TSORon wrote:

You have been given the links on several occasions both here and on PV. Have you read them or not? Are you capable of understanding them or not?

PTravel, an attorney, wrote:

I am beginning to believe, PTravel, that this is exactly what TSORon thinks is the case: if it is not expressly forbidden, then it is allowed.

That ain't the way things work, Ronnie.

I'll be honest - only part of my reason for denial was principle based. The other part was I knew that, when the inevitable legal actions were filed, our esteemed administrators would be no where to be found to confirm their verbal orders.

"What? We NEVER told them to do such a thing!"

What Ron is engaging in are “Seagull posts”. When you go to the beach and try to eat something a seagull will show up trying to get at your food. It flaps around, squawks a lot and when you get really annoyed it craps on you and flies off. Lets face it Ron challenged us to prove him wrong and we did, but instead of addressing what was posted he has latched on to a few extreme examples and once again has claimed we really don’t understand how things work at the TSA. Without telling us how things work at the TSA.

I would like to suggest that in the future not responding to Ron is the easiest way to deal with his unwillingness to engage in an actual dialogue. Now he is making lots of noise about nothing and annoying everyone, hope he will stop crapping on us and fly away.

Think your right. Why waste time on a no count anyhow.

It is if you work for the TSA.

As noted, you have already been given chapter and verse.

The acid test of legality is in a court; preferably SCOTUS. That hasn't happened and I'm not holding my breath. As to Constitutionality, all we have is Davis which is somewhat outdated but nonetheless quite specific. Airport searches are constitutional under the 4th provided they are limited in scope to threats to aviation: weapons and explosives to be precise. The definition of a weapon was not given, so we had the nail-clipper and bookmark nonsense. And anything else you guys imagine.

Davis also stated such searches may not be intrusive beyond the policies and equipment in use at the time: X-rays and WTMDs. Backscatter and other peep-show machines have not been ruled constitutional or otherwise by any court AFAIK. Your management believes (assumes, hopes ?) they are but that's an entirely different matter.

Relevant statue ? Not Rodin's Thinker for sure

But would a reasonable person not have killed a Jew if they knew they would be killed instead?

Hate to say it, but reasonableness is relative to some degree. I agree that killing someone just because is wrong, but at the same time, considering how messed up Germany was at the time and if it was an "either me or them" type of deal, what would a reasonable person do?

I believe the term for that is a kite. If things go south, cut them loose and leave them on their own to go wherever the legal wind takes them.

But then you would have to prove it was a him or me proposition.

I agree reasonableness is relative to a degree. To me a person knowingly digging their own grave and then running to the edge of it on a soldier's orders knowing you would be executed is completely unreasonable behavior, but it happened. And it happened to with enough frequency you can't honestly make the claim that all of those people were unreasonable.

Thankfully the him or me proposition is rare. Let us pray that we are never in the soldier's or the Jew's position.

It'd be hard to prove. It'd be entirely plausible, but hard to prove.

I think in that case, it would probably fall to how the people executed the order. Like how you described or shooting people for the hell of it like the commandant in Schindler's List? No question that a reasonable person wouldn't do that. Have the low level grunts that are told if they don't kill them, they'll be killed too (clearly, the Jew was screwed either way)? Harder to lay that one at their feet. Not impossible, but harder.

+1

Funny you should mention that. There is a story today about a cop that wrote a kid a ticket for wearing a NOBAMA shirt at a school function. The charges of "interference with staff of an educational facility," were dropped.

That charge does not sound like one a cop would act on his own if all the kid was doing was wearing a NOBAMA shirt and holding a McCain sign.

I think a school employee told the cop the sign was not allowed and that is what the cop acted on. (pure speculation on my part)

From the article.
Sounds exactly what you were talking about.

That�s your belief, and you are more than welcome to keep it as long as you like. The nice thing about belief�s is that one does not need anything to keep them, not even facts.

No. Lack of foresight, lack or procedure, lack of imagination. None of those are the fault of the screeners, but all are the prevue of the agency that was overseeing their work. I know who that was, do you?

In the simplest definition of my job, I am a human bomb detector. Not an inherently safe job. But if we put it into a perspective that is current, we deal with large numbers of people we do not know on a daily basis. Any of them could be nuts, could be carrying weapons, needles, knives, clubs, germs (N1H1, or worse), or any of a vast number of dangerous things. The risks are very real, and go on through our entire work day.

.
I�m not responsible for your ignorance. You have much to learn grasshopper, things that we cannot teach you.

While some fault can be laid at the FAA's feet for their procedure of cooperating with hijackers, there was a large failure of the intelligence community and the administration considering they had the warning at least a month a head of time.

Tell me what TSA is doing right now that would have stopped 9/11 from happening if it were there instead of the FAA?

And how many people have been killed or jurt on the job from one of these so called risks? Workplace injuries from slinging bags don't count.

Physician, heal thyself. You repeatedly ignore things people post - or at least don't have the gumption to look at what's posted when you ask a question. And then you call people ignorant?

Sorry, no I�m not ignoring your responses, I am using them. I am trying to give you some credit for them as well, but there are only so many hours in a day and like every other person on the planet I have responsibilities that take time. Be patient PT, there are quite a few of you out there, and only one of me. I have only so much time I can spend in here.

Sorry, you are going to have to be more specific than that.

And I have read them. Some are on target, some are not. None of them show gate screening as a violation of the 4th amendment.

Not quite. You seem to be of the impression that anything that is not specifically authorized is prohibited. Neither belief is totally accurate.

Honestly. I�m not ignoring you. But my fingers are getting a bit sore.

I am a TSO, not an inspector, not an FSD. I know that inspections of the cargo on all air carriers is required to be inspected, but not necessarily by the TSA. So, you may think you have a fact there, but what goes on behind the scenes is usually not observed by the public.


Wow, I�ll take those one at a time if you don�t mind.

Correct. They banned all liquids until they could determine what the threat was, how dangerous it was, and specifics on how to thwart it if possible.

OK, they do present a danger. If one reads the advisement signs at one�s local airport, one will note a line that says �Container size is a security concern�, or something very close to that. What that is telling you is that as with any explosive, quantity is important when considering liquid explosives. A gallon will bring down a small building, but 15 wont take out a sky-scraper (just an example mind you, not meant to be a claim of expertise on destroying houses or buildings). 3.4 ounces is rather a small amount, and not enough to bring down most commercial grade aircraft. A quart might be, maybe. But if 5 people get together and combine their quarts, then definitely. OTOH, don�t you think someone would notice 5 guys duct taping bottles together during a flight?

I have no intent to belittle anyone. I find your posts useful, even if somewhat lacking in certain areas. And honestly, I�m not trying to avoid you, but you are one of the many who want a reply.

I'm not sure what "properly" means, but the above is false in terms of the law as it's applied in the US. You only need to have intent to do the thing that's against the law; you need not know that it's against the law. It's illegal to juggle without a license in Hood River, OR. If some visitor to the city juggles, they've violated that law as long as they intended to juggle. The fact that they didn't know it was illegal (friends of mine who grew up there know it), is irrelevant.