TSA Changes Its Rules, ACLU Lawsuit Dropped

ndogg writes "Earlier this year, there was much ado about a Ron Paul staffer, Steve Bierfeldt, being detained by the TSA for carrying large sums of money. The ACLU sued on his behalf, and the TSA changed its rules, now stating that its officers can only screen for unsafe materials. With that, the ACLU dropped its suit. '[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, said] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.'"

Comments

Maybe it's just me

[TubeSteak]

Personally, I'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back.

Re:Maybe it's just me

[Bovius]

Me too, but it's still a big fat step in the right direction. Also, I do like the idea of living in a country where changes can be made in favor of the people without having to trudge through the complete litigation process and wrest it from the government's hands. Obviously it wouldn't have happened if that litigation process hadn't been started, but still.

Re:Maybe it's just me

[meerling]

I would have to agree with you on that.

Re:Maybe it's just me

[burris]

There is plenty of precedent, look up "strict scrutiny" which is applied to 4th amendment exceptions. That's why the TSA changed the rules instead of fighting. They knew they no chance of prevailing.

Re:Maybe it's just me

[Opportunist]

Why do you think the rules were changed in the first place? The system works as follows: Now those rules are changed to avoid a precedent. Then we wait 'til the waves settle and use the time to think up a more bulletproof version, including terrorists, pedophiles and ... well, whatever other boogeyman shows up in the meantime. Then anyone protesting or even arguing against it is vilified.

You didn't get the memo?

Re:Maybe it's just me

[Logic Bomb]

My understanding is that one of the primary issues in a civil case is whether there's even an issue that the court can decide. I believe one can ask a court to make a preemptive ruling. However, most of the time if there isn't actually a dispute the court won't hear the case. And since the TSA changed its policies, there's no longer a dispute.

Now, if the detained individual wants to file his own lawsuits for damages and that sort of thing, that's a different issue.

Re:Maybe it's just me

[mbstone]

Really. ACLU didn't even insist on a consent decree, they just rolled over based on a directive that can be cancelled tomorrow.

Re:Maybe it's just me

[jcr]

I'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back.

I hear you, but let's not forget that the supreme court has a very spotty record when it comes to enforcing the bill of rights. I'm not sure I'd like to roll the dice on them upholding the fourth or fifth amendment.

-jcr

Re:Maybe it's just me

[Tangential]

Absolutely! Without precedent, the TSA can continue to pass this kind of info along with a wind and a nudge. It won't really be illegal.

Re:Maybe it's just me

[shentino]

The sad part is that it took a political tussle to get anything changed.

Ron Paul staffer indeed.

If this had been a low-level sheep like you or I the cash would have been seized before you could blink an eye and we'd probably never even hear about it.

the more things change...

[girlintraining]

She said the directives would not be released unless a Freedom Of Information Act request was submitted by The Washington Times.

The law is not available for inspection, citizen. Now drop your pants.

Re:the more things change...

[solidsnak]

Pick up that can, citizen.

Also:

[TubeSteak]

TSA spokeswoman Lauren Gaches said the new "internal directives" are meant to ensure their screeners are consistent. She acknowledged the policy on large sums of cash had changed, but wouldn't provide a copy of either document. She said the directives would not be released unless a Freedom Of Information Act request was submitted by The Washington Times.

Fuck that.

Re:Also:

[pete-classic]

This seems to be another exemption from President Obama's promise of transparency in government. In fact, I'm not sure I'm able to distinguish his policies from his predecessor's.

-Peter

Re:Also:

[Anonymous Coward]

The new directives: When in doubt, consult Kafka's The Trial or The Castle.

Re:Also:

[maxume]

If you think his ability to make changes is so great that he could have changed everything by now, you are a damn fool. If you vote as if politicians will quickly achieve all of their stated goals regardless of the opposition they may face, you are poison.

(I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors)

Re:Also:

[palegray.net]

Sounds like it's time to submit a FOIA request.

Re:Also:

[frosty_tsm]

(I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors)

I did too. I kind of wish McCain of 2000 was running in the last election instead of McCain of 2008.

Re:Also:

[houstonbofh]

>

(I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors)

This is the problem with have in politics today. You do not have to be good, or compliant to win. Just not %otherparty. I have had enough of this, and that is why I did not vote for McCain. The little (r) was not enough, and I refuse to vote for people just because they do not eat babies.

(For the record, I voted Libertarian this time.)

Re:Also:

[palegray.net]

Double-replying to your comment here due to the fact that I forgot to provide a link to the Freedom of Information Act site.

Re:Also:

[maxume]

I wasn't any more impressed with Barr than the other two (and Nader would be Obama without any of the sanity). FWIW, this is a 'voting booth' behavior for me, not a general behavior, I give consideration to each candidate prior to the election, and so forth, I would argue that party-line voters are a much more significant problem than I am.

Re:Also:

[TubeSteak]

If you think his ability to make changes is so great that he could have changed everything by now, you are a damn fool.

I don't think he can change everything, but the TSA is part of the Executive Branch.
Obama is the Executive. As Executive, he can issue "Executive Orders" telling them what to do.
Oh wait! He did!

January 21, 2009
...
All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

This isn't a problem with Obama, it's a problem with the TSA and their culture of secrecy.

Re:Also:

[bertoelcon]

You do not have to be good, or compliant to win. Just not %otherparty

That is the reason I chose NOT to vote. Neither side earned my vote so neither side got it.

Re:Also:

[maxume]

Well, the fact that the TSA hasn't changed their culture is a pretty bald statement of exactly how powerful the President is (and it demonstrates that there is a difference between his legal powers and his powers to change reality).

Re:Also:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This isn't a problem with Obama, it's a problem with the TSA and their culture of secrecy.

Sure sounds like it. The spokesperson essentially admitted that they would disclose it in response to a FOIA request and Obama's order essentially says that if it would be released under FOIA, then just release it now and skip the song-and-dance. The TSA complains that it is unfairly maligned, but insisting on the song-and-dance like that is exactly the kind of BS that makes people lose any faith or confidence in the agency that they might have had.

Re:Also:

[LordNimon]

Do you know that there are more than two sides? You could have voted for any of the dozens of other individuals/parties running for President. I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr.

Re:Also:

[PitaBred]

His administration is actively fighting to hide many things still. Remove your rose-colored glasses. The only difference is that Obama wants to take your money and give it to the poor instead of giving it to the corporations like Bush did.

Re:Also:

[Imrik]

Of how powerful he is or of how dedicated to his stated position he is?

Re:Also:

[Imrik]

This isn't a new thing, they've had that particular power for a long time now.

Re:Also:

[MightyMartian]

Politicians the world over have long had enormous difficulties changing the behavior of the bureaucracies they ostensibly control. Even in situations where the politicians is the political/executive head of a department, it's amazing just how effectively senior and mid-level bureaucrats can throw up sufficient smoke to stall reforms.

Watch "Yes Minister", the delightful British sitcom. While about a Minister in the British Parliament, the conniving and self-serving nature of chief bureaucrats applies to any government, from the US to the USSR.

Re:Also:

[jamstar7]

I kind of wish McCain of 2000 was running in the last election instead of McCain of 2008.

He didn't get the nod in '00 because he wasn't tight with the neocons. Dubya was, so he got the nod.

Personally, as a Republican, I'd LOVE to get my party away from the neocons.

Re:Also:

[rpillala]

Or more recently watch "In The Loop" if you can find it outside the UK.

Re:Also:

[Ozlanthos]

I'd suggest using the interwebs to find you some independent candidates. Preferably the kind that don't switch parties while in office, or from election to election. When you look at their lives, does their current job, or previous experience make them a suitable candidate for the position they are applying for? Do they seem "good" to you? Do they have a criminal record? Do they associate with corrupt people or powers? Disregard parties. They may appear to make things easier, but voting by "party-affiliation" is what has gotten us where we are today. I know, it takes a little bit of thought and effort, but what else in your life are you good at that didn't require more than a little of both? Do a little homework, you are after all hiring someone (for two or more years) to run a political office of the greatest nation this planet has ever known. Try to treat the process as such,.and I am certain we can get better than the set of self-interested turds we have now.

Just remember. "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for EVIL". Vote your conscience. Vote Independent!

-Oz

Re:Also:

[mhall119]

Good luck with that

Re:Also:

[maxume]

I posted a rather narrow response to a specific criticism (a single particular lack of disclosure), you don't really have any idea what color my glasses are. You have posted another situation where the administration is not ramping to maximum transparency, but that doesn't quite get me to 'pattern'.

(I am pretty much unsurprised that things haven't changed a whole lot...)

Re:Also:

[Garridan]

This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Translation: this is an empty document, but will appease the masses when they cry about a lack of "change", because they won't read all the way to the bottom. Carry on, and don't share anything that you don't absolutely have to under FOIA.

Re:Also:

[Improv]

If he had paired with someone sane, he would've had a shot at capturing the moderate vote. On the other hand, he might not've fired up the suburbanites and fundies and so he would've had fewer volunteers and a less energised base. It's hard to say if he could've won.

I'm considerably to the left of Obama, but I think McCain is worthy of respect - I don't like his policies that much but I respect him as a statesman.

Re:Also:

[Rich0]

I don't buy it. The problem is that the guys on the top (including Obama) are more interested in patronage than results. The reason Obama doesn't clean house in the TSA is because when he is out of office he doesn't want his friend's kids fired for not doing their jobs by the next president. Even when public servants do something way out of line it usually leads to a long administrative process, and most of the time the government employee is paid to not work the whole time.

To be honest, a lot of industry isn't a whole lot better, although financial strain can at least cause some natural weeding out. The problem with the federal government is that it can just print money, so it isn't forced to go through layoffs/etc and cut the dead wood.

There is no legal reason why Obama couldn't take note of inconsistency with his policy and have somebody make a few polite phone calls to straighten things out. If that doesn't fix the issue then they could start firing people until the rest fall into line. It doesn't take too much shake-up to get things moving once people are less complacent about their jobs.

Re:Also:

[bertoelcon]

I considered that, but I would just as well not vote on that part than get wishful thinking that any other party stood a chance.

Re:Also:

[commodore64_love]

I honestly don't think anybody could have won against Obama, not even a Ronald Reagan. Maybe if you went waaaaay back in time a Teddy Roosevelt would have enough charisma to beat Obama, but even that's iffy considering Obama got almost 100% of the black votes (which is understandable given the history-setting precedent).

