get many many folk in Congress to take a stand against such policy. In fact, 3) if there were such a policy, we wouldn't only hear about it from Wade Hicks -- because, frankly, nobody but nobody really gives much of a rat's ass whether Wade Hicks of Gulfport, Mississippi, belongs to the Tea Party or holds a concealed carry permit or opposes the NDAA

1) How about The Green Party? Do you think that the US Government did not put a member of the Green Party on that vile list?? Let me know, I have some links for you.

2) Really? Please explain to us how we get Congress to do something about it? The LEFT always opposed it, and yes, they, me, all of us DID BEG Congress to do something about it, so what happened? Show me Congress' response to the public's demands to end that vile Bush policy. Congress would do something about it??

You have got to be kidding.

3) IF there were such a policy??? Let me ask you something. What were you doing during the Bush years? Is that a serious statement? IF there were such a policy???

I think it's time to raise this issue once again as it appears some on the Left have either developed amnesia regarding US Government policy on that List and who was on it, or they were MIA for eight years for some reason.

[msanthrope]

86. Get this--Wade Hicks was on a military flight--imagine that!!! The parasite is wondering

why he can't get a cut-rate military flight after he lost his clearances and depicts the Commander in Chief burning a Constitution on his website.

[sabrina 1]

99. And?? Apparently his wife is in the military. I will ask again. Since when did political speech

become a threat to this democracy?

[msanthrope]

102. You can say what you wish. But speech is not without consequences. nt

[sabrina 1]

109. Was this your position for Progressives

who depicted Bush burning and/or shredding the Constitution?



So your reading of the 1st Amendment is that the Government CAN retaliate against people if they are foolish enough to believe that they are protected by the 1st Amendment?

But since we are told that Political Speech is protected, we do not expect to be punished for it, do we? How is that free speech if the Government can still punish people for what they say? The 1st Amendment was to protect people from retaliation from their Government, was it not?

[msanthrope]

112. Explain to me how a taxpayer subsidized military flight is protected under the Constitution? nt

Last edited Thu Oct 18, 2012, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)

[sabrina 1]

117. I asked you a question first. I will answer yours when you answer mine.

[msanthrope]

125. Your question is flawed because you conflate rights with privileges. Further,

you seem to ask your questions based on an unproven premise that there is a right to subsidized military flights by spouses.

So please clarify your question. Are you saying that this flight is a right or a privilege?

[sabrina 1]

131. My question is pretty straightforward. If the Government punishes someone for

expressing their political opinions by removing a privilege that is not removed from those who keep their opinions to themselves, that is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights.

Oppressive Governments make the same argument. They can speak if they like, but then there will be consequences.

Their citizens now have, according to your interpretation of free speech, the exact same 'rights' that Americans, despite their so-called Constitutional protections, have. 'Be quiet or we will take away your privileges'. A chilling message in any society.

This notion that your political speech is only protected so long as you don't use it, is pure nonsense. It puts this country on a par with countries that have no protections. And we should just stop pretending that we have any rights. We don't. Other than the right to get hurt.

[msanthrope]

134. No--your question is flawed. You are conflating a right with a privilege. Mr. Hicks retains his

1st Amendment right to say what he pleases. He does not retain the privilege of a taxpayer-subsidized military flight. We have free speech in this country, but we do not escape the consequences of speech.

The military does not want Birther/Prepper nutbags on their planes. Article 1, Section 8 allows the military to decide those kinds of things. I don't have a problem with that.


What you seem to be trying to argue is Equal Protection. I assure you though, that Justice Ginsburg would hardly think this is the next Frontiero.

[sabrina 1]

137. Amazing. Here let me try to make it as simple as possible.

Should the guy who made this cartoon about the former CIC



be treated the same way, have his privileges such as being 'carted around by the Government' to visit his military spouse, removed as punishment for insulting the CIC?

Did YOU make the same argument to punish all those who did the same thing back then?

Please stop trying to avoid answering the question. It could not be more simple.

[msanthrope]

139. Are you asserting that a taxpayer subsidized military flight is a right? Or a privilege? nt

[sabrina 1]

141. Should a person be punished by the military by removing their PRIVILEGES because of their

political views? I am asserting NOTHING, I am trying hard to find out if YOU believe that all citizens, regardless of their political positions, should be punished for their political views.

[msanthrope]

143. Okay--so this is a privilege, right? Do you have an actual case of someone from the Bush era, or is

this speculation?

[sabrina 1]

162. Is flying on commercial airlines a right or a privilege?

[msanthrope]

168. Travel is a right; flying on commercial airlines is a privilege subject to rules.

Wanna answer my question now?

[sabrina 1]

170. You haven't answered a single one of my very simple questions so far.

Since you believe that a person who has never committed a crime can be discriminated against simply because of their Political Views, kept off military and commercial flights at the whim of whoever makes the decision, now maybe you can finally answer my question.

Did you support eg, the placing on the No Fly List of James Moore, author of 'Bush's Brain'?

James Moore Branded

This week last year I was preparing for a trip to Ohio to conduct interviews and research for a new book I was writing. My airline tickets had been purchased on line and the morning of departure I went to the Internet to print out my boarding pass. I got a message that said, "Not Allowed." Several subsequent tries failed. Surely, I thought, it's just a glitch within the airline's servers or software.

I made it a point to arrive very early at the airport. My reservation was confirmed before I left home. I went to the electronic kiosk and punched in my confirmation number to print out my boarding pass and luggage tags. Another error message appeared, "Please see agent."

I did. She took my Texas driver's license and punched in the relevant information to her computer system.

"I'm sorry, sir," she said. "There seems to be a problem. You've been placed on the No Fly Watch List."

[msanthrope]

173. Um--just answered the question you posted in 162. Apparently you do not like that answer and are on

to something else.

I hope that Mr. Moore has the same luck that Mr. Hicks had-- the man you are so worried about defending isn't on the No-Fly list anymore, and is flying to California.

Which leads me to think that the original story was absolute rightwing bullshit---note there's not a single source other than Hicks regarding this.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/u-s-military-dependent-detained-and-put-on-no-fly-list-by-customs-enforcement-is-now-free-to-fly/123

Parlock. You'd think this board could spot a Parlock by now.

[sabrina 1]

183. And once again, you do not answer the question.

Two days of avoiding answering a very simple question. This is not about Mr. Hicks or Mr. Moore and you know it. It is about the right to NOT be harassed, punished, jailed, put on a No Fly List, have any privileges removed because your political views are not acceptable to the Government.

What I have learned from these exchanges with you, is that you personalize the issue. You don't like Mr. Hicks' views, so you repeadedly state that it is okay to remove privileges from him, even the privileges awarded to all military spouses, because of his political views. You had no problem stating that strongly.

