Despite TSA's best efforts, prohibited items still get thru the security checkpoints
Jan 15, 2003, 11:09 pm
#106
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,953
Blah blah blah.
Please see the replies to the post that you thought was so important to start in its own thread and cross-post here.
Do you have a point, or are you just here to smarmily point out the disgusting aspects of "implied consent"?
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
Please see the replies to the post that you thought was so important to start in its own thread and cross-post here.
Do you have a point, or are you just here to smarmily point out the disgusting aspects of "implied consent"?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by 15k80:
Spiff
You mention folks are harassed for "no probable cause." Remember, when you willingly enter a checkpoint, or present your baggage/carry on for inspection you have given implied consent for search. That goes for you and your belongings. This is case law from the U.S. Supreme Court. </font>
Spiff
You mention folks are harassed for "no probable cause." Remember, when you willingly enter a checkpoint, or present your baggage/carry on for inspection you have given implied consent for search. That goes for you and your belongings. This is case law from the U.S. Supreme Court. </font>
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
Jan 16, 2003, 11:20 am
#107
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 9,255
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by 15k80:
Spiff
You mention folks are harassed for "no probable cause." Remember, when you willingly enter a checkpoint, or present your baggage/carry on for inspection you have given implied consent for search. That goes for you and your belongings. This is case law from the U.S. Supreme Court. </font>
Spiff
You mention folks are harassed for "no probable cause." Remember, when you willingly enter a checkpoint, or present your baggage/carry on for inspection you have given implied consent for search. That goes for you and your belongings. This is case law from the U.S. Supreme Court. </font>
------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.
Jan 16, 2003, 11:22 am
#108
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: Loyal to Myself
Posts: 8,303
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ClueByFour:
Can you cite the case for us, please?
</font>
Can you cite the case for us, please?
</font>
Seriously, the administrative law cites for the authority of the TSA to conduct security screenings has been discussed ad nauseum in these threds. I would look them up, but you can do that yourself, and my guess is that all you will do is dispute their valididty.
Jan 17, 2003, 1:47 pm
#109
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 9,255
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
I would urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to ask that question at the next security checkpoint you visit.
Seriously, the administrative law cites for the authority of the TSA to conduct security screenings has been discussed ad nauseum in these threds. I would look them up, but you can do that yourself, and my guess is that all you will do is dispute their valididty. </font>
I would urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to ask that question at the next security checkpoint you visit.
Seriously, the administrative law cites for the authority of the TSA to conduct security screenings has been discussed ad nauseum in these threds. I would look them up, but you can do that yourself, and my guess is that all you will do is dispute their valididty. </font>
The LEO will know, or will have to know in a very short period of time (eg, before any arraignment or preliminary hearing).
Unlike the submissive lemmings amongst the group here, I'm not going to let myself be trampled on because of "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!!--they might call the cops." Your post suggests a very "Few Good Men" type of situation --eg, I won't ask because I'm somehow afraid of days of confinement, arrest, or paperwork.
On the contrary--I'm the very worst type of person for the upper echelon of the TSA if I was ever detained--I'm not doing anything against the law, I have common sense, and free face-eating legal support.
------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.
Jan 17, 2003, 3:12 pm
#110
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: Loyal to Myself
Posts: 8,303
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ClueByFour:
One of the nice things about having counsel is that I can and would ask that very question when/if I was ever retained.
The LEO will know, or will have to know in a very short period of time (eg, before any arraignment or preliminary hearing).
Unlike the submissive lemmings amongst the group here, I'm not going to let myself be trampled on because of "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!!--they might call the cops." Your post suggests a very "Few Good Men" type of situation --eg, I won't ask because I'm somehow afraid of days of confinement, arrest, or paperwork.
On the contrary--I'm the very worst type of person for the upper echelon of the TSA if I was ever detained--I'm not doing anything against the law, I have common sense, and free face-eating legal support.
</font>
One of the nice things about having counsel is that I can and would ask that very question when/if I was ever retained.
The LEO will know, or will have to know in a very short period of time (eg, before any arraignment or preliminary hearing).
Unlike the submissive lemmings amongst the group here, I'm not going to let myself be trampled on because of "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!!--they might call the cops." Your post suggests a very "Few Good Men" type of situation --eg, I won't ask because I'm somehow afraid of days of confinement, arrest, or paperwork.
On the contrary--I'm the very worst type of person for the upper echelon of the TSA if I was ever detained--I'm not doing anything against the law, I have common sense, and free face-eating legal support.
</font>
You sound very brave and powerful.
[This message has been edited by Brian (edited 01-17-2003).]
Jan 17, 2003, 5:01 pm
#111
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 928
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
I'm not too concerned about a knife getting through security. I think the chance of one being used to hijack and aircraft is about .000001%. I also don't see someone coming on the plane with the intent of slicing up a few passengers. People didn't do it before 9-11 and I don't see it as a real threat now.
