How true! While I may not particularly desire to be on any future flights with said individual, while still in the "research" phase the risk would be inherently low.

With all due respect, what you (and I and every other person on this forum) feel is a threat is irrelevant. We don't make the rules we just get caught up in the BS that goes along with them.

The TSA is a multi-flawed organization and, generally speaking, the people they hire as TSOs are poorly educated, poorly trained people who have literally seconds to make decisions that they don't have the experience and training to make. I'm in no way disputing that, nor am I sticking up for them. I also don't feel that what they did to you was legally or morally correct.

My point (nothing more, nothing less) was that when dealing with authority figures (regardless of whether you're legally or morally right or wrong) getting them off side is never a wise move. This is ESPECIALLY true when dealing with under educated, under trained people who have a huge amount of authority, such as TSOs.

I don't mean in the legal sense, but "throw it away or you are not flying today" is really the same thing. Being forced to give it up or having it forceably taken away is a fine line.

OK, let's say that a passenger is carrying a book on how to do just that. In bold letters on the front is the title: "How to blow up an airplane" Your posts seem to indicate that you are fine with that book being confiscated by the TSA.

Now, what if the book is in Arabic (or any other language not spoken by the screener). Is it any less dangerous because the TSA has no idea what it says? Should they let it pass? Should they confiscate all books or papers that the screeners can not understand?

I realize that I'm going a bit overboard here, but the fact is that the OP's airline charts are:
1. legal to own
2. not prohibited by TSA policy (except maybe those super secret policies that we can't see but are still expected to abide by)
3. not particularly suspicious

The TSA screener in question had no more right to demand to see a pilot ID and then confiscate the charts than he would to see a medical license if someone is carrying a copy of the New England Journal of Medicine.

^

LOL. Not trolling in the slightest, nor am I suggesting that the TSA (or any other organization) should have access to the things you mentioned without probable cause and/or a warrant.

What I AM suggesting (as a former LEO among other things) is that if you draw negative attention to yourself you can expect to potentially recieve negative attention in return.

Two examples:

1) A cop stops two cars. The first one is a 67 year old clean cut man who has a bible on his seat and says he's on his way to church. The second is a 27 year old man who looks like a biker and has an instruction manual on cooking meth and says "Where I'm going is none of your f'ing business". The first guy MAY be a meth cook and the second guy COULD be student studying for a masters theisis on ways to manufacture non addictive stimulants for use in the military (or whatever, only an example) but who do you think the cop is going to pay more attention to.

2) The CIA is reviewing phone records of two individuals. One routinely calls a known terrorist. The other calls a variety of people who are not known terrorists. The first may be the mother of said terrorist and is trying to reform thier child. The second may be communicating with a yet unknown sleeper cell but again who do you think is going to attract the most attention?

Didn't you mean: Now, what if the book is in English, or Arabic (or any other written language not understood by the screener).

:p

Jokes aside, the day TSA starts requiring printed materials to be removed as a threat is the day we might as well burn the constitution on that big old pile of burning books, no?

Stop the theater for theater's sake. It is the biggest erosion of the US Constitution of all time.

Your example would make a lot more sense if I looked suspicious. Acting rudely is completely different from acting suspicious and in fact is probably a guarantee that I am NOT a terrorist, because what terrorist would want to draw more attention to himself?

Regardless, I have no desire to be polite to any screener - for reasons I've already mentioned.

No, I do not understand how that person would be viewed as a threat.

Explain it to me please.

If the person had a nuke why would they even need to board a plane and what does that say for TSA screening?

It is exactly relevant. A book is not a threat. A map is not a threat.

Of course, I can't comment on what my post seems to indicate to you but what you've suggest is not how I feel. What I'm saying is that, regardless of what is legally/morally right and wrong, having that book in your possession would attact unwanted negative attention by the TSA (or any LEO that found it).

No the book would not be any less (or more) dangerous if it was written in Arabic (or any other language), just less obvious to someone who wasn't able to read the title. Whether they SHOULD let it or any other item pass is not the point I was trying to make.

Regarding your 3 points about the OPs original post and the following paragraph, I agree completely and I don't think I ever said otherwise.

I agree, coercion is the same as theft in this case.

Would you be willing to get a copy of the security tape? It would support your case with the authorities that you are complaining to. That way too they could identify the person needing "retraining".

..except to the TSA, which owes its entire existence to the uneducated.

<sigh>

Ok, let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that you will understand.

When a person posseses detailed plans on how to commit a criminal act (in this example making a bomb and blowing up an aircraft) and then places themselves in a position where that act can be committed (on an aircraft) the people hired to protect the asset (the plane) from the act (blowing it up) will (rightly or wrongly) view this as a potential threat due to multiple (if not all) of the elements of the crime being present.

