Here's the problem, if you attack consent first then you'll get a rational basis standard (the screaming you just heard is a million attorneys crying in pain). All the government here will have to prove is that it had a rational reason to believe that increased security would lower terrorist acts. It doesn't have to prove efficacy or that other methods would work. It only has to prove it had a rational reason. It's basically a win for the government. Now, it has lost a few times for example Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, but it is rare.
So, taking your business example to attack consent all the government would have to do is provide Congressional Hearing records that show that it did research on whether increased security can lower terrorism rates. When Congress holds hearings it stands in place of the fact finder (jury or judge). That means the court can't contest the findings. Similar to an appellate court cannot disregard jury or trial court judge findings. This is a sure thing, again remember, the government doesn't have to prove it works or less intrusive methods work just as well. That's beyond the scope of a rational basis review.
Furthermore, the Court will just consider other technologies you may use such as telecommuniting, mail, email, video conferencing, or hiring an agent. Again, these don't have to be comparable or equal, just available. Under rational basis an argument of "I prefer to meet face-to-face" isn't going to work.
But I think what you're getting at, and I wasn't clear on this, if airline travel was decided to be a fundamental right wouldn't that then eliminate the consent issue? Probably. That's why I went fundamental right first. It's sort of a armor piercing round. Get airline travel to fundamental right status then attack consent and get a strict scrutiny review (did you hear the million *whews*). This flips the government's requirements. Now it does have to prove that 1) its tactics work and 2) that there is no less invasive/discriminatory alternative. I don't think current TSA tactics pass either.
I think your post hits on what I didn't clearly describe. That is, once you get heightened scrutiny you can attack TSA (at airports only) in 1,000 different ways. It would be stripped to almost nothing since strict scrutiny is so hard to meet. But if you just made a business necessity argument against consent you'd get rational basis and lose. I'd use the business argument to pile on. My main argument is this: in Heart of Atlanta Motel the ability to travel nationally was held to be a fundamental right, but that was before international jet setting became commonplace. Since international travel is no common shouldn't the ability to travel internationally also being fundamental? Shouldn't American citizens have the fundamental right to travel internationally? I think the Supreme Court buys that. It's too close to what it's already held. In that case it was held that forcing minorities to endlessly search for a hotel or restaurant that would serve them unconstitutionally infringed that right to travel. Similarly, forcing US citizens to forego vacation or travelling for years to accumulate the days necessary to travel is likewise an unconstitutional infringement. Just like forcing minorities to drive around the government cannot force citizens to waste weeks of their time on travel just to avoid an unnecessarily invasive search. Plane travel is the only way for US citizens to fully utilize their right to travel internationally. No other mode of transportation does what flying does. The government cannot force US citizens to sleep in their cars because the hotel will not have them. The government cannot force US Citizens to spend a week on a boat just because they wish not to be treated like a common criminal.
That's a winning argument. I based my fundamental right argument on something the SCOTUS has already declared a fundamental right. It goes ability to travel nationally - travel internationally - air travel which makes international trav
The problem is, it doesn't violate the constitution. I'll give a brief rundown of some of the problems of challenging the constitutionality of TSA. I'm breaking my rule of no more than 1/10th of an hour (6 minutes is a standard billing unit), but I'm only saying it once. I will not respond to any post even good questions since every time I say what the state of the law is people act like I am personally responsible for the American legal system. They think I and the law are one in the same. We aren't.
I will cover three major issues. Consent doctrine, improper method, and fundamental right.
Consent:
You have consented to be searched including a pat down. You have waived your 4th Amendment rights in this specific situation, specific time, and specific manner. Consent must be given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Voluntarily means you bought your ticket of your own free will, or in other words, you voluntarily put yourself in the position to be searched. Private actors, your employer, don't have to meet this standard because they don't have to follow the 4th Amendment. Knowingly and intelligently just means you recognize that you may be searched and know what the search may entail. These are all the disclaimers that you click check boxes for or sign off on. It must be noted that an argument that you didn't realize just how invasive it would be is a improper method argument not consent.
Your main problem with attacking consent is that you cannot attack it in a vacuum. That is, attack consent in relation to TSA and you attack all consent laws based upon the voluntary, knowingly, and intelligently standard. There is no TSA specific consent doctrine. You have two ways to do this. First, attack the consent doctrine itself. Basically, make an argument that constitutional rights cannot be waived. Say that even if done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently rights cannot be waived. This argument has no chance. However, if it sounds good then contact your representative to pass an amendment. At first blush it sounds good, but I'd like to know more about the overall ramifications before pushing it.
