Okey doke. Again, thanks for the clarification. Let me just say this: whew! :)

I agree that this discussion has veered closely towards Omni land, which was inevitable, given the original question.

That said, I've watched the new DHS in action for the last 100 plus days, and as I've posted before, if you didn't like Mike Chertoff and his TSA cronies, you aren't going to be happy with his replacement. Secretary Napolitano has brought her Arizona mafia to DC, and the shock waves are still reverberating in DHS. NSC has had to rein her in twice already from making unbelieveably stupid decisions that would have caused the White House serious embarrassment.

Part of the problem with the intelligence community was moving from local assets to a heavy reliance on electronic surveillance. The nuances of the local political spectrum were lost.

I couldn't agree with more. Back in the 1980's and early 90's always loved how the CIA would tout that spy satellites were so good you could read the license plates of trucks parked on Russian military bases. Unfortunately they couldn't tell you why they were parked there

Or if the driver was smiling or fuming...

Change we can believe in, eh? :rolleyes:

With a handle of Ayn, I'd expect nothing less, and FWIW I agree. ^

I sometimes quote my favorite major minor poet ee cummings in The Politician. The only question is how fast the disillusionment will set in with the new administration about - what was the thread topic again? - "TSA and the Law." @:-)

Unfortunately we never really got anywhere with this. I was hoping to get a real discussion about the laws and peoples concerns with the TSA, but the conversation devolved into the same old recriminations that seem to be the norm in this forum. Finger pointing, unreasoned thought, claims without support, misrepresentation of what someone wrote, melodrama, and of course the inevitable individual ignoring what has been provided.

It saddens me that the folks here just could not step up and discuss something without all the melodrama. Maybe next time, if we have learned anything from this experience, we can have an actual discussion among adults, as adults.

A discussion group is only as good as its chairperson.:rolleyes:

Ron we tried to have a discussion, we cited case law and statutory law. We asked for clarification from you on the current ID policy.

You failed to respond to the proof or clarifications.

My suggestion is you start a new thread. Explain what you want to discuss and the general ground rules you would like us to adhere to.

Pick a singular topic, like the ID policy, and state why you feel it is Constitutional and legal and then we can discuss it.

Dang TK, you post upstanding stuff like this and I was thinking more in line of asking Ron if he had an adult ready to represent him.

What a thread buster!

Well, there you go being all rational and fact-y again. ;)

Unfortunately Ron we got there. I to was hoping for a real discussion with you about the TSA and the law, The problem was you never addressed any of the links that were brought up about the law and the TSA early in this thread. Except to say some you agreed with some and disagreed with others. There were plenty of claims with support unfortunately you became the inevitable individual who ignored what was provided. Your only to real responses with factual claims of what you believed were the ravings of a political/religious whacko and a news article that you confused with the TSA catching a real terrorist.

It saddens me that you could not discuss something; instead you turned this into another seagull thread where you contributed nothing towards the discussion except melodrama. Maybe next time if you learn anything from this experience you will have learned that you have to participate in threads you start and that the TSA is not always operating within the law. Rather it gets around it by claiming it is engaging in administrative actions.

Sounds like a good idea for future threads Ron starts.

Oh please, plenty of specific cases were sited, you even said so:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/11668240-post39.html

... yet you conveniently ignored responding to it. In fact the entire 2nd and 3rd pages of this thread consists of plenty of examples, yet you ignore them... and then complain that no examples were given. If anyone is doing the ignoring, it's you.

Be honest, was this thread a geniune attempt to foster discussion? ... Or a convenient method of having the public do the work for you to figure out where you've run afoul of the law?