Originally Posted by
ND Sol
What's your point? We are discussing the sterile area and the TSA's authority in the C.F.R.s for presentation of ID as related thereto. Do you have the cite to such authority that would contradict what I have presented?
The point is that CFR 49 does not specify what systems we are allowed to use. Government issued ID’s are already a system in common use throughout the world, there is nothing in CFR 49 that prohibits the TSA from using those systems.
Originally Posted by
ND Sol
You said that you looked forward to my reply, but yet you have failed to address it in the least.
Opinions on that vary. If you had actually read what was provided you would noit have come to such a conclusion.
Originally Posted by
ND Sol
ETA: Ron, you came on the board last night and failed to respond in the least to my October 7th posting, even though you were the one that wanted a new discussion in a new forum, which I complied with, and you stated you look forward to such. But yet you have been unable to articulate the C.F.R.s supporting your position. In fact, you are even unwilling to answer a simple question that was posed:
Let me pose a hypothetical (which has happened in airports). A passenger has no identification, nothing with his name on it except his BP. A verification process which asked him questions such as past rental history, credit history, etc., failed to identify the passenger. A complete and thorough search of his person and property is made without finding any WEI. Will he be permitted through the checkpoint and allow to fly?
If that passenger is not able to have his identity verified using one of the many resources TSA uses, he would not be allowed access to the sterile area. I await the inevitable splitting of hair now.
Originally Posted by
ND Sol
IMHO, this tact is no less dissimilar than when you stated about a fellow poster, Affection, that "Mr. Corbett's [Affection] fantasy video is nothing more or less than a complete falsehood". You had no support for that unequivocal position, but you made it anyway. When Affection posted another video to show that your statement was the one, in fact, to be the "complete falsehood", you continue to ignore that fact. That to me is similar to what is occurring here.
Sorry, I was totally unaware that Mr. Corbett used the name “Affection” in this forum, didn’t even know that he was aware that FT existed. That of course would not change what I have said concerning his writings, video’s, and comments one darn bit.
Originally Posted by
janetdoe
But did you comprehend it?
Quite. The idea that his arguments before the court are anti-TSA does not change the fact that he had some valid points or that the argument was interesting. That fact alone should demonstrate that I am not as partisan as most here think. I am a firm believer in our nation’s judicial system, and its wisdom. After all, it is there to protect my family and I just as it is to protect the rest of our nations citizens.
If a court were to say that a procedure that TSA has is illegal or violates someone’s rights, I would respect that. The difference is that in most of the cases cited by the citizens who have complaint with the TSA a TSO has gone outside of established procedure or has broken the law, and therefore has no real means of protection for their actions. Violating established procedure is not a crime in most cases, its just someone who has not done their job. Execution would be an inappropriate reaction by the TSA, just as would termination of their employment in most cases. Violating procedure and law in the same action might be cause for employment termination and criminal action.
Originally Posted by
janetdoe
Simple logic tells us that if Gilmore's choice wasn't meaningful (e.g. identify yourself or leave the airport) that the court's decision would have been different.
As far as I know, no court so far has ruled on the Constitutionality of whether or not the government can have a no-fly list and restrict people from traveling via such a list. TSA wiggled out of that one by saying that ID is not required to fly in Gilmore. If ID or an identification process is not required to fly, then the no-fly list is meaningless. @:-)
There is no requirement for an ID, but there is a requirement that the passengers be identified.
Originally Posted by
janetdoe
I hope the
Ibrahim v DHS case that is winding its way through the Ninth Circuit is probably going to be an interesting test of the no-fly list. So far, the SFPD settled her suit for false arrest. The private contractor at the "Freedom Center" (i.e. the person who answers the phone when there is a match with the no-fly list) instructed them to arrest her because her name was on a secret government list. I wonder why the police didn't want to try and defend that?
The 9th is iffy at best. It is the single most reversed court in the land, so it’s not really all that good a measure of what might or might not be allowed.