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.

Bart, among other problems, the TSA fines are clearly a Constitutional violation of due process. If someone brings a gun through the checkpoint, the person can be fined anyway owing to current law (laws we are actually allowed to read :rolleyes: ).

Fines for common household objects such as scissors or cake knives are levied by the TSA because the police won't do it since it's not an actual criminal offense (misdemeanor or otherwise).

You can sit there and say that the TSA would never issue a fine for someone who accidentally brings a household object to the airport, but unfortunately that is not true, and, unlike an abusive police officer, the victims have no recourse.

You are lost
 

Your reasoning is faulty. The words 'voluntarily' and 'agreement' are missused.
We have freedom to move in this country in nomine only. That freedom has been abbridged by people who reson like you. We can only move if we submit ourselves to search during which one can denay us the right to fly without cause.
I know you will say that flying is a privilige - to that I say - the history already have seen systems in which same argument was made - welcome to Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Europe and Sadam's Iraq. Oh, sorry, I forgot, we are doing it in the name of freedom. Since I know that you do not know - the other monsters said the same thing.

I think we're in violent agreement here. What made you think I said anything differently?

Excellent post.

I disagree in part with this paragraph. If you strike a screener, then you should face criminal justice, not a civil fine from the TSA. If our criminal justice system levies a fine (along with substantial jail time), then I'm ok with that.

Verbal abuse? Do you really support the imposition of civil fines for verbal abuse? Screeners shouldn't have to endure racial epiteths, but I would prefer that we rely on our criminal justice system to determine facts and levy punishment. If verbal abuse rises to a level the TSA finds unacceptable, then the passenger should be arrested by the LEO for disorderly conduct/breach of the peace/whatever it's called in that jurisdiction.

I've found that the law isn't as clear as I thought. What I do not support is double jeopardy. If the local law enforcement officers arrest someone for assault, then it's all up to the judge. TSA shouldn't double-penalize someone by imposing an additional fine. My point was that there should be consequences for clearly unacceptable actions. But there should also be sound judgment and discretion; not an automatic "gotcha" for every infraction, no matter how trivial.

Yeah, a lady shoved her shoes at one of my screeners, jamming a couple of the screener's fingers in the process that required medical attention and wearing a splint. I wasn't a lead screener at the time, but I recall giving my supervisor the proverbial Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot expression as nothing was done to the lady who injured my screener. This, in my mind, was simple assault, and criminal charges should have been made. If nothing else, her behavior should have been documented and reported to TSA headquarters. Nothing was done. The supervisor and I went behind the proverbial woodshed for a heart-to-heart discussion about this matter, and I was basically told that it was none of my concern. This is why now that I have some measure of authority as a lead screener, I keep a sharp eye on the floor like a hawk and act as the voice of conscious for the supervisors whenever I sense they are unable or unwilling to handle a situation.

What I don't support is a bullying attitude towards passengers. You are not the enemy; it is your safety and best interests we should serve with zeal and professionalism. However, every once in a while, there's one or two of you whose behavior is unacceptable, and we shouldn't tolerate it nor should you. For every action, there's a consequence. I demand it for myself; I don't think it is unreasonable to expect it from others.

What's a LEO? :confused:

- Pat

It is either a law enforcement officer or somebody born in late July - early August.

"What I don't support is a bullying attitude towards passengers. You are not the enemy; it is your safety and best interests we should serve with zeal and professionalism. However, every once in a while, there's one or two of you whose behavior is unacceptable, and we shouldn't tolerate it nor should you. For every action, there's a consequence. I demand it for myself; I don't think it is unreasonable to expect it from others."

Bart, I quite agree, however when those one or two whose behavior is unacceptable are TSA how are we "John Q Public" supposed to demand consequences? Or even get any kind of answers!!

You can fill out a TSA complaint form or write a letter to the airport Federal Security Director. Next best alternative is to complain through your airline representative; however, it's better to use the more direct approach of the complaint form or letter to the FSD.

We are your public servants. How we carry out our duties should withstand your scrutiny.

Bart, Might I suggest that you take a trip in civilian clothes (no big blue TSA on the back of the shirt) and go thru some of the security lines without flashing ID or telling anyone that you are TSA then come back with more realistic ideas.

On sending a TSA complaint form been there done that twice NO RESPONSE.
Calls to FSD office, we will look into it, NO RESPONSE. You may have the book answer but PLEASE GET WITH THE REALITY!

I don't understand your point. You asked me for advice, and I gave it to you. I can understand your pessimism, especially after the frustration of dealing with an unresponsive or uncaring FSD office. I just don't understand what you hope to accomplish by responding with another post that attempts to belittle me as being out of touch with reality.

