That's the sad part about this whole nauseating situation. Bin Laden never counted on turning hundreds of millions of Americans into boogeyman-fearing jellyfish. He succeeded far beyond his wildest dreams and doesn't have to do a whole lot more than make a TV spot now and then to ratchet the threat level back up.

I haven't read through all the pages, but, you being an attorney, you should know any cause of action which upon you could pursue. I don't see any damages other than perhaps, civil rights, and then, are you discriminated against for any reason under those circumstances? I am sorry, I don't like it either. It is a dog eat dog world. Even considering your creditials, **it happens. At least you were able to go on. So, as you must sometimes advise your clients...let it go. I hate to say that to a flyer who has allegedly been mistreated by our government.

"Let it go" is exactly how we got into this mess.

If travelers hadn't "let it go" in the early days of airport WTMDs and x-ray for carry-on (before I was born), maybe we wouldn't be here today. Sure, nowadays most of us think basic carry-on screening for guns/large-knives/bombs is a good idea, but my limited understanding of this history is that it was quite controversial at the time. And lots of people raised the slippery slope concern which has clearly become true. If people had stood up for more individual protections (i.e., enforcing a clear distinction between administrative and criminal search, getting rid of "implied consent" and requiring explicit consent for each stage of the process, allowing pax to withdraw consent at any time), we might not be here.

If travelers hadn't "let it go" when TWA800 was used as an excuse for permanent ID checks, people wouldn't be so inclined to accept the papers-please behavior of airport ID checkers and Real ID. And the no-fly list which ensnares thousands of innocent travelers would just be a fantasy of some tyrannical bureaucrat . Yet another slippery slope come true.

If travelers hadn't "let it go" with the shoe carnival, we might never have had breast groping or total shoe carnival.

If travelers hadn't "let it go" when harmless carry-on items were banned after 9/11 (nail clippers, small scissors, pen knives), people wouldn't have been as tolerant of TSA's idiotic and ill-advised ban on an entire state of matter.

And after we were told to "take the train" if we didn't like TSA searches and ID checks, now we have ID checks and searches on Amtrak.

So sure, "let it go." How much do you want to bet that at least one of the following will come true in the USA?

1) At some point within 25 years, flying commercial airlines will require wearing only airport-provided clothes, and/or no personal carry-ons including purses or books will be allowed whatsoever.

2) At some point within 25 years, US citizens will be required to provide the government a detailed "purpose of travel" (i.e., "business" is not an acceptable answer) in order to fly domestically or in order to enter or even leave the country? The answer will be subject to review and denial will not be uncommon. Appealing denial, if even possible, will require a court case that could take months/years.

3) At some point within 25 years, ID checks against a blacklist and/or "administrative" searches will be tolerated for pretty much any travel activity other than walking, including entering an interstate highway, crossing internal border checkpoints (state lines, county lines?) and boarding a long-distance bus?

4) At some point within 25 years, you will have to formally apply/register for "pre-approval" from the government to engage in activities like going to college, buying a car, buying a house, or banking.

5) At some point within 25 years, a court ruling will state that the 4th amendment applies only to physical objects within one's (single-family) home and not in view of a window, because that is the only place where one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Rental apartments/houses and condos will not apply because one knows the landlord/management might get access, and therefore the resident doesn't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." No electronic communication, including that going in and out of the home, will be considered private.

I'll check back with you in 25 years, but I'm more than willing to bet that NONE of these things will happen. Your paranoia is impressive.

It's not a far leap, given the scaredycats this country has picking presidents and the extreme right wing bench on the supreme court. God, Scalia makes Bush look liberal.

1) Unlikely. Although the "suggestions" by some TSA screeners "encourage" folks to wear only certain types of clothes.

2) Likely. We're already at that point for international travel (see the US/EU plans to subvert the VWP and require pre-approval). So it will shortly apply for leaving the country. Internally is harder, and less likely to happen (although you can expect your movements to be tracked through a national ID program that will be required by all travel providers, including hotels).

3) Moderately likely. While I haven't ridden 'em in years, a friend told me tha some bus lines currently require ID. Interstate highways that are toll roads will track you and associate you through a (mandatory) toll transponder tag. Checkpoints are harder on the roads, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're implemented under the guise of "stopping illegals".

