Sadly that is very true. If the screener has taken it on good faith that the forced ID verification is legal, you can't fault them for breaking the law.

On the other hand if a screener takes on good faith that cash is contraband then they are an idiot and very much at fault.

True but to be a valid defense you also have to not know it was wrong by a reasonable person's standards.

That is why some were found guilty an Nuremburg. The justices decided that any reasonable person would know that killing without just cause is wrong.

I think your spot on TK.

How would anyone defend the herding of naked, defenseless men, women and children into a "bath" then gassing the whole lot?

It was a sad time in human history.

Where do you think Reid was heading on his flight? Brazil? Melbourne?

As for how many shoe bombs, I honestly don’t know, and neither do you. To claim otherwise would be a lie. Is it still a viable method of getting explosives on board an aircraft? Yes. Can other things be concealed in the same manner? Yes. How often does this happen? Several times a week.

I don’t agree. I have been in this business far longer than 20 years, knowing when to get supervisory approval to vary from established procedure is essential. Knowing when you have gone to far is also essential.

I have no expectation of being charged with crimes against humanity or genocide. Its not going to happen. So the analogy is less than accurate.

And here Wally is where the conversation is where I was hoping that it would go. People believe that the TSA management is producing procedures and policies that violate laws. Which ones? How? Show me where you get that assumption? Can one provide a link to the relevant statues? Can those who believe this way support their belief’s, or are they just angry about the fact that there is another group out there that has the authority to affect their lives?

They provide access to the data for those who want to go looking for it. Usually its there for someone who wants to entertain the possibility of promotion. Are they actually concerned about it? I doubt it as well, but then again how many people here believe that the TSA doesn’t have a full corps of attorneys vetting each and every new policy or procedure that comes out?

The name is Ron. Try and maintain some focus please.

I believe that you believe there is. Now, can you quantify it?

In part you are correct. It is a team effort, not just the pilots, not just the TSA, not just the FBI. Without any one of the components, your risk raises significantly.

Boggie, there is far more to what the TSA does than just keep things off air planes. THAT may be all that you want the TSA to do, but congress has authorized the TSA to do a great deal more than that. Sorry dude, I know that this saddens you, violates some personal belief, but such is life.

An honest observation, one I can appreciate. I would agree. There are those out there in the TSA force that just don’t look professional. And there are those out there who’s uniforms are always pressed, clean, and the individual is paying attention. And that individual is just as likely as the other to irritate a passenger. It is a failure in management, for certain. But not in the way you think.

Being a member of the TSA workforce, I can truthfully say that there is nothing easy about the job. The responsibilities and duties can be very heavy, the risks we take are real and ongoing.

Boggie, you have quite a number of misconceptions about the TSA and its workforce. I don’t know how to educate you on the subject other than to ask you to pay closer attention and take off the blinders.

Does that go for all employee’s? Everywhere? No matter who they work for? No matter the circumstance?

There is. Its called asking for a supervisor. That supervisor is the FSD’s duty representative.

I think most here would agree with you, in part. I think you don’t understand their place in the “big playbook”.

Are you saying that people have been arrested with shoe bombs, but yet we are unaware of it? I didn't think that we had a Star Chamber in the US. If that is the case, that is even a greater cause for alarm.

It has been quoted before, but subsequent to Richard Reid, there have been no shoe bombs. What are you alluding to that happens several times a week?

Have you examined the CFR's that have been nicely laid out for you with regards to whether TSA is violating the law in examining ID's? What is the current SOP for those that refuse to produce ID?

And I would still like to know if Continental's knives are permitted through your checkpoint.

That is simply wrong, at least with regard to your apparent belief that TSA is an equal part of the "team" that ensures aviation safety.

Tell me, Ron, do you believe lax gate security led to the 9/11 hijackings?

Oh, come on. The "risks are real and ongoing?" Just what risks do you face?

Nor do you understand your place - and that of TSA's - in the "playbook."

We existed quite nicely as a sovereign nation for over 200 years without TSA, and if TSA were eliminated tomorrow, the world wouldn't come to an end.

Actually we do know how many shoe bombs have happened since Richard Reid, ZERO, and that was eight years ago. Had someone been caught trying to board an airplane with a shoe bomb this news of this would have been announced to the media. While we are all well aware of where Richard Reid was flying to you did not answer the question; Name other countries that require passengers to remove their shoes for X-ray prior to boarding a flight? This cannot include countries that require shoe inspection when flying to the United States. I doubt if you can name five. Countries like Israel, France, Germany, England, Spain, and Italy have all had past or current problems with terrorists and yet they don’t have this poorly designed policy.

Ron your military experience leaves you at vast disadvantage to my experience. You have been trained to follow orders without question, something that does not happen in the real world, unless you work for the TSA. What we are talking about is your statement of:
In other words; if my supervisor tells me to do something that is against the law or could endanger others and you do it, it’s the supervisors problem. No one is going to charge you with war crimes, you can however be held legally liable for doing something you knew was against the law or endanger others, even if you were told to do it by a supervisor.

Ron, when you created this thread you asked for examples of constitutional and legal violations. In the first few pages of this thread there are several examples complete with links. Instead of reading them you have just repeated yourself. What don't you show us how those examples are invalid instead of being evasive.

While I have no doubt that the TSA has attorneys vetting new procedures we've all seen the highly questionable briefs written by Justice Department lawyers approving water boarding and not classifying it as torturer. If they can do that, then policies that made money contraband are nothing to create.

You've consistently ignored all my responses, but I'll try again:

Gate searches.

They're violative of the Fourth Amendment.

I've provided numerous case cites.

You want a link to the Fourth Amendment? Here's the whole Bill of Rights:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html

You, however, seem to be under the impression if there is not a specific statute forbidding the conduct it is allowed. You are completely mistaken. The U.S. is not a civil law jurisdiction.

I've supported my beliefs with facts continuously in these threads. You've simply ignored them.

I'm still waiting for an answer to these questions:

It is a fact that uninspected air cargo and U.S. mail is loaded on board all commercial passenger aircraft in the U.S. How can TSA claim to provide any security whatsoever when this is so?

It is a fact that, after discovery of the terrorist group in Britain that was planning a liquid-based bomb attack on an airliner, TSA banned all liquids on board. It is also a fact that business travel on commercial flights in the U.S. dropped precipitously and the airlines complained. Finally, it is a fact that, after the airlines complained, TSA instituted the 3-1-1 rule, which permitted each passenger to bring what is, for all intents and purposes, a quart of liquids on board. If on-board liquids don't present a danger to commercial aviation, why did TSA ban them? If on-board liquids do present a danger to commercial aviation, why did TSA give in to pressure from the airlines to allow them? We know that terrorists worked in groups of 5 in the past. Five terrorists times 1 quart of liquids equals 1-1/4 gallons of potential explosives, poison, etc. How does intensive screening, both at the WTMD and the gate protect passengers from such an attack?

I'm looking forward (but not particularly expecting) a rational answer from you that doesn't include an insult or personal attack, and that addresses the facts rather than your belittling assumptions about what I believe.

When you have the TSA GC using Google for a definition when it is directly defined in the CFR, what comfort level do we have in her minions being able to properly vet?

No. I have told a shift commander "no" when he gave me an order to infringe on 4th Amendment protections without reasonable suspicion. It's my a__ out there on the line, not his.

Bravo, law dawg! You may be the Man, but you're the man! ;)