Clear enough?

I think we've identified the origin of your approach to civil rights and the Constitution. You studied how to get around the Constitution, not how to honor it.

When did you stop beating confessions out of your prisoners?

After reading this thread I'm glad we have an"ignore" function.

Our government is required to protect our right to read, say, write, and think whatever we want, outside some defined exceptions. A manual on how to make a bomb may seem threatening to some, and it might not seem threatening to others, but that is not the relevant question.

The question is whether an item poses an actual and immediate threat to safety. It might seem reprehensible for someone to know how to make a bomb, but our government must protect our right to learn how to do that as vigorously as it must stop someone from actually making and using a bomb.

I understand the two tasks can be at odds with each other, but that is exactly the point. The government does not have the power to govern what I know or learn, and to some degree, whether or not I want to do that on a plane or at home.

So are we. That is beyond their authority, such as it is.

Not a weapon or an incendiary device.

Sure, do another search, but take your papers? No, no way.

While I truly understand where you are coming from, I must disagree. The distinction between someone who is likely to commit a crime (but has not committed one) and someone who has committed a crime is important. Once we start policing intent rather than action, the ability for government to abuse its power is just too great.

I understand that we have to do some of this, but I think we already do plenty. An extreme example of my argument would require that we allow guns on planes, since there is no way for the government to know if I intend to use it or not. This, of course, is now an absurd idea, but I think we have to draw the line somewhere.

The line, to me, and I believe also the Constitution, is that the bomb is immediately dangerous, while the knowledge of how to assemble a bomb is not dangerous. Weighing to costs and benefits, we allow one and prevent one.

There is a line.

And now we have a classic example of a person who has no valid argument resorting to an ad hominem attack on someone whom they don't even know.

The fact is you have NO IDEA about my approach to civil rights and the Constitution. None whatsoever and nothing, not a single word (with the excepetion of my telling the OP that it was indeed her Constitutional right to feel and act the way she chose to), in this thread has given you any basis for your comments.

I have never said or implied that the TSA was right in their actions. In fact, I said quite the opposite.

You don't know what I studied, you don't know what perils I've placed myself in to defend the Constitution (including your right to hide behind a keyboard and personally attack me) and you have equally no idea if I ever beat a prisoner... or prevented another LEO from doing so.

Nice try, though. Have a good day.

I am saying just that. Let me relate a personal story: I was traveling post 9-11 with a journal article I was writing at the time about whether elementary and middle school students are better off attending a K-8 school or separate elementary and middle schools.

The paper was full of math, and I was editing it as I moved through security. The TSA insisted on having a supervisor review the materials before I could bring them with me, on account that they might be knowledge harmful to the aircraft. I don't see this as too far off the OP's story, and of course the whole thing can be reasonably resolved.

What if, instead, though, in my capacity as an expert witness I was carrying papers that indicated confidential information implicating a client? Or what if the papers were a memoir of how I had been abused as a child? Or what if the papers were a letter to my loved one traveling with me that I was going to leave them?

My point is that once the TSA understands that this is paper, it is incumbent on them, because of their position, to do MORE than ignore them. I believe anyone in that position should be ACTIVELY discreet. What the OP underwent is the opposite of that.

And since the paper could be used as a weapon where one can inflict a paper cut, the Secret Service wrestled the paper to the ground..... ;)

For the most part, I agree with what you're saying. I don't feel that ANY book should be banned but there are certain books, when couple with certain situations that will raise concerns. There is also a huge difference between someone who may or could commit a crime and someone who is LIKELY to commit a crime. When combined with the magnitude of the crime this often warrants further investigation.

Knowledge is not a crime and can't be allowed to become one. Intent by itself is also not a crime. However, intent when combined with an overt act justifiably raises alarm bells. Not sufficiently so to cause deprivation of civil liberties but certainly enough to cause further investigation. Note that I did not say that the TSA (or any other agency) should have the automatic right to prevent a person in posession of a bomb making manual from boarding a commercial jet. What I said was I disagreed with the concept of them having NO BUSINESS in doing so. Since they, as you said, have no idea of the persons intent (good, bad or indifferent) they would be duty bound to advise a properly trained LEO and it would then be up to them to investigate the situation and take whatever action/nonaction within the law that they saw fit.

I'm not disagreeing with that. Please understand that I have not said, nor do I feel, that what happened to the OP was in any way correct. I feel, and have expressly stated in this thread, quite the opposite.

