Originally Posted by
medic51vrf
Just so I'm understanding what you're saying, you're telling me that the TRANSPORT SAFETY Authority has no business in not allowing you to bring detailed plans on how to destroy an aircraft onto said aircraft?
If so, we are miles apart on this one.
First of all, the agency we're discussing is the Transportation Security Administration, not the "Transport Safety Authority".
Secondly, the Transportation Security Administration has absolutely no authority to confiscate, prohibit, censor, investigate, or catalog the reading material of any passenger. Doing so goes far beyond the limited scope of the Administrative Search Doctrine, as defined in US vs Davis.
Besides - such materials are routinely in the possession of employees of DHS, TSA, DOD, and dozens of domestic law enforcement agencies; possession of such materials is not only not prohibited, it is also not, in and of itself, dangerous or threatening, or even inherently suspicious on its own merits.
Originally Posted by
medic51vrf
Do you really not understand how a person holding detailed written plans on how to build a bomb and get said device onto an aircraft might be viewed as a threat when attempting to board a commercial airliner?
They proably don't and I never suggested that they did.
I never mentioned a single word about me feeling unsafe. I only spoke about what THE TSA might think was unsafe and how making them feel so (or disrespected) would not work to the OPs advantage.
Do you really not understand that a person's choice of reading material, no matter how controversial or threatening that YOU or anyone else might feel it is, is their own durn business, and that critiquing that choice - or limiting it by theft - is illegal because it exceeds the defined limits of the Adminsitrative Search Doctrine under which TSA is legally bound to operate?
Originally Posted by
medic51vrf
<sigh>
Ok, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you will understand.
When a person posseses detailed plans on how to commit a criminal act (in this example making a bomb and blowing up an aircraft) and then places themselves in a position where that act can be committed (on an aircraft) the people hired to protect the asset (the plane) from the act (blowing it up) will (rightly or wrongly) view this as a potential threat due to multiple (if not all) of the elements of the crime being present.
Clear enough?
As a former LEO, how many documents have you possessed detailing the commission of crimes? Did any of those documents make you a threat?
Originally Posted by
medic51vrf
I'm not disagreeing with that. Please understand that I have not said, nor do I feel, that what happened to the OP was in any way correct. I feel, and have expressly stated in this thread, quite the opposite.
On a couple of side notes, it is important to understand that the the rights granted by the Constitution and it's amendments are not absolute. For example the First Amendment grants the right to free speech but it does not grant the right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. The Second grants the right to keep and bear arms but not in a courthouse or an airliner, etc.
Finally, I'd like to thank you for keeping your argument (perhaps not the correct word) civil and nonpersonal. While I may not totally agree with the exact content, I absolutly agree with your right to it.
As others have said, neither the original articles of the Constitution nor any of the Amendments
grant rights to people. The Constitution exists for the sole purpose of limiting the government and preventing its intrusion into personal liberties of the People. The Bill of Rights, and many of the other Amendments, exist as a sort of safety net, designed to spell out the most important rights with which people are born and protecting them from governmental violation.
The mere fact that you would say such a thing indicates that, like so many Americans - particularly those tasked with upholding and defending the Constitution and the rights which it protects - you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Constitution is and what it does. This misunderstanding is the very reason why the Constitution has been so badly subverted in recent years, and continues to be eroded with each illegal search and each violation of the already-established laws perpetrated by TSA.
Originally Posted by
medic51vrf
I'm going to bed. Just completed a 13 hour shift. As this thread has gotten way out of control can a suggest the people go back and read it from the OPs first post? I just did and I think that if you do you'll find a couple of things.
After over 75 posts, I'm the ONLY one who has answered the OPs 3 questions, including how the TSA (NOT I) would view things and how, right or wrong, pissing them off delivered no advantage to the OP.
At no time, I repeat, at NO TIME did I ever say I agreed with the TSA and I actually said I DID NOT agree with them. I also told the OP I was not attacking her but was answering her questions (the reason for her post in the first place).
At NO TIME did I advocate violation of anyones Constitutional rights (sorry OP, just a saying) but instead gave examples of how certain activity might draw unwanted and unnecessary attention from a group of people who are known to be "problem children" to begin with.
In spite of the fact that various people accused me of feeling things which were not evidenced (I said what THE TSA would likely think, etc), personally attacking me (beating prisoners, violating peoples rights, etc. REALLY??), and putting words in my mouth (which never came OUT of my mouth to begin with) I kept my responses to the questions asked.
As mentioned by other people in other threads, there is a disturbing trend here for people to gang up on, and become quite agressive with, ANYONE who does not visciously attack the TSA.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT THE DO AND PARTICULARLY HOW THEY DO IT but being rude to them doesn't accoplish anything other than making things harder on yourselves (and possibly giving yourself some kind of pleasure... at a price) and regardless of whether it's your right to do so or not, certain actions attract negative attention.
Have a good day/night/whatever everyone.
So, in plainer language, what you're basically saying is that, "They're wrong, but shut up and respect their authoritah or they'll make your like miserable". Is that about the size of it?
Well, that's poodoo. Shut up and take it is not the way to change things. I'm not going to stand idly by when someone violates my civil rights, I'm going to challenge them. Maybe I'll lose, but if you don't try you'll never know. And besides, smacking a dog on the nose after you've already cleaned up the poop doesn't do anything; you have to rub his nose in it first so he associates "poop on rug" with "smack on nose".
Originally Posted by
loops
Step away from the keyboard. You are sleep depraved. Good nite!
Actually, it's "sleep
deprived". Depraved has another, rather different meaning. Which may or may not be applicable to some TSOs...