Obama is a great speaker who knew how to rally the American people. Plus he had a lousy republican president and a lousy economy in his favor. In my opinion he was unbeatable. Almost any Democrat candidate would also be difficult to beat given the previous 8 years.

Re:Also:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think his ability to make changes is so great that he could have changed everything by now, you are a damn fool.

And how long does that excuse work when _nothing_ has changed?

I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos", try a 3rd party.

Re:Also:

[CecilPL]

You need to take a longer term view. Your vote serves to do more than simply help that candidate win that election. It also serves to increase (however slightly) the profile of that candidate, and by extension the party. Every vote that goes to a third party is one that helps further the belief that a third party candidate is viable.

Re:Also:

[Tangential]

I don't 'insane' VP on one side, 'early onset dementia' VP on the other. They don't seem to have made much difference. Between Bush's poor decisions (like Iraq, No child too far ahead, Senior drug plan, Homeland Security, etc..) and the strong media bias, it was never in much doubt.

Re:Also:

[glarbl_blarbl]

Poor guy must be conservative Christian. Good luck, indeed.

Re:Also:

[MightyMartian]

Any leader, political or otherwise, that walks into a large-scale bureaucracy thinking their powers are going to be sufficient to turn around what is the human equivalent of a 100-car train is going to be in for some serious pain. You don't just declare "This is going to happen" and then it happens.

The best example I can think of was China's Great Leap Forward. You had all these low-level functionaries given orders from far-far away on how much iron was going to be produced, how much rice, how much this and how much that. As targets began to fall off, the low-level bureaucrats basically lied to their superiors. Their superiors, for the most part knew what they were being fed was shit but no one was going to go to the chief bureaucrats and the Party apparatchik, and most importantly to Mao and his inner circle, and declare "It ain't working."

What your repeating is the standard "civil servants are lazy bumbs" line, which, like most alarmist statements, is pretty much nonsense. I suspect if you were in charge that you would be the kind of guy leader who in short order would basically be the victim of every kind of sabotage and poor relationship possible.

At any rate, Obama has been in the job for about nine or ten months now. As the head of the pyramid, he's hardly going to be dealing with the minutia of one branch of the Executive. That's what he has a Cabinet for. I guess he can sort of get blame the same way a captain will get blame if his navigator runs the ship into the rocks, but the reality is that the US government is a vast machine, and that even singular departments like TSA, which are branches of larger departments (in this case Homeland Security) would require the President spend every waking moment of every day dealing with departments, sub-departments, branches and so forth.

Besides, even if he deals with problems directly, he's probably not going to take an adversarial tone like you are, because basically calling people useless and stupid and then saying "Let's make it better..." is going to end in a bigger fuck up than what you had to begin with.

Re:Also:

[ChiRaven]

Actually, in many respects (e.g., Jewel v. NSA) The Obama Justice Department has actually been WORSE from a civil liberties standpoint than was the Bush counterparts. And with several of their top people being former MPAA/RIAA shills, we certainly know how we can expect Justice to weigh in on THOSE issues as well.

Re:Also:

[Mr. Freeman]

"Perhaps they really OUGHT to be kept secret, for some reason beyond yourself.
If we had access to TSA internal memos, so could terrorists, who could then evade TSA screeners."

No, no, no, absolutely NOT! I don't know how you made the jump from "terrorists could get the memos" to "terrorists can evade the screeners". A terrorists knowing that the TSA is "checking for bombs" doesn't help them for shit. Furthermore, this disclosure doesn't apply to shit that needs to be kept secret. It applies to shit that needs to be made public.

There is a reason this needs to be made public. If you allow them to keep this secret then you allow them to slap a "classified in the interest of national security" sticker on anything and everything. This includes secret policies, illegal laws, illegal programs (i.e. secret police). If you trust the government that much and want to give up this much freedom, then move to china where blind faith in the government is expected of you and get the hell out of my country.

Re:Also:

[houstonbofh]

I don't think the Libertarians or any other third party has a chance to win the presidency (it has never happened).

Never?

William Henry Harrison - Whig Abraham Lincoln - Republican National Union

Afterwards, both went on to become a major party. In the beginning it was the Federalists vs. the Democratic-Republicans.

Re:Also:

[Runaway1956]

Agreed. I'm not even a Republican, but I'd love to see the neocons put to shovelling shit in the stables. Neos aren't conservatives at all, they are ultra capitalists and adventurers.

A little capitalism is all very well and good, but unrestrained capitalism is nothing but bad.

Re:Also:

[AlamedaStone]

Or more recently watch "In The Loop" if you can find it outside the UK.

It played around the US in Landmark Theatres, a big chain of independent film theaters. The whole movie had me crying from laughter and laughing in pain. I'm sure it will be available on Netflix soon.

Re:Also:

[Rich0]

I didn't suggest that Obama should go walking into offices in TSA personally investigating things. However, he could appoint somebody to try to promote government openness, and they could go around doing these sorts of things.

I don't think that all civil servants are lazy. The problem is that quite a few are, and for the most part they are more concerned with not messing up than with achieving results. It is like that in private companies too - I'm not under any illusions that this is purely a government phenomenon.

Obama needs to take hold of the reigns and let those under him know that he's serious about reform - if he is actually serious about reform.

Re:Also:

[CecilPL]

Did you read what I said?

Of course a third party isn't a viable candidate *now*, and of course they're not going to win *this* election, but if they get 10% of the vote in the next election don't you think that would be news? How about 20%? 30%?

Every extra vote for a third party is an extra grain of sand on the scales in people's minds. A big enough pile and it starts to tip from "voting for a third party is taking away from the potential winner" to "voting for a third party might be the only way to get some real change".

How huge would the headlines be if a Libertarian candidate won a Senate seat?

Re:Also:

[TubeSteak]

This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Translation: this is an empty document, but will appease the masses when they cry about a lack of "change", because they won't read all the way to the bottom. Carry on, and don't share anything that you don't absolutely have to under FOIA.

The difference between a memo/executive order and a law is that only laws can create rights that are enforceable by the judiciary.
Further, I'm not really sure you understand what you're asking for: the ability for the President to make law.
If you don't understand the difference between administrative policy and law, you need to take polysci 101.
Obama can't change the law, which is exactly why I originally said I'd rather have a legal precendent in place.

Re:Also:

[pete-classic]

Whose fault is it that he didn't allow the release of prison photos in May? I don't see how you can pin that on the previous administration, fiendish bureaucrats who refuse to follow their bosses orders, or the inertia of government.

Same goes for his continuing support of warrantless wiretaps.

I'm not asking him to turn the fleet around on a dime. But I don't think that it is too much to ask that he not make personal, daily decisions in direct contravention of the principals he campaigned on.

-Peter

Re:Also:

[diamondsw]

We've had a two party system for well over a hundred years. Just how long a view do you want to take?

I'm not arguing it's the way it should be, but I am arguing that no, you're not going to change it.

Re:Also:

[kklein]

I kind of wish McCain of 2000 was running in the last election instead of McCain of 2008.

Hear hear. I am a Democrat, but I was quite interested in McCain in 2000--and then was shocked shitless when Shrub got it, and then the world fell apart in a way even worse than I'd expected under him.

When McCain came back last year, I cheered, because I've always liked him. And then he started talking like a neocon, and then he brought that trainwreck from Wasilla onto the ticket, and I really feared that he was senile.

That being said, I was pretty happy with our choices last time. I liked (and still like--I wasn't one of these loonies with crazy expectations) Obama, but I thought that McCain would do a fine job as well. They were quite different, but I think that both of them are smart and responsible. I just really didn't want him to die and leave us at the hands of that whackjob.

Re:Also:

[diamondsw]

Kerry was beaten, and the four years prior weren't exactly rosy.

Re:Also:

[commodore64_love]

>>>Kerry was beaten, and the four years prior weren't exactly rosy.

(1) Barely beaten and (2) Most Americans still felt the war was going well (it had only been three years) and Bush had kept his promise to recover the economy, such that things were booming again.

Now if Kerry had run in 2008, then I think he would have won. People like to switch parties when the economy is crap. It happened in 1980 (switch from D to R president), 1992 (switch from R to D), in 2000 (switch from D to R president), and again in 2008.

Re:Also:

[Wyatt Earp]

He could if he wanted to. He is behind the appointment of the department heads and he has that whole Executive Order power. He ran on making those changes quickly and he hasn't done a darned thing. Well, strike that, he has pissed of Israel and disappointed the Palestinian Authority, pissed off Poland and told Eastern Europe that we won't lift a hand to defend them against Russia.

So he has done somethings.

Re:Also:

[pete-classic]

I have a firm rule about not replying to ACs, but this is quite beyond the pale.

So let them take your nail clippers, boot up your laptop, and scan through your underwear with the camera.
Because that's their effing job, so that your entitled, naive, ungrateful ass rides safely home this Thanksgiving.

You clearly don't know who you are addressing. Among many other things I'm an honorably discharged combat veteran.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but have put it on the line to defend liberty. I would dishonor my own service, and, infinitely more importantly, the service of those who came before and since, if I followed your advice and blindly licked the hands of my would-be masters.

I'm offended that you would call me "entitled". I ask for only what I have earned, and the rights of a free man.

I'm offended that you would call me "naïve". I willingly sacrificed my innocence on the alter of liberty.

I'm dismayed that you would call me "ungrateful". I'm profoundly grateful for the liberty secured to me by my forebearers. And I have shown that gratitude by defending that liberty to the limits of my abilities.

It is not the place of my government to assure my safety by abridging my liberty. It is my place to speak against such policies. I choose the level of risk I am willing to accept. I am the principal protector of my own safety.

I certainly won't stand for such disrespect from someone who values his own words so little as to post anonymously.

-Peter

Re:Also:

[commodore64_love]

>>>Every vote that goes to a third party is one that helps further the belief that a third party candidate is viable.

Bullshit. When Ross Perot won ~20% of the vote in 1992 (and cost Bush Senior his election), all it did was reinforce the belief that voting for anyone other than R or D was like throwing-away your vote.

Re:Also:

[commodore64_love]

>>>William Henry Harrison - Whig Abraham Lincoln - Republican National Union

So predictable. I knew somebody would list them when I was typing my last message. The Whigs were not a third party - they were an offshot of the major party called Democrats, and they replaced the major party Federalists (which had died). The Dems were major party #1 and the Whigs were major party #2. (Likewise the Republicans were essentially the Major Party Whigs with a new name.)

