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.