It appears as if you baited me into a response just so you could come up with some sort of clever counter-response. I hope you achieved whatever satisfaction you were seeking, sir, because it's left me completely confused.

Bart, That was not my idea at all. As I read your post here in this forum and on many threads you are always apoligising for the stupid activities of other screeners and saying this is not the way it should be. Unfortunately it is the way we FF's see it. I was merely suggesting a way for you to experience the real FF's dilemma. I am truly sorry if it came across as sarcasm.

I understood where you were coming from with your line of questioning.
There's the "official way it should be", the "theoretical way it could be" and the "it is what it is way". In most cases, the scenarios are very far apart.
The party line is one thing and the way the security situation really plays out in the various airports can be a whole different animal.
Until a TSA person walks in a FF's shoes ( apologize for the analogy :) ) or a FF could be TSA-For-A-Day, I don't think we are going to have any common ground for comparing our frustrations.

I was a frequent flyer long before I became a TSA screener. Perhaps this is why I am determined to provide professional and courteous service to people who process through my checkpoint, or perhaps it's the work ethic carried on from my years in the military, or perhaps it's both. I come to this web site to help or provide insights. If my comments aren't welcomed, then don't respond to them. I don't have the time nor patience to play little on-line mind games.

rgfloor,
Apology accepted. Let's try it again with some other topic.

Bart look at the real life
 

Is this all that difficult to imagine a situtation that those who write complaints to TSA get on a no-fly list quicker than those wh do not complain.
When is the last time the fox responded to a complaint from the chicken.

The nice thing about living in this country is that you are free to be as paranoid as you wish. If this is your choice, then have at it, friend. I have indulged your silliness purely out of courtesy. I will not do so again in the future.

Wow. I just read the whole thread. I wish I could say that there were new and interesting insights posted. Unfortunately, I have concluded that some people will simply always find a reason and a way to complain about something. :(

So, if any one "volunteers" to adopt any mode of transportation in the US, they must surrender their rights. You have the choose between having your civil rights and remaining stationary in the US or moving and sacrificing them.

:rolleyes:

The "voluntary" argument is bull.

Why don't you admit to the rest of your perspective? If memory serves, you believe that any measure of security screening is excessive and passengers should accept the statistical odds that the great majority of them will not be involved in a terrorist incident, making it an acceptable risk (in your mind) at the cost of the relatively few who are victimized by it. You posted that in another thread (I believe it was in the Omni Forum, but could be mistaken).

Yes, I said that? What is your point? I'll also admit to you that I am going to wear black shoes today. Oh, and I think I will take a cab to work because it is snowing outside. :rolleyes:

There are quite a few things things in my perspective that I don't say over and over again. Is that okay with you? :)

(for what it is worth, you are exaggerating above. I never said that all screening is excessive, but aside from that your recollection is pretty accurate. You can sticky this post if you like)

Hey at least I admitted it. Why won't the TSA admit that it is doing the same thing? Wasn't there a story about RAND study the other month that said that right now long TSA wait lines are actually a more attractive terrorist target? It appears that the TSA has decided that "passengers should accept the statistical odds that the great majority of them will not be involved in a terrorist incident, making it an acceptable risk at the cost of the relatively few who are victimized by it." How dare the TSA place us at risk like this?

Like I said, I just said made a statement about the risk-calculus out loud. It doesn't go away when people don't talk about it. And worse, it doesn't go away when people don't think about it. My sample of TSA personnel, in this forum, leads me to believe that real reasoning about risk is beyond them. I don't know how far up the department chain it goes, but it is sad.. a complete educational failure.

Thank you for your honesty. Just wanted to keep it all in perspective. There are basically two people who criticize airport security: those who believe there ought to be some measure of security but don't agree with TSA's methodology and those, like you, who believe that any measure of security is not justified. Helps to know these perspectives when reading comments, don't you agree?

Well, I never said that, actually. I'm for any security that is unobtrusive. I get the feeling that you want to paint my comments a certain way. That's fine, sounds like a stalking horse for ad hominem: "see he thinks this, so don't look at this on its merits." Just know why you are doing it, okay? ;)

If you get a chance, please tell us why an attack on a screening lane is an acceptable risk, that "passengers should accept the statistical odds that the great majority of them will not be involved in a terrorist incident, making it an acceptable risk at the cost of the relatively few who are victimized by it."

If I've misrepresented your views, please understand this is not my intent. I simply am puzzled by your view but apparently don't understand it completely. You are quick to criticize TSA procedures but offer no constructive suggestions. I thought I understood your view, and it appears that either you are changing it again or I misinterpreted what you posted. Even in your response, you really didn't clarify anything other than to criticize the current model. I'll leave it at that.

Waiting patiently.