- Is it TSA's policy to refrain from offering "passenger screening" (i.e., searching and questioning of a passenger) to a person if that person has ID on his or her person and refuses to show TSA that ID?
"Yes, that is TSA policy" "no, that is not TSA policy," or "cannot answer; more information needed"
Originally Posted by
SATTSO
1. Would ask you then, "ok, how can we identify you." decision wouldn't be made until that question is asked and or/answered.
You never said, yes, no, or cannot answer. Would you please either answer the question, tell us that you cannot answer it, or tell us that you refuse to answer it? I suspect that the answer is 'no,' but I'd like you to confirm. Did you mean to say, "No, Phil, it is not our policy to refrain from offering "passenger screening" (i.e., searching and questioning of a passenger) to someone because he refused to show us ID that he has on his person."?
- Previous rulings had stated that a passenger had the choice of not showing ID if they agreed to enhanced screening. Is that the case today?
"Yes, that is the case today" "no, that is not the case today," or "cannot answer; more information needed"
Originally Posted by
SATTSO
I'd not agree with your understanding o the previous rulings (as far as I understand how you stated your question). TSA was not ordered by the court to offer alternative screened. The court simply said TSA DOES at the time offer it.
Boggie Dog and I didn't say that TSA was ordered to do anything. As you can see above, the preface to the question is, "previous rulings had stated that a passenger had the choice of not showing ID if they agreed to enhanced screening." I've seen no disagreement over that here. Is that still the case, or not? Is it still the case that if a passenger agrees to submit to your "enhanced screening," then showing ID is optional for him?
- If I, a passenger, have a form of ID on my person and simply state that I do not wish to show ID will the process of alternative screening begin?
"Yes, it will" "no, it will not," or "cannot answer; more information needed"
Originally Posted by
SATTSO
3. Refer to answer 1
Please, can you just answer the question? Your response to #1 is not an answer to this question (or to that one). I suspect that you cannot answer the question without more information, but you didn't say so. If that is the case, could you please let us know, and also tell us what other informaiton you need in order to be able to answer?
I don't know how to make this any simpler for you. Each of these questions can only be answered with 'yes' or 'no'. I understand that you may not be able to answer them without additional information, but you've not indicated that such is the case. If you don't want to answer, I'll stop asking. But I'm not willing to pretend that you've answered.
Originally Posted by
SATTSO
i do not believe we restrict the freedom of movement.
When someone is moving and you order him to stop, then tell him that he is not allowed to proceed, you don't consider that a restriction of his movement?
Originally Posted by
SATTSO
Our courts have said flying is not a right, and if you can not go by airplane, drive, take a bus, etc.
I didn't write
the following, but
its authors seem to know what they're talking about
:
Do you have a right to travel by air?
Yes. The “public right of freedom of transit” by air is guaranteed by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and the TSA is required by Federal law (49 USC § 40101) to consider this right when it issues regulations. Airlines are common carriers. Mr. Mocek’s attempted trip was an exercise of “the right … peaceably to assemble,” which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Freedom of movement is also guaranteed by
Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a human rights treaty signed and ratified by the US.
Can local police lawfully interfere with your right to travel, by air or otherwise?
No. The TSA checkpoint is a Federal facility, the airport and airline are Federally certified, and the right of travel by air is guaranteed by Federal law. Any interference with the passage of ticketed passengers, under color of state or local authority, would violate
42 USC § 1983.
Interference by local police with air travel is forbidden by the same laws that forbade Southern sheriffs from interfering with interstate bus travel by Freedom Riders.
Does any of that seem inaccurate? Do you think those Southern sheriffs should have been allowed to interfere with interstate bus travel since
those people still had the option of traveling by horse or on foot?
Originally Posted by
SATTSO
But if you are really worried about TSA being able to tell people they can not travel by flight, then your concern should not be with ID. That is a very rare happening. It is QUIET common for our employees to tell people if they insist on bringing a prohibited item through the checkpoint, if they do not want check in it, mail it, throw it away, etc., they will not be allowed through the checkpoint, thus they can not fly
Please don't take offense at this; I don't mean to offend: I don't think you understand the problem. Look at it this way: How could a government stymie the efforts of political dissidents by barring people from traveling by air while carrying certain items? Such a policy would affect everyone who attempts to carry those items, not just the people who the government wans to target for ideological reasons. Now, consider how a government could stymie the efforts of political dissidents by barring people from traveling by air when they have been blacklisted. Simple, right? Just blacklist the dissidents.
Is it clearer now? We're looking at the big picture. I'm not particularly concerned about one TSA bag checker telling one person he cannot go on about his business. I'm concerned about our government making it impossible or impractical for certain people to move about the country and associate with each other. Your passenger identification policies are integral to this system of restricting movement using blacklists.