agreeing with N965VJ. it is completely legal (n.b. completely legal) to carry any amount (n.b. any amount) of u.s. currency or currency equivalent within the united states and it is only an issue if you carry more than $10,000 in u.s. currency or currency equivalent either into or out of the united states where you must declare said currency or currency equivalent using fincen form 105. it's that simple and it's not illegal-plane" and simple (and imho, it ain't rocket science either-")


try telling that to the tsa :rolleyes:

No one ever accused TSA of being smart!

I think we are both saying the same thing, just in a different manner.

This case is more on point with the original ACLU argument.

It basically ruled that the Constitution didn't follow the flag.

DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

Just to spin you up goalie, but it's also legal for me to walk around at 2AM dressed in black carrying a bag of tools. In the state of Florida, that can constitute "reasonable suspicion" for law enforcement. Can you explain to me the difference between what the state ruled and the TSA's OD? :D

<spinning up ;)>i will claim ignorance regarding florida law as i have no knowledge but when it comes to the bank secrecy act, i will put my 30+ years of experience out there for anyone to challenge-the tsa, local leo's, cbp and anyone else you might want to toss into the "alphabet soup". the law is the law and as long as i follow it, ain't nobody who call tell me that i am doing anything wrong, illegal and/or suspicious. it is mission creep and a violation of the administrative search "plane" and simple :)

I don't see how this adds anything to the discussion of the topic presented in the thread. Unfortunately, you are not alone. This forum needs more constructive discussion and debate, and less whining, screaming bloody murder, and political agendas.


Unfortunately for the OP, it's hard to make a solid complaint regarding retaliation. It's quite possible the TSO decided to do a pat down before your response about the shoes. If you complain or make snide remarks every time through the check point, than every time you get selected would appear to be in retaliation, no?

No, we aren't.

You said "Sovereignty still remains with Cuba, according to the lease. The reason they brought the detainees there was because of this status."

That is fundamentally incorrect.

We opened Gitmo as a Haitian detention center because the INA doesn't apply there. It had nothing to do with Cuba's sovereignty.

I participated in the process that resulted in the establishment of Gitmo as a detention center, so I think I know what I'm talking about. if you want to keep arguing about why we did it, be my guest. :D

You're absolutely killing me. Here's a scholarly article that may help you understand my point.

BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH AND GUANTÁNAMO, CUBA: DOES THE "EMPIRE STRIKE BACK"?

I'm through with arguing about the subject.

Until next time:D

I think TSA is acting in some of the same ways those organizations acted in their early days.

Today TSA feels I have to answer any question they ask if I want to fly that day.

I disagree, I will cooperate with matters directly related to WEI but where I'm going, why I'm going there, how much money I have or any number of other things are simply not the business of TSA.

It is time to change what TSA has become and restore airline screening to just screening for WEI.

I'm quite aware of what the SC said in their recent Gitmo-related cases.

In Boumedine, the SC rejected the government's claim that enemy combatants lacked Habeas rights because the US had previously expressly rejected any claim of direct sovereignty over Gitmo. The SC rejected that claim, finding (among other things) that the US had exclusive control over the facility which resulted in de facto sovereignty - hence the prisoners right to make a habeas claim.

You do remember what you originally said, right? I'll bold the relevant portion in case you've forgotten.

You said "Sovereignty still remains with Cuba, according to the lease. The reason they brought the detainees there was because of this status."

That is still fundamentally incorrect.

Just as we brought Haitian detainees to Gitmo in the 1990's because we knew the INA doesn't apply there, it was the hazy legal status of whether Habeas Corpus and other Constitutional rights would apply at Gitmo that led to the establishment of Camp Delta. It had nothing to do with "sovereignty remaining with Cuba," your claims to the contrary.