I wanted to head Godwin off at the pass. I'm psychic that way. ;)

Cops do. Trust me, they know when they're off the reservation. 99% of the time they know.

I used to teach this stuff though........:)

Everyone go to the nearest shelter immediately. The End Days are nigh-

I agree that gate searches are of suspect Constitutionality.

See I KNEW there was a reason I bought chickens and am making a still.

End of the world party at my house. Chicken and dumplings washed down with industrial grade shine. ;)

For any Revenuers reading this, the chickens are real the still is not. At least not yet.

No, it's not a necessity. The US is the only one that believes that and the only time it's experienced abroad is for US bound flights. Can't tell me that the US is the only terrorist target in the world. Madrid and the UK subway bombings have shown that the US isn't the only target. Even Israel doesn't have a shoe carnival and they have a damn good reason to be paranoid.

Yet, despite how often Reid is trotted out, we don't see any planes falling out of the sky, despite the bigness of the threat TSA makes it out to be.

I had a link way back from an LA Times article that both TSA and FBI reported there wasn't a single attempt at a shoe bomb since Reid. I'd post the link, but unfortunately, it's archived and accessible by subscription only. I did post snippets and some snippets are findable with a Google search. TSA would have us believe it's because of the shoe carnival, but at that time, the shoe carnival wasn't mandatory.

Securities procedures are good if they're necessary. They're bad if they're not. The shoe carnival isn't necessary. The rest of the world proves that.

FRA can be a bit "friendly" in their patdowns, but at the same time, they were also very businesslike. I wouldn't have called them friendly, but I wouldn't call them rude either. It was business. I can tell you that domestic security at HAM was much different than what I got at FRA. It was pretty sedate at FRA.

Companies can be sued. The government cannot.

While the company may blame it on an employee, they're still going to be liable. Depending on how the judge determines liability, the individual may or may not have to pay.

Take a look at the doctrine of sovereign immunity found here:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Sovereign_immunity

Enjoy.

I will just weigh in on this and say that TSA is by law an administrative agency that functions as an adviser to the airlines and technically we have no legal authority to do anything except advise the GSC of an airline that a passenger has presented him/herself with XX and TSA is of the position of XX and the law says that the GSC cannot overrule TSA.

So we have a passenger that has a bag that alarms the ETD for a lot of chemical substance that is consistant with an explosive. TSA calls that GSC and tells the GSC what the findings are. It can stop there or it can go onto an advisal whereby the TSA gives the recommendation that the passenger not be allowed to fly. Then the GSC is obligated and bound by law to decline the customer boarding.

Sorry if your advisement can not be ignored then it is an order. Call it what it is please.

Legal boundaries and parameters or just what the shift commander says is OK ?

But, I thought that the "I was just following orders" (the Nuremberg defense) was ruled inadmissible as a legal defense.

It is a valid defense when a reasonable person would not know they were breaking the law. That was not the case at Nuremberg.

What they were doing wasn't against German law at the time though. It WAS the law.

Always thought that ignorance of the law was no defense as well. So ignorance of the law and following unlawful orders (regardless of who issued them).... My head hurts.:confused:

In reality ignorance of the law is the only excuse.

To be properly convicted of a criminal matter a reasonable person would have to know that what they are doing is illegal or wrong or the consequences of what they are doing will be illegal or wrong.

Also to be properly convicted the defendant must be a reasonable person. This is why someone that has fallen off their rocker can be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Rules out screeners then.

Ooooh, I can't believe I wrote that. Bad Wally. ;)

Adding some more.

If you follow an unlawful order that you know is wrong or unlawful, your neck is on the line.

If on the other hand, you follow an unlawful order on good faith that it is a lawful order and you do not know the order is wrong, you are in the clear.

Seeing how this thread has already had Godwin's law invoked I will give you an example.

Nazi commander says "shoot that Jew" and you comply then you have no defense as you know killing someone without just cause is wrong.

If the Nazi commander says "shoot that spy" and you comply and then later found out they were not a spy, you are in the clear because killing a spy is just cause in any war and that is what you thought you we doing when you pulled the trigger.