Your second line of attack is arguing that purchasing a ticket and arriving at the airport does not meet the proper standard. Better than the first option, but still a tough row to hoe. The voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently standard is objective. That means the court looks at affirmative steps that constitute consent. Knowing you may be searched you search for a ticket, buy a ticket, register an account, input credit card information, click check boxes affirming you know about the possibility of search, you ultimately buy your ticket, arrive at the airport, check in with the airlines, and then head to the security check point. These are all affirmative steps. At any point you could have revoked. Compare with a Miranda waiver. Police put a piece of paper in front of you, you read it, then sign. You must differentiate the affirmative steps for the Miranda waiver with buying a ticket. I don't see how this can be done. There is much more pressure to comply in front of police than in front of your computer.
Bottom line, separating consent doctrine as it applies to TSA from other law enforcement or government agencies is almost impossible, and invalidating global consent doctrine is a non-starter.
However, just because you have consented to a search does not mean it can be performed in any manner. It must be done in a proper method.
Improper method:
This issue relates to the claims that TSA searches are "groping," "sexual molestation," or any other criminal charge. First, TSA agents do not have government immunity from these charges. Since they are outside the framework of their job they cannot be immunized. Second, proper TSA pat downs are not criminal acts. TSA pat downs are modeled after other government agency or law enforcement pat downs (the AIT and backscatter machines follow similar issues. Though the backscatter, if proven harmful, would be moved to its own
I do agree on this. I shouldn't make it sound like I believe America will stand by law no matter what. We don't. But I would point out in your examples that the people they were protecting were rich corporations and the highest echelon of the executive branch. I doubt a TSA agent would get the same (in my opinion) illegal protections. On one hand it's good. No one is above the law and the agent should be hit for improper searches. But it's also a sad example of how our system treats people differently.
Well, I disagree with your assessment. There is no way a court would throw a clear case of sexual molestation out because it's an administrative search. An admin search lowers the evidence bar but doesn't change the conduct allowed. A gas inspector can't come to your home, claim to want to look for gas leaks, then rummage around for illegal things. You have two different issues here. First, was the search constitutional, and second, was it properly performed. A judge wouldn't throw out a case just because it was a constitutional search even though improperly performed. Properly issued police warrants can be thrown out because the warrant was improperly performed. For example, looking in kitchen drawers when the warrant is for a person. Continuing a search after the warrant's purpose has been completed.
TSA is shielded by the law just like everyone else. If you can't make out all elements for your cause of action you won't win no matter who the defendant is.
They aren't unconstitutional because you consent. In other words, you waive your fourth amendment rights for this specific instance at this specific time. You can decline to waive but then can't get on the plane. The ability to travel is a fundamental right but the right to travel by air is not. These are not my personal statements but that of the US Supreme Court since the 1970s.
You can say it violates your fourth amendment rights but the SCOTUS says it doesn't. The only way you have a chance to get the Supreme Court to hold this as a fourth amendment violation is to convince them that air travel is a fundamental right therefore it gets strict scrutiny analysis which TSA probably wouldn't meet. Until then it gets rational basis which it does meet.
If a TSA agent sticks a finger in your girlfriends vagina press charges. That is not a proper pat down and is sexual molestation. And I'm guessing that story is false (or an extreme example) considering only women can do female pat downs. If a male was doing the pat down SOP has been breached making it an improper pat down no matter what happens.
A court wouldn't throw out a case on summary judgment if there really was sufficient legal evidence of groping. People are claiming that *all* pat downs are sexual molestation. My point was that if you bring a lawsuit claiming sexual molestation but can't prove all the elements required you will likely lose at summary judgment. A proper pat down does not meet the required elements. It's like the Republicans claiming voter fraud by ACORN. Except no one actually voted on the fraudulent registrations. One element of voter fraud is someone actually has to vote or make an attempt (I won't get into what constitutes an "attempt") to vote based upon that fraudulent registration. No vote no voter fraud.
I can only tell you what the law says when SOPs are followed. If you change the facts the analysis changes as well. Bottom line is the Supreme Court says you consent. The Supreme Court also says that pat downs are presumed to be legal. The plaintiff/prosecutor must prove that it was not. And this isn't a special case for TSA. The prosecution has the burden of going forward in all cases.
True, but I didn't say I thought it was morally or ethically correct. I just stated that the law does not consider TSA pat downs to be sexual molestation in all cases which was the poster's implication.
