Blogndog

i've noticed certain "anti human trafficking" groups have been bragging about how they've enlisted flight attendants in their battle against this imaginary problem by "training" them to "recognise and report" women being trafficked. Not long ago I got into a stupid fight with my then-fianc� before boarding a flight to LHR. Her temper, and her insistence on carrying for hours once she got wound up about something is a big part of the reason I broke up with her. 3 hours into the flight, and she was still at it, disturbing several other passengers and attracting the attention of the flight crew by loudly berating me. I just sat there silently, knowing from prior experience that saying anything in response was just going to wind her up more. Finally, the flight attendant asked her to follow her to the front of the plane, I presumed at the time to warn her that she was creating a disturbance. Instead, I later found out they wanted to question her away from me in order to see if she was a trafficking victim, and asked her f I had harmed or threatened her.

I'm the guy that sat quietly in his seat for 3 hours while she loudly rants about everything, disturbing everyone in the vicinity, and they want to check to see if she is being victimized. As if a trafficker would have allowed one of his victims to act like that.

Apparently, the only "training" these groups do is to promote a neo-feminist agenda in which women are always the victims, never the abusers. Same mentality that led to all those men going to prison for child abuse at day care centres in Massachussetts 20 years ago for "crimes" their 3-year-old "victims" entirely imagined.

She didn't in this particular case, but my ex definitely would not have been above making a false accusation in such circumstances if she thought it served her purposes.

The fundamental problem is that there are a lot of women out there who believe their and their children's rights to be protected outweigh whatever consequences men may suffer as a result, because somehow we're all collectively responsible for these largely imaginary crimes.

GUWonder

Sexism, racism and other forms of bigotry are indeed advanced by a large proportion of these so-called "anti-human trafficking" drivers. For example, it's disproportionately often innocent, "dark" "men" traveling who get targeted as if they are engaged in international child abduction, even as most such abductions are done by women who obviously aren't in the "'dark' 'male'" category.

The narrative of who are the victims and who are the perpetrators is often less about objective analysis than it is about emotional agendas built upon and peddling various forms of bigotry.

Kagehitokiri

presumably some kind of publicity or 'consulting' factors here (from 3rd parties)

i recall an article about DOJ having no interest in prosecuting traffickers and deporting those who were trafficked

cbn42

They don't need any legislation. They have every right to talk to passengers, just like anyone else. Passengers are free to refuse to answer. If they uncover any evidence of a crime, they can call the police, just like any citizen. Congress does not need to authorize this.

It makes me angry, but it's not illegal in any sense.

GUWonder

The Executive Branch isn't all that legally free to use Congressionally-apportioned money in any and every way that some Executive Branch kingdom builder or apologist can dream up.

cbn42

What law does it violate?

The SPOT program was designed to identify terrorists. Regardless of its effectiveness (or the lack thereof), its purpose is within the paramaters of the DHS's budget allocation. If TSA staff come across potential illegal activity they can, just like you or me, report it to law enforcement.

The GAO investigated the SPOT program and recommended that Congress cut funding for it, but Congress failed to do so. I believe there were some amendments proposed to prevent TSA from hiring additional BDOs, but they weren't passed.

WillCAD

Depends on which "it" you're referring to.

If you're referring to the original topic of this thread, i.e. the interrogation of minors by uniformed government actors under color of authority and implied threat of denial of the right to freedom of movement, that would violate the 4th and 5th Amendments, for starters. Not to mention going far outside TSA's stated mission.

rebadc

Dude,

...!!

You do flytoomuch, seriously chill out and find something else in your wonderful life to complain about.