But when it came to Mr. Moore, you never responded to my question which was 'did you support Mr. Moore being on the No Fly List because he too insulted a CIC?' No response. I got the answer though.

My position is the same as the FF's. You'll find it in their writings and in the Constitution. There is no 'but' or 'if' in the 1st Amendment. No talk of punishment for political speech. No matter how much you don't like what someone is saying.

You also were wrong in your opinion that IF Mr. Hicks was not allowed on that flight, the Military had a right to do so. NOT according to the statement issued today.

[msanthrope]

184. Sabrina, I think you got Parlocked.

Always enjoyable, meeting the Strawmen you employ.

[sabrina 1]

188. What I didn't get was an answer to a simple question even though I very patiently tried for more

than two days. When someone cannot answer a simple question, I ask myself, 'why'. And after providing every opportunity to prove me wrong, I had to conclude that my first impression was correct.

But you can't say I didn't give you every chance to prove me wrong.

I hope some day everyone will see the danger to all of our rights when we deny them to anyone.

[Dokkie]

193. taken to its logical conclusion

a govt will be in the right if it refused public assistant (e.g. food stamp) to a poor family who voices their displeasure with the govt. Reich?

[Dokkie]

191. You say tax payers provided flight

like a right winger complaining about a needy person collecting food stamp. Check yourself m8, you are slowing turning into that which you hate

[jberryhill]

201. The military prohibits expressions of disrespect for the CiC

...and have no obligation to provide transportation for someone who does.

[JackRiddler]

76. Incredible, isn't it?

Voice of Russia, beamed behind the new corporate iron curtain.

[sabrina 1]

97. Yes, incredible the reaction to any kind of free press in this country. I remember the hatred

Bush's fans had for Al Jazeera because they published facts about his wars. They did not want any facts filtering through to the American people and they demonized that News Organization demanding that it be banned from this country. And they got their way.

How about instead of banning news organizations, we get rid of all of Bush's policies? Whoever does that will be the most popular human being in the world!

[snooper2]

120. No, but it's intuitive to know he's a fucking loon and believes in crazy shit..

much more likely to make up a story like this, or his "thoughts" one why he wasn't allowed to fly...

More hits to my loony website!

[alarimer]

133. I agree with you.

This is an atrocious way to treat a critic, no matter how wrong they might be. If this happened under the Bush Administration, we would be howling with outrage. Just goes to show how hypocritical Democrats and liberals are when it's their ox being gored.

[JackRiddler]

75. Hang the heretic!

[struggle4progress]

129. That's not what I've said: I've said I don't trust him and don't believe his story

The story is being pushed by wingnuts, whose credibility is questionable at best

[struggle4progress]

3. Douglas Hagmann BTW is another rightwinger, whose views are promoted by Alex Jones

and Canada Free Press

[loop204]

5. indeed...

RT is in the same league as Infowars and the so called Antiwar.com.

[sabrina 1]

10. No, it's not. RT is one of the best Progressive news organizations

available with a broad array of viewpoints, spanning the political spectrum but with a definite 'liberal bias'.

Aside from that, what do this man's political views have to do with who is reporting this story, or how he came, as a non-criminal (unless you think that holding political views you do not agree with is now a crime?) to be on Bush's long opposed by the Left, infamous No Fly List?

[dipsydoodle]

63. That's not true.

I'd suggest you real all of their news.

RT has over 2 million viewers in the United Kingdom[9] and has rivaled Al Jazeera as the most popular English-speaking foreign channel in Britain.[10] RT America is available to 50 million people in the United States[9] and is the second most-watched foreign news channel after BBC News.[11] It is the number one foreign station in five U.S. urban areas.[12] According to Pew Research, RT is the number one source for the most popular news videos on YouTube.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29

[sabrina 1]

111. Thank you for posting actual facts.

RT America is available to 50 million people in the United States and is the second most-watched foreign news channel after BBC News. It is the number one foreign station in five U.S. urban areas.

And I would be willing to bet that most of that 50 million people are Progressive Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

15. And again, what does any of that have to do with an American Citizen being put on Bush's

infamous No Fly List? Are you saying that because you do not agree with his political views he should be listed as a terrorist?

I sure hope that's not what you are saying.

[struggle4progress]

66. Listen carefully: I think his tale might be untrue. Let me say that a few more ways:

Last edited Thu Oct 18, 2012, 09:36 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm not obliged to believe everything the Russian government propaganda channel tells me

I don't listen to conspiracy-minded whackjobs like Alex Jones

Since there's no standard media coverage here, I won't take at face value this rightwing nutcase story -- which is pushing the idea that the government persecutes Tea Party activists and concealed-carry-permit holders

[loop204]

4. RT in NOT a credible news source

I've been lurking since DU started and have finally signed up because of the number of links I've seen to RT.
RT - Russia Today is a propaganda tool for Vladimir Putin and the Kremlim and most of what they write should be taken with a pillar of salt.
Notice how they never link to any credible sources, or when they do, it's a link to another Onion style article within RT -- never any reputable external news sources. It's a conspiracy theory cesspool which makes it harder to address real issues.

Cheers...

[sabrina 1]

11. RT is one of the MOST credible news sources on TV. Unless you don't like

to hear voices from the 'left' such as Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Pepe Escobar et al. It definitely has a 'liberal bias' so I can see why the Right hates it. But it is now one of my main sources of news together with other more credible news sources than our Corporate owned MSM where you do not get news anymore.

And again, regardless of any of this, are you actually supporting putting an American citizen who has done nothing wrong on Bush's infamous No Fly List (which last I checked EVERYONE on the Left vehemently condemned) because that American citizen's political views do not align with YOURS? Seriously??

Oh, and welcome to DU btw ...

[loop204]

16. Thanks for the welcome...

All I'm asking is that you start taking a closer look at RT. And.... could you kindly post an article from any credible website regarding this topic? RT posts a lot of made up stories regarding the president.

[sabrina 1]

24. RT often posts news, they ARE based in DC btw, before other news sources get them I've noticed.

They have a great team of American reporters, and many super smart young American female reporters who appeart to be free to report on stories like this and are pretty on top of the pulse of what people, especially on the Left, want to hear about.

They were way ahead of our MSM on the Egytian and Tunisian uprising with reporting starting before they erupted into the huge demonstrations we saw as the anger grew.

This story is very unlikely to make it to our MSM. Just as stories of people who landed on the No Fly List during the Bush era did not make it onto the MSM.

Eg, the guy who wrote Bush's Brain, re Karl Rove, ended up on that list, but I never saw that story on our Corporate Media.

[geek tragedy]

146. It has an anti-American bias, being a tool of Vladimir Putin.

Ergo its popularity in some circles.

