|
Michael Yon arrested for refusing to answer how much money he made to a CBP in Seattle.
Scroll down. Much more to come. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13117412)
...
Kiddie porn is pretty obvious. Drugs less so, but in either case it’s a LEO’s call to make and not mine. If he/she feels that it is not then we put it back in the bag and off it goes to the bag room and the passenger never knows about any concerns.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13117412)
The intent is for international flights, but that is where the supervisor gets to make the determination. If he/she feels inadequate to the task then a LEO is called and they get to make the decision. Traveling around the USA with huge wads of cash is not really an issue for me, I don’t really care. Its not illegal but may be of interest to other federal agencies for one reason or another.
It is NONE(and what part of NONE is not understood?) of the TSA's business how much cash we may choose to carry. And once again outside the defined scope of ya'lls responsibilities. repeat after us-weapons and\or explosives ONLY |
Who cares what you're "going looking for" if you're going to report other things also
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13107315)
Just as with drugs, we dont go looking for cash. But if we find it and it appears to be more than $10,000 we are required to contact a supervisor.
Can you find weapons, explosives, or incendiaries without going looking for them? It seems that based on what you've explained to us, we'd be just as safe from WEI on airplanes if you "went looking for" tennis balls, then contacted a supervisor if you found weapons, explosives, or incendiaries. Regardless of what you go looking for, you're going to ignore everything you find except things that look like weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, large quantities of cash, and a few other things, aren't you? Seriously: Please explain how your actions would be different if you went looking for tennis balls, but still contacted a supervisor when you found things that looked like weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, pictures of naked 17.5-year-olds, stolen credit cards, fraudulent passports, or evidence of immigrations violations. Wouldn't your actions be exactly the same? If so, of what significance is the fact that you went looking for tennis balls, went looking for WEI, or went looking for nothing? In any case, you're going to take action when you see something that looks like any one of several things. I'd consider this a search for those things. You're welcome to call it a search for tennis balls. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13117412)
Kiddie porn is pretty obvious.
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13117412)
Drugs less so
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 13117412)
but in either case it’s a LEO’s call to make and not mine.
|
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 13117515)
Suppose you're on the X-ray and you see what appears to be a stash of drugs in a bag. As I understand your procedures, you're not allowed to call for a bag check just because you suspect there are drugs in the bag.
But even it if is...
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 13117515)
How hard would it be for you to find another, defensible reason to call for a bag check on that bag? Something along the lines of "gee, that looks like a screwdriver that's under seven inches, but maybe we should pull the bag anyways to check how long it really is" ... and now you've created an excuse to find the drugs.
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 13117515)
Basically, I'm wondering if an overzealous TSA could find a way to conduct primary searches for things outside of TSA's official scope, yet justify them on the basis of permitted actions.
|
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 13116696)
I shouldn't have included the razor blade in my example. I was just trying to emphasize the idea that you'd be seeing something that you were likely to suspect to be cocaine.
Okay, so when you're doing the search with an X-ray, you'll ignore anything that looks like drugs or drug paraphernalia, and stick to looking for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. Great! That's what I and many other people think you should do. None of that other stuff is any of your business. Congress would not have authorized warrantless searches for arbitrary indications of possible wrongdoing; they authorized you to search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. Searching everyone who passes to look for any indication of wrongdoing is unamerican and unconstitutional, no matter how much crime it would allow you to detect. Your job is not to detect crime; it's to keep dangerous items off airplanes. Wait a minute -- that directly contradicts what you just wrote. Now, you're saying that when you search a bag, if you see weapons, explosives, incendiaries, or drugs, you refer to a supervisor. Call it what you like; that's as much a search for drugs as it is a search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. Why do you suppose you've been trained to take the same action when you find something that looks like it might be and illegal drug as you've been trained to take when you find somethign that looks like it might be a weapon? Why do you suppose you've been indoctrinated with the idea that it's a search specifically for weopons, explosives, and incendiaries, when in reality, a number of other things are treated exactly the same in the course of your searches? And what you don't seem to understand is that even if you call it a search for potatoes, and you really think you're looking for potatoes, if you have a list of other things that you're supposed to watch out for, then you're really searching for those other things. There's just no way around it. You look in a bag, and you ignore everything except for certain things. That's a search for those things. Okay, so you do treat illegal drugs the same as weapons when searching people and their belongings. Again, call it a search for potatoes if you want, but it's clear that you're searching for weapons, explosives, incendiaries, drugs, and likely a few other things. There is a nearly-nearly infinite number of things you are not searching for, but according to you, Ron, and the TSA operational directive I quoted above, drugs are not on that list. They're on the same list as the dangerous items. If you were hand-searching someone's bag and you saw three cameras along with photographs of that person smashing a store window, crawling through the hole, and leaving with a bag of cameras, you'd probably ignore it and move on, right? It would look like an indication