What to file to stop Ridiculous Security Zone in Hawaii?

[>Charlotte<]

Okay. In all seriousness.

The security requirements of POTUS are based on continually fluctuating criteria including current threat evaluations, global indicators, geographic limitations, and countless other assessments we don't even know about.

I do think that president security is a valid reason, but that it can be just as secure with a smaller zone

You have no way of knowing that, and I'm willing to bet anything that you're wrong. In any case, you don't have the expertise or the authority to make that determination. What you're complaining about was the result of the decisions of people who do have the expertise and authority.

Bottom line. You are not going to change the manner or scale of or on which the President is protected. If his vacation inconvenienced you or anybody else that is simply--to be blunt, if I may--too damned bad. You can accept that, or you can spin your wheels bitching about it and pursuing a pointless lawsuit. You have every right to waste your time and money.

 

[kiter78]

So, cbg and others, let me ask you this:

1. Do you think a security zone that large, with no access at all, is required to guarantee security?

if yes, goto 2
if no, goto 4

2. Do you think the same size security zone would be adequate if it banned motorized boats, but allowed other recreation users?

if yes, goto 4
if no, goto 3

3. I understand you, if you really think it is required for security then it should be in place, I do not want to jeopardize security, I only believe that both security and recreation use can occur in this instance!

4. You agree that it is not needed, which means people are losing a sacred natural resource for no reason, something should be done to remedy this...

I know some of you will say that we are not qualified to determine what extent of security is required, but we can at least compare it to security the rest of the year...and I think we are more capable than that...

 

[Banned_Princess]

Okay. In all seriousness.

The security requirements of POTUS are based on continually fluctuating criteria including current threat evaluations, global indicators, geographic limitations, and countless other assessments we don't even know about.



You have no way of knowing that, and I'm willing to bet anything that you're wrong. In any case, you don't have the expertise or the authority to make that determination. What you're complaining about was the result of the decisions of people who do have the expertise and authority.

Bottom line. You are not going to change the manner or scale of or on which the President is protected. If his vacation inconvenienced you or anybody else that is simply--to be blunt, if I may--too damned bad. You can accept that, or you can spin your wheels bitching about it and pursuing a pointless lawsuit. You have every right to waste your time and money.

I heart you. <3

And we are pretty through with this tread, and with that I award you >Charlotte< with the tread closer award for the day

::award::

 

[kiter78]

Okay. In all seriousness.

The security requirements of POTUS are based on continually fluctuating criteria including current threat evaluations, global indicators, geographic limitations, and countless other assessments we don't even know about.



You have no way of knowing that, and I'm willing to bet anything that you're wrong. In any case, you don't have the expertise or the authority to make that determination. What you're complaining about was the result of the decisions of people who do have the expertise and authority.

Bottom line. You are not going to change the manner or scale of or on which the President is protected. If his vacation inconvenienced you or anybody else that is simply--to be blunt, if I may--too damned bad. You can accept that, or you can spin your wheels bitching about it and pursuing a pointless lawsuit. You have every right to waste your time and money.

Most likely you are correct (I'm curious if same restrictions occured last year). I could hope they would compromise a little. It would be pretty sweet to win though! I checked the filing fee and it looks like it is $350...that is quite a bit to pay for a long shot...and POTUS may vacation somewhere else next year...hopefully...

 

[cbg]

Read Charlotte's response. Neither you nor I are privy to all the variable details that go into deciding what is necessary; therefore, neither you nor I have the knowledge or expertise to decide what is and is not necessary. The difference between you and me is that I am willing to accept the decision of those who DO have access to that knowledge - you think that your wants - not even needs, just wants - take precedence over the knowledge and expertise of those who are charged with making the decision.

 

[kiter78]

You have way too much trust in the government! Those same "experts" let Tareq and Michaele Salahi into the white house party...

BTW, I opened up the zone and google maps to try to put a scale on it to show how big it was...

and it looks much bigger before you put a scale on it...

 

[justalayman]

kiter78;2460863]Why is so much a larger area then they normally have? That is my main question!

maybe they got wind of your discontent and felt the threat level was escalated enough to warrant the larger area?

If you really want to know, write the white house and ask them. They might actually see your question deserves an answer. Here, all you are is a whiner.

