Comments on: Comments on 12062

Post number 12062

dhartung — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 15:31:13 -0800

Green Party coordinator can't fly? According to this Counterpunch report, Nancy Oden, who is on the Green Party USA Coordinating Committee (which is to say the equivalent of these folks), a former gubernatorial candidate was detained at the Bangor ME airport Thursday evening and prevented from boarding a plane to Chicago for a Friday evening panel on pesticides as weapons (see anti-pesticide & genmod page); and was told the "airport was closed to her" until further notice. Oden claims this is because of the Green Party's opposition to the war; I couldn't find a different source for this that might indicate anything different. Wouldn't someone who opposes aerial spraying be on the right side of recent rhetoric? Has someone lost their mind? Did Oden get to Chicago?

By: fleener

fleener — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 16:13:09 -0800

Typical of what you can expect with the recent rush to usher in the era of Big Brother. It would seem our government is turning into everything it claims to despise.

By: rschram

rschram — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 16:48:25 -0800

I heard she said in an interview that she was complaining about her being searched by Guardsmen and that ticked 'em off. So basically airline security is entirely arbitrary, not fascist.

By: housepox

housepox — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 17:03:03 -0800

I have to fly on Thursday, has anyone had any bad experiences with taking things like laptops on to planes?

By: fletcher

fletcher — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 17:13:48 -0800

rschram: Do you have source on that?

By: donovan

donovan — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 17:35:31 -0800

Here's the story in the Bangor Daily News. Sounds like she was called out for secondary security screening--I've flown four times since the 11th and airlines are pulling people "at random" (probably some random, some based on a profile) for extra checks at the gate. "Without providing details, interim airport director Rebecca Hupp said that the FAA guidelines "have more to do with the ticket than the person."" No suggestion in the article that there was any knowledge of her political affiliation at the time she was scrutinized. housepox: no problem taking a laptop--you'll just be asked to run it through the XRay machine on its own (not in a bag) . . . just don't try and bring a nail file or hockey stick on board.

By: ferris

ferris — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 17:42:50 -0800

According to this article from the Bangor News, "...Oden reportedly would not stand still when security staff tried to wave a metal-detecting wand over her." "Authorities" also suggested the problem may have been related to how she obtained her ticket (online).

By: crasspastor

crasspastor — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 17:43:17 -0800

Yes. Does anyone know anymore about this?

By: Carol Anne

Carol Anne — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 18:54:25 -0800

Security Scares Prompt Evacuations at U.S. Airports. Be co-operative out there, people!

By: faisal

faisal — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 21:20:17 -0800

Oden has also been linked to radical environmentalist actions (burning GM crop plantings, etc.) in that "I didn't do it but it's a good thing somebody did." <- the same thing bin Laden said about the original WTC attack.

By: owillis

owillis — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 21:27:47 -0800

Declan Mcullagh interviews Oden here. Via instapundit, who seems to doubt the story here. The story seems a little iffy to me.

By: thirteen

thirteen — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 21:30:14 -0800

My favorite restaurant no longer exists. It was called Sweet Spice, and the menu focused on grains.

By: thirteen

thirteen — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 21:31:07 -0800

I don't believe I just did that, I meant to post that in a different window I have open. Sorry kids.

By: sudama

sudama — Sat, 03 Nov 2001 22:47:20 -0800

Who are you calling kids?

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Sun, 04 Nov 2001 02:07:27 -0800

Details from politech. Includes an interview with Oden.

By: pracowity

pracowity — Sun, 04 Nov 2001 03:50:52 -0800

> My favorite restaurant no longer exists. It was called > Sweet Spice, and the menu focused on grains. Ben Nevis is the highest peak in Great Britain. I've seen it but never climbed it.

By: fleener

fleener — Sun, 04 Nov 2001 07:46:29 -0800

faisal, please post a link to a reputable news organization when you make wild accusations about someone.

By: Carol Anne

Carol Anne — Sun, 04 Nov 2001 08:15:15 -0800

Just and Positive Alternatives: Green Party USA Statement on the Disasters. This appears to be what Nancy Oden refers to in her interview.

By: prodigal

prodigal — Sun, 04 Nov 2001 08:38:36 -0800

She was detained because she is an eco terrorist. Notice the bin-Ladenesque language and the cowardly way she advocates others to do her dirty work.

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Sun, 04 Nov 2001 10:39:10 -0800

it makes sense if you think about it. people opposed to war = terrorists, and the last thing you want is a vicious terrorist on your flight.

By: holgate

holgate — Sun, 04 Nov 2001 10:41:24 -0800

In which case, Lord Melchett should cancel any plans to visit the US. Isn't it good to see that Monsanto gets to influence who gets counted as terrorists these days?

By: prodigal

prodigal — Sun, 04 Nov 2001 13:24:00 -0800

It's not opposition to the war. It's not Monsanto. That's ridiculous. One more time. THE SIXTIES ARE OVER. It's her actions. She's advocating and abetting the destruction of private property. Refer to my link above if you want to play clueless or naive.

By: rschram

rschram — Sun, 04 Nov 2001 17:12:26 -0800

It's not Monsanto. ... She's advocating and abetting the destruction of private property. Yeah, and if we take US military actions out of context, or FBI/CIA arrests of Semitic looking people out of context, then those are just naked aggression and political abuse. THE SIXTIES ARE OVER, after all.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 05 Nov 2001 00:51:18 -0800

prodigal: you're relying on her own statement that it was her political positions that led to the ejection, when the news sources cited above indicate it was her behavior during the search that caused the problem. Please explain this contradiction.