Now if either the Dems or Reps decide to fold-up, then yeah the Libertarians might be able to "move in" as the second major party, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

And of course, by definition, they wouldn't be a third party anymore. They'd simply be the second half of the reigning Duopoly.

Re:Also:

[Shane dot H]

It's also interesting that some people find this statistic meaningful, given that the Democratic presidential nominee has gotten over 80% of the black vote every cycle since Carter/Ford. Here's the breakdown of Democrat vs Republican share of the black vote, according to The Roper Center at UConn (except 2008 data from CNN exit polls):

1976 - 83 to 17
1980 - 83 to 14
1984 - 91 to 9
1988 - 89 to 10
1992 - 83 to 10
1996 - 84 to 12
2000 - 90 to 9
2004 - 88 to 11
2008 - 95 to 4

Since Obama actually won in 2008, it's fair to say that it's expected that he did better than the average Democratic nominee with most demographic groups. Throw in some Obama waffles and Pat Buchanan, and you start to wonder whether they're more voting FOR the black guy, or against the Republicans. It's not like they came out in support of Michael Steele.

Re:Also:

[pete-classic]

You're preaching to the choir, sir.

I like the way Penn Jillette put it, in the voice of the sock monkey in his novel, Sock.

Maybe you can't see this. Maybe you have to be a crazy monkey to see this, but it's insane. There's some election. Let's say it's for president. And the third-party candidate gets enough percentage points in some poll so that the meat puppets have to deal with her. This is hypothetical, so let's make it a woman. It doesn't do any harm to be progressive and fair in fiction. So they say, "Nancy Lord has to convince the electorate that she's a viable candidate. She has to show them that she can really win." Who are they talking to? Who is "they"? Who is "the electorate"? That's us, right? (By "us," I mean "y'all." They're not counting sock monkeys.) So, it's saying, "She has to convince you that she has a chance to win with you." Well, if we want her, we vote for her and she wins. Her "chances" don't matter. The media don't want you to "waste your vote" by voting for a loser. But you can't waste your vote voting for a loser you want. You can waste your vote only by voting for someone you don't want. You don't want the winner. Don't waste your vote on someone who's going to win. He doesn't need your vote; he's going to win. Keep voting for the lesser of two evils and things will just keep getting more evil. That's game theory that even this monkey understands. Who are they talking to? Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

Re:Also:

[MindlessAutomata]

It was a Democratic executive that used the term, "stroke of the pen, law of the land."

Re:Also:

[CecilPL]

So then what is it about the US that seems to drive it to a two-party system?

Being Canadian I have more of an outside perspective, I suppose. I'm used to there being four or five viable parties. Many countries in Europe have more parties than you can count on your hands. Why have they been able to stay away from the two-party system?

Re:Also:

[maxume]

You're like 6 hours after the first guy that said the same thing.

Re:Also:

[maxume]

Obviously I was trolling (why else would I possibly be marked troll), but to some extent that was my point, I don't really see why the so called 'black' vote would particularly identify with Obama, and looking at the numbers you have provided, it looks like they did (I don't really have the background to analyze the statistics, but clearly there is a democratic base involved in those numbers, and then some other group of people who change their mind now and then, if the base group is the full 83%, picking up the 12% of the swing vote, instead of 0%, is huge, and even if it is more like 15% and 27%, is is still significant).

Re:Also:

[gangien]

they are not "ultra capitalists". Capitalism would mean there's no goverment regulation or involvement, which neocons certainly are not about.

A little capitalism is all very well and good, but unrestrained capitalism is nothing but bad.

I strongly disagree. Most of the time when people cite the negatives of capitlism, they are doing just the opposite, they are pointing out why corruption, that is buisness in bed with the government, is bad. Which is certainly true.

Not that capitalism is perfect, so yes there are cases you can make against it, but, compared to the alternates, i'd take capitalism.

Re:Also:

[Garridan]

I'm not saying that the president should be able to make law. I'm just pointing out the fact that this memo is nothing but a waste of bandwidth -- it's a fluff piece. The Obama administration has been just as closed as the Bush administration was. The only difference? Bush didn't lie about it.

Re:Also:

[superdave80]

"...but even that's iffy considering Obama got almost 100% of the black votes"

Blacks always vote around 90% for Dems. Kerry got around 88%, and Obama got 95%. The black vote didn't win the election for Obama. Everyone being fed up with Republicans in charge won him the election.

"I honestly don't think anybody could have won against Obama"

I honestly don't think any Democrat could have lost against any Republican. Two wars, Katrina, budget deficits, collapsing economy... people were ready to put the other party in charge. Then in about two more election cycles, we'll start to get fed up with them in charge, and switch back to Republicans again. And then we'll switch back again, thinking that this time it will fix things.

Re:Also:

[CAIMLAS]

Why would it be that Obama carried the black vote so heavily, unless blacks are, overwhelmingly, racist? Demographic and typical party affiliation considered, it still doesn't account for the landslide "black" vote.

Re:Also:

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Why would it be that Obama carried the black vote so heavily, unless blacks are, overwhelmingly, racist? Demographic and typical party affiliation considered, it still doesn't account for the landslide "black" vote.

Why would a sane black man vote for the party of southern racists?

Re:Also:

[shentino]

What I'd like to know is...

How do they know what race voted for who?

Demographics aside, I'd like to be sure that voter confidentiality is being preserved.

Re:Also:

[instarx]

Actually, Bush got the nomination more because he was a pliable nobody rather than because he was "in with the neocons". He had to select Cheney as his running mate to get neocon support. A bigger factor was that he was able to pander to the religious right, which the Rs had been courting since 1994. Unfortunately they have now taken over the party.

The neocons ARE pretty much out of the party. Todays Republican party is composed of ultra-right Reaganites and party-of-god lunatics. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Frum and their ilk are long gone as leaders of the party.

Re:Also:

[instarx]

Right, and people voting for a candidate in 1994 who could not win (Nader) put George W. Bush into the White House. That worked out really well, didn't it? As another poster saId, you need to take a bigger picture before you vote for a hopeless third-party candidate.

Re:Also:

[NormalVisual]

In fairness though, Perot almost certainly would have done a lot better at the polls had he not dropped out of the race that summer and re-entered barely a month before the election.

Re:Also:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unrestrained" capitalism is great until you realize that there are certain things that there really be physically only one of: one power grid, one set of water and sewer pipes, one set of phone/cable/fiber lines, etc. Then you realize the big thing there can really only be one of: a military. As long as our nation wants to be a nation, rather than a geographically linked cluster of warring corporate militias, there has to be a government which levies a tax and is capable of purchasing goods and services from private entities, at which point corruption is also virtually guaranteed.

Would I take the current semi-capitalist systems the US has over many of the alternatives I've seen? Definitely. But "pure capitalism" is an utter joke.

Re:Also:

[IndustrialComplex]

Being Canadian I have more of an outside perspective, I suppose. I'm used to there being four or five viable parties. Many countries in Europe have more parties than you can count on your hands. Why have they been able to stay away from the two-party system?

It's a byproduct of having a system of government that does not provide proportional representation. The rules in the US are setup so that even if a Third Party Candidate gets elected, except in the case of tiebreakers (so it is important in the senate) they have no real power.

Re:Also:

[toddestan]

And thinking like that guarantees that we won't get anything but pro-business, big government, borrow and spend, anti-freedom, corrupt politicians from the two major parties for the foreseeable future.

Re:Also:

[jthill]

You know, there are simple smoke-tests you can apply for many of the more blatant fallacies.

Re:Also:

[robertjw]

You are right, Obama can't micromanage every department, but when things become public like this he could address those. The TSA essentially works for him, it would take him 30 seconds to shoot a message from his blackberry to the head of the TSA asking him to release this information. I'm not asking Obama to fix everything, but take a little time off from the talk show circuit and take care of these obvious failings in his 'transparent' government. In your example the real problems was the production of the goods, not the actual lying that was the problem, plus it was the 1950s, they barely had phones. The lines of communication are so much better, I don't think your example really applies.

Re:Also:

[houstonbofh]

That was my point. If enough people who "think a 3rd part vote is a wasted vote" and just don't vote at all, suddenly start voting Libertarian (or whatever) they may become the major party, nudging out one of the others. That was how the Whigs started. They were an offshoot of a major party that was no cutting it for many of the members...

Re:Also:

[Mr. Freeman]

Yeah, but Gore wasn't.

Re:Also:

[Mr. Freeman]

If you want to not vote then please move your sorry ass out of my country and go to one where they don't have the freedom to vote. You have no right to any political opinion at this point.

You have an obligation to research the candidates and determine which one would best serve your country and then vote accordingly. Not voting will NOT result in neither party getting elected. Even if both candidates are complete shit, you still have an obligation to vote for the least shitty.

Re:Also:

[Tomji]

2000 (switch from D to R president)

The 2000 election was at the height of the dot-com boom (with Gore taking credit for it).
The crash followed shortly after that, with the ultimate catalyst the 9-11 attacks.

Re:Also:

[Mr. Slippery]

Capitalism would mean there's no goverment regulation or involvement

...other than all those land and natural resource deeds, copyrights, patents, and corporate charters issued by governments.

Capitalism needs a lot of government involvement -- it puts property as a "right" of the first order, but all claims of property derive from government action.

Re:Also:

[Improv]

Getting a large percent of the vote of a particular demographic is not the whole picture - sometimes you can shape the size of the demographic itself - if normally X number of that demographic shows up, but you manage to get Y, that can make a big difference.

Re:Also:

[Improv]

Gallup Polls, I imagine

Re:Also:

[Mr. Slippery]

How do they know what race voted for who? Demographics aside, I'd like to be sure that voter confidentiality is being preserved.

You are, perhaps, unfamiliar with exit polls?

Re:Also:

[LanMan04]

Almost any Democrat candidate would also be difficult to beat given the previous 8 years.

I thought the same thing in 2004 (after 4 years of awfulness), but my fellow Americans proved me wrong.

Re:Also:

[Mr. Slippery]

You could have voted for any of the dozens of other individuals/parties running for President. I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr.

The Libertarian and Green candidates in 2008 were the most pathetic I've ever seen, both Barr and McKinney are failed major-party politicos known for their bizarre opinions. Nader's runs at the presidency have become more about aggrandizing his ego then any serious attempts to get ideas into the discussion; the other "third" parties on the ballot (at least the Maryland ballot) were crackpots, pure and simple. For me, it was either Obama, or writing in my own name -- I was Constitutionally eligible this time around...