No - I'm saying that my use does not affect the security. The point is that the president does not normally have that large of a security zone.

but that is your incorrect conclusion, Your use definitely affects the security required.

I think that the size of that security zone is overkill.

and that is your opinion and when you are chief of security for the president, that will mean something. Until then, it doesn't.

I think that the ocean and shoreline are a sacred resource that belongs to everyone and if you take it away you better have a good reason.

First, they didn't "take it away". I am sure it would have made world news if our government succeeded in taking away the Pacific ocean and one of the Hawaiian Islands. They temporarily restricted the general publics use of the beach and a certain amount of ocean. We elect a pres and we have accepted we must act to protect the president, That is simply life.

I do think that president security is a valid reason, but that it can be just as secure with a smaller zone or at least what they use most of the time...

again, unless you know why the claimed the area they did, what you think is enough area is irrelevant.

I really like to find some caselaw on it, but so far no luck, I thought for sure there would be a case with the TSR, but I think their argument is worse than mine...

research what the other poster was speaking about with the flight restrictions. That is probably going to be the best you are going to find as it is an ongoing battle.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Plus, and I'm going to say this one last thing--I swear, Zig, just this one last thing--give the guy a break, will ya? He's the President, for Pete's sake. How many people are actively trying to kill you right now, Opie? Don't like him, didn't vote for him, but I'd be in a looney bin in a flat-out year if I had to deal with whatever he deals with on any given good day in Washington. If the guy wants to spend a couple of days body surfing, who cares if you have to walk on a different beach for a while?

Look at a picture of any President on Inauguration Day, and then look at a picture of him on the day the next guy suits up. Dang, let the guy go fishing.

Okay, I'm done. Promise.

 

[justalayman]

and it looks much bigger before you put a scale on it...

Oh, so now you admit you were talking out of your ass and only perceived it was too great of an area. Next time, have your facts before complaiining of something that is just a misconception on your part.

Now you really just look like a whiner.

 

[cbg]

You have way too much trust in the government! Those same "experts" let Tareq and Michaele Salahi into the white house party...

And if you had been in charge of security, a whole lot more people would have been let in, so that's no argument.

 

[kiter78]

Oh, so now you admit you were talking out of your ass and only perceived it was too great of an area. Next time, have your facts before complaiining of something that is just a misconception on your part.

Now you really just look like a whiner.

Where did I ever whine? All I asked was WHAT FORM and WHAT COURT to file in?

That answer is file a civil injunction in federal court, easy enough...some of you posters are the ones with all the questions and whining...I even posted early on I didnt' want to start a debate on here...jeez!

for those of you that were helpful, thanks you, for others, why are you even on these forums? It does not appear to help people, just to make fun of them for your entertainment - grow up! Either post something helpful or just go on to the next thread...

 

[kiter78]

And if you had been in charge of security, a whole lot more people would have been let in, so that's no argument.

If I was in charge there would be the perfect harmony of security and minimal impact to others. I can also solve health care, the economy, and any other problem you give me... Of course they would not have gotten in...it really isn't that hard to compare a list of names to people's IDs...

 

[justalayman]

Where did I ever whine? All I asked was WHAT FORM and WHAT COURT to file in?

That answer is file a civil injunction in federal court, easy enough...some of you posters are the ones with all the questions and whining...I even posted early on I didnt' want to start a debate on here...jeez!

for those of you that were helpful, thanks you, for others, why are you even on these forums? It does not appear to help people, just to make fun of them for your entertainment - grow up! Either post something helpful or just go on to the next thread...

I responded productively to your questions. The fact you were complaining about something that was eventually exposed simply as a misconception on your part makes you a whiner.

 

[Zigner]

This thread has run its course, IMO

 

[kiter78]

I responded productively to your questions. The fact you were complaining about something that was eventually exposed simply as a misconception on your part makes you a whiner.

I looked back quickly at your history and I can not find one question of mine you answered. Basically you provided insulting commentary (that I must admit was mild amusing). Then you added a personal insult about my private life...latter adding conjecture about my spouse's happiness. Several instances you changed the meaning of my statements...

Finally, while I posted about its size not looking as bad with a scale I didn't say anything about it being a misconception on my part or that I had accepted it...I still think it is larger than neccesary...