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."

Comments

Re:T-shirts

[lixee]

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

Re:Constitution?

[squiggleslash]

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.)

Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin

[PeterBrett]

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 (sic) you can just avoid the shops with CCTV (and, of course, pay more since you are also paying for shoplifters).

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.

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.

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...

You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT.

[aussersterne]

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:

http://news.google.com/news?q=torture+bill+senate+ habeas&hl=en&hs=GCv&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox&rl s=Swiftfox:en-US:unofficial&sa=X&oi=news&ct=title
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Sectio nID=40&ItemID=11071
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?Stor yID=20060924-060744-4556r
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/09/26/AR2006092601475.html

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.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote the fucking government: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6631668/)

"Could a "little old lady in Switzerland" who sent a check to an orphanage in Afghanistan be taken into custody if unbeknownst to her some of her donation was passed to al-Qaida terrorists? asked U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green.
"She could," replied Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle. "Someone's intention is clearly not a factor that would disable detention." It would be up to a newly established military review panel to decide whether to believe her and release her."

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.