We've had many threads and discussions over the past several months about whether TSA practices rise to the level of a Constitutional violation. While I'm not going to be able to offer any definitive answer to this question here (sorry), I did have the chance yesterday to talk to a colleague at length about TSA.

Why are his views relevant or important? He was one of the original members of the TSA legal team when it stood up, before transferring over to DHS. (He has since regained his sanity and has returned to DOJ. He couldn't stomach the internal political shennanigans at DHS).

We discussed checkpoint wallet searches, the virtual strip search machine, BDO's - the whole gamut of TSA actions that we all complain about over here. Sadly, he confirmed my worst suspicions.

So, I asked him - how can the agency justify some of their more egregious practices? He laughed and said "you don't get it - their view is that we will push the outer boundaries of our authority until someone tells us to stop." They view their authority as broadly as possible, and figure that if they've overstepped any, the courts will rein them in. In other words, no one in DHS is acting in a supervisory capacity to ensure TSA personnel aren't violating a passenger's Consitutional rights. It's up to the public to challenge them at the checkpoint, and decide to take their case to court.

Welcome to the modern version of fascism, US style.

Wouldn't it be great if we could get someone (or some foundation) wealthy enough to underwrite the legal fees for a Constitutional challenge to the TSA and another person to set themselves up for a confrontation with the TSA that would end with said challenge?

If I were retired and had the time I'd volunteer.

Sad. Not really surprising, but tragically sad.

I feel as if we've crossed that line between "don't worry, it's not that bad" and "oh well, too late now."

(halls, thanks for your insights from the inside!)

Hands passport sized Constitution to TDC

"'Constitution of the United States?' Sorry that's not vaild here."

So, in otherwords, an out of control agency responsible to no one? Pretty much takes all of the wind out of the sails of TSA's supporters.

Halls120, please thank your friend for me.

Just confirmed by one of their own. They saw their authority as absolute. I believe that is the textbook definition of a "dictatorship."

Remark from Senator Lindsey Graham about the way the Bush administration (the one who created TSA/DHS, wrote their rules, and staffed it with political operative flunkies like Mikey and Kippy) viewed the rule of law. During a hearing, Graham said that the Bush administration did not commit any crimes, but that they "saw the law as a nicety we could not afford."

"Federal Government Ruled by Law of the Constitution"
Born: March 4, 1789
Killed: January 20, 2001

Please tell me which political party doesn't do this very same thing. Please point me in the direction of a political party that doesn't shred the Constitution in the name of expediency.

Perhaps Libertarian?

John Gilmore tried with respect to ID checking, with mixed results.

There�s plenty of bipartisan blame for the creation of DHS/TSA. Don�t forget Sen. Daschle�s little nursery rhyme about how you can�t professionalize until you federalize, for example.

Gilmore got mixed results because his cunning plan was not thought all the way through.

He was given an out to the illegal forced ID verification as a criterion to gaining access to the sterile area by being offered the legal pat down. He refused both.

The test case needs to be one where the person has no out.

Yeah, a good test case isn't that easy to come by.

Test cases need to be planned operations. The subject of the test case needs the coaching of a competent attorney before hand so they do not accidentally blow the case.

The easiest test case to do right now is on the SPO-7. All you would need to do is walk around the airport with a block of cheese in one pocket and crackers in the other.

Wait until you are approached and refuse to engage the BDO, TSO or LEO. The will get mad and somebody will frisk you for "officer's safety", they will find the cheese.

An officer can not claim that cheese feels like a weapon so it will kill the "officer's safety" portion of the frisk. If the officer states he thought it is a bomb, the next question is "why would you remove it from the pocket and not wait for the bomb squad".

Done right it will show the whole setup to be unconstitutional from the get go.

Make sure there's a set of ear buds in the same pocket as the cheese.

Better yet, build a package with earbuds on the outside, block of cheese in the middle, MP3 player behind the cheese (connected to the earbuds).