How do you feel about behavior-observing officers?
Aug 5, 2007, 8:30 pm
#32
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
Don't recommend that, remember we are talking to a law enforcement official (who may be tired, bored, unhappy or just like to throw around their weight) that can make ones life miserable, in federal space ( the airport ).
When you say they have to have reasonable suspicion... I've heard that such criteria generally expected outside a federal installation do not apply inside. And certainly not at a foreign airport! Telling them to "pound sand" may get you a lengthy interrogation in a small, brightly lit room... even if it means you'll miss your flight. I think you'll find your legal options are actually quite limited.
Having been SPOT'd several times at various airports ( Soviet, Australian, Canadian recently ) I just politely answer the first couple of questions, and then when they ask me about why I'm visiting their country... I start describing in gruesome detail about the astrophysics seminar at a astronomical star party that I'll be attending.. until they get a glazed look in my eye. When I see that, I glance at my watch, and say "OOps... I gotta go or I'll miss my connection"... and that usually works like a charm.... Off I go.^
Better to bore them with mundane or scientific gobble-die-gook until they WANT you to go... than be confrontational.
When you say they have to have reasonable suspicion... I've heard that such criteria generally expected outside a federal installation do not apply inside. And certainly not at a foreign airport! Telling them to "pound sand" may get you a lengthy interrogation in a small, brightly lit room... even if it means you'll miss your flight. I think you'll find your legal options are actually quite limited.
Having been SPOT'd several times at various airports ( Soviet, Australian, Canadian recently ) I just politely answer the first couple of questions, and then when they ask me about why I'm visiting their country... I start describing in gruesome detail about the astrophysics seminar at a astronomical star party that I'll be attending.. until they get a glazed look in my eye. When I see that, I glance at my watch, and say "OOps... I gotta go or I'll miss my connection"... and that usually works like a charm.... Off I go.^
Better to bore them with mundane or scientific gobble-die-gook until they WANT you to go... than be confrontational.
Aug 5, 2007, 8:33 pm
#33
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
If I understand SPOT correctly, this is a program that TSA screeners are to implement in domestic (i.e. United States) airports. TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers, so they have limited detention powers. Domestic airports in the United States are not federal space. If an American tells a TSA screener attempting to question him to pound sand, that is the American's right. The day that a government in the United States detains an American for telling a TSA screener to pound sand is the day that we should exercise our Second Amendment rights to change the government.
Aug 5, 2007, 8:33 pm
#34
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,165
I'm Scared
Our anti-freedom thread poster has informed me via PM that our forum has been reported to the FBI 
Oh my...we're in trouble now.
Oh my...we're in trouble now.
Aug 5, 2007, 8:51 pm
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
The mentality displayed here is scary as hell, to me at least. Freedom is useless if you're dead? Perhaps - but there are worse things than dying, among which is life without freedom. Plus, you and those displying similar mindsets are willing - nay, EAGER - to give up not only your own freedoms, but mine as well. You can do what you want with YOUR rights. You don't get to give MINE up.
Guess there's a first time for everything, and this is a very bad thing to have a first time in.
Aug 5, 2007, 8:54 pm
#37
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Did you ask them what the "reasonable and articulable suspicion" was for this request ?
The fact that bocastephen and goalie (neither of whom I am QUITE certain is a terrorist) were picked indicates that the criteria in use are wrong, those using them are untrained or they are simply doing unscientific random selections. QED.
The fact that bocastephen and goalie (neither of whom I am QUITE certain is a terrorist) were picked indicates that the criteria in use are wrong, those using them are untrained or they are simply doing unscientific random selections. QED.
*more like <insert your word here> and let them know that i wasn't about to play their little game.
Aug 5, 2007, 8:55 pm
#39
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Maybe I'm just ignorant of history, but in EVERY war the US has been in, I've never read about the government asking people to give up rights and freedoms because "we're at war." Not during the Civil war when this company was torn apart from within. Not during WW2 with the Japanese and Germans who were arguably bigger and more real threats to our way of life than these terrorists.
Guess there's a first time for everything, and this is a very bad thing to have a first time in.
Guess there's a first time for everything, and this is a very bad thing to have a first time in.
Aug 5, 2007, 8:57 pm
#40
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
no i didn't as when they were approachng me, i already knew who they were from the 60 minutes broadcast so i was gonna let them have their fun and mess* with them at the same time. now i ask you my fellow f/t'ers, does this look like the face of a ter'wrist tho this royal a/h at jfk thought so.
*more like <insert your word here> and let them know that i wasn't about to play their little game.
*more like <insert your word here> and let them know that i wasn't about to play their little game.
I'd just shoot you out of an abundance of caution.
Aug 5, 2007, 9:05 pm
#42
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
I guess the hope is that people eventually wised up and fixed these, despite their dubious constitutionality. Though with America as it is, and Congress actually authrorising the erosion of our liberties, I'm not so sure.
Guess it's true of what they say of history: if we don't learn from it, we're doomed to repeat it. Only this time, we're "afraid" of a boogieman who can't be vanquished as ostensibly and is easy to use as a fear tool.
Aug 5, 2007, 9:10 pm
#43
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
Ok, like I said, those were things that weren't mentioned in history.
I guess the hope is that people eventually wised up and fixed these, despite their dubious constitutionality. Though with America as it is, and Congress actually authrorising the erosion of our liberties, I'm not so sure.
Guess it's true of what they say of history: if we don't learn from it, we're doomed to repeat it. Only this time, we're "afraid" of a boogieman who can't be vanquished as ostensibly and is easy to use as a fear tool.
I guess the hope is that people eventually wised up and fixed these, despite their dubious constitutionality. Though with America as it is, and Congress actually authrorising the erosion of our liberties, I'm not so sure.
Guess it's true of what they say of history: if we don't learn from it, we're doomed to repeat it. Only this time, we're "afraid" of a boogieman who can't be vanquished as ostensibly and is easy to use as a fear tool.
The Espionage Act, passed in 1917, made it a crime to obstruct military recruitment and it authorized the Postmaster General to deny mailing privileges to any material he considered treasonous or harmful to the war effort.
The Sedition Act, passed in 1918, made it illegal to “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language” about the government, the Constitution, the flag, the armed forces or even the “uniform of the Army or Navy.”
And neither one exists anymore, so I'm not too worried.
Aug 5, 2007, 10:05 pm
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Well look at these and tell me if today is worse -
The Espionage Act, passed in 1917, made it a crime to obstruct military recruitment and it authorized the Postmaster General to deny mailing privileges to any material he considered treasonous or harmful to the war effort.
The Sedition Act, passed in 1918, made it illegal to “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language” about the government, the Constitution, the flag, the armed forces or even the “uniform of the Army or Navy.”
And neither one exists anymore, so I'm not too worried.
The Espionage Act, passed in 1917, made it a crime to obstruct military recruitment and it authorized the Postmaster General to deny mailing privileges to any material he considered treasonous or harmful to the war effort.
The Sedition Act, passed in 1918, made it illegal to “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language” about the government, the Constitution, the flag, the armed forces or even the “uniform of the Army or Navy.”
And neither one exists anymore, so I'm not too worried.
At least with somethings like the warrantless wiretaps, it's much harder to know whether you're actually affected by it due to "state secrets." While some things need to be kept secret, it does need oversight. And I don't think we really have any good oversight over anything that the gov't trying to do right now.