By: talos

talos — Mon, 05 Nov 2001 02:40:45 -0800

faisal and prodigal: Wouldn't you say that burning GM crops and killing thousands of innocent people isn't really in the same league? I mean do you really believe that the Green Party is into crashing planes on skyscrapers? What's next? Demanding that Nader be exiled to a gulag in Alaska?

By: walrus

walrus — Mon, 05 Nov 2001 04:31:59 -0800

*sigh* Soon it will be "terrorist" to carry a placard protesting about the closure of a local hospital. I don't want to live in a free world like that.

By: faisal

faisal — Mon, 05 Nov 2001 15:57:03 -0800

I would agree that burning GM crops and killing thousands of innocent people isn't in the same league at all. That's part of the problem with the "anti-terrorist" law which just went into effect: it lumps all sorts of things together under "terrorist". The reaction to the attacks of 9/11 has been to lose all sense of scale in an effort to attack the idea rather than just the perpetrators.

By: thirteen

thirteen — Wed, 07 Nov 2001 15:04:30 -0800

Can we also agree burning crops is pretty damn bad? I have no love at all for GM food, but I think anyone setting fires should pay a terrible price.

By: walrus

walrus — Wed, 07 Nov 2001 15:40:34 -0800

No I don't think we can. How about, those people were taking measures to protect their ecosystem, with popular support as evidenced by the British public's almost immediate boycott of GM foods? It's definitely not terrorism, but it might be a bit naughty.

By: thirteen

thirteen — Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:08:29 -0800

Gotcha, arson good. I do not like Monsanto, and I have no desire to eat modified food. I imagine that is a position you share with me, but we do not stand together. I think it might be fun to catch someone starting fires, as I can be naughty too.

By: walrus

walrus — Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:25:13 -0800

heh. your strawman's on fire, look ;) arson stinks, but fields aren't the same as buildings. anyway, a lot of the time they were using scythes or rolling on the plants, on the TV footage I saw ... They weren't your fields by any chance, were they?

By: walrus

walrus — Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:27:26 -0800

oops ... or am I getting confused between the mild (comedic) protests in the UK, and something I'm unaware of in the US? it's possible ...

By: thirteen

thirteen — Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:45:33 -0800

Arson is arson, and burning a field or a silo meets the definition. I don't see a straw man entering into my argument, as my only real point is that setting fires is wrong. A stupid and dangerous thing to do. Destroying other people's things, by burning or trampling does not seem the least bit funny, and hardly seems peaceful. I can recognize an invitation of violence, and am not shy. I am unsure why you would think they were my fields. Subtle humor?

By: walrus

walrus — Thu, 08 Nov 2001 03:42:07 -0800

Subtle humor? Ok you got me ... I have been playing a little here. I'll try to make one serious post, and then we can agree to disagree or something. The straw man was your attempt to make it look like I think arson (per se) is ok, just because I don't necessarily disagree in this case. I've been doing some research by the way. I found two articles (US house of representatives and environmental news network) which stated that GM cotton crops had been burned in India, and one (interesting but orthogonal to the point) where a UK government spokesman stated that the government would continue burning trial crops so they don't enter the food chain. I couldn't find any incidents of people illegally burning GM crops outside India. Was that the incident you were talking about? Arson is the willful or malicious burning of property (as a building) especially with criminal or fraudulent intent, as defined in mirriam websters dictionary. I'm prepared to accept that definition. First off the bat, I don't believe there is criminal or fraudulent intent in the burning of GM cotton to protect one's environment, in an area where the local regulator had not issued permission for the crops to be grown at the time they were planted. Growing them there might have been criminal, although the Indian government has now belatedly issued permission, against stiff opposition from the public. The definition of arson does mention buildings. I realise it can be stretched, but this has always been my understanding of the word. I don't approve of arson by that definition, under any circumstances. I'll just say that in general I believe in certain forms of direct action when a government is clearly serving a self interest over and above the will of the population, and there is no clear political opposition to their position because all the parties have the same self interest. I don't believe in violence, or harm to private property. However, I don't mind someone taking out crops planted as a trial by the government, in order to protect our ecosystem, when there is a clear conflict of interests in the govts position. I don't think the crops in India were necessarily government planted, and if they were private property, I would have some concern over the livelihood of the farmers who planted them. In short, I'd think that was wrong, but I'm also vehemently opposed to planting them in the first place. I won't go over my arguments against GM crops here, because I believe we feel similarly. If anyone reading this wants to know, they can email me from my profile page.

By: thirteen

thirteen — Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:44:41 -0800

I won't go over my arguments against GM crops here, because I believe we feel similarly. That is good enough for me. Oden has also been linked to radical environmentalist actions (burning GM crop plantings, etc.) in that "I didn't do it but it's a good thing somebody did." I have not researched this at all. Based on the quote above I cannot justify preventing this woman from doing anything. GM crop burning can be intrepreted several different ways. I assumed vandalism, and responded the way I do. If this turned out to be a ritual burning in a bowl that I too am sorry. I can be opposed to the planting of a crop, without believing I have any right to prevent the farmers from doing so. I am less concerned by cross contamination of genetic material than I once was. I still think BT corn blows, but I do not fear sterile crops will spread and destroy all plant life on earth. Again, like you said, we are not all that far apart on the issue, and I appreciate your comments.