Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
Nov 24, 2009, 2:26 pm
#406
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,083
Perhaps having a copy of this in your pocket while refusing to present ID would provide a few hours of entertainment.
http://www.icitizenforum.com/arabic/...-rights-arabic
http://www.icitizenforum.com/arabic/...-rights-arabic
Nov 24, 2009, 4:05 pm
#407
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: 28,878
When I said, "If someone can clear security and be free of WEI, there is no reason to stop them from traveling", I was talking about the TSA in case you missed it.
The TSA doesn't have a control on the "Freedom of speech" now, do they? (re: inappropriate comments) -- and yes, I realize there is some speech that isn't protected, akin to one yelling "fire" in a theater.
What does a broken aircraft or an illness have to do with the TSA, let alone a number of FAA regulations - which are not vague, but rather specific?
If one holds a paid, confirmed ticket & boarding pass/seat request card, and has not violated their contract with the airline, the airline is obligated to transport you from origin to destination on your ticket. However, this discussion is not about air carrier CoC's, delayed flights, mx, wx, cxl'd flights or specific FAA sched 121 and/or DOT regs.
Lets not take the conversation away from the subject at hand:
The only thing the TSA should be doing is an administrative search for WEI; if a person can clear a checkpoint and be free of WEI, as far as I'm concerned they can travel.
The TSA doesn't have a control on the "Freedom of speech" now, do they? (re: inappropriate comments) -- and yes, I realize there is some speech that isn't protected, akin to one yelling "fire" in a theater.
What does a broken aircraft or an illness have to do with the TSA, let alone a number of FAA regulations - which are not vague, but rather specific?
If one holds a paid, confirmed ticket & boarding pass/seat request card, and has not violated their contract with the airline, the airline is obligated to transport you from origin to destination on your ticket. However, this discussion is not about air carrier CoC's, delayed flights, mx, wx, cxl'd flights or specific FAA sched 121 and/or DOT regs.
Lets not take the conversation away from the subject at hand:
The only thing the TSA should be doing is an administrative search for WEI; if a person can clear a checkpoint and be free of WEI, as far as I'm concerned they can travel.
. the tsa mission creep needs to be stopped
Nov 25, 2009, 4:35 am
#408
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Ron, I take it that you have no problems with a secret list that keeps a person from using all available means of travel even while there is no way to confirm that a given person is on that list and no effective way to get off the list.
If the US has an issue with a person then should not criminal charges be brought in a court so that person can answer the charges?
If the US has an issue with a person then should not criminal charges be brought in a court so that person can answer the charges?
But no such list exists, so this is a moot point you attempt to make.
Nov 25, 2009, 6:31 am
#409
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
Perhaps he needs a vacation - I would happily suggest Australia, so he could enjoy Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, and perhaps spend some time up in Queensland -- but also see what security is like on domestic flights there, departing from domestic terminals. @:-) @:-)
Ironically, the last time I was in-transit at DBX ... now that I think about it ... the only time I was required to provide ID was by an Emirates Security employee to enter the gate and it was only required to make sure I had my passport on me to ensure I was admissible to my destination as I was on an international flight.
What is it with ID here in the states?
Nov 25, 2009, 8:02 am
#410
Join Date: May 2008
Location: BOS
Programs: TSA TSO
Posts: 455
And they also use it to extract additional punishment because they know that even if the charges are dismissed, the record on the internet will never go away - and one can lose their job or outright not be hired because of the digital dirt. There is no expungement on the internet.
The request (note the use of the word "request") comes within the limited administrative search. However, TSA has no blanket authority to violate the Constitution.
TSOs have no authority to give orders of any kind. I'm going to repeat this one more time, because it's critical:
TSOs have no legal authority to order anyone to do anything.
Any "order" from a TSO is, by definition, unlawful -- they are not law enforcement officers. TSOs can do one thing, and one thing only: either permit or deny access to the sterile area based on a specific protocol that is limited to ensuring that passengers don't have weapons, explosives or incendiaries. If a TSO chooses not to admit a passenger to the sterile area, he can NOT give the passenger an order -- if the passenger still insists on entrance, the TSO's only option is to call a policeman, i.e. a law enforcement officer, who possesses to the authority to issue an order, as well as to detain or arrest.
Want to bet? Please identify the statute that provides for a sanction for failing to follow a TSO's "order."
TSOs have no authority to give orders of any kind. I'm going to repeat this one more time, because it's critical:
TSOs have no legal authority to order anyone to do anything.
Any "order" from a TSO is, by definition, unlawful -- they are not law enforcement officers. TSOs can do one thing, and one thing only: either permit or deny access to the sterile area based on a specific protocol that is limited to ensuring that passengers don't have weapons, explosives or incendiaries. If a TSO chooses not to admit a passenger to the sterile area, he can NOT give the passenger an order -- if the passenger still insists on entrance, the TSO's only option is to call a policeman, i.e. a law enforcement officer, who possesses to the authority to issue an order, as well as to detain or arrest.
Want to bet? Please identify the statute that provides for a sanction for failing to follow a TSO's "order."
Also, Phil might finally get to see the Screening Management SOP that he requested back in August.
Last edited by LoganTSO; Nov 25, 2009 at 8:24 am
Nov 25, 2009, 8:27 am
#412
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,083
If such a list existed then I might have problems with it, depending on the class of people on the list. Suspected terrorists? Not one problem at all. I would prefer that they stay in their home towns and live their lives without ever harming or being given the chance of harming any innocent person. Same for murders, child molesters, and politicians. Golfers, pretty much the same.