[geek tragedy]

147. So, Teabag wingnut doesn't get welfare flight overseas, Putin's mouthpiece whines,

and ultra progressives rend their garments.

Yep, all the elements of crazy have joined forces.

[sabrina 1]

171. No it does not have an anti-American bias. But nice try. It reports news and provides opportunity

for all kinds of opinions, unlike our MSM which sanitizes the news and blocks mostly Progressive voices providing air time only to 'safe' commentary on US policies, particularly foreign policy.

Which may explain why RT is so popular right here in the US where the PEOPLE want real news, not infotertainment.

RT has over 2 million viewers in the United Kingdom and has rivaled Al Jazeera as the most popular English-speaking foreign channel in Britain. RT America is available to 50 million people in the United States and is the second most-watched foreign news channel after BBC News. It is the number one foreign station in five U.S. urban areas. According to Pew Research, RT is the number one source for the most popular news videos on YouTube.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29

[JDPriestly]

17. It has some blatantly propaganda programs, but it also has some others like Thom Hartmann.

It sometimes features interviews with American economists who are not heard in this country. It also hosts Max Keiser.

So as with other media, you have to pick and choose what you watch on RT.

I do the same with MSNBC. I'm not going to watch Morning Joe. He is a male chauvinist and rabid Republican.

On the other hand, I like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz and most of the other shows on MSNBC.

I pick and choose and I always defend the First Amendment and our right to speak and hear what we wish -- even sick propaganda like Fox News.

[loop204]

27. But...

therein lines the trickery of such propaganda tools... They include a couple credible figures. Max Keiser doesn't belong in that group. He's a gold peddler, Ron Paul disciple and bosom buddy of misogynist homophobe racist conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

True, we all have the right to speak and hear what we wish, and we also have the right to expose dangerous trojan horses.

From Utne Reader -- a very well researched magazine.

Five years ago, Russia Today made its debut as a news network aimed at enhancing Russia’s image in the West. Recently, however, the Kremlin-financed television channel has devoted considerable airtime not only to coverage that makes Russia look good, but also to coverage that makes the United States look bad.

Read more: http://www.utne.com/Media/Conspiracy-Channel-Russia-Today-Anti-American-Propaganda.aspx

Cheers...

[DeSwiss]

41. ''.... but also to coverage that makes the United States look bad.''

Maybe the United States should just stop doing bad things. You know, like droning woman and children ''terrorists'' and assassinating its citizens? It's those little things that'll win people over.

- And welcome to DU......

[loop204]

45. Agreed...

But referencing websites that consider Ahmadinajad and Putin heroes isn't exactly the best way to put the feet of our elected officials to the fire.

Cheers...

[sabrina 1]

52. So in your opinion reporting news is making heroes out of people?

Btw, can you point us poor DUers to a News Source we CAN trust?

[JDPriestly]

122. I tend to agree that RT's news coverage is for dupes in many cases, but then

so is the coverage of a lot of the media in the US.

I like in-depth programs like Amy Goodman and Ian Masters who are on KPFK. I don't buy half of the programs on there either.

I guess I just think for myself.

That is why we have DU -- so that we can open our eyes and listen to "news" reports critically and learn from the reactions of others who are educated and watch the same programs we do. I would not, for instance, take any RT report about Syria as having even a molecule of veracity. But then, there are other reports on RT that give me pause to think.

Max Keiser is, as you point out, a bit of a crazy gold salesman and a Ron Paul, libertarian fan. Still, he invites some interesting economists on his program with views I would not otherwise hear.

It's like all other media, you have to watch carefully.

Romney got caught in the debate on the facts about Obama's Rose Garden speech because he listened to news reports and did not think critically. Of all of Romney's failings, of all of the failings of so many Republicans, it is that they think in slogans and not critically.

I and a lot of other Americans got hoodwinked by our own American media in the run-up to the Iraq War. Colin Powell and the usual right-wing propagandists bamboozled all of us into thinking they had evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They didn't and if you read the April 2004 edition of Vanity Fair's article on the days before that war, you will know that our government was told by the UN inspectors that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

So, it's fine to criticize RT. In many cases, they deserve it. But please be evenhanded. We have never had adequate apologies from the Bush administration or from our media for the irresponsible way they pushed the American people into supporting the Iraq War. They did not question. They did not investigate what was really going on. Had they done so, they would have come across the UN Inspectors' report in the weeks before our attack.

Thousands of American soldiers and who knows how many Iraqis died in that War. But the American press has never adequately taken responsibility for its murderous part in the hysteria that permitted that war to proceed.

So when you criticize RT, please criticize our own propagandists first. We are responsible for the trash our media communicates, the Russians are responsible for RT.

[freshwest]

35. Alex Jones likes Putin. For my own reasons, I do, too. Thom Hartmann is a serious person, IMO.

I understand your point. Alex Jones being on a network is enough to ruin its reputation. As far as Putin is considered, that is another matter and not about politics. Not about his singing, either, though, LOL.

Welcome to DU and hope you find some other threads that you can express your opinions on, too. We have some people that are not going to change their views on this issue so don't be upset either way.

[loop204]

46. Thank you. I will... :) n/t

[msanthrope]

64. We used to have posters that linked to WSWS, but with enough mockery, they switched to RT.

It's only a very small percentage of Duers who think that Vlady Putin's news empire is credible.

Welcome!!!

[JackRiddler]

77. FOX, CNN, NBC are more your cup of tea.

[msanthrope]

88. Actually, Canada Free Press had the professionalism to report that Hicks was on a military flight.

Seems a rather important detail to the story---

Imagine that!!! A Prepper/teapartier whining that he got kicked off a military flight that he got a cheap ticket on. You think that depicting the Commander in Chief as burning the constitution on his website, and the loss of his security clearances might have anything to do with it????

[Dustlawyer]

6. I too am on the FAA No Fly list and have been since December 2001. Early on they over-reacted

and several strange and bizarre things happened when I would fly. I fly all of the time and found it interesting the code words they would use when you would go check in. At Southwest Airlines, the person would say, "That's strange, I've never seen it do that before!" referring to the computer when grabbing a supervisor. In all of the flights, I have never made it close to the inside of a plane to have been pulled off of a flight. I believe him that he was singled out for some special treatment. Now days, my frequent flier card allows me to fly normally since my very common name is still on the list. A terrorist from South Yemen used my name as an alias once. The FBI agent, who was later assigned to me to help clear me after my checking into a flight at the American Airlines counter shut down all of their computers at Bush Intercontinental Airport until I was cleared, told me my choices were to change my name, stop flying, or wait until they caught him. I guess he is still out there because i am still on the list. He is probably a retired terrorist now!