Re:Also:

[BobMcD]

This isn't a problem with Obama, it's a problem with the TSA and their culture of secrecy.

Sure sounds like it. The spokesperson essentially admitted that they would disclose it in response to a FOIA request and Obama's order essentially says that if it would be released under FOIA, then just release it now and skip the song-and-dance. The TSA complains that it is unfairly maligned, but insisting on the song-and-dance like that is exactly the kind of BS that makes people lose any faith or confidence in the agency that they might have had.

Exactly this.

Now the executive MUST ACT, or his order has no power and he fails in his duty.

And if he fails in that duty, who else can we expect to carry it out?

Re:Also:

[gangien]

We're talking about hte federal government here, which i fail to see why the federal goverment should be involved in any of those areas at all, excluding the military, which is clearly part of our federal government.

WHys is pure capitalism an utter joke? we've had almost pure capitalism in the technology sector, and look at all the great things that have happened. We've had a fair amount of government involvement in the medical industry and look what has happened to it.

Re:Also:

[gangien]

google turns up nothing that i can see. So no clue what you're talking about.

Re:Also:

[gangien]

those things you listed, i would hardly say that's a lot. it's a bit of paper work. But even then, i'm for eliminated patents and probably corporate charters as well.

yes you get property rights through the government, but again, hardly a lot.

Re:Also:

[fugue]

It appears to me that your party is the neocons. Specifically, Republicanism today means you support at least some of (1) Ecoterrorism: privatised permanent destruction of natural resources such as air, water, forests, etc. (2) Transferring financial power away from "government" and towards corporations. (3) State-mandated religion. (4) Suspension of civil liberties, wiretaps, searches, torture, etc... (5) Fear, isolationism, proud ignorance, and the suppression of science and education. From where I sit, it seems that the Democrats are currently doing better on 1, 2, 3, and 5.

Which of those do you like? If the answer is "none", I'm very curious as to how you figure you're a Republican, given that what I listed has indisputably been very much our Republicans' agenda for some time now (check the voting records). If you do like some of those, you may be Republican, and I'm curious how you figure they're a good thing.

There were times in the past when those roles were reversed to a greater or lesser extent, but for now that's where things stand.

How am I wrong?

Re:Also:

[Mr. Slippery]

yes you get property rights through the government, but again, hardly a lot.

All property rights rest on government action.

Ownership of any physical object rests on ownership of the materials from which it's made, which rests on land or resource deeds issued by the government. Take, for example, this pen on my desk. Why can I say I own it? Because I traded money that I owned, to the local branch of Office Depot for it. But if Office Depot didn't own it, then I don't -- you can't legitimately buy stolen property.

So did Office Depot own it? They traded money that they owned, to Bic for a bunch of pens. Did Bic own them? Bic (we'll pretend) made the pens out of plastic that they purchased from SomeBigPetroChemical, Inc. And how did SomeBigPetroChemical come to own that plastic? Why, they made it from oil they bought from Amalgamated Oil. And how did Amalgamated Oil come to own that oil? They dug it out of ground to which they had oil rights. And how did Amalgamated Oil come to have those right? Some government stole the land from whoever used to live there, and eventually gave Amalgamated Oil a piece of paper giving them the right to sink oil wells.

Take away that deed, and those whole chain of ownership falls down. The same applies to any material object: trace back the chain of ownership, and you'll find government.

All that, of course, is ignoring the fact that Office Depot, Bic, SomeBigPetroChemical, and Amalgamated Oil are all creations of some governments, brought into being by the issuance of a government charter. Why should such a fictional creature even be allowed to own property, if it is not in the public interest?

You could have an economic system with no land ownership, no corporations, no copyrights or patents, none of the ways that government enables the aristocracy to skim wealth off the top; a system where ownership rests on use, one that rewards those who do productive labor rather than the aristocracy that owns the tools and materials. But it sure wouldn't be capitalism. You'd have some sort of libertarian socialism.

Re:In other news...

[girlintraining]

...people with large sums of money have more freedoms than people who don't.

He had a large sum of money on him, and as a result was detained for hours and strip-searched, as well as being accused of being a terrorist and denied access to a lawyer or charged with any crime. Meanwhile, the guy who only had $15 and a cracker in his pocket was able to get on the plane. Tell me again how the guy with the money had more freedoms in this case?

Now the TSA will be forced to do their job

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is to create the illusion that the government is doing all it can to protect your security.

$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[Animats]

I'm surprised the TSA considered $4500 to be a "large sum of money". That's about two weeks of business travel. If that.

With current credit card fees, it may be more cost-effective to carry cash. Even if you get robbed 1% of the time, you're still ahead.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[Bentov]

Nope, just a large sum of money for the average traveler.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[TheRaven64]

Maybe you need a better credit card. When I travel abroad and buy things on my card, the exchange rate that I get on my statement has been at least as good as the rate that the bank or post office charged me for cash that I took. And, if it's a business trip, then I claim back expenses based on the amount that appears on my statement.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[nedlohs]

Most business travel stays within the domain the home currency, so that's irrelevant. And there are more fees than just currency conversion markups.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[BigForbis]

The law is not that you cannot carry more the $10,000 in or out of the country, but simply that you must declare it to customs when you transport more than $10,000 in and out of the country.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[maxume]

What are they? I don't have an annual fee, and I haven't had a late fee or an overdraft fee (ever...), and I don't take out cash from ATMs with my credit card (the interest rate they offer on cash is murder). Hell, I pay off my balance every month, so I don't even pay interest.

The only fee I see is slightly higher prices that stores charge to cover the costs of accepting credit, and they usually are charging cash purchases the same price anyway.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[movercast]

When traveling into the US from a foreign country (this obviously does NOT apply to domestic travel, but good to know) 10. How much cash may I bring with me for my trip? There is no limit on the total amount of money or monetary instruments that may be brought into or taken out of the United States. However, if you transport or cause to be transported, more than $10,000 in monetary instruments on any occasion into or out of the United States, or if you receive more than that amount, in behalf of someone else and then transport it, you must file a Customs Form 4790 with U.S. Customs. Failure to comply can result in civil and criminal penalties, including seizure of the currency or monetary instruments. Monetary instruments include U.S. or foreign coins, currency, traveler's checks, money orders, and negotiable instruments or investment securities in bearer form are all considered when determining the total $10,000 reporting requirement.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[Ironsides]

What credit card are you using? No credit card I have has any fee other than late charges and interest.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[Sir_Lewk]

Hardly. Traveling with a few thousand dollars in cash is not unheard of by any means.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[nedlohs]

You just listed a bunch of potential. Sure you can get cards without them, you can also get cards with them.

I'm pretty sure the business amex card the wife has has an annual fee for example. I'm also pretty sure that a large set of people carry a balance, by accident, once every so often.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[Anonymous Coward]

The merchant pays a fee for every transaction and there is a minimum charge. In places like Peru this means the merchant would end up paying $1.00 for a $2.13 dinner. For this reason many merchants there charged extra for using a credit card.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[zippthorne]

The merchant agreement requires them to set the same price for cash and credit transactions. Ish. I think they can only require that the merchant not have an extra fee for credit cards. However, they do not prevent merchants from offering a discount for using cash, so it's effectively the same thing a as a credit card fee, if you know to ask.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[Agripa]

Not all credit cards can be relied on as a sole financial instrument while traveling. They can leave you stranded if the issuer decides any transactions were suspicious and resolution through customer service even if possible may not be timely.

Re:$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel?

[movercast]

Actually US Customs usually does not concern itself w/ what leaves the country. Canada/Mexico/Chinese Customs may have something else to say about your $10k altogether. Also, US Customs does occasionally search people leaving the US.

Re:Constitution suspended then?

[hedrick]

There's no exception to the Constitution. The wording was imprecise. It's considered reasonable to prevent people from bringing unsafe substances onto planes. So this is a reasonable search.

Re:In other news...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Never-the-less, people with large sums of money have more freedoms than people who don't.

Except in this case, they clearly didn't. GPP's argument wasn't a strawman -- or rather, if you believe it is, explain why; saying "that's a strawman" isn't sufficient.

Re:In other news...

[TheRaven64]

I think you need to look up the definition of a straw man argument. It is a hypothetical case introduced containing irrelevant points which is easier to argue against than the original. The grandparent's guy was the man TFA is about, while you were talking about a hypothetical person. If anyone is introducing straw men into the argument, it is you.

Re:In other news...

[captjc]

I dont have to "tell you again" about your straw-man. Its your straw-man, perhaps you should have given it the ability to speak.

This is my straw-man. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My straw-man is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. My straw-man, without me, is useless. Without my straw-man, I am useless. I must use my straw-man true. My straw-man and myself know that what counts in this flamewar is not the illogic we fire, the noise of our post, nor the sense we make. We know that it is the diversion of the argument that count. My straw-man is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weakness, its strength, and its straw. I will keep my straw-man clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. Before The Flying Spaghetti Monster I swear this creed. My straw-man and myself are the defenders of the internet. We are the masters of our argument. We are the saviors of my ego. So be it, until victory is mine and there is no enemy, but conformity.

B 'fing' S

[Anonymous Coward]

"screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment"
what the eff do we have a Fourth Amendment for? You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights? Isn't this step one BIG step towards, "you have freedom of speech except that we have a *narrow exception* to that rule to forbids political statements that paint the current regime in a bad light" kind of crap? How about, ' There are 171,476 words in the english language, you cannot use these 100 words as we have a narrow exception to your freedom of speech. thats only .06% of the total words available so that is how we measure *narrow exception*

You know who I blame for this? YOU(me). When was the last time any of us rioted in the streets to stop this kind of BS? been a while huh? wonder why the Gov. can pass anything they like on a whim? The only people they answer to is themselves.

yeah im anonymous, dont need any door knockers this afternoon if you know what I mean. and if your clueless, I dont mean mormons, jahova's, or the schwanz man.

Re:B 'fing' S

[houstonbofh]

You know who I blame for this? YOU(me). When was the last time any of us rioted in the streets to stop this kind of BS? been a while huh? wonder why the Gov. can pass anything they like on a whim? The only people they answer to is themselves.

April 15th, July 4th, and September 12th. But it wasn't really a riot, and the numbers vary based on who is telling the story...

Re:B 'fing' S

[KiahZero]

You should probably consider the fact that this article was written by the Washington Times, a newspaper which is literally falling apart as we speak, before you completely lose it over a poor choice of words on the part of the writer.

