No limits on TSA authority?
 

Can this possibly be true?

According to what I've read in the papers over the last few months...
1. The TSA is authorized to issue legally binding regulations verbally.
2. These regulations are not subject to judicial review.
3. These regulations do not have to be disclosed, even when being enforced.
4. These regulations can vary by location, even at one time.
5. These regulations can be changed at any time (daily, hourly, etc.).
6. The TSA's authority is not limited to *air* travel.

When combined with current Patriot Act Laws that authorize the president to (1) name anyone an enemy combatant, including US citizens in the US, and (2) hold said enemy combatants indefinitely without access to an attorney, without judicial review, without being charged, and without even admitting that the enemy combatant is, in fact, being held by the government, and I think you have all the makings of everyone's worst nightmare.

Can anyone attest that I've got the facts wrong? Or are we all in very thin ice, counting on the honesty and fairness of the Bush administration to not abuse its new, vast, power... or to ever make any honest mistakes?

Got Canada ??

True, with the exception of #2 to an extent. To put this into perspective, the same items are true of your local neighborhood cop. He or she may issue legally binding regulations or orders verbally. Failure to comply with the order will, in most states, permit an officer to arrest you for something like disorderly conduct, failure to comply with a police officer, obstruction, or a similar charge depending on your state laws. Obviously, points 4, 5, and 6 would apply to your local police, too. One day they may say one thing and the next day, another.

However, if your neighborhood cop or your neighborhood TSA screener makes a demand that rises to the level of an abuse of power or a constitutional violation, you would have potential legal remedies depending on the specific facts. Neither one is completely insulated from legal accountability (though both are insulated to a fair degree--and that's nothing new since 9-11.)

I don't point this out to defend TSA, but more to note that there are plenty of folks who have to put up with crap from local cops on a regular basis, and they're probably saying to us "welcome to the club."

You are on thinner ice than you believe.

The Patriot Act was bad enough -- the situation became much worse after the 9/11 Commission's recommendations became law and all federal Intelligence and police activities were put under the authority of one man.

This is not a matter of the Bush or any other particular administration abusing power. Democrats were even more in favor of the Intelligence Bill than Republicans (if you remember, Kerry had said that it would be his first priority if elected).

Some administration is going to abuse it badly, that is inevitable. It may be Bush's. It may be the administration which follows his. It may be three or four administrations down the road, but it will happen. This kind of power cannot be entrusted to a single man with the expectation that it will go unused.

Think back to some of the unprincipled, ruthless, power-hungry people who have held various offices during the last half of the 20th Century: McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, Hoover, or Haldemann. Would you have felt comfortable with any of these being in that position?

Lovely country we've got going here, eh? :(

I don't know where you got your facts from; however, I'd like to clarify a few things for you. First of all, TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers. They cannot order you to do anything against your wishes nor can they detain you; they certainly cannot arrest you.

When you enter a checkpoint, you do so voluntarily. Actually, it's an agreement you've made as a condition for flying a commercial airliner. If you do not successfully complete the screening process, then you don't fly. It's as simple as that.

If you enter a checkpoint and have an illegal item or commit a crime in the process, then it is no longer a security matter. It is a law enforcement matter, and the airport police will take over the situation. That's when all of the legal principles involved in due process comes into effect. Again, what we're talking about here is, for example, if you have a firearm in your possession at the checkpoint, illegal drugs found incidental to a security search or if you assault one of the screeners. (Yeah, I'm oversimplifying it for the sake of discussion.) These situations all meet the minimum standards for police officers to take initial action; although they may choose to exercise police discretion and not necessarily arrest you. This is strictly a law enforcement officer decision not TSA's. But TSA, along with the airline GSC, will offer their recommendations.

TSA was originally created to screen all modes of transportation. This should not be a surprise to you. However, the priority, clearly during the aftermath of 9/11, was with airport security screening. Again, this should not be a surprise. Eventually, TSA is supposed to establish screening methodologies for other modes of transportation or at least address security issues. I don't necessarily envision us having security checkpoints at bus terminals and train stations; however, I think there will certainly be TSA security inspectors who periodically review security procedures at these various modes of public transportation.

You have not lost your civil liberties. The Constitution is still the Law of the Land. I hope you are objective enough to honestly review the information you have available to you and not fall for the empty rhetoric and cheap hyperbole of anti-government paranoia.

Robert Kennedy!! You equate him with the other three? Perhaps you need to stick to criticising politicians in your own country!!





:confused:

The "empty rhetoric" and "cheap hyperbole" IS coming from the GOVERNMENT! Obviously this country learned nothing during the years of McCarthyism and Nixon...

"Detain"? Many SSSS passengers have been told that if they do not cooperate, they will miss their flight. When one has to be halfway across the country in a few hours, one cooperates, whether TSA is law enforcement or not. This may not be the classic example of an LEO detaining a suspect, but it is effectively the same outcome against a person who has not engendered reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. This is a state actor exerting some degree of control over an innocent traveler who may have, for example, had the audacity to question a TSA screener. And let's not get into the issue of TSA fining passengers, then increasing the fines if the passenger contests the matter. Maybe our civil liberties have not been lost, but they are on thin ice.

Yes, I very much equate him with the other three. If you know anything about him, you will know that he worked with Sen. Joseph McCarthy, as Attorney General hounded the Teamsters because they did not support his brother (as opposed to many of the equally unscrupulous leaders of the AFL-CIO), and continued to serve as LBJ's Attorney General until Gene McCarthy demonstrated that LBJ could be beaten in the primaries --at which point Kennedy turned against him.

As far as my criticising politicians in my own country is concerned -- I do. In fact I criticise politicians in both of my countries. I am very much an American citizen and fought in the American Army.

(This was back in the days when Robert Kennedy was busy supporting the Vietnam War until he found that he could get more political capital by opposing it.)

Perhaps you should visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy

Are any of you truly amazed by what King George has done?

He's even grooming his successor, Prince jeb.

What an absolutely depressing thought

What a great election that would be: Prince Jeb vs Queen Hillary the Mad.

When you are being screened, even as a selectee, you are not being detained. You are undergoing the security screening process. If that process is not completed, then you have not met the conditions for entering the sterile area beyond the checkpoint. The difference is that if you fail to complete the screening process, you will be allowed to leave the checkpoint but will have exit back into the public area. TSA is not depriving you of your freedom; it's just that the only direction you may go is outside the checkpoint until you successfully complete the screening process. With a law enforcement officer, you will not be given that option because the officer is depriving you of your freedom based on a reasonable suspicion that you may have committed a crime or intended to commit a crime, depending on the circumstances and whether or not they meet the minimum legal standard for detention.

I understand your concerns about the TSA fines and partially agree. I think TSA needs to look at the totality of the circumstances. Example: if you forgot that you had your standard size office scissors inside your carry-on, then you shouldn't have to pay a fine for making such an honest mistake. However, if you have a firearm inside your carry-on, even if it was an honest mistake, it is clearly a violation of federal law and you should pay a fine. If you strike a TSA screener or verbally abuse a screener (and I'm talking about going beyond mere disagreement; I've witnessed passengers yell racist epithets at my screeners), then you should be fined accordingly.

You can argue all day long about TSA being a state actor; that won't hold water in court. Legal precedent has upheld the legality of security screening.