GUWonder

Beside operating a dragnet/fishing expedition of a legally questionable nature, there are things like the Misappropriation Act and other purpose statutes which may be applicable in determining the legality and illegality of use of resources for purposes other than which Congress apportioned them. Interdicting human trafficking -- unlike the purpose of even the ridiculous SPOT/BDO program -- doesn't have as it's purpose a minimally intrusive administrative search to interdict contraband WEIs or even "hazardous to flight" passengers.

cbn42

Yes, I was referring to the original topic of this thread. Which clause in the 4th and 5th Amendments would this violate? Can you cite a court ruling to support this? I cannot think of anything. There is no prohibition on government officials questioning anyone, even if they have color of authority. They are not required to read Miranda rights unless the subject is in custody.

The Misappropriation Act is for spending money without authorization, for example, government officials taking a vacation using their agency's money. A claim that SPOT violates the Misappropriation Act would be laughed out of court.

FliesWay2Much

Sorry, pal. The TSA and everything it embodies and stands for is not the USA I wore my country's uniform for 26 years to protect.

nachtnebel

I think you are looking at this way too narrowly, as if every human interaction can be fully understood and judged by the categories legal vs illegal.

Just take a look at the whole picture here: a young family traveling, possibly under time and financial pressures, and being interrogated not by your "random person on the street asking questions" strawman, but by a representative of the US federal government with its full weight and all its coercive powers (in the perspective of those pax). Not everyone is in the know regarding the TSO's real status and authority.

That TSO bars the way, is the gatekeeper to their travel. So this is not a free interaction by any stretch of the imagination.

The full picture is one of oppression. That is not what should be happening at the checkpoint, and should bother anyone with common sense. And it's not good for TSA either, in the short, medium, or long run. Check for WEI and be done with it.

FliesWay2Much

Yes, but the TSA can't justify its existence without the added value of all of these law enforcement "consensual" or "incidental" searches and interrogations it creates. It's a huge bang-for-the-buck thing because real cops could never get away with what the TSA gets away with on a daily basis.

nachtnebel

Not sure I agree. There is ZERO bang for the buck when the operatives--our beloved TSOs-- lack the intelligence, education, and training to make any use whatsoever of this "opportunity". The only ones getting "banged" are the passengers.

WillCAD

Asking questions is fine, in casual conversation.

Asking questions while being detained, under implied threat of denial of freedom or arrest, is not simply asking questions, it's interrogation.

The most troubling issue in this case it that TSOs, who are not law enforcement, are engaging in illegal investigatory procedures such as interrogations.

Yes, a TSO is free to ask me anything they want in casual, consensual conversation. However, if they ask me a question while detaining me at the c/p, that's neither a casual nor a consensual conversation - it's a required interaction while I am being detained under implied threats of denial of movement, or arrest.

Yes, I know TSOs can't arrest me and can't legally "detain" me, nor are they The Boss Of the police. However, in practical application, a) they're preventing you from boarding a plane, which severely restricts your freedom of movement (a form of detention), b) at certain points during the screening, they're holding your possessions hostage (also a form of detention), c) they're wearing a deliberately misleading government-issued uniform and badge meant to intimidate and coerce the public (hence the color of authority and implied threats), and d) they have the option of calling the police at any time and making a complaint that can cause you to miss your flight or even be arrested (they've often made that threat explicitly rather than implicitly).

Detainment or restrictions, along with implied or explicit threats of custody, arrest, or confiscation of property, raise these "simply questions" from the level of casual conversation to the level of interrogation by uniformed government actors.

You misread GUWonder's statement. You missed the aside, surrounded by dashes --:
So, without the aside, it would read: Interdicting human trafficking doesn't have as it's purpose a minimally intrusive administrative search to interdict contraband WEIs or even "hazardous to flight" passengers.

And the aside says, unlike the purpose of even the ridiculous SPOT/BDO program. So, GUWonder was acknowledging that the purpose of the SPOT program is to interdict WEI (and is thus not a violation of the Misappropriation Act), but interdicting human trafficking is has nothing to do with WEI and is thus completely outside of TSAs mandate and screening authority (and thus could be considered a violation of the Misappropriation Act).

Maybe we should all stick to simpler sentences from now on, to avoid such misunderstandings.