When Mr. Wizner spoke of the narrow exception, he isn't referring to an exception to the Fourth Amendment, but rather an exception to the general rule that searching someone's person without probable cause and a warrant is unreasonable. Remember, the Fourth Amendment only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Over time, we've decided as a society that limited random searches for the purpose of ensuring air travel security are reasonable, and therefore do not offend the Fourth Amendment.

In this way, the searches are analogous to DUI-checkpoint seizures, in which police officers are not required to demonstrate any probable cause or even reasonable suspicion before seizing every person that travels along a road to determine whether they've been drinking. Similarly, the ability to conduct these sorts of checkpoints while being "reasonable" is limited - for instance, police may not establish a drug interdiction checkpoint to look for traffickers.

Re:B 'fing' S

[Megane]

You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights?

The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre.

Re:B 'fing' S

[IndustrialComplex]

Actually yelling 'fire' might actually be appropriate when in conjunction with the 2nd Amendment.

Re:Constitution suspended then?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

While I think you're probably right, I have to say, that's a pretty dangerous line of reasoning.

Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?

[walterbyrd]

What if I put $1 million in suitcase, and the TSA found it without specifically screening for it?

Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?

[benjamindees]

Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?

Within the US, yes of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?

Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?

[Qzukk]

Within the US, yes of course it is. Why wouldn't it be?

Look up how governments use civil forfeiture, and be enlightened.

Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?

[sjames]

The only catch is that your money might be grabbed at gunpoint by a gang of thieves so powerful that civil authorities are powerless to stop them. They are variously known as "the pigs", "the cops", or even "the police".

Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?

[benjamindees]

"Forfeiture" only applies to property that has been "forfeited", or which has no legal owner.

It usually involves seizing property that has been used in a crime. Regardless, yes, I'm aware of the ways in which it is misused by US law enforcement.

Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends - are you white? If you aren't, kiss that money goodbye unless you can *prove* that it wasn't from selling drugs. After all, it'll be covered in cocaine residue (like any other US currency)...

Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?

[chill]

Flying domestically, yes. Leaving the country will require you to declare to Customs any amount over $10,000 in cash or negotiable instruments. I'm not sure what happens if you declare it. I've never had the opportunity to fly internationally with $10,000+ before. :-)

Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?

[anegg]

It was never illegal in the USA to carry large sums of money, as far as I know. But there were those who assumed such an action was such a blatant indication of criminal activity that the money could be seized as profits of a criminal enterprise. One problem here is that the authorities definition of "large amounts" overlaps significantly with individuals' definitions of "reasonable amounts."

I've flown (domestic USA) with as much as $7,500 in cash with a perfectly good, legal reason for doing so. I would have been very disturbed to be questioned about it, as such questioning would have been an unwarranted intrusion into my privacy. I can imagine similar circumstances to mine with larger sums.

Sometimes civil liberties have to be publicly exercised in order to keep them healthy and alive. I'm grateful that such an exercise was accomplished, and so publicly.

Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money?

[IndustrialComplex]

My bank is in Pennsylvania. I sold a pair of ATVs in NY for $15,000.

Traveling in the US with over $10k in cash is NOT rare.

Ironically I wasn't worried about being robbed. I was however, worried that the police would take it if they searched my vehicle.

Cash is the anonymous proxy for economic networks

[Anonymous Coward]

And there is nothing the government hates more than anonymity. Can't tax it, track it and control it unless it is electronic, and traceable. That is why they hate cash so much. The only possible reason for economic anonymity is nefarious. You must be using it to avoid taxation or buy or sell something the government doesn't think you should have or fund terrorists. Cash must be stamped out.

Ok to carry drugs now?

[Oyjord]

"...screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws."

Hmm. Does this means it's ok now to carry my blow in my pocket when I fly home to visit the folks during Xmas? I'm tired of carrying it...up there.

Re:Ok to carry drugs now?

[Bob9113]

"...screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws."

Hmm. Does this means it's ok now to carry my blow in my pocket when I fly home to visit the folks during Xmas? I'm tired of carrying it...up there.

Probably not. The quote came from the ACLU, and only refers to the limits of governmental authority established in The United States Constitution. The United States government does not operate within the bounds of that charter.

Re:Ok to carry drugs now?

[Teun]

I would give up on using that crap.

But then I don't know your folks...

Re:Ok to carry drugs now?

[KarmaMB84]

If they happen to find your drugs while looking for weapons, you're probably still going to jail since they actually found something illegal rather than "evidence" of illegal activities.

Re:Ok to carry drugs now?

[sjames]

he United States government does not operate within the bounds of that charter.

Though they will happily use a copy of it to wipe their hands after they search "up there" for your stash.

Re:Ok to carry drugs now?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the very last line of TFA:

"The new directives don't affect a situation where a TSA officer, in the performance of a regular screening, comes across evidence of illegal activity, such as a bag of illicit drugs."

Re:Ok to carry drugs now?

[camusflage]

In a word, no.

The directive means they can't go looking for evidence of crimes that are not primary in their mission. If, during the course of their search to make sure you're not carrying contraband onto an airplane (ie, dangerous shit like knitting needles) they find prima facie evidence of a crime (your coke, a severed head, "interesting" pictures involving a horse), they'll turn you over to local law enforcement.

All this means is that they're limited to investigating air safety. Unless they stumble across something that is clearly illegal (and $4300 cash is NOT that), they cannot do anything. Even if they do find something interesting, they cannot detain you, as they are not law enforcement. Those two things are what the ACLU fought for here. Even though they're a bunch of data-profiling dickwads (and that was why I stopped my sponsorship of them), they do get it right now and then.

Re:In other news...

[Opportunist]

Well, if the guy with a cracker had a bottle of soda instead, the roles would have been reversed but he wouldn't be released with a change of rules to take home.

Re:In other news...

[nedlohs]

Yes, the exact curcumstances of the events being duscussed is the straw man.

It's not your completely unsupported claim with no relevance to the events at hand that is the straw man.

Hint: yes in lots of situations wealthy people get away with things that poorer people don't. But carrying money and being wealthy are unrelated.

The homeless looking man carrying $100,000 in a sack is going to have far more issues with the cops than the well dressed man with $80 in his wallet.

Interpretation, not exception

[mangu]

You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights?

No, it's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment. It's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure", but looking for anything else is "unreasonable".

 

Re:Interpretation, not exception

[JesseMcDonald]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I know the language is imprecise, but it seems perfectly obvious to me that the first clause describes only the authors' goals, while the second part (starting from "and no Warrants shall issue...") describes how such security will be guaranteed—with the unstated assumption being that no searches or seizures will ever take place without a warrant, however "reasonable", thus making all searches and seizures subject to the need for probable cause, oath or affirmation, and specific predefined boundaries.

By that interpretation it wouldn't matter what the TSA (or anyone else) thinks is "reasonable"; they'd still need a specific warrant before performing any search or seizure.

Re:Interpretation, not exception

[IndustrialComplex]

No, it's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment. It's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure", but looking for anything else is "unreasonable".

Such as looking for proof of prescription drugs?

Gray areas

[93 Escort Wagon]

My first impression was it was silly and wrong-headed for TSA screeners to be setting themselves up as police proxies - and I do, mostly, still feel that way. But I would certainly want them to notify police under certain circumstances that aren't related to their screening duties. For example, if there was an abducted child for which they had a photo, and a child who looked like that went through the security line, I'd want them to inform the police that someone resembling the kid was boarding a flight - I wouldn't want them to take any additional steps, however.

Basically with regards to police matters they shouldn't do anything a private citizen wouldn't be expected to do in a similar situation.

Re:Gray areas

[sjames]

Essentially, beyond their screening duties, they should have the same power as any other person to tell the police if they see a crime being committed. Also like everyone else, they should stand to be in for a heap of trouble if they go beyond just telling the police However, as an appropriate safeguard, they should not even have that power if they only saw it because they exercised their power to search (which no other person has).

Re:Gray areas

[gavron]

Please don't make this "about the children" or "stop the Nazis." It's about the TSA abusing their positions.

They are not police, have no police powers, and are bullies and dragoons.

E
P.S. I'm calling modified Godwin's Law on this.

Re:Gray areas

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the OP was pretty specific. Besides the direct duties associated with protecting the planes, such as checking for weapons, the TSA should be doing nothing more than would be expected of any private citizen.

Sightings of missing persons or the FBI's most wanted is something everybody is obligated to report, with no exceptions, not even the police are excluded from this. (They are required to report just about everything anyway.)

The way this, like all 4th amenment exceptions should work:

The TSA must not search more than needed to accomplish their objectives. Should they in the course of this minimal level of searching stumble upon anything suspicious, they should report it to the police. But they should not every be going out of the way to search for things unrelated to the job at hand. If there is no specific security reason to look through a wallet, then the TSA should NEVER be looking though a wallet, etc. One example from the article is that the TSA agents ae not allowed to check that prescription bottles belong to the person carying them, since there is no security concern that relates to that.

Re:Gray areas

[bugoff]

But they do have badges! And what is really funny, they do not have to go through the same security protocols to get to their work positions. So they could carry in or OUT anything without anyone knowing. But there have been some busts of TSA agents steeling from luggage/baggage AND running drugs. So we know the abuse is happening, just not being reported often. So how safe does this make you feel? I only travel by private routes, no TSA or others to say how I go, or with what I carry. If you want to be taken care of, and trust others to care of you, then believe everything you are told at the airlines! There are plenty of private aircraft for hire.

Re:Gray areas

[gavron]

TSA Badges are issued by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). They only identify the person but do not grant them access to the SIDA or the Sterile areas.

Access to the Sterile areas (the area beyond the security check) is provided by the local management authority for the airport. This requires not only a background check, but fingerprints, training, and other things.

Access to the SIDA (the area where baggage is) is similarly provided by the local management authority for the airport, also requiring a background check, fingerprints, training, and other things.

We do know abuse is happening. It's being reported. I don't know what "OFTEN" means when thrown around so looselye.

There are plenty of private aircraft for hire. If you want to pay $2K per flight hour $5K minimum, you go right ahead, sir.

E
P.S. Unless you're at a major hub, it's $2K/flthr + rt trp + $5K min + $500/day gnd time!

Re:In other news...

[OnlineAlias]

I, for one, am quite wealthy. I still live in my mom's basement though....

Re:What if they find drugs?

[mangu]

What happens now if the TSA's screening finds drugs, or even worse, marijuana?

I suppose the same thing that happens in other cases where drugs are found by illegal searches. They keep the stuff, but you walk free.

Only planes?

