Whitehouse Petition: Require the TSA to Follow the Law!
Jul 16, 2012, 4:45 pm
#31
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
What are you referring to? The appellate court told the TSA to provide a notice and comment period for its AIT. A year later, the TSA has failed to comply with the court's order. Not only has a regulation not been put in place, but a notice hasn't even been promulgated. Why does the TSA think it is above following a court's order?
United States v Davis
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/65/
United States v Hartwell
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf
And a nice little primer on the subject can be found here. (PPT warning)
But I’m fairly sure most here have already seen this power point presentation, and ignored it.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/65/
United States v Hartwell
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043841p.pdf
And a nice little primer on the subject can be found here. (PPT warning)
But I’m fairly sure most here have already seen this power point presentation, and ignored it.
Ron, the appellate court told the TSA to provide a notice and comment period for its AIT. A year later, the TSA has failed to comply with the court's order. That has nothing to do with the two cases you cited (and for me the PPT document was a bad link). This is about AIT, which has yet to be litigated. Do you even remember what the requirements are for an administrative search to be legal?
Once again, Ron, any comments on this thread?
Once again, Ron, any comments on this thread?
Yes, I mind, I should not be asked to do your reading for you. But just this once…
US v Davis sets the basic precedent for the Administrative Search Doctrine. And I do mean BASIC. (Pre TSA obviously)
US v Hartwell specifically addresses the scope of the administrative search and how it applies to an airport checkpoint. Very specifically. (post TSA)
You might also want to review United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 616 (9th Cir. 2005), Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 323 (1997), and City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 47–48 (2000) when you “do your own reading” as it has some clarifications on the Administrative Search Doctrine. All of these decisions can be found with a google search. And you could have at least gone through the powerpoint document link I provided, had you done so you would not have asked.
US v Davis sets the basic precedent for the Administrative Search Doctrine. And I do mean BASIC. (Pre TSA obviously)
US v Hartwell specifically addresses the scope of the administrative search and how it applies to an airport checkpoint. Very specifically. (post TSA)
You might also want to review United States v. Marquez, 410 F.3d 612, 616 (9th Cir. 2005), Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 323 (1997), and City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 47–48 (2000) when you “do your own reading” as it has some clarifications on the Administrative Search Doctrine. All of these decisions can be found with a google search. And you could have at least gone through the powerpoint document link I provided, had you done so you would not have asked.
When you state, "actually read the laws", that means the statutory law and not case law. If it had been "law", then case law could reasonably be included. So for you to come out of left field with some cases that have been discussed quite in depth in this forum and then state that, "Yes, I mind" is quite the hubris. To double down, you have a bad link to a powerpoint and then complain that we are ignoring it when the bad link has been previously noted.
Once again, Ron, any comments on this other thread?
Jul 18, 2012, 8:04 am
#32
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,025
EPIC goes to court to shut down the scanners in 60 days
EPIC has filed a mandamus petition with the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, DC to require the beginning of a public comment process on the controversial airport body scanner program.
In the petition, EPIC said that the agency's delay poses risks to travelers, defies the Court's authority, and is unlawful. EPIC asked the court to require that the federal agency receive public comments within 60 days or that it suspend the program.
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanner...f-Mandamus.pdf
^^^^^
Jul 18, 2012, 11:33 am
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,417
Jul 18, 2012, 12:42 pm
#34
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Programs: AA Gold. UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt (Lifetime Diamond downgraded to Explorist)
Posts: 6,776
Jul 20, 2012, 12:53 pm
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: From ORK, live LCY
Programs: BA Silver, EI Silver, HH Gold, BW Gold, ABP, Seigneur des Horaires des Mucci
Posts: 14,234
Jul 22, 2012, 10:23 pm
#37
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
When you state, "actually read the laws", that means the statutory law and not case law. If it had been "law", then case law could reasonably be included. So for you to come out of left field with some cases that have been discussed quite in depth in this forum and then state that, "Yes, I mind" is quite the hubris. To double down, you have a bad link to a powerpoint and then complain that we are ignoring it when the bad link has been previously noted.
The cases I provided are not from left field, they are on topic and very very specific to the issue. If you read them you “should” be able to tell that, but then again maybe my expectations here are a bit high. If so then that is my fault and not yours. After all, I established the expectation that you would understand the information.
Jul 22, 2012, 10:48 pm
#38
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Catania, Sicily/South Jersey (PHL)/Houston, Texas/Red Stick/airborne in-between
Programs: United Global Svs, AA PlatPro, WN RR, AZ/ITA Freccia, Hilton Diam, Bonvoy Gold, Hertz Prez, IHG
Posts: 3,551
It’s the issue you personally are discussing, but not the one the thread was started with. As for expectations, well we all have them, yet most here are quite unrealistic and based on conjecture rather than facts. Its no more or less than one should expect given the history.
.