[Major Nikon]

8. This is the kind of shit that makes me believe the terrorists won

When you're banned from flying commercial because you happen to share the same name as someone's alias and the burden is on your to clear your name, it's hard not to believe that freedom isn't swirling the bowl.

[Poll_Blind]

13. Not just the terrorists, take a look at this (unrelated, but you'll see what I mean):

Medicare won't issue new IDs to identity-theft victims

PB

[sabrina 1]

18. I thought this Bush era, McCarthyite list had been dealt with. This was one of the abominations

of the Bush era that shames this country. And worse, I am seeing comments in this thread justifying this egregious violation of an American citizen's rights because of his POLITICAL views?? Unbelievable.

[Major Nikon]

37. I suspect that person wound up on the list for the same reason

Assuming he was ever on the list to begin with. Sounds crazier than a shithouse rat.

[sabrina 1]

47. Not surprising at all that he wound up on the list. Considering all the others who ended up on it.

Ordinary Americans who had no idea, nor could they ever find out, why they were placed on that list, nor could they ever get off it. It is something that should not exist in a free society.

[Ikonoklast]

12. Sad to see DU'ers get duped by Russia Today. Total nonsense and bunkum.

Why this crap is allowed to be posted here is amazing.

Might as well post some WND shite while you're at it.

[JDPriestly]

19. Are you talking about Thom Hartmann? Or Max Keiser?

Or some of the American economists who appear from time to time on RU.

You just have to pick and choose and recognize propaganda when you see it whether it is on Morning Joe on MSNBC or on RT or -- the station with the most propaganda of all -- Fox News.

[boppers]

21. Thom Hartmann is an entertainer. Not journalism.

RT and Fox are both not journalism.

[freshwest]

39. I think you're wrong about Hartmann. But the rest of RT is BS. JMHO.

Hartmann used to be on PBS, if I'm not mistaken.

[boppers]

150. RT, like much modern media, is struggling to survive.

Vapid, inflammatory, argument seems to be an angle many businesses are trying.

[freshwest]

151. Name your media sources, then. And your respected journalists. Help us out here.

[boppers]

152. Okay...

My media pool:
Google news (electronic sort of many sources)
CNN
MSNBC

My Journalists I respect:
Dylan Smith
Anderson Cooper
(it's a very short list)

I like Maddow, a lot, but what she does isn't journalism. It's snark.

Lefty snark, but still snark.

[sabrina 1]

164. That's not true, on the contrary it has been hugely successful. Here are the facts about RT:

RT has over 2 million viewers in the United Kingdom and has rivaled Al Jazeera as the most popular English-speaking foreign channel in Britain. RT America is available to 50 million people in the United States and is the second most-watched foreign news channel after BBC News. It is the number one foreign station in five U.S. urban areas. According to Pew Research, RT is the number one source for the most popular news videos on YouTube.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29

h/t to Dipsydoodle for the link.

[boppers]

190. They're incredibly succesful. According to the wikipedia article.

Gee, I wonder where some of those footnotes about their success go to?

Oh. rt.com is the source for more than a few of them. Imagine that.

[sabrina 1]

53. Wow! So can you point us in the direction of a real journalist then?

Thom Hartmann is not credible to you? How about Amy Goodman, also featured on RT? Is she not credible either?

[boppers]

148. Yes, Amy Goodman has been snared in one too many clever phrasings and omissions of details for me.

Far too clever by half.

A journalist I respect?

Hm, that's tough. Maybe Dylan Smith. He's not in it for fame, or ratings, so maybe you've never heard of him.

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/

Best AZ coverage, *anywhere*.

[navarth]

72. Thom Hartmann is an entertainer????

And you base that little tidbit on what?

[freshwest]

119. I don't see him that way at all. Jones, Beck and Fox are. They add nuts and whipped cream to truth.

Last edited Thu Oct 18, 2012, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Thom Hartmann is a substantial thinker and a poster here at DU that I respect for his insight. He has not only held fast to his beliefs, but he has walked the talk in his life. His Wikipedia page:



Thom Hartmann (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio host, author, former psychotherapist and entrepreneur, and progressive political commentator. His nationally-syndicated radio show, The Thom Hartmann Program, airs in the United States and has 2.75 million listeners a week.[1] In 2008, 2009, and 2010, Talkers Magazine named Hartmann the tenth most important talk show host in America,[2] and number 8 in 2011 defining him as the most important liberal host for four years in a row (the ones above Hartmann are conservatives).

Hartmann's article "Talking Back To Talk Radio"[3] became part of the original business plan of Air America Radio and he started his radio program out of his home in Vermont in March of 2003. He replaced Al Franken on the network on February 19, 2007. On March 1, 2009, Hartmann moved syndication of his show from Air America to the former Jones Network, now owned by Dial Global (which also syndicates Neal Boortz, Ed Schultz, Michael Smerconish, Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, and Clark Howard). In the summer of 2009, his program began to also be offered to nonprofit stations via the Pacifica Radio network, and some community/nonprofit stations in the US are also carrying his show. The radio program is also simulcast as a TV program by Free Speech TV[4] on Dish Network and DirecTV. Additionally, he stars in a one-hour daily TV show which his production company records at the studios of and licenses to the RT news network (which carries it into over 500 million homes in over 100 countries[5], The Big Picture; that TV show is also syndicated by Free Speech TV and carried on both Dish Network, DirectTV and local cable TV stations.

Hartmann is a lay scholar of the history and textual analysis of the United States Constitution; attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); Thomas Jefferson; the assassination of John F. Kennedy; the Federalist Papers; electronic voting rigging; and environmental issues like global warming. He has authored many books on political topics and ADHD. He is the inventor of the hunter vs. farmer theory of the condition.

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

The fact that he is being hosted by RT, which may or may not be biased, since I don't ascribe to anti-Russian sentiment, is just proof that M$M won't allow progressive voices, something we've seen time and again. He has 2.75 million radio listeners according to Wikipedia, which if I read it right doesn't have anything to do with RT.

The firing of Phil Donahue's high-rated show for daring to go against the Iraq war hype, even in the mild manner he did, while O'Reilly of Fox was calling for people who opposed the invasion to be shot as traitors, and various others voices were silenced by corporate media, show that. RT's main virtue is hosting Hartmann, who has been doing the public a service for years in outting the far right agenda, etc. Yes, some of the stuff he reports on could be called entertainment, but this piece posted on DU a while back is not fluff, IMO:

Thom Hartmann: Conservative Millennials, Boomers & Libertarians all being Conned

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101744227

The transcript of the video is posted there, and can be validated elsewhere, I'm certain. That transcript is information mportant to our democracy as we have to know how Americans fell for the RW lie. It was a long-term plan by those with enough wealth to influence many facets of society.

