Slashdot Mirror
Traveler Detained for Anti-TSA Message
scifience writes "A traveler frustrated with recent changes to airport security procedures found himself detained in Milwaukee after writing a message critical of the TSA's leader on a plastic bag presented for screening. The message, which read "Kip Hawley is an Idiot," resulted in a confrontation with law enforcement, the traveler being told that his right to freedom of speech applied only "out there (pointing past the id checkers) not while in here [the checkpoint]." The story, which is detailed in a rapidly-growing thread on a discussion forum catering to frequent flyers, has attracted the interest of the ACLU, an AP reporter, and many others. The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end."
Its been well documented that it took place.
And the reversal was only partial.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Remember the guy who was denied access to the plane until he removes his T-shirt bearing "We will not be silenced" in both Arabic and English?http://in.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArtic le.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-08-30T071006Z_ 01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-265380-1.xml
Res publica non dominetur
The TSA is *not* a private entity, it is tasked with the guarding of the airports by the FAA with support form the DOJ, both of which are fedral institutions who get their powers directly from congress (due to bogus use of the interstate commerce clause, but I won't go into that)....
HUGE difference betweent he TSA saying that and someone at a party.
Britain of 2006 is a police state, complete with pervasive CCTV and ASBOs banning you from doing anything at all. They are not used to ban people from doing *illegal* acts - as why would that be necessary - if it is illegal to begin with then you can't do it. Nope - although in theory just to stop people doing annoying things (making it illegal for them to break the ASBO) - it can be used to ban you from anything - the conditions for an ASBO are entirely subjective.
No - the UK is not a good place to compare to the US.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
Believe it or not, the USSR had a constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech too.
A Bill of Rights is useless unless enforced. Which is why the ACLU is on the case. That is one saving grace of the current mess, we do, at least, know that the government will be dragged into court over this (which isn't something that would have happened in the USSR.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Lots of business meeting have been moved to Europe. It's a lot easier especially for those that are coming from Asia. So we just let the Yanks haras each other.
This leads me to wonder if you've ever even been to the UK. Where I live, the only 'pervasive surveillance' is in shopping malls and smaller retail outlets, and is all private. If you don't want to be surveilled you can just avoid the shops with CCTV (and, of course, pay more since you are also paying for shoplifters).
they also have a nasty habit of prosecuting anyone who attempts to defend himself from a criminal attack
You missed out the excessive force part. You are perfectly free to defend yourself with 'reasonable force.' This means force proportional to the threat. If someone threatens to punch you and you shoot them then this is not reasonable force, and you will be prosecuted. Self defence continues to be a valid defence in the UK, but self defence ends as a defence after you have neutralised the threat.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end.
Where Bush says they end.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I think what everyone here is failing to realize is that insulting the body's leader in such a way is considered harrassment of the officials doing the screenings. It has long been established that you only have the right to free speech as long you aren't bringing harm upon other people while doing so.
While not as extreme this falls under the category of "harrassing the officer of a law". In the eyes of the government and the law it is just as bad to "harrass" a TSA official (even if it something minor) as it is to call a police officer and idiot to his face.
I have a friend who was cited for "harrassing an officer of the law" for telling a meter maind to not be bitch after she stood at his car and put a new parking ticket on it every 15 minutes.
Actually, yes, they have. The presidential candidates of the Green and the Libertarian party were both arrested in 2004 for trying to go to the presidential debates.
I live in Cambridge. There is extensive centrally-controlled CCTV coverage throughout the city centre, and in fact the city council have started a poster campaign encouraging people to report potentially criminal behaviour within a CCTV-covered area, by sending a text message to the control centre.
Actually, this isn't entirely accurate. Suppose someone threatens you with a knife, and you point a shotgun at them. They then lunge at you anyway, and you pull the trigger and kill them. IANAL, but people who are have suggested that this falls under the remit of 'reasonable force.'
One of the reasons that the farmer who I think the GP was referring to was sent down for such a long time was that he shot the fellow in the back, and thus he could not claim that pulling the trigger was immediate self-defence. I suspect he would have got away with it if he had just emptied a barrel into the burglar's chest without threatening him or giving any warning.
I can't say I'm itching to put these theories to the test, though...
Pirate Party UK
BTW, anyone who thinks that the First Amendment only affects their relationship with Congress should ask themselves, what authorizes any federal official to act?
That's right, an act of Congress. So, if someone from the TSA violates your freedom of speech, they are acting illegally. There is not and cannot be any legal authority for them to do so, since Congress cannot pass a law that allows them to abridge your freedom of speech.
And if you're wondering how it applies to the states, the 14th Amendment makes most of the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well. Not to forget that states usually have their own Bill of Rights, which could be enforced in state court rather than federal court.
The grandparent poster is only right insofar as he says that the First Amendment does not generally apply to private actors. But there are other regulations here and there (mostly state regulations) that affect what a private actor can do viz a viz your freedom of speech. There is a seminal case out of California that most people read in law school, where a California state court asserted that state's freedom of speech provision as to an Arab owner of a mall who wanted to exclude pro-Israeli leafletters from his property.
So it's not completely unheard of to say that you have a freedom of speech as against a private actor, although it is true that usually you do not. But the grandparent poster gets it completely wrong in assuming that that's what's happening here.
Hello??? The TSA is not an airline! It's a federal agency. He must have been asleep after 9/11 when Congress renamed a thousand 3 letter agencies and put them all under a brand-new "umbrella bureacracy" just so that it could pretend it was doing something.
