Think Nat Heatwole Was Justified? (Box cutters on planes)

[HFishbine]

Do you think Nat Heatwole's actions of stowing some box cutters aboard some Southwest Airline planes served a legitimate purpose? His hometown paper doesn't.

In a brief interview, Heatwole described his actions as civil disobedience in line with Guilford's Quaker tradition. Still, it's a stretch to equate secretly placing box cutters on airliners with war protests and opposing the draft. Instead of being a matter of conscience, it comes across more as an unwelcome attempt at notoriety, confusion and disruption.

http://www.news-record.com/news/opinions/1_air_security_102103.htm

You can send a letter to the editor of the News & Record here: [e-mail] (Put "For Publication" in the subject line. Must include your name, city, and daytime phone number. 250 word limit strictly enforced.)

[Bluzmann57]

1. Gotta go along with the newspaper on this one

While it is frightening to think how easily he got those things onto planes, it is still a stupid thing to do. And it is against the law. This is a law that isn't so bad.

[HFishbine]

2. Not Sure I Entirely Disagree

But since there has been some sentiment expressed here in support of Nat, I thought I'd make the post.

[lovedems]

3. He made fools of Asscroft's FBI

Apparently he sent them an email 5 WEEKS ago and of course, they didn't take it seriously. I am not against what he did at all. He didn't hurt anybody and made the point that we really aren't any safer. We still have a long way to go, thanks Bushco.

[Atlant]

4. He did us all a favor.

They ought to just charge him with "Proving the Emperor Has
No Clothes"; that, at least, would be an honest charge.

Atlant

[mainegreen]

6. No way!

I understand the point, but why bring dangerous items? Why not a fake plastic explosive or something that should have been caught, but in reality can't be used?

[lovedems]

8. It was pink modeling clay

[arcane1]

5. well, many have gone around "saying" that security was lax...

but who listened? :shrug:


the issue most certainly got attention after this stunt. And he went to great risk to do it.


gotta give him props

[arwalden]

9. "gotta give him props" ??? HUH ??? What does this mean?

I'm guessing that this is some sort of compliment. Unfortunately I'm not 'hip' on today's contemporary slang phrases. <sigh> Can someone tell me here (or in a PM) what this means, please?

-- Thanks, Allen

[arcane1]

11. lol, as an old bastarde, I may have misused it :)

But what I meant was I have to give him credit, for taking such a risk, in order to show us that we are NO SAFER than we were 2 years ago

so yes, a :toast: to this idiot who happened do do what is, in my opinion, a good deed

[wryter2000]

7. What he did was wrong

But he's not the second coming of Hitler, either. I don't think he deserves having the book thrown at him.

[CWebster]

10. Please

No more calls for greater security and police surveillance - you don't know what you are asking for. In a free country there are risks and unless you advocate increasing invasive prying and police state tactics to ensure security you are sadly allowing more erosion of your Rights. Under the guise of greater security precautions they seek avenues to target dissidents. I can not believe the naivete which would stir the cauldron of fear over this, this kid and the media which broadcast it does us no favors if it means a greater assault on our rights and privacy.

Terrorism is an excuse, American policies is what prompts the terrorists response in the first place and as long as the foundations of terrorism are never addressed - no security measures will end it.

Al-Queda stated objectives against the US: erosion of liberties and riches with the ultimate aim of breaking the US up into smaller regions instead of a united whole.

That's 2 so far they've made inroads on.

[ma4t]

12. I don't think it was justified, but......

neither do I think he should be punished severly either. He did no actual harm and posed absolutely no threat to anyone.

That being said I predict that the feds will throw the book at him because he has committed the most serious offence possible - he has publically humiliated the TSA and FBI.

Anyone who thinks that TSA has added one whit of additional protection beyond what was in place before is extremely gullible. I know many people who have carried prohibited items (from knives to loaded handguns) through security either intentionally or through oversight with no problem whatsoever. Does anyone think that it would be difficult for a dedicated terrorist to duplicate what a 20-year old college student was able to do?

Frankly, I've been unable to understand why not a single one of the presidential candidates has not made abolishing the TSA one of his campaign promises. A pledge to abolish it and divert the money saved to activities that might acutally do some good would be a guaranteed winner with the traveling public, especially business travellers.

[judgegina]

13. No.

n/t

[rasputin1952]

14. The one thing this individual did...

was embarass the 'Homeland Security' people. For this, he will pay a terrible price.

He exposed the fraud, that is a big no-no for these people. All of those that were stripped naked and kept shoeless, as well as otherwise harassed, have seen how they were cowed under suspicion.

This kid, made a point, a very valuable point; this whole thing is a sham.

:kick: