A group of Republican senators is pushing back against efforts to create a federal “no-fly” list for unruly passengers, arguing that doing so would essentially draw an equivalence between terrorists and opponents of mask mandates.Sure, we're against violence on your flights, but most of these violent people are on our side! Why do you hate freedom?
The eight Republican senators voiced their concerns in a letter Monday to Attorney General Merrick Garland. They noted that, according to Federal Aviation Administration data, the vast majority of reports of unruly passengers have been related to the mandated use of face masks amid the pandemic.
“While we strongly condemn any violence towards airline workers, there is significant uncertainty around the efficacy of this mandate, as highlighted by the CEO of Southwest Airlines during a recent Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing,” the senators wrote. “Creating a federal ‘no-fly’ list for unruly passengers who are skeptical of this mandate would seemingly equate them to terrorists who seek to actively take the lives of Americans and perpetrate attacks on the homeland.”
... The eight Republicans signing the letter are Sens. Cynthia M. Lummis (Wyo.), Mike Lee (Utah), James Lankford (Okla.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Ted Cruz (Tex.), John Hoeven (N.D.) and Rick Scott (Fla.).
(The letter says, "The creation of this list by DOJ would result in a severe restriction on the ability of citizens to fully exercise their constitutional right to engage in interstate transportation." Yes, just because these people have disrupted previous interstate flights and threatened violence and property damage on those flights! Unfair!)
If I'm reading the letter correctly, the senators seem to believe individual airlines can ban a passenger, but sharing the information is tyranny or communism or ... something.
In somewhat related news, there's this from Fox's favorite faux-liberal legal analyst:
A Fox News legal contributor offered a head-scratching take on Tuesday about the Canadian government’s crackdown on trucker convoys that have choked supply chains to protest measures aimed at preventing the spread of COVID-19.
“I thought it was quite excessive,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said of the Canadian government’s actions.
“This is an act of civil disobedience. That is a standard tactic of groups, going back to the civil rights movement, even earlier, to block bridges and streets to do what was referred to as, quote, ‘good trouble,’” Turley added, using the phrase famously coined by the late civil rights leader and U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.).
“And so the troubling aspect of what is coming out of the prime minister’s office is that by this rationale, they could have cracked down on the civil rights movement. They could have arrested Martin Luther King,” Turley said.
Fox News legal analyst Jonathan Turley, on Canada PM Justin Trudeau invoking emergency powers to deal with the "Freedom Convoy" blockade:
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) February 15, 2022
"By this rationale, they could have cracked down on the Civil Rights movement. They could have arrested Martin Luther King." pic.twitter.com/s9dwkcvihQ
King, of course, was repeatedly arrested, as were many of the people who demonstrated alongside him. Um, that's why they call it "civil disobedience": You deliberately break the law, and subject yourself to arrest (and beatings, and worse), in the hope that public awareness of your cause and the way you're being treated will rally people to your side.
I don't know if Turley genuinely believes that King strolled into D.C. one day, gave a speech at the Lincoln Memorial, and effortlessly won civil rights for Black people, or whether he just thinks his audience believes that. But the additional message here is that civil disobedience should be consequence-free. You shouldn't actually be risking anything when you break the law for a political cause.
And after all, right-wingers believe it's unfair for their kind to be held accountable at any time. It's not fair if the January 6 rioters are arrested and jailed. It's not fair if those who threaten people at school board meetings are investigated by law enforcement. It would have been unfair to hold anyone accountable for the lies that led to the Iraq War, or for the torture programs that were a key part of the War on Terror. And holding Donald Trump accountable for, well, anything? Unthinkable!
Maybe they think everyone gets to live under those rules. Maybe Turley thinks King did. Hard to tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment