Well, water can be dangerous when poured onto sodium, which is not explicitly prohibited by the TSA (though it probably is banned by the FAA).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fmOd8_ReNnQ

Lol ... I liked the story when they met the 72 Viriginians better.

lol yeah, I know.

Sodium's very difficult to transport though.

or the raisins

That perhaps could be a valid argument, if the TSA had clear, set rules on prohibited items and if those rules were consistently followed by every TSA'er. However, as we all know, they practice deliberate obfuscation, so as to keep the terroristas confused and on their toes. As a result, items which are not clearly defined as prohibited, and are permitted 9 times out of 10, still get confiscated/stolen at random checkpoints. That's the policy.

So you presume, but, no, actually, people who try to bring forbidden items into the stadium (ex: umbrellas, coolers with cans in them, etc) have to leave them at lost and found or hike back to their cars.

At MI they used to confiscate your marshmellows. Long story.

Ah, Polonius, to thine own self decline truly!

When you win an ebay auction for any of the confiscated goods, do you have to choose the ground shipping option?

I do agree it sucks what happens after the passenger surrenders the items. Personally, I think there should be some office or something for people to hold their knives/leathermans/whatever.

I went to a garage sale a few year ago. There were BOXES of scissors in every size, pocket knives, leathermans, corkscrews, lighters, etc.

Wonder where those came from, hmmm.

Any old TSA uniforms at the garage sale?

Armed robbery? The screeners are neither armed or robbing you. Which state are you referring to? I believe their laws may be in contradiction of federal law. Isn't it also your fault if you bring a banned item into a secure item? TSA didn't pack your bag. You also have the option of mailing the item back to yourself with the envelopes provided by TSA. Should they come to your house and pack your bag for you? Its been almost 6 years. I'm going to take for granted that you actually are very unaware of the laws and regulations governing these actions and are just spouting your anger in the form of random accusations. Now... there are some good points made here...if the water is too dangerous to take on board an a/c, then why are they not treating it a hazardous material was confiscated? Certain pointy or sharp objects are just not a real threat, no matter how the TSA tries to spin it (finger nail clippers, cigar cutters). Why not sale the confiscated items on e-bay and then donate it to the schools or (insert favorite charity here)). Things to consider, but armed robbery?...hardly.

Yes, armed robbery. They are taking harmless personal possessions from passengers under threat of force (in this case, governmental force). Most places I'm aware of, the threat of force in instances like this qualifies as armed robbery. When a private individual does something like this, most people refer to it as a "mugging". When the state does it, it tends to be called "confiscation". It's still armed robbery. Just because it's performed by agents of the government instead of a freelance thug doesn't make it right.

Should I have said, "The State", would that make it clearer? We're referring to FEDERAL organizations here, they work for the state. Not, say, the state of Virginia - just "The State".

No, it's not. Hassling passengers for bringing their hand lotion, nail clippers, and bottles of water onto an aircraft is WRONG.

Abiding by these stupid, counterproductive, and insane regulations only makes things worse.

You would be incorrect, thanks in large part to a year or more of lurking here prior to my first post, and to being someone concerned about organizations, like TSA, which exist solely to infringe upon civil liberties in "the holy name of 'security'." Their regulations DO NOTHING TO HELP ENSURE THE SAFETY OF PASSENGERS AND AIRCRAFT. Worse, they distract people who MIGHT be able to help ensure said safety by having them search for bottled water and hand lotion instead of bombs or some other VALID threat. What's TSA's success rate against their own Red Team, again? During ANNOUNCED testing periods?

Because it would cost a lot, and they don't REALLY believe it's a threat - but they can't back off from their power trip. I can see no other possible "justification" for it. They themselves acknowledge that these items are not a threat, by the way they are handled after confiscation, but there is no possibility that passengers be permitted to keep said personal items.

Because items which are not a threat, and which are confiscated under threat of force, are STOLEN. It's ILLEGAL to benefit from the sale of stolen property. If it's a threat, it gets handled as hazmat (for things like liquids and gels, etc.) and EVERYTHING gets DESTROYED. Allowing the government to treat them as safe items and SELL them encourages them to continue this unethical behavior.

It certainly is. Why do you SUPPORT it?!?

So you really have no convincing counterpoint...just rehashing of your personal opinion. I never said I support the rules of the TSA, but what I do NOT support is the way some choose to use inflammatory words, even when proven inaccurate, to describe what the feel to be the truth. None of the policies of the TSA meet the definition of robbery, armed robbery, extortion, or any other ridiculous charge previously presented here. The courts have decided in their favor every time. I know..I know..if the courts decide in a way you don't agree with...then they too are corrupt or ignorant. Sometimes when a sheep walks separately from the herd, it is not necessarily more intelligent or enlightened...sometimes it is just suffering from hoof and mouth disease.

They are taking items belonging to passengers without freely-granted consent. If the passenger refuses, governmental force is applied to separate said item(s) from them (and to place the person in "custody"). Answers.com provides definitions of the term "robbery" from a number of sources. Of particular applicability, IMO, is the one from the "Law Encyclopedia" listing:
"Robbery

The taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, by force or intimidation."

It goes on to provide quite a bit of amplifying information, but the very first line sums things up quite handily. I saw nothing to indicate this would not apply simply because the actor in question was a government agent.

BIG surprise...


And sometimes it's not. Be a sheep if you want.

Don't presume to demand that those who disagree with you must be, as well.