Some of this really needs to be put in perspective. While so much time and effort is being put into searching for knives and such, very little seems to have been done other areas.</font>
I'm not too concerned about a knife getting through security. I think the chance of one being used to hijack and aircraft is about .000001%. I also don't see someone coming on the plane with the intent of slicing up a few passengers. People didn't do it before 9-11 and I don't see it as a real threat now.
Some of this really needs to be put in perspective. While so much time and effort is being put into searching for knives and such, very little seems to have been done other areas.</font>
You have a valid point here.
Jan 17, 2003, 5:06 pm
#112
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 928
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ClueByFour:
One of the nice things about having counsel is that I can and would ask that very question when/if I was ever retained.
The LEO will know, or will have to know in a very short period of time (eg, before any arraignment or preliminary hearing).
Unlike the submissive lemmings amongst the group here, I'm not going to let myself be trampled on because of "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!!--they might call the cops." Your post suggests a very "Few Good Men" type of situation --eg, I won't ask because I'm somehow afraid of days of confinement, arrest, or paperwork.
On the contrary--I'm the very worst type of person for the upper echelon of the TSA if I was ever detained--I'm not doing anything against the law, I have common sense, and free face-eating legal support.
</font>
One of the nice things about having counsel is that I can and would ask that very question when/if I was ever retained.
The LEO will know, or will have to know in a very short period of time (eg, before any arraignment or preliminary hearing).
Unlike the submissive lemmings amongst the group here, I'm not going to let myself be trampled on because of "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!!--they might call the cops." Your post suggests a very "Few Good Men" type of situation --eg, I won't ask because I'm somehow afraid of days of confinement, arrest, or paperwork.
On the contrary--I'm the very worst type of person for the upper echelon of the TSA if I was ever detained--I'm not doing anything against the law, I have common sense, and free face-eating legal support.
</font>
Jan 17, 2003, 7:16 pm
#113
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 221
Section 110(b) of the Aviation and Transportation Act of 2001, 49 U.S.C. 44901 (c)-(e) REQUIRES the TSA to inspect all checked and carry on items. I guess that if you were to challenge them, thats what you would be in violation of.
Jan 20, 2003, 11:36 am
#114
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BWI
Programs: AA PLT and that's that!
Posts: 8,349
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACES II:
Section 110(b) of the Aviation and Transportation Act of 2001, 49 U.S.C. 44901 (c)-(e) REQUIRES the TSA to inspect all checked and carry on items. I guess that if you were to challenge them, thats what you would be in violation of.</font>
Section 110(b) of the Aviation and Transportation Act of 2001, 49 U.S.C. 44901 (c)-(e) REQUIRES the TSA to inspect all checked and carry on items. I guess that if you were to challenge them, thats what you would be in violation of.</font>
Even though you have chosen to quote the abbreviated version rather than getting the actual text of the law (they can be different in meaning), this does nicely in showing how f**ked up that law is. There are no specifics whatsoever so the tSA can seemingly go to whatever measures they see fit. This is wrong This is very, very wrong.
Jan 20, 2003, 1:11 pm
#115
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: Loyal to Myself
Posts: 8,303
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
Even though you have chosen to quote the abbreviated version rather than getting the actual text of the law (they can be different in meaning), this does nicely in showing how f**ked up that law is. There are no specifics whatsoever so the tSA can seemingly go to whatever measures they see fit. This is wrong This is very, very wrong.
</font>
Even though you have chosen to quote the abbreviated version rather than getting the actual text of the law (they can be different in meaning), this does nicely in showing how f**ked up that law is. There are no specifics whatsoever so the tSA can seemingly go to whatever measures they see fit. This is wrong This is very, very wrong.
</font>
Jan 20, 2003, 1:42 pm
#116
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: BWI
Programs: AA PLT and that's that!
Posts: 8,349
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
So I guess you are in favor of federal employees selecting which laws they enforce, and how? </font>
So I guess you are in favor of federal employees selecting which laws they enforce, and how? </font>
Try reading the words that are written, Brian, rather than twisting them into something they don't say.
Jan 20, 2003, 2:53 pm
#117
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: Loyal to Myself
Posts: 8,303
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by tazi:
Try reading the words that are written, Brian, rather than twisting them into something they don't say.</font>
Try reading the words that are written, Brian, rather than twisting them into something they don't say.</font>
1. Congress to change/rollback the law?
2. The TSA to selectively enforce the law?
3. The public to be civilly disobedient in ignoring or working around the law?
Or something else. I am trying to figure out what you do stand for, as opposed to what you don't like, which is pretty clear here.
Jan 24, 2003, 5:37 pm
#118
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ohioan
Posts: 65
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">There are a great many things that are both legal and a disgrace. </font>
Jan 24, 2003, 6:34 pm
#119
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: BSB
Programs: DL 2 MM
Posts: 4,914
This thread has been moved to a new board recently setup in TravelBuzz to address security related topics:
Please use the link below to enter the new board:
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...e=5&LastLogin=
Radiocycle
In The News Moderator
Please use the link below to enter the new board:
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...e=5&LastLogin=
Radiocycle
In The News Moderator