There are two major areas of response. First, TSA cannot legally do this. Second, TSA should not do this. The former is incorrect and is immaterial of how you or I think of the law. The latter is a personal opinion.
Actually, you are boiling it down to what I personally think. I told you what the current state of law is. So my argument boils down to "it's legal so it's legal." The person I responded to compared TSA actions to a clearly illegal action. TSA actions are not clearly illegal.
Your slavery analogy just further conflates something being legal with it being OK. Being legal is objective while being OK is subjective. The law is the law. If you think it should be changed doesn't make the law different.
TSA does have behavioral analysts that walk the areas. It was mentioned in the other OMG! article about TSA ripping people open that just had surgery. TSA stated they would put more behavior specialists out there to combat possible implant weapons.
Terrible analogy. You take positive steps that are considered consent to be searched possibly by pat down. Telling someone you will grope her isn't a positive action by the person to be groped. Buying a ticket with the knowledge that you will be searched. Arriving at the airport. Entering a restricted (sterile, secure whatever they call it) area. Getting in line for a search. All positive steps that signify a consent to be searched. Up until you enter the secure area you can not be searched without probable cause. Once you enter you have consented and cannot unilaterally revoke.
And as far as it being "groping" or "sexual molestation" those are criminal charges with specific elements to be met. TSA pat downs, if done right, don't meet those elements or it would be illegal. Go ahead, sue one of 'em. It will be thrown out of court on summary judgment. Not because it's a government search, but because a properly done pat down isn't molestation. Same goes for police pat downs.
There is nothing that says the government has to go all the way the first time. The government can make incremental steps to achieve its goals. Lee Optical.
And I meant to write "I'm just finishing my 2L year in law school and even I know this diatribe is rubbish." I didn't mean to make it sound like as a rising 2L I know everything.
I'm just finishing my 2L year in law school and this diatribe is rubbish. The whole thing can be summed up as "I don't understand how the law works but here's what I think anyway."
I agree, completely, with the First Poster. Bennet's issue with the rental car analogy is his own personal limitation of knowledge. He asks rhetorical questions that can all be easily answered by an attorney. His critique reminds me of a creationist arguing over how an eye could develop. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean someone else can't.
Summary: this review is the Chevy Aveo of legal discussions: rubbish. Props to the Top Gear (UK) guys.
Yeah, this article sucks. Here's a summary for people who don't want to read it.
The Obama administration has a terrible piece of tax legislation ready that will tax cars by the mile. But the administration says it's not theirs, hasn't been circulated in the White House, is full of ideas they don't like, and don't support it. You forget what you just read? Good. The Obama administration has a plan to tax cars by the mile.
WTF? The White House just said it's not theirs and they don't like it. This is a classic writing technique. Squish information you want to minimize in the middle of everything. We tend to remember beginnings and ends so put your power wordsphrases there. You can see how well it works. Just read some of the comments that skip over the part that negates the rest of the article in favor of the beginning and end.
NASA tower = SpaceX rocket price might be real. SpaceX doesn't have to waste money on contractors and designs forced on them by Congress in an attempt to appease their district. Congress still trying NASA to use SSRBs and spend billions for political gain, classic.
Project Orion will never be revived. However, use of nuclear power may still live in VASIMR technology. The prototype is supposed to go up this year but we'll see. If it works as planned it's a game changer for in-space travel. Unlike most revolutionary technology companies Ad Astra is actually helmed by an ex-astronaut with an actual Ph.D. VASIMR technology comes from Dr. Franklin Chang Diaz's MIT thesis.
It is a huge year for SpaceX, Ad Astra, and spaceflight in general this year.
Jim Bell is a hack. Art Bell, now there's a truth teller. Assange said they have some UFO stuff to produce. I cannot wait until I see the cables showing what the US government thinks of Art Bell.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the problem, if you attack consent first then you'll get a rational basis standard (the screaming you just heard is a million attorneys crying in pain). All the government here will have to prove is that it had a rational reason to believe that increased security would lower terrorist acts. It doesn't have to prove efficacy or that other methods would work. It only has to prove it had a rational reason. It's basically a win for the government. Now, it has lost a few times for example Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, but it is rare.
So, taking your business example to attack consent all the government would have to do is provide Congressional Hearing records that show that it did research on whether increased security can lower terrorism rates. When Congress holds hearings it stands in place of the fact finder (jury or judge). That means the court can't contest the findings. Similar to an appellate court cannot disregard jury or trial court judge findings. This is a sure thing, again remember, the government doesn't have to prove it works or less intrusive methods work just as well. That's beyond the scope of a rational basis review.
