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.

Step away from the keyboard. You are sleep depraved. Good nite!

No! Escalate!Escalate!Escalate! Demand a supervisor. Demand the Manager. Call the FBI and report an ongoing interference with a flight crew member. Then watch the TSO creep dissolve into a quivering mass of jello. They pull this crap because they believe, and the culture supports the belief, that they will get away with it.
They need to learn that they are despised. We are trying to get that idea across here in S. Florida. We have started a "Hitch a Ride" program where aircraft owners and operators who are going somewhere on a non-commercial Part 91 flight and have an empty seat will offer that seat free of charge to anyone needing transportation for medical treatment. The program is open to anyone except TSOs and their family members. They are not welcome because, based on prior history, they are likely to steal everything in the aircraft, rape female passengers, carry drugs, and molest any children on board. Family members are not welcome because their particular DNA line needs to be extinguished. They are to be told that the belief of participating members is that they are welcome to come and watch the partially empty aircraft leave, as long as they don't enter the hangar. Shun the TSO collaborators and apologists as well.

Or unless he is a TSO sock puppet.

Absolutely.

First of all, the agency we're discussing is the Transportation Security Administration, not the "Transport Safety Authority".

Secondly, the Transportation Security Administration has absolutely no authority to confiscate, prohibit, censor, investigate, or catalog the reading material of any passenger. Doing so goes far beyond the limited scope of the Administrative Search Doctrine, as defined in US vs Davis.

Besides - such materials are routinely in the possession of employees of DHS, TSA, DOD, and dozens of domestic law enforcement agencies; possession of such materials is not only not prohibited, it is also not, in and of itself, dangerous or threatening, or even inherently suspicious on its own merits.

Do you really not understand that a person's choice of reading material, no matter how controversial or threatening that YOU or anyone else might feel it is, is their own durn business, and that critiquing that choice - or limiting it by theft - is illegal because it exceeds the defined limits of the Adminsitrative Search Doctrine under which TSA is legally bound to operate?

As a former LEO, how many documents have you possessed detailing the commission of crimes? Did any of those documents make you a threat?

As others have said, neither the original articles of the Constitution nor any of the Amendments grant rights to people. The Constitution exists for the sole purpose of limiting the government and preventing its intrusion into personal liberties of the People. The Bill of Rights, and many of the other Amendments, exist as a sort of safety net, designed to spell out the most important rights with which people are born and protecting them from governmental violation.

The mere fact that you would say such a thing indicates that, like so many Americans - particularly those tasked with upholding and defending the Constitution and the rights which it protects - you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Constitution is and what it does. This misunderstanding is the very reason why the Constitution has been so badly subverted in recent years, and continues to be eroded with each illegal search and each violation of the already-established laws perpetrated by TSA.

So, in plainer language, what you're basically saying is that, "They're wrong, but shut up and respect their authoritah or they'll make your like miserable". Is that about the size of it?

Well, that's poodoo. Shut up and take it is not the way to change things. I'm not going to stand idly by when someone violates my civil rights, I'm going to challenge them. Maybe I'll lose, but if you don't try you'll never know. And besides, smacking a dog on the nose after you've already cleaned up the poop doesn't do anything; you have to rub his nose in it first so he associates "poop on rug" with "smack on nose".

Actually, it's "sleep deprived". Depraved has another, rather different meaning. Which may or may not be applicable to some TSOs...

Wanna play Scrabble? ;)

Heh... I love sarcasm like this, especially when it's so over the top nobody would ever believe it's real. Luckily nobody on the planet is bat-s--- crazy enough to believe this sort of thing. Well done.


As to the thread at hand: It represents everything that is wrong with this forum. We have a poster whose stuff got confiscated and then asked a few questions, and another poster that answered the questions with a perfectly reasonable and well thought out "Well, right or wrong, here's what the TSO likely thought, and here's why they reacted."

Then, you have all manner of people accusing the responder of all sorts of horrible things including assuming that because the responder is a former LEO he surely must have beat prisoners on a regular basis. Wow. Really? If that's what it's come to and if every thread is going to devolve into TSA bashing and ad hominem attacks on people that just have a viewpoint, let's just dispense with all pretense of rational discussion, and cast ourselves in with Birthers, 911 Truthers, and all the other crazy conspiracy nut-jobs out there.

Or maybe, just maybe, that in the point-counterpoint give and take of ideas, that in civilly listening to people that you may not agree with and hearing how they approach viewpoints differently from you (as a small number on this thread have, thankfully, done), we might all learn something and then *actually* arm ourselves with the kinds of arguments that will get through to the 98% of Americans who don't spend the bulk of their lives on airplanes.

Sure, I'm as annoyed as every poster (including the responder) that the TSA confiscated a piece of paper. Yes, I do believe playing nice would've yielded a different outcome. And yes, I also believe that the OP should've called for a supervisor and said "Oh come on now... it's a MAP."

But, I fail to see how using every thread as a platform to call every TSO a child molester and to assume that we surely must be seeing the beginnings of a modern day SS arising serves any practical purpose.

TSA lies or, alternatively, TSOs are incapable of learning the rules.

The cannot confiscate ANYTHING. All they can do is refuse to allow you through to the sterile area. This TSO stole from you. If it ever happens again, call a LEO and press charges.

You don't have to play at all. There is still a thing called the Constitution and we have not yet gotten to the point where the Fifth Amendment is completely suspended to the point where government clerks can confiscate personal property.

Yes, and your are miles in the wrong direction. TSA is supposed to prevent weapons, explosives and incendiaries from being brought on board aircraft. They are not supposed to capture "dangerous" individuals. They are not law enforcement officers and have absolutely no legal authority for inspecting documents, other than to ensure that they're not weapons, explosives or incendiaries. This has been confirmed numerous times by the courts, notwithstanding TSA's chronic disregard for the Constitution.

If I had a book titled, "101 Ways to Bring Down a Commercial Aircraft," TSA can inspect it to ensure there are no weapons, explosives or incendiaries hidden in it. They can not keep me from bringing it on board, nor can they detain me.

In America, we have an absolute right to read whatever we want. I don't know where you live.

No, I don't. I also don't understand how someone wearing a T-shirt with Arabic writing on it can be a threat. I also don't understand how orthodox Jews praying can be a threat.

Why don't you explain why a person holding detailed written plans on how to build a bomb and get said device onto an aircraft is a threat?

One more time: what the TSA thinks is unsafe is irrelevant. If it's not a potential weapon, explosive or incendiary, it's none of TSA's business. If it's something in writing, TSA is constitutionally prohibited from excluding people who have it from boarding.