And let's not forget that when a government starts attacking its own people with tanks, planes and missiles, it's already lost. C.f. most revolutions in recorded history, but in particular the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. At some level of discontent, a government ceases to be legitimate, and instead becomes something analogous to a cancerous growth that must be excised for the good of remainder of the organism.
Surprisingly, Terry Pratchett gives this principle a good fantasy treatment in Going Postal.
I admit that this might well be affected considerably by underlying cultural phenomena, and also by the level of conditioning of the troops involved; for example, the troops initially sent by the Chinese government to Tienanmen Square during the infamous 1989 uprising had to be replaced by deeper-indoctrinated ones from further afield, as they were strangely unwilling to open fire on peaceful crowds....
Pirate Party UK
I think few Americans right now realize that congress is working, yesterday and today, on passing (not just writing or introducing, but passing, it's already through the house and now up for vote in the senate) a bill that will end habeas corupus and legalize torture:
+ habeas&hl=en&hs=GCv&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox&rl s=Swiftfox:en-US:unofficial&sa=X&oi=news&ct=titleo nID=40&ItemID=11071r yID=20060924-060744-4556rc le/2006/09/26/AR2006092601475.html
http://news.google.com/news?q=torture+bill+senate
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Secti
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?Sto
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Habeas corpus is one of the oldest tenets of western civilization, predating the U.S. Constitution and even the Magna Carta, and it says, simply, that if someone is to be held in custody by the state, there must be a demonstrable reason for their imprisonment. It is the basis of "probable cause," "warrants" of arrest, and your right to a trail to establish your guilt or innocence.
This bill not only legalizes torture acts against enemy combatants by the U.S. government, it also gives the president and the secretary of defense the authority to unilaterally decide who is an enemy combatant, without review, oversight, process, or documentation of any kind, and to act on that decision, without trial, documentation, or any means of appeal. The standard for being an enemy combatant is essentially that you don't "support" America in some way or another, not according to some objective standard of evidence, but again according to the personal impression of either the president or the secretary of defense. This includes American citizens.
Once they decide you are an enemy combatant, you can be picked up, with no warrant or probable cause, no evidence, and no process other than "the feds said you don't support America." They no longer need evidence. Under this statute no right to trail or judicial review will exist (because you are now like those at Gitmo, rather than a citizen), and you can be tortured at will.
This is what the senate is working on YESTERDAY AND TODAY. It's likely already too late to affect the outcome, but if you haven't yet it might be a good day to call your senator and say that you OPPOSE the bill that legalizes arbitrary indefinite detention at the whim of the president and the legalization of torture.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Wow, it's hard to Google things.
Read Pynchon.
We have always been at war. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Governments in the English-speaking world generally have sovereign immunity from lawsuits. This is usually grounded in the logic that suing "the government" for money damages is really just stealing from taxpayers. But governments can waive that immunity, and many do. The US has a couple of different statutes to that effect, including the Federal Tort Claims Act (most states have state tort claims acts, as well).
No, that was about Catholic terrorists trying to destroy the British parliament.
Just how fucking stupid are you? Google 'kerry traitor' and 'pelosi traitor' and you'll see lots of people calling them traitors. The fourth hit for 'pelosi traitor' actually calls her 'a commie traitor'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
While I generally am against torture, recognizing that you can get anyone to say anything under torture, my definition of torture is probably different from that of Amnesty Int., et al.
But let's review exactly what the Geneva Convention says about "combatant status" (from http://www.genevaconventions.org/). My reading here leads me to belive that few if any of the "detainees" are eligible for "combatant status", and are therefore not really protect by the Geneva Convention. So while decrying "torture" like being made to bark like a dog, bear in mind that journalists, humanitarian workers, and civilians are being totured and perhaps decapitated by those you want to label as "combatants".
combatant status
Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.
Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)
See wounded combatants for a list of protections.
Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)
Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)
For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy's own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)
See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.
However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)
The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.
In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)
For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.
Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)
A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)
Here's his blog entry (how jetblue made him take off his shirt cuz he had Arabic script on it).
Corporate Gadfly
Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
This is the important part, near the end.
"SEC. 6. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001."
It applies to "aliens," yes. But all they have to do is call you an "alien" and pick you up. Even if you HAVE a passport, a social security card, a driver's license, and a medal of honor, NO COURT would have the jurisdiction to hear your case saying: "Yes, but I'm a citizen!"
There would be no place for you to assert that you weren't an alien!
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Glasses are next to unuseable for me - they're just sufficient to get me from the bed to the bathroom. Best corrected vision with glasses results 5/20 and a 50% size reduction of what I see: can't drive, can't read any monitors in the airport, and so on. So I carry a second set of contacts as backup, and often even a third set when I'm 'out there'. Not wearing contacts for more than a few minutes or in an unfamiliar location is simply not an option. That's why I called it a disability - it really is.
Since I'm so dependent on contacts I tend to be meticulous. Rinsing in the sink ? Go ahead if you're keen on getting an eye infection that precludes you from wearing contacts forever. I won't.
Arriving wearing contacts without being able to take them out and maintain them correctly ? Out of the question.
Arriving somewhere wearing glasses, but not being able to do my job or enjoy a holiday ? What's the point of travelling then ?
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
This has nothing to do with battlefields. This is the goverment appropriating the right to lock you up and torture you "because we said so", and you having no way to appeal.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention, 1792.
"The late rebellion in Massachusetts has given more alarm than I think it should have done. Calculate that one rebellion in thirteen states in the course of eleven years, is but one for each state in a century and a half. No country should be so long without one. Nor will any degree of power in the hands of government prevent insurrections." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:391
"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.