Furthermore, the Court will just consider other technologies you may use such as telecommuniting, mail, email, video conferencing, or hiring an agent. Again, these don't have to be comparable or equal, just available. Under rational basis an argument of "I prefer to meet face-to-face" isn't going to work.
But I think what you're getting at, and I wasn't clear on this, if airline travel was decided to be a fundamental right wouldn't that then eliminate the consent issue? Probably. That's why I went fundamental right first. It's sort of a armor piercing round. Get airline travel to fundamental right status then attack consent and get a strict scrutiny review (did you hear the million *whews*). This flips the government's requirements. Now it does have to prove that 1) its tactics work and 2) that there is no less invasive/discriminatory alternative. I don't think current TSA tactics pass either.
I think your post hits on what I didn't clearly describe. That is, once you get heightened scrutiny you can attack TSA (at airports only) in 1,000 different ways. It would be stripped to almost nothing since strict scrutiny is so hard to meet. But if you just made a business necessity argument against consent you'd get rational basis and lose. I'd use the business argument to pile on. My main argument is this: in Heart of Atlanta Motel the ability to travel nationally was held to be a fundamental right, but that was before international jet setting became commonplace. Since international travel is no common shouldn't the ability to travel internationally also being fundamental? Shouldn't American citizens have the fundamental right to travel internationally? I think the Supreme Court buys that. It's too close to what it's already held. In that case it was held that forcing minorities to endlessly search for a hotel or restaurant that would serve them unconstitutionally infringed that right to travel. Similarly, forcing US citizens to forego vacation or travelling for years to accumulate the days necessary to travel is likewise an unconstitutional infringement. Just like forcing minorities to drive around the government cannot force citizens to waste weeks of their time on travel just to avoid an unnecessarily invasive search. Plane travel is the only way for US citizens to fully utilize their right to travel internationally. No other mode of transportation does what flying does. The government cannot force US citizens to sleep in their cars because the hotel will not have them. The government cannot force US Citizens to spend a week on a boat just because they wish not to be treated like a common criminal.
That's a winning argument. I based my fundamental right argument on something the SCOTUS has already declared a fundamental right. It goes ability to travel nationally - travel internationally - air travel which makes international trav
The problem is, it doesn't violate the constitution. I'll give a brief rundown of some of the problems of challenging the constitutionality of TSA. I'm breaking my rule of no more than 1/10th of an hour (6 minutes is a standard billing unit), but I'm only saying it once. I will not respond to any post even good questions since every time I say what the state of the law is people act like I am personally responsible for the American legal system. They think I and the law are one in the same. We aren't.
I will cover three major issues. Consent doctrine, improper method, and fundamental right.
Consent:
You have consented to be searched including a pat down. You have waived your 4th Amendment rights in this specific situation, specific time, and specific manner. Consent must be given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Voluntarily means you bought your ticket of your own free will, or in other words, you voluntarily put yourself in the position to be searched. Private actors, your employer, don't have to meet this standard because they don't have to follow the 4th Amendment. Knowingly and intelligently just means you recognize that you may be searched and know what the search may entail. These are all the disclaimers that you click check boxes for or sign off on. It must be noted that an argument that you didn't realize just how invasive it would be is a improper method argument not consent.
Your main problem with attacking consent is that you cannot attack it in a vacuum. That is, attack consent in relation to TSA and you attack all consent laws based upon the voluntary, knowingly, and intelligently standard. There is no TSA specific consent doctrine. You have two ways to do this. First, attack the consent doctrine itself. Basically, make an argument that constitutional rights cannot be waived. Say that even if done voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently rights cannot be waived. This argument has no chance. However, if it sounds good then contact your representative to pass an amendment. At first blush it sounds good, but I'd like to know more about the overall ramifications before pushing it.
Your second line of attack is arguing that purchasing a ticket and arriving at the airport does not meet the proper standard. Better than the first option, but still a tough row to hoe. The voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently standard is objective. That means the court looks at affirmative steps that constitute consent. Knowing you may be searched you search for a ticket, buy a ticket, register an account, input credit card information, click check boxes affirming you know about the possibility of search, you ultimately buy your ticket, arrive at the airport, check in with the airlines, and then head to the security check point. These are all affirmative steps. At any point you could have revoked. Compare with a Miranda waiver. Police put a piece of paper in front of you, you read it, then sign. You must differentiate the affirmative steps for the Miranda waiver with buying a ticket. I don't see how this can be done. There is much more pressure to comply in front of police than in front of your computer.