4) Effectively here already. Financial institutions currently check you against a "watch list" to avoid potential penalties from the government for engaging in financial transactions with known "bad guys" (beyond "terrorist" to "money laundering" and so-forth). Some towns require new residents to obtain an "Occupancy Permit" (note that towns other than Black Jack require same: do a google search), which are used to keep "undesirables" and "illegal aliens" out.

5) Very likely. Unless, of course, we reverse the trend in appointments to the court system. "Law and Order" types tend to like limited privacy provisions to enhance enforcement.

JMHO

This kind of situation is the inevitable outcome of a largely unaccountable federal agency with too many people on a power trip knowing full well that they have job security while toying with members of the general public.

"To professionalize, we must federalize".

It really is long overdue to make the TSA nothing but an oversight regulatory agency for airport screening conducted by private (security) contractors subject to litigation.

This "BDO" and "SPOT" and "ID to fly" domestically is a dog and pony show that needs to be foreclosed on by the American people.

Some hotels aready take your DL number and put it in their system. I wonder if this effort is already under way and the government is not telling us.

OK, I got my tinfoil hat on and I got a pair of binoculars ready to scan the sky for black helicopters.
Already here. Try driving along I-8 and I-10 in CA, AZ, NM, and TX. I was once told in no uncertain terms by a CBP goon that if I don't have my passport with me, I could be subject to indefinite detention until my status is verified. "Papiere bitte!"

I was a passnger in a car that got stopped on the 8 near El Cajon last February. 3 people in the car... 2 of us were detained in the car (with a CBP officer standing outside) for about 25 minutes, while the third was escorted away for questioning. None of us had our passports (we didn't need them).

Driver - caucasian male, born and raised in Southern California, resident of Los Angeles, US Citizen, clear American accented English.

Pax 1 (me) - caucasian male, born in Boston, brought up across the US and Caribbean. Resident of Miami at the time, US Citizen, clear American accented English.

Pax 2 - caucasian male (albeit tanner than I), born and raised in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Resident of Los Angeles, US Citizen, clear PR-Spanish accented English.

3 US Citizens in a car, traveling lawfully within the borders of their own country. Guess who got detained and had a CBP officer repeatedly ask them where in Mexico (then Guatemala, then Ecuador, then Colombia, then basically everywhere else in Latin America) they were from and how they got into the US?

This is absolutely ridiculous. This isn't a country that I'm proud to be a citizen of.

This seems like you were actually pulled over by CBP, not stopped a checkpoint.

I thought in order to pull a car over they had to have some level of suspicion that an illegal was being transported.

Have you tried to file a complaint?

I'm trying to figure out what the suspicion could have been... an Audi A4 isn't exactly an uncommon car in Southern California. Granted, it didn't have California plates (Washington State plates, as the driver had recently moved back home from Seattle), but that shouldn't be reason to suspect.

Perhaps they were more in shock that there were more than one occupant in a car on a Southern California Freeway.

Anyway, back on track.. yeah, the other Pax complained and received nothing more than a canned reply defending CBP's actions. He then complained to his congresscritters, but never heard back from either one.

And two years ago if someone had predicted you would not be able to bring a bottle of water through security, they would have been labeled paranoid. It is sad world we live in now given the knee jerk reaction to trumped up security threats.

Agree: This paranoia is impressive
Disagree: With your implication that it is inappropriate.

How do you think fascist states evolve? Overnight or gradually? Take a deep breath before you call that a wild exaggeration.
The Supreme Court, the supposed upholders of the Constisution, just refused to hear the ACLU case on the illegal wiretaps Bushie is doing. Doesn't that scare you?

If I told you, on 9/12/01, that soon enough you wouldn't be allowed to carry water or toothpaste on a flight, you would have called that paranoid.

For a little reading, try the Declaration of Independance and the Preamble to the Constitution. Kepe the TSA in mind as you read.

Actually one must already go through a government check (ok, the bank does it) if you open a bank account or take out a loan (mortgage, auto loan, student loan, etc).

If the government believes you're a terry-wrist and your name is an on OFAC alert list, good luck with banking - it isn't going to happen.

This check happens behind the scenes, but is a requirement thanks to the Patriot Act. Not sure how many consumers are even aware of this.

No. The plaintiffs didn't have standing. It would frighten me a lot more if our courts ignored long-standing Article III case or controversy principles in order to reach decisions that otherwise should elude their grasp (for now, anyway). Perhaps you prefer your courts to issue advisory opinions?