[unix1]

'[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, said] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.'

So, how is this any different from:

Police get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep dangerous weapons and illegal drugs off streets/school surroundings/public parks/college campuses/subways/high rise buildings/etc.

Just wondering.

Re:Only planes?

[Durandal64]

As a society, we are more afraid of flying on planes than we are of riding the subway. So we've exchanged our freedoms for what we perceive as security.

Re:Only planes?

[zippthorne]

The public has accepted the unconstitutional search for weapons and explosives. It's so much a part of the zeitgeist now that people would feel naked (ironically) without the security line at the airport. The ACLU won't win that fight, and they would rather spend time trying to free the mumia abu jabars of the world, anyway. Defending actual rights is too much of a hassle.

Ahh well. There is a hidden benefit of all this rights-raping: Airport security is an excellent date screener. Everyone past the perimeter either has a job (possibly crappy, but they're employed nonetheless) or can otherwise afford the extravagance of a couple hundred dollars for a day's travel. That doesn't weed out all of the riff raff, but it certainly cuts it down a little.

Re:In other news...

[UnknowingFool]

In this case a large sum of money to the TSA was $4,300 in a metal box. We're not talking a suitcase with a million dollars. While I don't carry that much cash, someone carrying that much cash isn't uncommon. Business people may carry that much for one reason or another.

As far as I know only Customs asks people about the amount of money carried by a passenger if you are entering a country. Almost no one asks on domestic flights.

Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[BitHive]

The system basically worked here, the offended party was able to use the system to address his grievance. Let's not forget that for all our bluster about liberty and freedom there are some places where a real politically-motivated detainment could have meant death or worse.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[QuantumRiff]

No, the system didn't fully work. The TSA changed its "internal policies".. That is much different than a legal precedent, and of course, they can be changed right back, in a month. A person violating "internal policies" might get "disciplined" which is a long way from what's going to happen to someone for willfuly violating your rights. (And really, some of those minimum wage power tripping ego's really do need to get knocked back a few notches.) Also, if I'm not mistaken, pretty much all of the airports use Contractors to actually hire the agents. I'm not sure exactly how much training the employees get, since that would cut into the companies profits...

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[bcrowell]

The system basically worked here, the offended party was able to use the system to address his grievance. Let's not forget that for all our bluster about liberty and freedom there are some places where a real politically-motivated detainment could have meant death or worse.

Yes, but to me the real point to keep in mind is that since 9/11, we've been on the slippery slope toward becoming one of those bad places you're describing. And let's also remember that the whole reason Guantanamo exists is so that some parties will not be able to use the system to address their grievances.

I have a recurring alert in my calendar to donate $100 every July 1 to the ACLU, PO box 96265, Washington, DC 20090-6265. I hope everyone here who's posting about what a great victory this was will do something similar. (Note that contributions to the ACLU are not tax-deductible because they use more than a certain % of their money for lobbying.)

What I really love about the ACLU is that even though they're basically a bunch of liberal Democrats, they take cases strictly on what they perceive as the case's legal importance for civil liberties. Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichrist, but they took this case because it was a good, important case.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[Dunbal]

The system basically worked here

      Umm, it was the threat of litigation by the ACLU that worked. If you consider the ACLU as part of the "system", consider why there has to be an AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION in the first place. The "system" is erring ever more on the "side" of the government. Perhaps your just not old enough to remember what it USED to be like. But then again, I remember $0.25 cokes from vending machines, which is strange, considering the government claims only 2-3% inflation since the 80's... at 3% compounded, a can of coke should cost you $0.60 today. Yet strangely a 12-pack at the supermarket will set you back around $11 ($0.91/can) and at least $1 from a vending machine. Ahhh, how wonderful it is that people don't notice creeping things like inflation, or erosion of civil liberties, for that matter. Governments lie. Period. This is not new, Plato even justified it. Please do enjoy your "recovery" in the meantime.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[BitHive]

Well I can't argue with that logic!

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[BitHive]

It worked insofar as nobody threatened to use their guns, which is a pretty good outcome where libertarians and government agents are concerned.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[californication]

Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichrist...

And for a good reason. Ron Paul firmly believes that no right to privacy exists in the Constitution. That means, in his opinion, anything not explicitly allowed in the Constitution can be criminalized by the government, including what people do in their bedroom.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[CodeBuster]

Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichrist

Yes, because Ron Paul advocates hard work, sound monetary policy, and personal responsibility; all of which are anathema to the liberal Democrats. In many ways Ron Paul represents the "original formula" of American Values; something that we have gotten away from beginning in the later half of the 20th century and continuing, almost uninterrupted, until today. Now, Obama has grasped the steering wheel with both hands, turned it hard left, and romped on the gas. Where will we end up? Nowhere we want to go that's for sure.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[waferbuster]

Yes, the system worked as designed. The offended party (a person who is arguably a VIP) was treated as an average person, and obtained a clandestine audio recording of his treatment. This audio recording was egregious enough to prompt the ACLU to proceed.

Now, let's take my niece as an example. She's not a frequent flyer, isn't used to being in a position of power, isn't used to dealing with abusive uniformed persons, and wouldn't have a clue that the TSA wasn't allowed to treat her like an object.

The average person would have had no recourse. This type of abuse happens every day. There are websites for frequent flyers which are full of horror stories of travelers undergoing much worse.

The system worked in that a VIP was able to get resolution.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[evilviper]

The system basically worked here

Yes, the system generally works for anyone who has hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw away on legal fees...

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[evilviper]

I have a recurring alert in my calendar to donate $100 every July 1 to the ACLU

In 2003, as I saw rights being taken away left and right, I decided it was time to support the ACLU and fight back for our rights. Over the year, the ACLU sent me lots of e-mail to let me know what they were doing...

In short, tons and tons and tons of lawsuits defending every tiny grey area of abortion, several about someone getting offended at seeing a cross in a public space, and next to nothing else... and sadly, I REALLY mean that. Over that same time period, I saw that the EFF was doing more and more fighting of cases against the government spying via the internet, and later even taking a major role in the warrantless phone wiretapping case. It was a no-brainer that, while the EFF appears to be a substantially smaller organization, my money would be infinitely better spent with them, than the ACLU.

Really, what bothered me most about the ACLU was the two-faced nature of it. If you visit their website, they trumpet their fights against imposing government restrictions, and only briefly mention some involvement in defending abortion rights. But as soon as you donate, and start getting the newsletter, it becomes clear the overwhelming focus has become every last little abortion case they can possibly get their hands on. It's really not the ACLU we thought we all knew.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[HoppQ]

Now, Obama has grasped the steering wheel with both hands, turned it hard left, and romped on the gas. Where will we end up? Nowhere we want to go that's for sure.

Firstly, stop talking like you're royalty. Secondly, if the U.S. takes a hard left and hits the gas it'll end up the same as the heaven of social democracy, the Nordic countries. Mind you, that's not at all what seems to be going on. It looks more like Obama is half-asleep at the wheel. Pelosi and Reid are grappling for the wheel from the front seat trying to change lanes to the overtaking lane. Michael Steele, Glenn Beck and the teabaggers from the rear seat keep claiming it's not an overtaking lane their heading for (even though it clearly is) and are trying to steer to the right into the wet ditch, claiming the wet ditch is actually a luxury pool and anyone who claims otherwise is a communist. The result is you're veering just very slightly to the left. Quite disappointing really.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[bcrowell]

The EFF is also a great organization to donate money to, and there's a lot of overlap between what they do and the kind of things the ACLU does, e.g., with telecom immunity. Of course if you're not pro-choice, you wouldn't want to donate to the ACLU. It makes a lot of sense to me that the ACLU is putting a lot of energy into the abortion issue, simply because it's an issue that is being fought like crazy in lots of different states.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[CodeBuster]

If the Nordic countries are the "heaven of social democracy", as you put it, then why not simply move there and leave the United States to those who value freedom? If you want socialism or "social democracy" (they are more 'polite' than the original red flag waving sorts I suppose) then it is available in any number of places around the world (especially in Europe). If, On the other hand, you want real freedom, including the freedom to fail or to succeed famously without the government standing on your shoes, then the Unites States is just about the last bastion remaining. Capitalism, freedom, and individualism are what has made the United States into a global power with the highest per capita income in the world. If you want Europe then go to Europe, it is already there waiting for you. On the other hand, what we have achieved here in the United States is much rarer, possibly unique, in the course of human history and I don't think that we should give that up for cheap healthcare and nanny-state platitudes.

Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath

[evilviper]

It's not a question of pro-life / pro-choice... I'm not pro-homicide either, but I don't begrudge the ACLU when they defend murders. It's a question of inordinate amounts of effort going to ever little trivial corner case of abortion (every states' variation on late-term abortion bans, for example), while very, very little effort is going into the really important issues. Additionally, their clear attempt to minimize it on their websites, while it is their primary task today, leaves a further bad taste.

Re:In other news...

[TubeSteak]

Well, if the guy with a cracker had a bottle of soda instead, the roles would have been reversed but he wouldn't be released with a change of rules to take home.

More often than not, that bottle of soda gets chucked into a 30 gallon garbage bin sitting next to the security screeners.
Which tells you how dangerous they really think it is.

Re:In other news...

[Teun]

Guys with lots of money don't carry it around.

three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt

[bcrowell]

Three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt! Most people are sheep, and wouldn't even think of standing up to authority like this. Of those who aren't sheep, very few would do it despite the inconvenience of missing your flight and the implicit threat of going to jail in a country that no longer thinks it's necessary to give people trials. Listen to the audio he recorded on his iPhone. The TSA guys are cussing at him, and then you hear a loud noise that sounds like someone pounding on a desk. You can hear the stress in Bierfeldt's voice, but he's not backing down just because it's a psychologically intimidating situation. I consider Steve Bierfeldt to be a hero.

Re:three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt

[benjamindees]

hahaha, "What is Campaign for Liberty?"

Re:three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt

[denbesten]

Most people [...] wouldn't even think of standing up to authority like this.

And most people don't work for someone who's job it is to change the way that authority behaves. This is a powerful ace that Steve had up his sleeve.

Re:three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt

[TheRaven64]

It's interesting how the TSA person sounded in this. Steve keeps asking him 'am I required by law to answer that question' and the TSA operative never once says yes or no. It sounds like he actually doesn't know, which is quite worrying. You'd have thought that some basic education in the relevant parts of the law would be part of basic training for TSA guys - even an afternoon session would have covered that.