Bottom line, separating consent doctrine as it applies to TSA from other law enforcement or government agencies is almost impossible, and invalidating global consent doctrine is a non-starter.
However, just because you have consented to a search does not mean it can be performed in any manner. It must be done in a proper method.
Improper method:
This issue relates to the claims that TSA searches are "groping," "sexual molestation," or any other criminal charge. First, TSA agents do not have government immunity from these charges. Since they are outside the framework of their job they cannot be immunized. Second, proper TSA pat downs are not criminal acts. TSA pat downs are modeled after other government agency or law enforcement pat downs (the AIT and backscatter machines follow similar issues. Though the backscatter, if proven harmful, would be moved to its own
I do agree on this. I shouldn't make it sound like I believe America will stand by law no matter what. We don't. But I would point out in your examples that the people they were protecting were rich corporations and the highest echelon of the executive branch. I doubt a TSA agent would get the same (in my opinion) illegal protections. On one hand it's good. No one is above the law and the agent should be hit for improper searches. But it's also a sad example of how our system treats people differently.
Well, I disagree with your assessment. There is no way a court would throw a clear case of sexual molestation out because it's an administrative search. An admin search lowers the evidence bar but doesn't change the conduct allowed. A gas inspector can't come to your home, claim to want to look for gas leaks, then rummage around for illegal things. You have two different issues here. First, was the search constitutional, and second, was it properly performed. A judge wouldn't throw out a case just because it was a constitutional search even though improperly performed. Properly issued police warrants can be thrown out because the warrant was improperly performed. For example, looking in kitchen drawers when the warrant is for a person. Continuing a search after the warrant's purpose has been completed.
TSA is shielded by the law just like everyone else. If you can't make out all elements for your cause of action you won't win no matter who the defendant is.
They aren't unconstitutional because you consent. In other words, you waive your fourth amendment rights for this specific instance at this specific time. You can decline to waive but then can't get on the plane. The ability to travel is a fundamental right but the right to travel by air is not. These are not my personal statements but that of the US Supreme Court since the 1970s.
You can say it violates your fourth amendment rights but the SCOTUS says it doesn't. The only way you have a chance to get the Supreme Court to hold this as a fourth amendment violation is to convince them that air travel is a fundamental right therefore it gets strict scrutiny analysis which TSA probably wouldn't meet. Until then it gets rational basis which it does meet.
If a TSA agent sticks a finger in your girlfriends vagina press charges. That is not a proper pat down and is sexual molestation. And I'm guessing that story is false (or an extreme example) considering only women can do female pat downs. If a male was doing the pat down SOP has been breached making it an improper pat down no matter what happens.
A court wouldn't throw out a case on summary judgment if there really was sufficient legal evidence of groping. People are claiming that *all* pat downs are sexual molestation. My point was that if you bring a lawsuit claiming sexual molestation but can't prove all the elements required you will likely lose at summary judgment. A proper pat down does not meet the required elements. It's like the Republicans claiming voter fraud by ACORN. Except no one actually voted on the fraudulent registrations. One element of voter fraud is someone actually has to vote or make an attempt (I won't get into what constitutes an "attempt") to vote based upon that fraudulent registration. No vote no voter fraud.
I can only tell you what the law says when SOPs are followed. If you change the facts the analysis changes as well. Bottom line is the Supreme Court says you consent. The Supreme Court also says that pat downs are presumed to be legal. The plaintiff/prosecutor must prove that it was not. And this isn't a special case for TSA. The prosecution has the burden of going forward in all cases.
True, but I didn't say I thought it was morally or ethically correct. I just stated that the law does not consider TSA pat downs to be sexual molestation in all cases which was the poster's implication.
There are two major areas of response. First, TSA cannot legally do this. Second, TSA should not do this. The former is incorrect and is immaterial of how you or I think of the law. The latter is a personal opinion.
Actually, you are boiling it down to what I personally think. I told you what the current state of law is. So my argument boils down to "it's legal so it's legal." The person I responded to compared TSA actions to a clearly illegal action. TSA actions are not clearly illegal.
Your slavery analogy just further conflates something being legal with it being OK. Being legal is objective while being OK is subjective. The law is the law. If you think it should be changed doesn't make the law different.