of transporting stolen goods, but it's not on the list of things you're told to look out for, right? You could do the same thing when you see something that looks to you like illegal drugs, but you do not, because those are on the list of things you're told to look out for, right? Look, I don't want to overemphasize the drug issue, here. Full disclosure: I whole-heartedly believe that our nation's prohibition of the drugs we prohibit now has been even more of a failure than our previous prohibition of another drug: alcohol. Same gang violence, same corruption, same making criminals out of good people, same lack of control, same lack of regulation. The difference, it seems, is that we have a better system of propaganda for convincing ourselves that this is working when it is not. 40 years of drug prohibition, and no improvement. I volunteer a good deal of time working toward improving our drug laws. It's something I feel very strongly about. But in this case, what I'm most concerned with is the fact that we've allowed TSA to conduct a fishing expedition under the guise of an attempt to keep dangerous items off of airplanes. Even the TSA staff who perform the searches admit that they'll stop and take further action when they see, for instance, something that looks like it might be drugs that are illegal for some people to possess in some places, while they're searching our belongings. TSA proudly announces the fact that it finds evidence of identity theft, credit card fraud, passport fraud, immigrations violations, and possession of controlled substances, when "searching for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries". Those are all worthy endeavors (with the exception of drugs, which would be better off legal and regulated, as we learned with the end of alcohol prohibition). We could surely find even more evidence of such wrongdoing if we allowed our government agents to stop everyone who passes other places -- highway entrance ramps, for instance -- and search them for evidence of wrongdoing. However, our courts have ruled that such fishing expeditions are unconstitutional. In this nation, we aren't supposed to stop all the good people just to look for the few bad people. TSA staff don't seem to get this. They seem to think that living in a police state is desirable. 1) You can twist what I write all you want, there is a difference between actively searching for something, and reporting something discovered while trying to clear a threat or possible threat from a bag. 2) I will not argue the semantics on drugs with you. They are a sticking point for you, not for me - what the law states where I am is what I go by. The law here says drugs are illegal. 3) Pictures of a "possible" possession of stolen goods is a far cry from suspected kiddie porn and a suspected bag of dope. 4)Again, the checkpoints are not a dragnet or fishing expedition, they are used to clear people and items to get on the airplanes. We are looking for WEI, and if you have something illegal that is discovered while trying to do that job, it will be reported to the STSO/LEO whichever is required. 5) We do not go into a bag looking for anything other than possible threats, period. If something illegal is found, then it is reported to the STSO/LEO whichever is called for. 6) The items you list above that TSA announces are found, are found while searching for WEI, or at the TDC where we check ID. 7) There could be discovery of many things that are wrongdoing with a couple of laws being passed. That is not my concern, my concern is to keep WEI and people that would use them to harm the airplane or people on it, off the planes. That is my focus everyday, and I do a pretty bagn up job of it if I do say so myself. 8) The best advice I can give to a passenger worrying about illegal items in their bag at the checkpoint - DON'T have illegal items in your bags to start with. We do not search for illegal items specifically, but if they are discovered while trying to clear a bag of threat items, it will be reported. |
Can you imagine how many perverts are going to be applying for TSA screener jobs and getting approved? OMG!
|
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13133655)
You know, I wrote this huge well reasoned and thought out response to this, but it timed me out, so I am going to distill it a bit.
2) I will not argue the semantics on drugs with you. They are a sticking point for you, not for me - what the law states where I am is what I go by. The law here says drugs are illegal. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 13133849)
What specific training does TSA provide its employees so they can make a reasonable determination that a substance is an illegal drug?
|
Wonder how long it will take for images of famous people to appear online. If it happens, hope the first images are of the bozo’s crying for this wasteful technology and hope they all enjoy being exposed!
(Yes, I am jealous as I am not one of the cronies making millions on this deal). :mad: |
|
I understand the original question was to request we oppose the WBI which i assume is the nude scan machines.
I guess the most effective way is simply to point out that the latest attack was not a failure of the internal US system but rather the failure of amsterdam for failing to capture the explosives on the person involved. If someone can produce nude scans image of the affected senators, send it to the newspapers and the affected senators concerned as well as the inflated prices that the manufacturers are pricing the machines compared to current measures and point out that other countries do not have problems, i think the senators will get the picture. No one wants their nude image in their newspaper and be embarrassed by it very openly and have their poll numbers affected. |
Originally Posted by gsoltso
(Post 13133655)
Again, the checkpoints are not a dragnet or fishing expedition, they are used to clear people and items to get on the airplanes. We are looking for WEI, and if you have something illegal that is discovered while trying to do that job, it will be reported to the STSO/LEO whichever is required.
The point is this: as I understand it, TSOs have been directed to report certain types of suspected illegal activity to an STSO/LEO for further action, but not others. This leaves TSA (the agency) open to charges that it is, at some level, actually looking for particular forms of illegal activity outside the scope of a search for WEI. |
Think I will pack a baggie of coffee creamer substitute on my future trips.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 13134397)
Think I will pack a baggie of coffee creamer substitute on my future trips.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:12 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.