The most interesting thing, however, was that he was told that he would be taken to the police station (which meant the DEA or FBI office), against his will, without being arrested and, most importantly, without being read his rights. I would be very surprised if this is legal. Even the police aren't allowed to do that: they can ask you to go with them (and you are free to refuse), or they can arrest you. If they arrest you, then they are required to read you your rights and to maintain a proper custody chain (i.e. the arresting officer is 100% responsible for you until he has received some paperwork where someone else takes responsibility).

Well done to Steve Bierfeldt for not backing down and not losing his temper.

Re:three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt

[Anonymous Coward]

The most interesting thing, however, was that he was told that he would be taken to the police station (which meant the DEA or FBI office), against his will, without being arrested and, most importantly, without being read his rights. I would be very surprised if this is legal. Even the police aren't allowed to do that: they can ask you to go with them (and you are free to refuse), or they can arrest you. If they arrest you, then they are required to read you your rights and to maintain a proper custody chain (i.e. the arresting officer is 100% responsible for you until he has received some paperwork where someone else takes responsibility).

TheRaven64 is very wrong. I am a law enforcement officer. First of all, your Miranda rights are only read to you if you are *in custody* (not free to leave) and are being questioned for a criminal offense. Being arrested does not automatically invoke Miranda. I have arrested LOTS of people who are never advised of their Miranda rights, because they aren't being questioned. Arrest someone for a warrant for not paying fines? There's no questions to ask, they are going to jail. Arrest someone for another agency's warrant? You don't know what questions to ask, and they are going to jail. The list could go on and on.

Secondly, I have arrested hundreds of people and can tell you that the "property custody chain" makes no sense. We don't sign people over and receive receipts from other officers or jails when you are booked in.

Sorry, TheRaven64, but you don't know what you are talking about.

Re:three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt

[TheRaven64]

Sorry, I was basing my comments on UK law. I assumed that the US - being the land of the free and all - would have similar rights. Over here, the only way the police are allowed to detain you is if they arrest you. If they do this, then they must caution you by saying:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, something that you later rely on in court, anything you do say may be used in evidence."

This caution must again be repeated at the start of every interview. Any interview conducted without this caution is inadmissible as evidence. On being arrested, you must be informed of the crime you are being accused of and read this caution. The only reason for not doing this is if it is not possible (for example, the suspect is unconscious). If the police do not arrest you, then they can not detain you. They may ask you to remain and, if you refuse, then they may (if they have sufficient grounds) arrest you, but if they don't arrest you then you are free to go.

After you have been arrested you are in the charge of the police officer and he is responsible for you until he hands you over to the custody sergeant or to some other officer. He may be required in court to account for your whereabouts and wellbeing until the point where he can prove that someone else took charge of you.

If the situation in the USA is really as different as you describe then perhaps you have greater concerns than the TSA...

Re:In other news...

[bertoelcon]

Parent maybe off topic but I fell outta my chair reading his post. Definitely funny.

Re:What if they find drugs?

[ivan_w]

Not so sure !

Whether the 4th amendment applies or not is irrelevant. The 4th amendment just states that legislative power (The Congress) cannot pass into law any legislation that would allow unreasonable searches. However, in the case of airport searches, the mandate of the TSA is to prevent individuals from boarding aircrafts with potentially dangerous items/material.

So far so good. The TSA has some tools to detect any potential threat and/or will exercise their judgement to do just that. If they trigger a positive, they may possibly search you since the search is no longer "unreasonable".

The question is : what do they do if, while exercising their mandate, they find something that's illegal to possess (or any solid indication that you are carrying out illegal activities) ?

First of all, in *this* particular case, they most probably went beyond their mandate and should be charged with illegal detention. Not only was the principal not posing any threat to the aircraft, but he wasn't even doing anything illegal, *UNLESS* of course if the undisclosed recommendation to the TSA was indicating that carrying more than a certain amount of money was to be considered as an indication of a possible misdeed.

The question that arises now is : what happens if they figure out something illegal is taking place while not being a specific immediate danger to the well being of the aircraft and its passengers ? If TSA personel *does* have judiciary police power, then they may very well detain you on the ground that you have been caught red handed performing some illegal activity. If TSA personnel does NOT have judiciary power, they may simply relay to the proper jurisdiction the fact and let you go (just to have you caught on the other side of the door by - say - some DEA agents, airport police, the county Sheriff Department, or the FBI of you are committing a Federal Offense !). They may *actually* have to report the offense lest they be charged with accessory to the offense !

--Ivan

Re:In other news...

[Awptimus Prime]

It is pretty dumb to stick it in a metal box. That is only 43 notes. You can easily shove that much in a decently broken in wallet or $30 money belt's compartment.

Not that he should have gotten in trouble for such a small amount, just there are smarter ways to transport cash. Having had three suitcases lost by airlines, there is no way in hell I would put even my favorite shirt in a suitcase for the airlines to handle.

Hint; If you are moving american dollars around it is a good idea to rinse and iron them. Too many notes can set off a drug dog due to residues. Plus the ladies will think you are cool when you pull out crisp bills to buy your Starwars action figures.

Impact on computer searches?

[fgouget]

From the article:

The new rules, issued in September and October, tell officers "screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security"

Does this mean they can no longer go through your computer files?

Re:Impact on computer searches?

[benjamindees]

I've never heard of computers being searched on domestic flights. I'm under the impression that that is Customs that performs those searches. So, yes, they will likely continue.

did not vote at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only office you consider voting for, then backed down, was for the federal office of president?

You did not vote for your federal level house rep or senators, or any state/county/city level offices?

Some white guy in a wig, now long dead, once said: "We do not have a government of the majority. We have a government of the majority who choose to participate."

Re:did not vote at all?

[bertoelcon]

You did not vote for your federal level house rep or senators, or any state/county/city level offices?

I only chose to not vote on a few items, and Office of President was one of them. I didn't not vote at all.

Re:did not vote at all?

[PachmanP]

I only chose to not vote on a few items, and Office of President was one of them. I didn't not vote at all.

We need a "none of the above" vote. If it wins, everybody has to go back to the drawing board and field new candidates. I think it could decrease the voting for the lesser of two evils approach, and it could increase voter turnout. I've become pretty apathetic since I don't want to vote dem or rep and voting third party is pretty much throwing your vote away (I do it anyway but I don't kid myself), but I would get out to vote against both candidates. You could even see a whole swath of the population campaigning for "none of the above" because they didn't like the dem they had but wouldn't vote rep.

Re:did not vote at all?

[masterzora]

TBH, if you really want a none-of-the-above vote, don't vote for the candidate you think is most qualified. Vote for the third party candidate you think is most likely to receive the most votes out of any third party, whether you like the candidate (or even the party!) at all. Enough votes means that the third party gets treated as a main party the next time around, which should help people get at least more out of the two-party thinking.

Re:did not vote at all?

[TheRaven64]

Usually you have the equivalent of a 'none of the above' in the form of a candidate with absolutely no chance. On this side of the pond we have things like the legalise cannabis party, which has no other policies and generally gets about 300 vote in my constituency and loses its deposit. A vote for them means that you were motivated enough to bother to turn up, but that none of the candidates seemed worth voting for. There is no chance that they will win, but if all of the apathetics voted for them (or one of the other single-issue candidates) then the winning candidate would get around 20% of the popular vote, which is not a particularly strong position.

Re:did not vote at all?

[commodore64_love]

>>>If it wins, everybody has to go back to the drawing board and field new candidates.

Nope. According to the Constitution, the States would then choose the Electors who would select the president, and if no clearcut winner emerges, then the Congress picks the final winner. That's how Thomas Jefferson won in 1800.

Re:did not vote at all?

[Mr. Freeman]

No, voting for idiot third parties like that means that you bothered to show up because:
A) You were bored and had nothing to do
B) You were stoned (i.e. legalize cannabis party)
C) Thought that the ballot was a coloring book and filled in random boxes

I mean, voting for the green party, the libertarians, etc at least says something about the opinion of the populous, but voting for parties like "legalize cannabis" is completely nonsense. The only reason they're on the ballot is because someone read a book one day about election laws and decided it'd just be fucking hilarious to fill out some paperwork to get on the ballot.

Re:did not vote at all?

[Penguinoflight]

If you really want to send a message, vote for a "third-party" candidate. Nothing says "We're tired of the corporate shills" like 20% of the public voting for somebody else. There isn't a "no vote" statistic, so when you vote for nobody it just makes the statistics look lower for turn out. The reality is that with 10+ candidates on the ballot, and only 2 of the parties with major influence there's a high chance that ONE of those candidates met with your political views. You were just too lazy to do the research.

When was the last time you saw a "Don't blame me, I voted for NOBODY" bumper sticker? When you think about it, it's just too stupid to brag about.

Re:In other news...

[Kell Bengal]

Even if he had a million dollars, it's not illegal to transport money domestically. It may not be smart, but it's no business of the government.

Everyone who thinks that this changes things...

[Hurricane78]

...is an idiot.^^

Because now, suddenly money is an "unsafe material" (could be fake, could be to pay "terrorists", could be a bomb inside, "I'm just asking questions."(TM)*),
and therefore it is "by definition reasonable".

Who are those people who think they could stop criminals that don't care for the rules of society (laws), by creating yet another law? Are they drunk?

On the other hand... who said they actually want to stop them...? ^^
___
* Trademark of FOX News.

Re:Everyone who thinks that this changes things...

[BobMcD]

"I'm just asking questions."(TM)*

* Trademark of FOX News.

I just thought point out that what you're doing here is quite dangerous indeed.

While Fox is not in the right to malign people by proxy, what you are suggesting is a world where the opposite is preferred: "I'm just asking questions" becomes "stop asking questions", because the implicit is the stated behavior is wrong.

You might find a better way to phrase it, is all.

Re:Constitution suspended then?

[Thinboy00]

I thought that they can search you because flying on a plane is not a constitutional right, and by flying you agree to be searched (within a different set of rules than the 4th amendment).

Re:In other news...

[MightyMartian]

I, for one, am quite wealthy. I still live in my mom's basement though....

Second Life money earned by whoring out your avatar doesn't count.

Re:In other news...

[Toonol]

In other news, people with lots of money have more freedoms.

A general statement can be disproved by a single counterexample. That's been done, so you're obviously wrong. Trying to assert a fact by repeating yourself over and over... well, it isn't a valid argument, and shouldn't be seriously put forward by anybody who's age is in the double digits. Did you stamp your foot as you typed that?

Re:In other news...

