Man detained for his writings.

Old Jun 28, 2009, 10:51 am
  #16  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,867
mission creep at it's best

Originally Posted by Trollkiller
It must be a good comic, the screener had to sit down to read it.
i'm wondering if their lips moved while they were reading it?

Last edited by goalie; Jun 28, 2009 at 11:07 am
goalie is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 10:53 am
  #17  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
Originally Posted by goalie
i'm wondering if their lips moved while they were reading it?
They probably read it in Officer Barbrady's style.
Ari is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 11:06 am
  #18  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Originally Posted by exerda
I've had them on very rare occasions flip through books and a CD wallet. I asked a screener if it was really necessary to look over my individual CDs, and she just put them back in my bag and didn't say anything else. Another gent commented that he liked the author I was reading, etc. Way too nosy for the scope of their jobs, IMHO.
Flipping through a book to check for a razor is fine, commenting you like the book or author is fine, reading the book is not.
Trollkiller is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 12:19 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
Flipping through a book to check for a razor is fine, commenting you like the book or author is fine, reading the book is not.
And making any judgement regarding the content is indefensible. What next - certain books or papers are to be banned from airports ? Debt of Honor (Clancy) and Storming Heaven (Brown) probably at the top the list. The Koran is OK though, mustn't offend anyone.

If the screeners keep up these egregious abuses the courts might (finally!) be forced to smack them down. Not before time.
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 12:40 pm
  #20  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
And making any judgement regarding the content is indefensible. What next - certain books or papers are to be banned from airports ? Debt of Honor (Clancy) and Storming Heaven (Brown) probably at the top the list. The Koran is OK though, mustn't offend anyone.

If the screeners keep up these egregious abuses the courts might (finally!) be forced to smack them down. Not before time.
The courts may want to slap them down before a passenger does.
Trollkiller is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 2:53 pm
  #21  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Originally Posted by Jaimito Cartero
'Dem TSA folk luv da comic type bookies. As long as there ain't no biggie wurds!
I'm surprised TSA training manuals aren't in comic book format, as training and PM periodicals were when I was active duty Army.

As for the matter at hand, Blogdad Bob post supporting the gestapo-like actions of the TSOs and managers in 5...4...3...2...1...

Last edited by n4zhg; Jun 28, 2009 at 3:06 pm
n4zhg is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 2:59 pm
  #22  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
Wrong.

The minute they started reading the document was the moment they stepped over the line. A document cannot be travel-related contraband.

I would submit that this is a perfect test cast as the victim of the intrusive TSA search is a writer with an unpublished manuscript. It's really no different than the TSA reading written materials that I might have that are considered company confidential.
Plus the fact that if the traveler had been named "Tom Clancy" this would not have happened.
n4zhg is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 3:10 pm
  #23  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Originally Posted by Trollkiller
The courts may want to slap them down before a passenger does.
The prosecution had better pray I don't end up on a jury in a case like this.

My vote would be along the lines of "You should have pimp-slapped the TSO into the next century."
n4zhg is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 3:30 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LIS/ATL/other
Programs: UA 1K, Avis PC, Hertz PC, Sixt Plat, Marriott Gold, HH Silver
Posts: 1,983
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
The minute they started reading the document was the moment they stepped over the line. A document cannot be travel-related contraband.
It can. What if said document contained instructions on how to mix the right amounts of liquids and gels (say, shampoo and chapstick) to create an explosive? Could the TSA argue that they were going through the guy's materials to make sure they did not contain materials that could be used in travel-related terrorism?

It's a very slippery slope. Next thing you know they will prohibit certain reading material, starting with explosive-making recipes, then aircraft operating handbooks, then pilot training books, then maps, then pictures of buildings, and on and on. And of course, to make sure you don't being any of these dangerous items, they will have to read your papers.

Then they'll realize you can bring all those docs on your laptop or phone or Kindle, and they will have to ban those too.

It's the slippery slope towards flying naked.

My stance is that we have to accept the risk that people may carry bomb-making instructions. If we don't accept that risk the TSA will allege that they can read our documents, and the we go further down the slippery slope. That's why it's important to fight all these intrusions, and fight them hard, now.
CaptainMiles is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 3:42 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Originally Posted by CaptainMiles
It can. What if said document contained instructions on how to mix the right amounts of liquids and gels (say, shampoo and chapstick) to create an explosive? Could the TSA argue that they were going through the guy's materials to make sure they did not contain materials that could be used in travel-related terrorism?

It's a very slippery slope. Next thing you know they will prohibit certain reading material, starting with explosive-making recipes, then aircraft operating handbooks, then pilot training books, then maps, then pictures of buildings, and on and on. And of course, to make sure you don't being any of these dangerous items, they will have to read your papers.

Then they'll realize you can bring all those docs on your laptop or phone or Kindle, and they will have to ban those too.

It's the slippery slope towards flying naked.