Thom simply pulled all the threads together but having been in the business for so many years, it's doubtful he would miss anything. Some CT is based on facts, but the spin ends up supporting the Koch agenda. So that's the marker for me.

[navarth]

130. well of course.

I don't know what the fuck the other poster has been listening to, but it isn't Thom. He's quality.

'Entertainer' indeed.

[freshwest]

135. Don't worry. Posters have strong opinions. I wish they'd stay to explain them.

It's hard to respond to a strong opinion without a dialogue possible. But posts get lost and not answered for all kinds of reasons, not accusing anyone of running off. More information is good.

[boppers]

145. I believe you have made my point.

He throws bombs. He incites, agitates, motivates.

Ergo: Not journalism.

[boppers]

144. I've listened to him for years.

Funny bombast.

Journalism-wise, about as honorable as Rush or Amy Goodman.

Good bombast and poutrage, though.

[sabrina 1]

165. Lol, so you don't like Thom Hartmann, you don't like Amy Goodman and you don't like RT.

And that totally makes my point about who doesn't like RT.

How do you feel about Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Michael Moore?

[boppers]

192. Olberman's shallow, Maddow's got a great wit, Moore is clever as hell.

I wouldn't call any of them journalists, though.

Copying the right's shoddy opinions-as-news doesn't make the other side correct, it makes both sides wrong.

As least John Stewart doesn't *pretend* to be authentic.

[sabrina 1]

196. Copying the right's shoddy opinions-as-news would mean all those people you mentioned

would have to be lying. That is the difference between Amy Goodman, Thom Hartman, Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman et al and Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage/Weiner et al.

I would have thought that the disctinction was obvious.

They are political commentators none of whom has ever claimed to be a journalist. However, they are all we've got in terms of finding news since I can't think of any real journalists I would trust on the MSM.

Who in your opinion, is a real journalist?

Greg Palast eg, IS a real, investigative journalist but he is basically banned from the US media but not from the British Media.

As for Jon Stewart not pretending to be a journalist, neither do any of the others mentioned. But it shows the sad state of real journalism when most young people get their news from Comedy Central and appear to be far better informed than those getting news only from the MSM.

[Ikonoklast]

22. Sorry, it's shite. WND out of the Oligarchy of Russia.

I don't care who they use to promote themselves as legitimate players, they have a decided agenda, and it is deception.

[loop204]

28. If only more people would recognize that n/t

[sabrina 1]

48. You've never watched it have you?

Hillary Clinton takes them seriously. They appeal mostly to Democrats, who are capable of hearing many viewpoints without freaking out.

They are the only network that I recall eg, covering the massive demonstrations against Putin. I'm sure he wasn't pleased but it WAS news and that's what they do, news.

[Ikonoklast]

50. More than once. Al-Jazeera is more to my liking.

Hillary watches EVERYTHING. It just might be part of her job, ya think?






And I did notice your attempted slight.

Try harder.

[sabrina 1]

62. Al Jazeera and RT are very similar. I watch both and have watched Al Jazeera since they first

went on the air and Bush was killing and torturing their reporters and bombing their news stations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those were very brave journalists and it's sad that those who died have never had any justice.

They are not as good as they used to be and many people noticed their biased reporting on some of the conflicts in the ME and Africa which turned out to be not just our imagination. That was a shame, as they were once imo, very professional and unbiased in their reporting. The exposure of why that happened with the resignation that followed, did diminish their credibility. They still have some great journalists, but they lost a lot of respect when they caved to pressure something they were so admired for NOT doing.

So far, RT seems to be free from pressure from either the US or their own government. Viewers will notice if that begins to happen and they too will lose credibility. As of now they have a large and growing viewership here in the US and around the world. People like real news even when it's not what they want to hear. Which is why they and Al Jazeera became so popular so quickly around the world.

There was no 'slight' in my comment. I say what I think. And what I know is that RT is popular with Progressives around the world while it is hated and viewed with suspicion by the Right. That is a fact. The Right is till living in the fifties and the mere mention of Russia throws them back into the Cold War which has been over for so long it ought to be history by now.

[sabrina 1]

58. From your comments it appears you are not familiar with the network.

What is the agenda? Hillary considers them to be legitimate players. She also considers Al Jazeera to be legitimate players.

It's interesting because Al Jazeera was banned here by the Bush administration and they still are not available except for a few areas of the country. RT otoh, never had any problems being on the air in the US. They are available all over the country, unlike Al Jazeera.

I imagine the difference is that the Obama Administration didn't try to ban RT the way the Bush gang succeeded in banning Al Jazeera. So obviously they don't view them as a threat as you seem to.

[freshwest]

36. Agreed,

[sabrina 1]

20. RT is one of the best news sources on TV. Based in DC it gives air time to Progressives who

are apparently banned from the Corporate owned media, such as Amy Goodman (commie!) and Thom Hartmann (another commie!) and some of our best investigative journalists.

Sad to see people on DU of all places condemning a network that finally gives that truth with a Liberal Bias we used to wish for.

Their documentaries are excellent, their interviews some of the most in depth I've seen since before the BBC was scared into becoming a replica of our own MSM.

I love RT and get more news International news there than I get all week from the MSM. And from some of the world's best Investigative journalists.

One of their best programs is Cross Talk which has a range of different viewpoints from all over the world. This is what TV news stations should be. I am happy to see it is being carried across the country now.

[boppers]

149. "finally gives that truth with a Liberal Bias"

That's a condemnation, not a compliment.

I never wanted the news to give *any* bias.

I just wanted actual news.

[sabrina 1]

161. I guess you're not familiar with the saying.

'The truth has a Liberal bias'. I thought everyone knew that.

[boppers]

189. Having it vs. giving it. eom

[DeSwiss]

23. Yeah that's me: duped.

Thank you for your expert assessment: WND = RT.

Clearly now that you've enlightened me and all the rest of us RT suckers here at DU, we are forever in your debt because we've unknowingly been slavishly reading RT (AKA: Putin's Rag) from time to time but we can now avoid wasting valuable time reading their tripe. Thank you so much for we can now devote ourselves to reading only the totally objective, clean and pure American news sources who never lie (and allied sources like the BBC, et.al.).

- Yep, they never LIE at all.

[Ikonoklast]

25. Total Straw Man response.

Please show where I posted one word about any other news source.

RT publishes actual made-up news with sprinkled in reality, it is a joke of a source, but if you wish to remain deluded, it is your choice to do so.

[DeSwiss]

29. Okay then, try these:

http://www.businessinsider.com/american-stranded-hawaii-ndaa-2012-10

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334957

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50309

And then there are these similar coincidental cases:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/world/19nofly.html?_r=0

http://www.smh.com.au/national/assangelink-lawyer-on-inhibited-fly-list-20120419-1x8sf.html

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8026239

I hope these can either be vetted by your sniff test, or relegated to the trash heaps of RTLand.

