So, it depends what the definition of "is" is....

[rjy01]

From the AP newswire:

quote:

---

A judge Tuesday threw out one of nine charges against a man accused of trying to blow up a jetliner with explosives in his shoes, ruling that an airplane is not a vehicle under a new anti-terrorism law.

The charge - attempting to wreck a mass transportation vehicle - was filed under the USA Patriot Act, which was passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. U.S. District Judge William Young said that although an airplane

was engaged in mass transportation it is not a vehicle as defined by the new law. Richard C. Reid, a British citizen, still faces eight charges, including attempted murder and attempted destruction of an aircraft. He allegedly tried to light the explosives hidden in his shoes while aboard American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami three days before Christmas.

Young said although prosecutors submitted dictionary definitions of vehicle that are broad enough to include aircraft, he looked to a legal definition of vehicle drafted by Congress in an earlier law known as the Dictionary Act. That defines a vehicle as something used as a means of transportation on land. ``It is not a 'vehicle' as that word is used by Congress,'' the judge wrote in his 24-page decision.

Samantha Martin, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan, refused to comment on the ruling. She said no decision had been made on whether to appeal. Reid's lawyer, Owen Walker, did not immediately return a call for comment.

The USA Patriot Act was signed into law Oct. 26, giving the government broad powers to fight terrorism. Among other things, it expands the FBI's wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority and gives police wide-ranging new anti-terrorism powers to secretly search people's homes and business records.

The new law punishes anyone who ``willfully wrecks, sets fire to, or disables a mass transportation vehicle or ferry.'' Reid's attorneys had argued at a hearing last month that there was a potential defect in the law because it does not clearly define an airplane as a vehicle of mass transportation.

At that hearing, prosecutor Michael Keegan said Congress clearly intended the act to cover violence or terrorism on airplanes. He said that an old law on which the act was based focused on the safety and navigation of aircraft, while the new law also focuses on violence against employees, in this case, the flight crew who subdued Reid.

``What Congress was clearly concerned with in the wake of 9-11... was the need to ensure that there would be provisions in U.S. law to protect against acts of terrorism in mass transportation

vehicles,'' Keegan said. In his ruling, Young noted the law is new, ``its contours not yet fully explored.''

---

Utterly ridiculous. Regardless of what you think about the Patriot Act's search and seizure provisions, you would think the definition of an airplane would be beyond dispute.

[Eclipse]

Soooo when the aircraft is on the ground taxiing it is a vehicle of mass transportation but as soon as it takes off it is not anymore?

[Guest MIKE113]

I quote "Rubbish"

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

attempting to wreck a mass transportation vehicle

---

they should change it to "attempting to wreck a mass transportation mobile element" that should cover anythnig that carries alot of stuff/people that moves

[rjy01]

quote:

---

Soooo when the aircraft is on the ground taxiing it is a vehicle of mass transportation but as soon as it takes off it is not anymore?]

---

Apparently not. The judge must think it becomes a big and uncomfortable flying restaurant and hence not subject under the act.

[Kartoffel]

Idiots like that judge should be made into grunts for the army.

100th post. w00t.

[Lotharr]

I don't want that knuckle head anywhere near my section....

But we do have some latrines that need to be GI'd....

[Steve Schacher]

This is why we have to get Sens. Leahy and Schumer to stop blocking Bush's Judicial appointments.

[Raven]

Actually it would be incorrect to apply a law in a manner in which it clearly is neither meant to be applied nor applicable. You will also note that among the list of charges was mention ÔÇ£attempted destruction of an aircraftÔÇØ and thus considering an aircraft a vehicle would result in two charges for basically the same thing. This second point is, however, rather unnecessary because according to the definition of vehicle used by congress when they drafted the law did not include aircrafts we must assume that if they desired for the law to cover aircrafts they would have mentioned them.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

...we must assume that if they desired for the law to cover aircrafts they would have mentioned them...

---

You give our current Congress way too much credit.

[Guest Grayfox]

we could put him in artillery... they cant hit anything anyway

or maybe a nice REMF job like supply or motorpool???