On a couple of side notes, it is important to understand that the the rights granted by the Constitution and it's amendments are not absolute. For example the First Amendment grants the right to free speech but it does not grant the right to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. The Second grants the right to keep and bear arms but not in a courthouse or an airliner, etc.

Finally, I'd like to thank you for keeping your argument (perhaps not the correct word) civil and nonpersonal. While I may not totally agree with the exact content, I absolutly agree with your right to it.

But exactly what action would that be? The original poster is either a terrorist threat or he is not. Merely confiscating his papers does not change that status.

The reality is that individual screeners are not LEOs, yet have the authority to determine that any item a passenger is carrying poses a threat and can therefore demand that any such item be "voluntarily" surrendered, with the threat of "do you want to fly today?" floating just over that voluntarily surrender.

Generally speaking, I don't know what that action should be. It would have to be determined on a case by case basis by properly trained and experienced professionals.

Specifically speaking, I don't feel that the OPs charts posed any threat and should not have been taken. I've said this previously in this thread.

I agree with your comments regarding the screeners, btw.

If I'm carrying ANY type of computer - from smart phone to laptop - then I have the entire Internet in my possession. All types of plans, recipes, instructions are accessible. Are you suggesting that all Internet access be revoked for all passengers?

The Constitution does not grant us rights.

So, you suggest that the TSA has the authority to prevent a person in possession of a bomb making manual from boarding a commercial jet, presumably for that reason alone.

I disagree.

Not only that, they have no authority even to take/discard such papers.

Better to address basic principles first, I say.

This thread is getting really out of hand.

I was referring to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a whole.

No, Gary, what I said (as you quoted) is that I didn't feel they had NO BUSINESS in doing so and "they would be duty bound to advise a properly trained LEO and it would then be up to THEM <capital letters added to clarify what I said> to investigate the situation and take whatever action/nonaction within the law that they saw fit."

He just means that we are born with the rights, rather than being granted by the constitution.

No.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine - didn't mean to sidetrack. We are granted rights by nature, God, the universe - take your pick. Not granted them by the Constitution.

She. Thanks. ^

Yup, they have. And came to an agreement under which they dismissed a case. The stated action violates that agreement.

I'm going to bed. Just completed a 13 hour shift. As this thread has gotten way out of control can a suggest the people go back and read it from the OPs first post? I just did and I think that if you do you'll find a couple of things.

After over 75 posts, I'm the ONLY one who has answered the OPs 3 questions, including how the TSA (NOT I) would view things and how, right or wrong, pissing them off delivered no advantage to the OP.

At no time, I repeat, at NO TIME did I ever say I agreed with the TSA and I actually said I DID NOT agree with them. I also told the OP I was not attacking her but was answering her questions (the reason for her post in the first place).

At NO TIME did I advocate violation of anyones Constitutional rights (sorry OP, just a saying) but instead gave examples of how certain activity might draw unwanted and unnecessary attention from a group of people who are known to be "problem children" to begin with.

In spite of the fact that various people accused me of feeling things which were not evidenced (I said what THE TSA would likely think, etc), personally attacking me (beating prisoners, violating peoples rights, etc. REALLY??), and putting words in my mouth (which never came OUT of my mouth to begin with) I kept my responses to the questions asked.

As mentioned by other people in other threads, there is a disturbing trend here for people to gang up on, and become quite agressive with, ANYONE who does not visciously attack the TSA.

I DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT THE DO AND PARTICULARLY HOW THEY DO IT but being rude to them doesn't accoplish anything other than making things harder on yourselves (and possibly giving yourself some kind of pleasure... at a price) and regardless of whether it's your right to do so or not, certain actions attract negative attention.

Have a good day/night/whatever everyone.

I'm confused, are you now questioning my ability to comprehend things, such as a person with a book being dangerous when that clearly is not the case, or do you just enjoy being condescending?

Your explanation doesn't hold water.

Just knowing something doesn't indicate intent. Many of us know how to fire a weapon. Does that make us a murderer? Hardly. I can carry my weapon with me, albeit concealed, and I have never shot a person while doing so. I have the skills and means but intent to break the law is missing.

Even if a person knew how to build a bomb, took their notes with them on a flight, they still don't have the immediate means to do any harm by having those notes. If the do have the means then every penny ever spent on TSA has been wasted, although I think TSA is a waste anyhow.

I'm not suggesting that a person skilled in bomb building could not at some time in the future be a threat but having a book on the matter does not present an immediate threat of any kind.

Interesting combination of phrases. First you say you're confused then you ask if I'm questioning your ability to comprehend things....

In post 49 you asked me to explain something. I did.

Regarding your other comments, go back and read post 65. I'm tired and can't be bothered retyping it.