- We await you decision maestro!

[Ikonoklast]

33. Please do a little research on some of those 'authors' and 'journalists' while you're at it.

From your first three links.

You love quoting right-wing nutcases and glorified bloggers that picked up the RT story and re-wrote it to support your thesis.

[loop204]

34. All the Wade Hicks Jr. articles you posted lead to one man

Doug Hagmann who, surprise, surprise, has an Alex Jones connection.

[loop204]

38. Folow the links

Business Insider Article links to Digital Journal article which links to Canada Free Press and... voila, Doug Hagmann.

Then published on RT with no author and no external link - very deliberately.
http://rt.com/usa/news/no-fly-hicks-us-military-650/

[loop204]

43. These guys make money from peddling fear

- Alex Jones, Max Keiser, Doug Hagmann, Lew Rockwell, and the English chap whose name escapes me at the moment.

There's almost always a link to gold and ammo on their websites and in some cases to anti chemical warfare serums. The narrative is that the evil government is coming after you and you need to be prepared, so buy the crap we're selling to protect yourselves. They tell you to wake up, but they are the ones to be feared and marginalized. This is part of their plan - to co opt issues to suck in progressives, so we visit websites with names like Antiwar,com and Naturalnews.com not really paying attention to the fact that they are not really what they appear to be. Ron Paul wrote about this in his newsletter - how he would appropriate issues of interest to liberals and progressives to suck them in - drug legalization, ending wars etc. The truth is that Ron Paul and all the aforementioned fear peddlers are part of a real white supremacist circuit.

Sadly, people tend to believe what they read on the internet without proper research. Take a look at these videos for example.

Here's the video of the marine that went viral pretty quickly and turned him into an OWS hero.

Here's what a right wing Ron Paul supporter has done to him and other protesters

I truly believe we should call out our leaders whenever possible, but the problem with conspiracy theories is that they are wrapped around kernels of truth and subsequently make it difficult to fight the good fight.

Cheers...

[freshwest]

56. Very good and I hate what the Paulbots did there. Thanks.

[SidDithers]

159. Good posts in this thread...

Welcome to DU.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

169. And it looks like they were all wrong!

The guy was telling the truth, his flying privileges have been restored because apparently, as most of us who fought these violations of rights against people for their political views, were correct. A spokesperson has stated that someone's speech is not enough reason to do this to someone. The Constitution has been upheld thankfully.

Thankfully there are still enough Americans who value the Constitution regardless of who is the target of over zealous authoritarians. As the FFs warned, we would have to be forever vigilant in order to protect those rights.

Thanks to all the people in this thread who defended even someone whose political views they do not agree with from this kind of overreach. Democrats have always stood up for everyone's rights. Republicans, rarely as seen during the Bush years.

[SidDithers]

178. tl:dr...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

181. ...

[Nihil]

203. 132 words, 12 lines ... if that's "tl:dr" then I pity you.

Talk about mentally deficient ...?

[freshwest]

40. Jones also says that Obama was behind the Aurora, Sikh temple, etc. Now he's gonna bomb us? Please..

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. Can I ask you to remove the Canada Free Pres link? They are far right

Just check out their home page - "Countdown until Obama leaves Office", "Obama: ‘Who’re you gonna believe; me or your lyin’ eyes?’", "Obama: “The Women’s vote is in the bag—I am too sexy to lose”", an "Ashamed of My President" logo, "Biden did a doobie before the debate", "Clapping seal Michelle disgraces ‘Presidential’ Debate" and so on.

Thank you.

[sabrina 1]

49. Um, no, they are a very legitimate news channel, excellent coverage of foreign news and

their interviews with world figures, across the political spectrum are of the quality we used to see on former legitimate news media before they were taken over by Corporate interests.

You should try watching it sometime. The old Soviet Union has been dead for decades. And RT is proof of that actually. The old Soviet Regimes would ban RT and I'm sure Putin is not overly fond of them himself. But in the Russia of today it is not so easy to shut people up so too bad for him.

[loop204]

30. This is RT's poster boy -- Alex Jones

[freshwest]

32. Well, Alex was around spreading terror long before RT. His 'documentary films' on Obama

Last edited Thu Oct 18, 2012, 02:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Are enough to make people hide under their beds. In their bunkers. With a few thousand rounds of ammo and 20 years of K-rations. While they hide out underground, they'd better all have a Bible to ward off that Muslim Obama and Sharia Law.

Take a look at his Police State I, II, or however many he's made, EndGame, and his biggest flick, The Obama Deception. Note that Alex Jones supports the John Birch Society. Guess who started that. And Ron Paul. And he Libertarian Party. Hint: Koch brothers.

He supports all the bans on abortions, entertains those who believe there is a 'gay mafia.' He says the Mexicans and all immigrants are an invading army. Every bit of technology is for oppression. He calls public schools and universities indoctrination centers for the Eeek World Order. Let's run for the hills, oh no, that's where the FEMA camps are.

He and David Icke pass the meme that all the political parties are exactly the same. Those who have the luxury of indulging themselves in this, must not be affected by transvaginal ultrasounds, being cursed for asking for birth control and have a need for government assistance for any reason or daring to ask for marriage equality. It's all slavery, the ultra conservative libertarian line.

EDIT: The NRA is not conservative enough for Alex Jones, as he says they want to help with gun confiscation. And this is where a lot of Democrats ended up in the Bush years. The Koch brothers were waiting for the disaffected and disappointed from the right and the left. And now they've made them one.

[loop204]

44. Ahhh... thanks... David Icke is the name that escaped me in my lasy post. n/t

[freshwest]

54. I enjoyed him for a while. What a unique view, I thought. Then realized the result of it.

To get people to abandon involvement in the Demcratic Party in order to let the Koch game be played out. No way...

[sabrina 1]

51. No, that is not RT's poster boy, but nice try. Since RT is one of my main news sources, and clearly

you are not familiar with the network, I have never yet seen Alex Jones. However, one of the best things about RT is that they give EVERYONE a voice so I have no problem with him being heard. Too bad our own MSM doesn't do the same thing. We are grown ups.

All political viewpoints should have access to a free and open press. You seem to think that our media should be tightly censored. I could not disagree more.

Let's hear all voices. WE are ADULTS. This censorship and fear mongering, which is what you appear to be trying to do here, is far more scary than hearing views we do not agree with in a democracy.

Frankly by distorting what RT is about, you have lost all credibility on this issue as far as I am concerned.

Do you agree with a free and open press or do you think we should be protected from hearing viewpoints you do not agree with?

