In some states that's called "Making A Terrorist Threat" and it's a felony.

Which in turn would itself seem to be "deprivation of civil rights under color of law," which according to the FBI can be either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances of the violation, at least to THIS layman. Full text of the applicable section on FBI's site:
"Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

This first paragraph would seem to cover it, as the man was exercising a right protected under the First Amendment, which was itself NOT an incitement to any sort of criminal activity (ETA: and in the hypothetical situation where he calmly explains that he knows his rights and is prepared to call on lawful organizations to properly defend against violation of those rights, as well). Given that ANY such deprivation, if performed by actual LEOs and/or agents of the Federal Government (seems likely, based on the stated possibility of a "Making a terrorist threat" charge) MUST be regarded as including the "threatened use of a dangerous weapon" (club/chemical incapacitant spray/firearm), it would seem that the deprivation charge would become a felony, as well.

As I said, IANAL, so it's ENTIRELY possible that I'm incorrect. But even the POSSIBILITY that entirely-legitimate and peaceful exercise of freedom of speech could be considered to justify a felony charge of "making a terrorist threat" is frightening - if that is in fact true, then there is no question that the terrorists have indeed won. How sad that we even are DISCUSSING this.

Yes. Quite unfortunate that people are using it even now to take away freedoms. So who really won on 9/11?

The statement is actually rather political, though most people aren't aware of the program behind it. It certainly shouldn't be enough to get someone booted or otherwise hassled while traveling and it is good to see that the appropriate agencies are finally coming around to that conclusion.

So would I. If anyone gets something on DOT letterhead let me know how I can get a copy.

So I bought this shirt from my schools bookstore, I wonder what kind of fun I can run into by wearing it through security.

http://www.samiraatash.com/shop/imag...BLK%5B1%5D.jpg

The quote is Ghandi's - "You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body...but you will never imprison my mind".

Here's a good quote for a XXXXL T-shirt...

"'We're not inflicting pain on these ckufers,' Clinton said, softly at first. 'When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers.' Then, with his face reddening, his voice rising, and his fist pounding his thigh, he leaned into Tony [Lake, then his national security adviser], as if it was his fault. 'I believe in killing people who try to hurt you.. And I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit rpicks.'"


-U.S. president Bill Clinton ordering the bombing of civilian targets in Somalia, as quoted in "All Too Human" by George Stephanopoulos.

or this one...

"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
-Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger"

The government, same as always.

As an update to this, the TSA and B6 agreed to pay $240,000 to settle this.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ys-240000.html

Not a bad chunk of change. I hope this encourages anyone that has a legitimate grievance with the TSA, its employees or policies to move forward in a court of law.

This won't change TSA policy and it won't change TSO/BSO/whatever attitudes because it won't come out of their personal assets. Only when government JBT's start doing serious prison time will things change. This entire incident was a felony conspiracy under 18 USC 241 and should have been prosecuted as such.

Slightly OT -- A Dumb Question
 

Dumb question for the legal beagles, having never been on either side of a lawsuit --

Is the amount he receives in the judgment taxed? Does it matter, for tax purposes, whether or not it was a federal or local court? How about if he wins in one tax year but gets his judgment reduced or overturned in a different tax year? If he pays taxes, is it on the gross amount or on the net after he pays his legal fees?

It is federally taxable. I don't know about the other questions.

1. Yes, the judgment is taxed. Generally, the only legal judgments that aren't taxed are ones for medical expenses.

2. No, it doesn't matter what kind of court it's in.

3. If he wins in 2008 and then the judgment is overturned in 2009, he'll be able to file an amended 2008 return and get a tax refund of the taxes he paid on the amount.

4. Generally, it's going to be on the net amount after legal fees.