My stance is that we have to accept the risk that people may carry bomb-making instructions. If we don't accept that risk the TSA will allege that they can read our documents, and the we go further down the slippery slope. That's why it's important to fight all these intrusions, and fight them hard, now.
I once had a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook. Nearly everything they wrote about in that book was illegal. Was once asked if I was an anarchist because of having a copy of the book. Told them it was a book and that I realized that everything in the book was illegal. Was asked why I have the book and responded with 'if I had a copy of Das Kapital would that make me a communist?'

Funny thing was that the cookbook was compiled from other, less intimidating books available in the public library.
AngryMiller is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 3:56 pm
  #26  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Originally Posted by CaptainMiles
It can. What if said document contained instructions on how to mix the right amounts of liquids and gels (say, shampoo and chapstick) to create an explosive? Could the TSA argue that they were going through the guy's materials to make sure they did not contain materials that could be used in travel-related terrorism?
It can't. As long as the explosives are not available it does not matter what I read.

With that said, if a TSO saw a book with the title of "How to bring down an airplane" and felt it was suspicious, they should call in a LEO. The TSO should not ask ANY questions about the book or read the book. Leave it to the LEO.
Trollkiller is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 9:48 pm
  #27  
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,946
Originally Posted by CaptainMiles
It can. What if said document contained instructions on how to mix the right amounts of liquids and gels (say, shampoo and chapstick) to create an explosive? Could the TSA argue that they were going through the guy's materials to make sure they did not contain materials that could be used in travel-related terrorism?
Such a document would be a document of lies. Liquid explosives cannot be synthesized airside from non-ETD/ETP-able materials without laboratory conditions.

One can find instructions on how to make explosives all over the place. The Anarchist's Cookbook and The Poor Man's James Bond are excellent mainstream literature that details the synthesis of explosives. Are we now going to be banning books?

It's long past time to destroy this scummy, disgusting, un-American POS agency.
Spiff is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 10:41 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: HSV
Posts: 876
The only book I ever comment on that I see is when I see someone coming through with a book from the Wheel of Time series. It then usually turns into a brief discussion about the series in general, and how much it sucked that Robert Jordan freakin' died before the final book was written.
HSVTSO Dean is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2009, 10:53 pm
  #29  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: IAH
Programs: CO 1k. Still proudly carry PSA Executive Flyer smile not the fake USAir "grin!"
Posts: 152
Originally Posted by Ari
(snip)A perfect test case is one that doesn't conjure up 9/11 emotions-- judges are people too, even though they are supposed to look only at the law.

As I said, "I would not want to take this one on since the cartoons were terror-related. Since airport security in a "post-9/11 world" is a touchy topic, I'd want a case that was non-terror-related protected speech. Something like that could tip a judge on the side of 09/11/2001 instead of the side of 12/15/1791. The better case would have been the KHIAI bag."
First, I think you're saying this "graphic novel" qualifies as protected speech and I think we're all in agreement it doesn't come close to rising to the level of a threat to anyone's safety on any level. I agree, but let me be the idealist then; I would hope we can give the judiciary more credit than to be concerned that emotions would shade decisions on basic rights. Undeniably emotions play into decisions from time-to-time but might not this actually work the other way here? I mean, isn't the very idea that this "comic book" seems to paint the TSA (maybe even DHS?) in a negative light the very reason to believe that, if "judicial emotion" were to kick in, it might likely fall on the side of protecting speech that challenges the gov't's role/position? While I full well understand your thoughts here, consider "judicial emotion" in the context of "Fofana." Reading that case, Fofana was clearly up to no good. It wouldn't have taken much for an emotional judiciary to side with the TSA's lame argument something "dangerous" could have been in the "stiffer envelopes" and allow the evidence rather than recognize what was happening and exclude it.
Originally Posted by Ari
(snip)...but I wouldn't want to give the court any emotional fodder on a test case. I am a realist in addition to an idealist. If the detention had been significant and well-documented, then it would make for a much stronger case, IMO.

I think the ACLU should know about this regardless-- I will stand behind anyone who wants to take up this cause, but that person isn't me.
"Significant and well documented" are problematic here, I agree. If the TSA were to deny it happened at all and assert that this guy was making it up to hype his comic books...it becomes a far tougher sell than Bierfeldt's case, of course, and, on that basis, I have to agree might not be a good fit with Bierfeldt's case.
rustyhaight is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2009, 4:35 am
  #30  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Originally Posted by rustyhaight
"Significant and well documented" are problematic here, I agree. If the TSA were to deny it happened at all and assert that this guy was making it up to hype his comic books...it becomes a far tougher sell than Bierfeldt's case, of course, and, on that basis, I have to agree might not be a good fit with Bierfeldt's case.
Part of the reason why good lawyers recommend that all contacts with government agents be recorded in one form or another, even if you plan to remain silent and not answer questions. Another significant part is that it is a felony to "lie" to federal law enforcement. Martha Stewart wouldn't have spent any time in jail had there been recordings in her attorney's possession that would have removed the "he said, she said" that went in the government's favor.

If people would remember that the government is NOT here to help you, life would be a lot harder for the power geeks that inhabit the system.
n4zhg is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.