[loop204]

55. As a researcher, I'm very familiar with RT

but to each their own... In time perhaps you will understand what some of us are trying to communicate regarding RT. I believe in a free and open press based on thorough research and vetting. I do not believe in articles that aren't sourced and are published without authors.

I've not once said that media should be censored, just that some destinations like RT don't deserve to be used as credible sources.

Ironically, this is exactly why those websites exist - to drive a huge wedge between progressives.

[sabrina 1]

57. If you were a researcher, you would never have come here where many DUers are very familiar

with RT and thought you could have posted that false image of RT and expected to be taken seriously. So forgive me if I dismiss your 'opinion' on the news media.

I see no wedge between Progressives. What a strange thing to say. Progressives generally are pretty united on issues. Could you expand on that theory?

And could you direct us please to a news media which after all your research you consider to be 'thoroughly researched and vetted'? I am very interested in where you get your news.

[loop204]

59. ---->

I get my news from New York Times, Mother Jones, Utne Reader, Guardian, New Yorker, Washington Post, The Nation, NPR, Addicting Info, The New Republic, Truthdig.
Snopes, Media Matters, Daily Kos, DU, TPM, Feministing, Wonkette, Amnesty International are other websites I visit often - as well as several personal blogs.

I gravitate towards news destinations with paid journalists on staff. Even so, I'm always armed with a good dose of skepticism.

edited to include Slate.com

[loop204]

60. From the Guardian

"The Kremlin employs two major PR agencies, Ketchum and GPlus, and in London uses Portland PR. And then there are the angry bloggers – a shadowy army of Russian nationalists who are active on western newspaper websites, including the Guardian's Comment is free site. Anyone who dares to criticise Russia's leaders, or point out some of the country's deficiencies, is immediately branded a CIA spy or worse. "They [the Kremlin] are coming to realise that information matters and that control of information internationally matters even more," says Evgeny Morozov, a Yahoo! fellow at Georgetown University's institute for the study of diplomacy."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/18/russia-today-propaganda-ad-blitz

[sabrina 1]

101. And there is a perfect example of what I said about the demise of the Guardian as a credible

source. That is a pure propaganda piece, something they have resorted to for the past few years.

Not a single fact in that diatribe. But this is typical of the Guardian lately who now rely on Right Wing bloggers, not journalists, like Erik Erikson of Red State to try to attrack the Faux/Murdoch crowd, following the example of CNN who hired right wing lunatics like Glenn Beck in a failed attempt to attract the far Right as viewers. It didn't work, it isn't working for the Guardian either.

Anyone who dares to criticise Russia's leaders, or point out some of the country's deficiencies, is immediately branded a CIA spy or worse

What utter nonsense. Another anti free press moron who has never watched the network he is expounding on. I have seen plenty of criticism of Russian Leaders on RT which is how I know this is pure BS, pure propaganda.

[sabrina 1]

61. The NYT? Judith Miller?

Feministing? Daily Kos? Those are websites. Where are the credible journalists on those sites? I've never been impressed with them frankly, especially since so many Progressives have been banned or have left DK. And the owner of the blog is a former Republican whose views on women and Gays were rather shocking to me as a Progressive. Views he hid from members of the site btw. I don't trust former Republicans who worked for Henry Hyde while Clinton was president. Although when those views were revealed it did explain his blatant dislike of Progressives.

The Guardian, once a pretty good source for news now features such luminaries as Erik Erikson from Red State eg among others that in the past would never have been featured on any credible news source. Can't say I've ever seen Erik Erikson on RT. Although I would love to see him on Cross Talk where he would most likely be eviscerated.

I don't see much in the way of actual News Sources on your list. Lots of blogs consisting of ordinary citizens who write their opinions, just like DU which makes no claim to provide actual news reports other than those linked by contributors. Unlike RT where actual investigative journalists are featured along with world figures whose views we should hear on OUR news media but do not.

I think you should seek out more actual news sources. Blogs are filled with opinions, the vast majority of which are often without much foundation. Lots of drama, meta, which keeps people coming or watching like a reality show. DK has always provided lots of meta. Meta gets clicks and it's a business but definitely NOT a credible source of news. Their front pagers were never too impressive even when they were just commenters. However they were willing to promise never to post anything that might 'rock the boat' airc. At least before their many purges of Progressives, there was some interesting content there, but now, it's simply boring.

I see now why you find RT disturbing. When you are accustomed to sanitized content, real news can be a shock.

As a researcher you must know that even our actual News Media is about #47 on the list of countries that have a free and independent media. Not very impressive for a Democracy.

[boppers]

153. I am reminded of an old con.

Con one is to take money from a mark.
Con *two* is to take money, from the same mark, to "fight" the first con.

If a person thinks either media is not in it for the money, they are the mark.

Both cons win. The mark loses.

[azurnoir]

14. as per comment #2 is this Wade Hicks?

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/profile/WadeHicksJr

[freshwest]

31. Nice pic at the link of Obama tearing up the Constitution and the flag in flames.

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/

Note, he was armed. Don't worry, I'll keep going until I find the birther link for this patriot.

[freshwest]

42. More blazing info, recycled from when Obama tried to set up CCC, WPA groups in 2009, now 2012:

http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/the-dept-of-homeland-security-has-just-graduated-its-first-class-?xg_source=activity

Sorry, but I'm done rooting through the garbage on the traveler THAT WAS NOT SENT to GITMO...

[struggle4progress]

68. After a brief tour of wingnut sites, I'm pretty sure that is him

This "story" was carried on Hagmann and Hagmann

[msanthrope]

92. Hagmann forgot to mention it was a military flight, didn't he?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50309

[msanthrope]

90. Wade Hicks who decided to use a military flight, and wonders why he got kicked off--

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50309

[Sunlei]

79. should be easy for him to get off, but he says he holds an extra screening card already

This- " Hicks says he also holds on to a special identification card issued by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the US Homeland Security Department"

The other is called the selectee list and contains the names of people whose boarding passes will always be marked with SSSS and who have to undergo intensive extra screening of their person and carry-ons.

With a website like he promotes, he already has extra scrutiny on him. This may be a play for publicity or someone he associates with filled out the easy to find TSA form.

[msanthrope]

87. He was on a military flight--and he wonders why he got kicked off???? nt

[msanthrope]

84. UNREC for omission--the man was on a military flight. Our military does not have to carry people

it thinks are a risk--and a guy who has apparently lost his clearances, and has a website showing the Commander in Chief burning the Consitution does not get a military-rate flight....he can go pay full fare, the parasite.

[AtomicKitten]

95. Thank you.

Thank you for taking the time to elaborate on all the details associated with this story as opposed to the usual half-baked theories accompanying cherry-picked details and the barrage of self-righteous brow-beating that ensues. I appreciate your efforts.