TSA does have behavioral analysts that walk the areas. It was mentioned in the other OMG! article about TSA ripping people open that just had surgery. TSA stated they would put more behavior specialists out there to combat possible implant weapons.
Good idea. Acts of terrorism would surely eliminate the TSA.
The easiest answer is a boycott of flying. Once you start hitting the Airlines bottom line they'll get rid of TSA for you.
Terrible analogy. You take positive steps that are considered consent to be searched possibly by pat down. Telling someone you will grope her isn't a positive action by the person to be groped. Buying a ticket with the knowledge that you will be searched. Arriving at the airport. Entering a restricted (sterile, secure whatever they call it) area. Getting in line for a search. All positive steps that signify a consent to be searched. Up until you enter the secure area you can not be searched without probable cause. Once you enter you have consented and cannot unilaterally revoke.
And as far as it being "groping" or "sexual molestation" those are criminal charges with specific elements to be met. TSA pat downs, if done right, don't meet those elements or it would be illegal. Go ahead, sue one of 'em. It will be thrown out of court on summary judgment. Not because it's a government search, but because a properly done pat down isn't molestation. Same goes for police pat downs.
Yes, IAAL.
There is nothing that says the government has to go all the way the first time. The government can make incremental steps to achieve its goals. Lee Optical.
But, yeah, probably money.
And I meant to write "I'm just finishing my 2L year in law school and even I know this diatribe is rubbish." I didn't mean to make it sound like as a rising 2L I know everything.
Although having a JD may uniquely qualify you in matters of law, why should an average citizen not be allowed to question a judge's ruling?
The average citizen can question a judge's ruling all they want, but this article is a great reason for not doing so in public.
How about one word: Bullshit.
I'm just finishing my 2L year in law school and this diatribe is rubbish. The whole thing can be summed up as "I don't understand how the law works but here's what I think anyway."
I agree, completely, with the First Poster. Bennet's issue with the rental car analogy is his own personal limitation of knowledge. He asks rhetorical questions that can all be easily answered by an attorney. His critique reminds me of a creationist arguing over how an eye could develop. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean someone else can't.
Summary: this review is the Chevy Aveo of legal discussions: rubbish. Props to the Top Gear (UK) guys.
Yeah, this article sucks. Here's a summary for people who don't want to read it.
The Obama administration has a terrible piece of tax legislation ready that will tax cars by the mile.
But the administration says it's not theirs, hasn't been circulated in the White House, is full of ideas they don't like, and don't support it.
You forget what you just read? Good. The Obama administration has a plan to tax cars by the mile.
WTF? The White House just said it's not theirs and they don't like it. This is a classic writing technique. Squish information you want to minimize in the middle of everything. We tend to remember beginnings and ends so put your power wordsphrases there. You can see how well it works. Just read some of the comments that skip over the part that negates the rest of the article in favor of the beginning and end.
Well, if you do attribute the raid on Osama as a reaction to Wikileaks then the number would be "several", albeit the "bad guys"
You mean if it weren't for Wikileaks they wouldn't have killed Osama? I'm not sure that's a strike against Wikileaks.
He's probably thinking of the New York Post. Which is an even more different publication.
New from Coke Lime Flavored HCL that blends perfectly with your hot wings!
12B, come on, claim a bigger number if you want to repeat false tales. It was 13 Trillion dollars and Zillion!
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
NASA tower = SpaceX rocket price might be real. SpaceX doesn't have to waste money on contractors and designs forced on them by Congress in an attempt to appease their district. Congress still trying NASA to use SSRBs and spend billions for political gain, classic.
Project Orion will never be revived. However, use of nuclear power may still live in VASIMR technology. The prototype is supposed to go up this year but we'll see. If it works as planned it's a game changer for in-space travel. Unlike most revolutionary technology companies Ad Astra is actually helmed by an ex-astronaut with an actual Ph.D. VASIMR technology comes from Dr. Franklin Chang Diaz's MIT thesis.
It is a huge year for SpaceX, Ad Astra, and spaceflight in general this year.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/10/ad_astra_nasa_vf200_announcement/
Are the wolves going to jump on her from a helicopter? That sounds like a Family Guy episode.
Not really. Rulings don't become precedent in the US till the appellate level. District court rulings don't bind anyone except the parties involved.
This case was filed in Tokyo. US laws have very little precedent power in Japan.
COTS = Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
Jim Bell is a hack. Art Bell, now there's a truth teller. Assange said they have some UFO stuff to produce. I cannot wait until I see the cables showing what the US government thinks of Art Bell.