But no such list exists, so this is a moot point you attempt to make.
But no such list exists, so this is a moot point you attempt to make.
This little tidbit was written by your agency so I guess you need to tell them they don't know what they're talking about:
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/secure_flight.shtm
"Secure Flight
The "No-Fly" list has been an essential element of the aviation security - it keeps known terrorists off planes."
Then we have this little gem:
http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...ut-no-fly-list
"October 26, 2005
Frequently Asked Questions About the "No Fly List"
How many names are on the No Fly List and Selectee List?
The exact number constantly fluctuates and is also a secret. However, the TSA says that tens of thousands of names are on these lists."
I'm curious by what you mean by class of people? Those who should not have benefit of the courts, poor people or just what?
And by moot it seems you really don't understand the true meaning of the word:
Moot \Moot\, adjective
1. Subject, or open, to argument or discussion; undecided; debatable; mooted.
Seems like you are once again WRONG on every point.
Good job Ronny!
Nov 25, 2009, 8:55 am
#413
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,723
I'm re-posting this with minor modifications since TSORon exploited a loophole in my wording to avoid answering the question:
Your America is not my America.
Our government has not had secret blacklists that deny people basic freedoms continuously since it's inception. When such things have happened (Red Scares, WWI, WWII Japanese-American interments), they have been heavily condemned by history and those agencies and individuals who have supported them have paid a price.
So if I understand you, you think the NFL is OK because being denied commercial air travel is not a "criminal penalty?" Do you truly believe that the US government should be able to tell an American citizen that "you are not allowed to get on a commercial airplane," without any due process, transparency, explanation for the decision, or opportunity for redress? Really? What if the unfortunate victim was your spouse or child? Or you?
Your America is not my America.
The point is, and please answer the question I wrote instead of nitpicking over differences between general and commercial aviation (which had nothing to do with my post), do you believe that it is OK for the US government to deny US citizens this sort of "liberty" or "ability" (be it commercial air travel or some other routine legal activity that doesn't require a license or special skills) without any due process, transparency, or redress? And if so, how would you feel if it was your spouse or child who was impacted without having done anything wrong and had no means of fixing the situation?
Originally Posted by TSORon:
Actually, its quite American. Our government has had lists of one kind or another since inception, its as American as apple pie and baseball.
Actually, its quite American. Our government has had lists of one kind or another since inception, its as American as apple pie and baseball.
Our government has not had secret blacklists that deny people basic freedoms continuously since it's inception. When such things have happened (Red Scares, WWI, WWII Japanese-American interments), they have been heavily condemned by history and those agencies and individuals who have supported them have paid a price.
So if I understand you, you think the NFL is OK because being denied commercial air travel is not a "criminal penalty?" Do you truly believe that the US government should be able to tell an American citizen that "you are not allowed to get on a commercial airplane," without any due process, transparency, explanation for the decision, or opportunity for redress? Really? What if the unfortunate victim was your spouse or child? Or you?
Your America is not my America.
The point is, and please answer the question I wrote instead of nitpicking over differences between general and commercial aviation (which had nothing to do with my post), do you believe that it is OK for the US government to deny US citizens this sort of "liberty" or "ability" (be it commercial air travel or some other routine legal activity that doesn't require a license or special skills) without any due process, transparency, or redress? And if so, how would you feel if it was your spouse or child who was impacted without having done anything wrong and had no means of fixing the situation?
Nov 25, 2009, 9:03 am
#414
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Nope. I correct everyone who makes legal errors. The problem is that you make so many of them.
Nov 25, 2009, 10:36 am
#416
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
However, I don't buy into Ron's premise that the NFL is not worthy of discussion since it does limit one's ability to fly without effective redress. Ron seems to think that if you can walk, then you are not restricted.
Nov 25, 2009, 4:12 pm
#417
In Memoriam
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
Funny TSORon didn't respond to my message about "The only thing the TSA should be doing is an administrative search for WEI; if a person can clear a checkpoint and be free of WEI, as far as I'm concerned they can travel" - after I refuted his claims that took things off topic.
Perhaps he needs a vacation - I would happily suggest Australia, so he could enjoy Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, and perhaps spend some time up in Queensland -- but also see what security is like on domestic flights there, departing from domestic terminals. @:-) @:-)
Perhaps he needs a vacation - I would happily suggest Australia, so he could enjoy Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, and perhaps spend some time up in Queensland -- but also see what security is like on domestic flights there, departing from domestic terminals. @:-) @:-)
In Australia, anyone and everyone can proceed through security - whether they be passengers, meeters-and-greeters, plane-spotters, whoever - and it is all done quickly and efficeiently.
We also screen EVERYONE going airside, airline personnel, cabin/flight crew, McDonalds staff, even the screeners get screened before they are allowed to start screening.
So I would posit that Australia, with a no ID rule (but allowing non-travellers through), has a tougher regime than the US (which only screens some, but allows some, but not other, non-travellers through).
Dave
Nov 25, 2009, 6:35 pm
#418
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,767
In Australia, anyone and everyone can proceed through security - whether they be passengers, meeters-and-greeters, plane-spotters, whoever - and it is all done quickly and efficeiently.
Nov 25, 2009, 10:12 pm
#420
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,314