[msanthrope]

107. You are welcome. I'm enjoying reading how military flights subsidized by the taxpayers are now the

right of every Birther/Prepper Teabag Nut who depicts the CIC burning the Constitution.

[sabrina 1]

136. I'm enjoying watching you refusing to answer a simple question.

As if Democrats didn't portray the CIC burning the Constitution during the last administration.

[msanthrope]

138. Sabrina, your questions can't be answered until you make better ones. So clarify, please,

are you asserting that a taxpayer-subsidized military flight is a right? Or is it a privilege?

[sabrina 1]

140. That's not the question. Did you make the same argument against the hundreds of people who

did the exact same thing during the Bush administration? Did you argue that those cartoonists should have their PRIVILEGES regarding their military spouses be removed to punish them for engaging in Political speech?

[msanthrope]

142. Okay, so you are asserting this is a privilege, then? Do you have an actual case of a person in

mind (Bush era?)

[sabrina 1]

98. Since when did political speech become a threat to this Democracy?

[msanthrope]

103. How is his speech infringed? It't not. He can say what he wishes, but the government doesn't have

to cart his ass around.

[sabrina 1]

106. His wife is the military. The government should not punish people for political speech I was

always told.

So let me ask you this? I can post dozens of depictions of Bush/Cheney shredding the Constitution.


Cheney/Bush shredding the Constitution

Did you demand that if any of those people had a spouse in the military their privileges such as using a military flight to go visit that spouse, should have been removed as punishment for those depictions?

Did you feel that the Government didn't have to 'cart their asses around' because they depicted the CIC burning and/or shredding the Constitution?

[msanthrope]

110. If his wife is in the military then she is well aware that flights are a privilege, and not a right.

A privilege, which Mr. Birther/Prepper nut seems to have lost.

As for your question, why would I demand the military do anything? They seem perfectly capable of enforcing their own rules, as our Framers wished.

[sabrina 1]

116. Then you do believe that the Government should punish people for political speech.

Then why do we need a 1st Amendment? Everyone, in every country in the world can say or draw what they want without a 1st Amendment, only problem is in some not-so-free countries, they can be punished by their Government and/or their Military. It happens all the time. No one needs a Constitution to say what they want do they?

But the problem here is we CLAIM to be different. We claim that political speech is protected from Government retaliation. So it's all a farce is what you are saying.




Remove this artist's military spousal privileges.

Draw what you want but face the consequences of an angry Government!

Just like any country that has no Constitutional rights.

[msanthrope]

127. See post 125. nt

[ManiacJoe]

123. On the bright side,

he was stranded while still in the USA instead of in Japan.

[struggle4progress]

154. ... A spokesman for the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center said he could neither confirm nor deny

is on a no-fly list. He said only about 500 people in the U.S. are on the list, and freedom-of-speech issues are not enough to put a person on the list ...

Gulfport man says 'no fly list' left him stranded in Hawaii
Published: October 18, 2012
http://www.sunherald.com/2012/10/18/4252795/gulfport-man-says-no-fly-list.html

[sabrina 1]

166. Well, if that statement is true, it looks like those of you arguing he was rightfully removed based

his free speech were wrong:

freedom-of-speech issues are not enough to put a person on the list ...

Democrats have always argued that to be the case and it's a shame to see some here arguing FOR such a reprehensible violation of people's constitutional rights simply because they do not like someone's politics.

I am glad someone came to their senses but this thread is depressing as it shows how willingly people will give up other people's rights based on their politics.

Anyhow, thank you for the links. Looks like the guy was telling the truth after all.

[struggle4progress]

167. there's no evidence he ever was on the no fly list

[sabrina 1]

172. Whether he was or not people in this thread argued that it would be just fine to keep him off

because they do not like his political views. I thought that most Democrats understood that if we refuse to grant rights to one group of people, pretty soon those rights will be denied to all people. That the real test of our commitment to the Constitution, to the 1st Amendment is not when we agree with someone, but when we do not.

It's sad to see any Democrat not see the danger in punishing anyone for their political beliefs no matter how much they disagree with them.

[msanthrope]

174. Hicks is now claiming he's off the list---

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/u-s-military-dependent-detained-and-put-on-no-fly-list-by-customs-enforcement-is-now-free-to-fly/123

This whole story smells--sounds to me like the military refused to give him a taxpayer subsidized flight for whatever reason, and he knew that rightwing sources would help him blow this all up.

[struggle4progress]

175. yeah, something like that would be my guess

[msanthrope]

177. Always enjoyable, seeing who took RT/Alex Jones as gospel. nt

[sabrina 1]

182. Even more enlightening is seeing who supports the rights of ALL Americans

and who only supports the rights of those they agree with. Pretty scary when the Constitution is put to test to see that it's not just the Right who fails that test.

[msanthrope]

185. Sabrina, I think you got Parlocked....

always enjoy watching who falls for the anti-administration crap spewed by Vlady Putin's media company.

[sabrina 1]

187. What I got was a look at who cannot separate their own personal opinions from

what is good for the country as a whole. The individual became irrelevant as soon as people began stating that he deserved to be on the No Fly List because of his political beliefs. That took the conversation far away from this individual case and into a whole different realm. And what it revealed was how people can get sucked into throwing away precious rights, including their own except they are blind to that, because of fear.

[struggle4progress]

160. Gulfport man says he's cleared of 'no-fly' order

Published: October 19, 2012
By ROBIN FITZGERALD — [e-mail]

GULFPORT - A Gulfport man who said he's been stranded in Hawaii since Sunday after he was told he was on the government's "no-fly list" said he has been cleared for airline travel ...

He said he had driven to San Francisco to catch a flight on a "space available" basis and the plane had stopped in Hawaii when he was told his name had been placed on the"no-fly list."

The Sun Herald is working on an updated news report.

http://www.sunherald.com/2012/10/19/4253495/gulfport-man-says-hes-cleared.html

[msanthrope]

179. Phil Parlock gets to fly, then??? Amazing!!!! Always great to watch who falls for him. nt

[freshwest]

199. But he was supposed to be sent to GITMO! What about the NDAA and the Police State?

[yurbud]

176. It would be nice to have at least two choices on foreign policy

instead of just a choice of whether it's done speaking softly and beating others with a big stick, or screaming like a crack smoking banshee while beating others with a big stick.

[msanthrope]

180. It would be nice if DUer's could remember Phil Parlock every election.

Mr. Hicks now claims he is magically off the list!!! Note how there's not a single source on this other then Mr. Hicks.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/u-s-military-dependent-detained-and-put-on-no-fly-list-by-customs-enforcement-is-now-free-to-fly/123

[struggle4progress]

186. +

[muriel_volestrangler]

200. Kick (nt)