.
Now of course, I do not understand the TSA proclivities to googling lawyers but that is what you are trying to do here and you are, per normal, failing miserably.
You do not understand that; it is more than apparent from your lack of answering direct questions (standard M.O. for you) and failure to grasp even the basic concepts of law the other posters are mentioning to you. I presume you think if you mention it enough times it must come true (a TSA SOP mind you) but that is not how it works in the real world.
We do all have expectations, and the TSA meets the world's low expectations everyday. Congrats on being part of a team that has not only failed to catch actual terriorists but has missed more guns and explosives that they actually found on multiple real world and GAO tests.
Keep up the show and the googling...
and your link doesn't work because it has a double http showing up, up front. Whether that is because of flyertalk or not, who knows. One has to delete the duplicate http to get it to work.
Jul 23, 2012, 6:35 am
#39
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Jul 23, 2012, 7:53 am
#40
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
This explains in a nutshell your MO. I note the issue twice, you ignore it the first time and the second time you blame it on me. Personally if someone said my link was bad, I would have clicked on it to see if that was true. Your statement illustrates your failure to do even that minor checking. In fact, you take it an additional step and assert that "the link works fine for [you]", when that has now been shown by FlyingHoustonian not to be possible. Will you have any character to admit your mistake?
Thanks to FlyingHoustonian (and no thanks to you), I reviewed the PowerPoint. So exactly where were the standards as applicable to airport searches? This is more of you having a square peg (your cited cases and this powerpoint) and you wanting to pound them into this round hole (the failure of TSA to comply with the court's decision). The link is tenuous at best.
Your attacks and deflections are illustrative of, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I did note you conveniently didn't quote this part of my post: Once again, Ron, any comments on this other thread?
The cases I provided are not from left field, they are on topic and very very specific to the issue. If you read them you “should” be able to tell that, but then again maybe my expectations here are a bit high. If so then that is my fault and not yours. After all, I established the expectation that you would understand the information.
Your attacks and deflections are illustrative of, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I did note you conveniently didn't quote this part of my post: Once again, Ron, any comments on this other thread?
Jul 29, 2012, 7:12 pm
#42
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 18
Certainly I signed it. The naked body scanners are unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment. So are the friskings they put you through to punish you for refusing to go through the naked body scanners. Every time I am given this Orwellian choice, I send out 6 letters of protest.
1 goes to the TSA
1 goes to my congressman
1 goes to each of my senators
1 goes to the White House
1 goes to the airport administration
I have been able to get this process down to about 1 hour total. If everyone would do this, the naked body scanners would go away.
Go ahead and sign the petition - it can't hurt. But more importantly, always opt out of the naked body scanners. And then send out the 6 letters of protest.
1 goes to the TSA
1 goes to my congressman
1 goes to each of my senators
1 goes to the White House
1 goes to the airport administration
I have been able to get this process down to about 1 hour total. If everyone would do this, the naked body scanners would go away.
Go ahead and sign the petition - it can't hurt. But more importantly, always opt out of the naked body scanners. And then send out the 6 letters of protest.
Jul 29, 2012, 9:12 pm
#43
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
Aug 8, 2012, 3:37 am
#44
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Central Coast, NSW, Australia & Scottsdale, AZ
Programs: UA Rif Raf (Defrocked 1K), CO Lead (Former Plat), QF Bronze
Posts: 1,304
I agree with the second part, but not the first part! Sometimes we just have to do what we feel is right, not what will get an immediate response. That's why I'll be voting for Gary Johnson in November. He has virtually no chance of being elected, but it's just the right thing to do.
P.S. - And yes, I did sign the petition!
P.S. - And yes, I did sign the petition!
Aug 8, 2012, 5:24 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wanting First. Buying First.
Programs: Lifetime Executive Diamond Platinum VIP with Braniff, Eastern, Midway, National & Pan Am
Posts: 17,501
I agree with the second part, but not the first part! Sometimes we just have to do what we feel is right, not what will get an immediate response. That's why I'll be voting for Gary Johnson in November. He has virtually no chance of being elected, but it's just the right thing to do.
...on everything but the "no chance of being elected" qualifier. While obviously I recognize that it's true, it's only the self-fulfilling prophecy nature of the statement that makes it so. I don't understand why so many otherwise intelligent, civic-minded, politically active people who are fed up with "lesser of two evil" choices find it so hard to refuse to be collaborators with a badly broken, severely flawed and corrupt two-party system.
Any TS&S participant that feels strongly enough about the abuse, corruption, waste, theft and assault perpetrated by TSA on a daily basis that they post here regularly should not be voting for Obama or Romney.
I posted on a different thread that if you are going to go against your usual party affiliation and vote for Gary Johnson (and, unless you are a TSO, if you are here, you should!), it is equally important that you let the major party for which you're no longer voting know exactly why they lost your vote.