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.