erictank

As long as you do not impose any form of penalty - say, blatantly-retaliatory "secondary searches" intended to assert your authoritah!, deliberately-slowed-in-a-blatant-effort-to-make-you-miss-your-flight searches of person and belongings, or "D-Y-W-T-F-T?" - upon those who refuse to answer, I have no problem whatsoever with you ASKING.

Do you have a problem with people asserting their rights to remain silent when asked nonsensical or irrelevant questions by a government actor?

Global_Hi_Flyer

Hmmm.. Ron, you apparently don't get it. Did you bother to read this post about the abuse your fellow screeners heaped on a passenger the other day?

Link to post

That is, Ron, very clearly "doing something about it"

Read the entire post about what happened, Ron, then come back here and tell us again about how someone has a right to refuse to answer questions and that there's nothing anyone in government can do about it.

Get it?

TSORon

None what-so-ever Eric. Answer or don’t. I don’t really care. But as with everything in life there are consequences for our actions, both good and bad. Which you get depends on the decisions you make. So, when you refuse to cooperate with the screening process do not be surprised if the consequence of that decision is not something you want.

After all, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to get on that aircraft now is there.

Spiff

Nowhere have the People ceded any such right to the government.

TSORon

Nope, didn’t read it. I tend to skip over quite a bit of the obvious blather that folks here seem to enjoy so much. Its boring, usually inaccurate as heck, and 99% of the time it represents an extremely biased view of a situation or event.

OK, I read it. A few unsupported conclusions in it but overall an interesting story. You seem willing to accept it at face value, whereas I am a bit of a skeptic.

Now, did TSA twist this guy’s arms or in any way attempt to force an answer out of him?
Did TSA place him in handcuff’s?
Did he miss his flight?
Was he eventually allowed into the sterile area?
Does the TSA have the authority to deny someone access to the sterile area?
Could this man’s actions have been interpreted to mean that he as a higher level of threat to the safe operation of his scheduled flight than the average passenger?
Is TSA responsible for the actions of Law Enforcement Officers, Airline Personnel, or the actions of the passenger?
When asked the question by the supervisor was there anything preventing the passenger from walking away?

Take the blinders off and try reading the post yourself there GHF. It’s amazing how much one can learn when one is open to more than one point of view.

Get it?

wiredboy10003

Actually, if you're going to play that game, there's no constitutionally guaranteed right for most things. No constitutionally guaranteed right to eat, watch TV, or breathe.

Remember, you said 'constitution'.

JSmith1969

The BDO program is a laughable failure. The BDO program is a laughable failure. The BDO program is a laughable failure. Get it?

PoliceStateSurvivor

The right to get on that aircraft is acquired by a contract with the airline which owns and operates it. Government has no right to interfere in a contractual relationship.

There is a Constitutional right to enter any public area. I believe it was discussed some time ago in a thread concerning checkpoints in the DC area (I am too lazy to do a search), which were ruled unconstitutional.

Read the Ninth Amendment.

TSORon

Well said sir! I’m impressed. Honestly when I saw your name I assumed that this was going to be another baseless rant, please accept my apologies for that. You make a reasonable argument.

But you missed something. One of the conditions of that “contract” is that you must satisfactorily complete checkpoint screening by the TSA, a government agency, per the TSA’s rules. The TSA is an integral part of that contractual relationship, and therefore has every right to interfere as it is a condition of the contract. It’s a part of what you agree to when you buy an airline ticket (read the fine print sometime).

Now, I’m not 100% sure, but I believe that the airport is not a “public” area but is instead owned and operated by the various airport authorities around the country as licensed by their respective states, cities, counties, etc (don’t forget the FAA). IOW, you are allowed to be there because it furthers the business interests of the airport authority, but access to the airport is not in any way a “right”. If it was indeed discussed then I missed it (sigh). And of course the conclusion you provide from that conversation seems to be in error.

PoliceStateSurvivor

I will ignore the insulting and condescending tone of this comment.

The problem with this argument is that beyond certain point any contractual provision can become unconscionable (sp?) or, stated differently, a contract of adhesion. Lawyers on this board can explain it much better.


Perhaps lawyers on this board can chime in here.

GUWonder

Most commercial airports in the US used for scheduled passenger flights are public facilities, owned and operated by a governmental/quasi-governmental agency. There are court decisions where airports are referred to as the property of the government even when the airport is in the control of a quasi-governmental agency such as most airport operators in the US.

The apologists for making airports "constitution-free" zones stake their claim on their idea that airports are neither a traditional public forum nor a government-designated public forum.

Scubatooth

well look who dropped in wrong again!

you mean these examples of the fine print? Please tell me where TSA particulars you mentioned in any of these

http://www.aa.com/i18n/customerServi...OfCarriage.jsp - No mention of TSA at all or screening

http://content.united.com/ual/asset/COC19Jan10final.pdf - One mention but pertaining to permitted and prohibited items, but nothing about screening.

http://images.delta.com.edgesuite.ne...rriage_dom.pdf - Nothing

http://www.continental.com/web/en-US...2010020101.pdf - One mention but only pertaining to rebreather tanks which isnt a TSA thing but a FAA thing.

http://www.usairways.com/en-US/about...fcarriage.html - Nadda

http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/com...f_main_toc.asp - Zilch

http://www.jetblue.com/p/jetblue_coc.pdf - Only references to medical supplies


Do i need to go on do i need to go look at international carriers?

TSORon

OK, assuming that you are correct, the property being government property does not necessairly mean that it is public property. Military bases are government owned, but public access is not allowed. There are many other government properties that are not open to the public, which means that airports could also be this way.

Like I said though, I am not 100% of that. One would need to look at the actual documentation of each individual airport to verify it one way or another I suppose. But asking an attorney, most specifically one that posts here, would be a very questionable activity. Most attorney's can turn the most innocent statement into a confession by a mass murderer, and given my experience with the few that have claimed such education here there is no way I am going to trust their word.

No, you need to read the actual agreement you make with the airline for your ticket, not a web site. Nice attempt to spin though, transparent as all heck but cute all the same.

Aww gee, I was being honest and forthright with you. Yet you choose to take my comments that way, how sad.

I thought we had the beginnings of a reasonable discussion on the topic, why derail it so soon with nastiness?

PoliceStateSurvivor

I would trust the opinion of attorneys, especially those who back their arguments up with legal citations, a lot more than I would trust a word of a blatant Government apologist.

GUWonder

What government property in this country is not public property?

Doesn't the TSA disseminate propaganda that at least aligns somewhat with the actual meaning of English language phrases as applicable in the US?