One of those ways, you seem to have said, is to ask the person you suspect of carrying explosives what the substance is. I don't understand what good his word is to you.
If you know anything about basic police work or screening (Israeli style) you would know that one of the most effective techniques is to interrogate the subject and evaluate the responses. Many criminals are caught in this manner.
As to whether other techniques, i.e. chemical analysis, should be used, I would imagine that is a cost/benefit decision.
I am glad to see that TSA is no longer simply relying on x-ray machines, which, as shown by numerous IG reports, are not very effective in detecting weapons due to operator error. Of course, all of this has very little to do with the subject of this thread, which is whether the government should be detaining someone who is carrying $4700 cash. Would be nice to see them get slapped down, but it's luck of the draw with federal judges.
I hope it goes all the way. The ACLU has the pockets to make this case an example of government wrongdoing.
Even if the government claims the TSO was out of line that leaves training, supervision and a whole host of other issues on the table for examination.
I have no doubt that TSA will throw the TSO's involved to the wolves at first opportunity.
However, if the government can wiggle out of a trial you know they will do everything possible to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
The ACLU generally doesn't settle unless there is a mea culpa and corrective action taken.
So, if DHS (a) admits that they violated the constitution and that they exceeded their statutory authority, (b) agrees not to do it again and takes steps to make sure it doesn't happen again and (c) pays the ACLU's legal fees, then the ACLU will settle. Otherwise, not likely.
I will add that one of the lawyers on this case, Alan Gura, argued before the Supreme Court last year and won -- that was Heller.
IME the government rarely settles particularly in this instance where its rulemaking authority or "security" matters are at issue. Nor does it admit a legal violation or pay legal fees. So I think this one will be litigated all the way through the court of appeal.
Although I am glad to see the suit was filed and support the plaintiff, one should not underestimate the numerous defenses available to the government. And many federal judges are quite deferential to government agencies, particularly when "security" or safety is purportedly at issue. Unfortunately not a slam dunk here, much as we would like.
Actually, this was OSHA. I know you want to bash TSA badly on this, but it doesn't apply in this case.
Are you saying it was OSHA's policy that a screener couldn't work alone without a dosemiter but could work without a dosemiter if they were supervised by another individual who had a dosemiter...or, are you saying OSHA said the amount of radiation didn't warrant the use of dosemiters?
If you know anything about basic police work or screening (Israeli style) you would know that one of the most effective techniques is to interrogate the subject and evaluate the responses. Many criminals are caught in this manner.
That's irrelevant to this discussion. We're not discussing catching criminals. We're discussing determining whether or not a bag of white powder is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary. Of what value in this case is the word of the person carrying the substance?
That's irrelevant to this discussion. We're not discussing catching criminals. We're discussing determining whether or not a bag of white powder is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary. Of what value in this case is the word of the person carrying the substance?
Try re-reading my quote. I think it is pretty clear. If you still don't understand maybe someone else can explain it to you.
A long time ago, we sheltered a neighbor who was abused by her husband. As she opened up to us and told us about how abusive he was, I made the dumb mistake of saying that she should have hit the SOB over the head with the frying pan. The next morning, they reconciled, and she went home (I'm keeping this short, but I assure you that we made sure that it was safe for her to go home, he appeared sincere, I told him they should both seek counseling, etc.). About 30 minutes later I got a phone call from her.
"Well," she said, "I did what you told me!"
"Uh, what was that?" I asked.
"I hit the SOB over the head with the frying pan!"
I took him to the hospital, dealt with the police, etc.
Since then, I am very careful how I phrase things, even though I'm freer online with you and others.
Did he ever hit her again? If not, problem solved. If so, hit him again.
Try re-reading my quote. I think it is pretty clear. If you still don't understand maybe someone else can explain it to you.
I re-read it. I think you conflate TSA's search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries with a fishing expedition whereby everyone who passes is searched for anything that may be used to build any case against him. Remember, TSA bag checkers' duty is not to catch criminals, but to keep certain things off airplanes.
The thread went like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
We were talking about the STSO asking a passenger about what was in a "baggie of white powder".
[...]
(2) In general, how can anything that a passenger says be used to clear an item? It would certainly seem to me that it would be a serious violation of security to rely on what a passenger said as being truthful. About all a passenger could do would be to help the STSO in identifying or opening the object ("the top comes off when you turn it clockwise").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
2) You are dead on, no objections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
If a TSO were searching for a tube of toothpaste that exceeded the 3:1:1 restriction, and found a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance right next to the tube of toothpaste [...]
I do not find it unusual if the supervisor inquired about the contents. If the passenger acted nervous, or evaded answering any questions, then, like it or not, you have an unresolved security issue. [...]
If, on the other hand, the passenger cooperated by explaining that the baggie was really a baking soda compound, for example, used in conjunction with brushing teeth, and the passenger didn't exhibit any nervous behavior, then the supervisor may determine that there's no need to pursue the matter any further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmocek
Wow. So there's how to smuggle white, powdered, explosive material onto an airplane. I'm with Richard and TK on this one. A passenger's explanation of a substance that you suspect of being explosive really shouldn't matter to you.
Bart, are you really saying that you'll rely on a potential wrongdoer's inability to remain calm and lie to you as part of your determination of whether or not that person is carrying weapons, explosives, or incendiaries?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
Nope, never said that. There are many ways to check out the mysterious white, powdery substance that may be an explosive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmocek
One of those ways, you seem to have said, is to ask the person you suspect of carrying explosives what the substance is. I don't understand what good his word is to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boraxo
If you know anything about basic police work or screening (Israeli style) you would know that one of the most effective techniques is to interrogate the subject and evaluate the responses. Many criminals are caught in this manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmocek
That's irrelevant to this discussion. We're not discussing catching criminals. We're discussing determining whether or not a bag of white powder is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary. Of what value in this case is the word of the person carrying the substance?
Bart and Borax:
When you find a bag of white powder and are trying to determine whether or not it is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, of what value in making your determination is the word of the person who you suspect of carrying such a substance?
Will you vary the thoroughness of your examination of the suspicious substance based on the person's responses to your questions?
When you find a bag of white powder and are trying to determine whether or not it is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, of what value in making your determination is the word of the person who you suspect of carrying such a substance?
One of the problems is that upon finding the bag of white powder, TSO's will stop thinking about trying to determine if it is a weapon, explosive or incendiary and only focus on if it might be drugs.
My guess is in the vast majority of cases the powder is never tested for explosives, regardless of the passengers responses or behavior
When you find a bag of white powder and are trying to determine whether or not it is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, of what value in making your determination is the word of the person who you suspect of carrying such a substance?
Will you vary the thoroughness of your examination of the suspicious substance based on the person's responses to your questions?
1 None. I might listen to the person explain or tell me what something is, but that does not weigh on what I do.
2. Not one iota. Do the same thing every time and do it right so there is NO question of a threat.