[UnknowingFool]

While the metal box may have triggered the screening machines, it is not per se illegal nor imprudent to use a metal box to protect paper money. Unlike coins, paper money is not as durable. Many businesses use metal boxes for petty cash boxes to protect it not from thieves but general damage. Also the person may not have wanted to carry the money on his person as it made him a target instead of his luggage.

Re:What if they find drugs?

[MightyMartian]

If committing an offense unrelated to the security of the aircraft is caught by TSA employees (ie. smuggling heroine or ancient antiquities or whatever), then why not just call the cops? It strikes me that these guys are getting way too big for the britches, and that they have indeed been permitted to expand far beyond any reasonable mandate.

Re:What if they find drugs?

[Toonol]

This isn't an illegal search. I imagine it's similar to when an officer finds marijuana on you when they're doing a legal but unrelated search. It's still evidence of a crime, and charges can be filed. I don't know if they WOULD or not, but they certainly COULD be.

Re:In other news...

[Artifakt]

'Lots of money' as in a few thousands in cash that will trigger a search based on the DEA's rules, and 'lots of money' as in mover and shaker who can easily afford good lawyers if hassled are so very different. Conflating the two does create a strawman, a purely hypothetical entity that you can substitute for real ones to have an easier time arguing your point. The people who travel with too much cash, and the people who make large donations to political campaigns and have their pictures taken with governors and presidents, are two overwhelmingly different groups with almost no overlap. Those of you who insist they belong together as one group, are, quite simply, wrong, and yes, it's a strawman argument to substitute the hypothetical person who has over a thousand in cash as also being the person who has the position and power to fight the TSA, and then claim that's what the original poster meant. Hell, it's practically a textbook example of a strawman attack. The moderations applied to Rookoon are therefore abusive, violations of the mod system, particularly the -1 troll on the above post.

 

Re:In other news...

[langelgjm]

You're assuming it's hundred dollar bills. In the transcript they say there's a note with the money with the number $4710, and they seem to think there are a lot of bills, so it might be a bunch of 5s, 10s, and 20s - maybe small bills that people donated for the campaign.

Yes Minister & Fawty Towers

[omb]

Are the best TV produced, and Yes Minister should be compulsory viewing for all Commanders in Chief

Re:In other news...

[bgalbrecht]

If the reports that 90% of all US money has traces of cocaine are accurate, they were probably detaining him under suspicion of drug running.

They are also much safer

[Sycraft-fu]

Cash has the problem of being a bearer note, meaning whoever possess it is the person who gets to use it. That means that it is very prone to being taken by thugs. Maybe thugs in uniform under the cover of law, or more likely just random thugs willing to do as they please. Once taken, it is extremely hard to get back. In a foreign country, this is even more true.

Credit cards are much safer because you are, by law, not responsible for charges you didn't make. There's also the matter of possession. With cash, it has been taken from you so you have to find who possess it (if they still do) and you are then claiming it is yours. You have to convince law enforcement or the courts that it is yours and you should get it back. With a credit card, nothing has been taken. You are simply disputing that you owe a given amount of money. If push comes to shove, they have to take you to court to try and get it.

I'm not saying carrying some cash doesn't make sense when traveling, you do run in to places that don't take a card (though not so many these days), but cards are far safer.

This is not to say credit cards aren't something you have to use responsibly and look after, however when used right they are an excellent security measure for your money.

Re:They are also much safer

[petermgreen]

The thing with cards is that while you are almost certain to get things straigntened out eventually in the meantime they can be rendered useless which can leave you in a very sticky situation and card details can be stolen easily and quietly by any merchant you use the card with.

Re:Constitution suspended then?

[zippthorne]

That's what they think, too, I suppose.

But the 10th amendment and the Declaration make it pretty clear that the rights enumerated in the constitution are so to enshrine them. Not to disparage other natural rights that exist but are not listed.

As traveling by airplane does not in any way interfere with anyone else's rights whatsoever, I think that it's a pretty specious argument. Note also that only us plebs have to deal with the indignity and offense. If you have enough money or influence, you travel by private jet, and board in another part of the airport not restricted by airport screeners.

If we trust only legal precedents...

[Jay L]

Wouldn't we want the TSA to infringe every possible civil liberty, so that we could sue to overturn the rules?

Wait - it gets better. Wouldn't we want to LOSE all the lawsuits, so we could win on appeal and set binding precedent?

Short of that, I think "TSA changes policy" is a pretty good outcome.

Re:What if they find drugs?

[RobVB]

FTA:

The new directives don't affect a situation where a TSA officer, in the performance of a regular screening, comes across evidence of illegal activity, such as a bag of illicit drugs.

Re:In other news...

[supernova_hq]

Not to mention the other 150 bottles of who-knows-what.

If someone wanted to blow up an aeroport, they just need a bunch of people to bring soda-bottles of explosive liquid through the checkpoint. Once the garbage bin is full, drop a match and RUN!

Re:Constitution suspended then?

[supernova_hq]

And if they would let you do a 180 turn and leave the building without the strip search (missing your flight), I might agree with you. But when they say "You are going to be searched, there is nothing you can do about it", that kind of removes that "agree to be searched" BS.

Liquid or Gel?

[Whomp-Ass]

Some people are confused about what's defined as a liquid or gel, Baird said. "If you can pour it, pump it, squeeze it, spread it, smear it, spray it or spill it, it's considered a liquid or gel."

According to this, then, the heart, brain, and liver are liquids?

Furthermore, don't people contain more than 3Oz of expl...Fluids?

Re:In other news...

[Opportunist]

Run?

(facepalms) Oh, you'll never be a good suicide bomber. You're supposed to die when blowing shit up, no wonder they need to have all those superspecialsecret training bases, appearantly it's hard to get that concept through people's skulls.

I have a hunch why.

squeezed little people

[harvey the nerd]

Seizing up on ca $4300 as "large amounts" of cash??! Jeez, that is worse than the airports in some murderous 3rd world dictatorships I've been in, that like to grab $$$. Oh, yeah, I forgot, we're the biggest banana ("republic").

With credit cards and banks becoming so unreasonable, this type of cash restriction is dangerous to the economic recovery, freezing or jeopardizing a most vulnerable segment of the population.

Re:In other news...

[Glonoinha]

Read the reports he helped arrange after the fact, and watch the video he recorded on his iPhone. It becomes painfully obvious that he intended to get stopped, intended to get hassled, and ultimately intended for this ruling to come down that the TSA has to stop sliding down the slippery slope of fucking with people they search and stick to the real reason they exist - to prevent airplanes from getting hijacked and flown into buildings full of corporate executives, destroying the financial well being of America.

For what it's worth, I wasn't a Ron Paul supporter until I saw this (the guy was working on behalf of Ron Paul) - and now I am. And by 'supporter' I mean I know who he is and I'd vote for him if he ran again.

Re:Cash is the anonymous proxy for economic networ

[TheRaven64]

Cash may be close to anonymous (it's not; it can be traced in various ways, it's just more effort than it's worth for small amounts) but you're certainly wrong that governments hate it. Cash is backed by the government. Every time you accept it, you are making a small investment in the government's reputation. By exchanging something of real value (e.g. food) for cash, you are saying 'I trust the government's guarantee that this money can be exchanged for something of value'. This acceptance is the main reason that governments have power. This is one of the reason why groups like the Mafia prefer trade in favours, backed by their organisation, rather than money backed by a government. The other is that it's even harder to trace (and tax) informal exchanges.

If you mow my lawn and I fix your computer then, under most tax laws, we are both liable to pay tax on the equivalent monetary value of the payment we received (i.e. you pay tax on the value of having your computer fixed, I pay tax on the value of having my lawn mowed) but proving that these services were performed as part of a trade is almost impossible and certainly neither of us would think to declare them on our tax returns. We would both be committing tax evasion by not doing so, but it is effectively impossible to prove.

Re:In other news...

[OrangeTide]

It's security theater. If they believed that any of the soda and shampoo they collected were security threats (poison, explosive, etc) they probably wouldn't be standing next to a bin full of them all day long.

I think the next terrorist attack will be on the checkpoints where hundreds of people are waiting in line taking off their shoes. It would be an effective way to scare the daylights out of the populace. And the government would have to concoct a new show to make us feel safe enough to fly again.

I wonder if it would have been cheaper to just put 1-4 undercover agents on every flight, and let everyone through without checking for anything beyond their boarding pass. The agents could blast a few idiots with a taser 3 miles in the air and we can all be satisfied with the perception of order. Four agents per flight with 6 figure salaries have got to be cheaper than the equipment and army of TSA grunts we have today.

Re:In other news...

[DocHoncho]

I suspect that the traces of cocaine are from people actually consuming the drug. I somehow doubt that a drug runner would be wrapping his wares up in $20 bills.

This infuriates me

[Leebert]

I want to know why the TSA agents and the police are not fired.

Listen to the audio. They're idiots. "I don't have to let you go through MY checkpoint."

What a bunch of jerks.

Re:In other news...

[FiloEleven]

Airport security has the added advantage of getting people used to waiting in lines and invasions of privacy. Those in power don't want people like those on Flight 93, they want people like those in line for the Tilt-A-Whirl.

So...

[mysidia]

If they happen to see some Weed in a passenger's bag, or some narcotics in their checked luggage, they have to ignore it and let them through now?

It doesn't pose any danger to aircraft security.

Re:In other news...

[Opportunist]

It's not even security theater. It's so threadbare see-through that even the most dimwitted idiot noticed by now what's cooking. I guess everyone noticed by now that the whole liquid-terrorists-gonna-blow-us-to-next-week scare started around the same time they started to charge for sodas on planes.

What is unsafe?

[Urinal Gum]

The decision sounds pretty vague. What is unsafe? I'd argue that water bottles and any other non-flammable substance is safe. Lighters are fairly safe. It seems like this doesn't help much, and things remain extraordinarily subjective. /cell phones are always unsafe, though: http://www.urinalgum.com/?p=112

Re:What if they find drugs?

[profplump]

Or how about they just look for things that pose an immediate risk persons or property likely to be encountered while flying, and ignore everything else? Even if you buy that their safety-related searches increase safety (which is not at all clear to me), what reason do they have for reporting anything else they find?

While it might be nice to catch more criminals there's just too much room for abuse; are you 100% sure that everything you've ever carried is 100% legal in both your original and destination locales? Plus you'd only catch people committing property crimes; it's very unlikely that any reasonable search for dangerous materials would uncover evidence of violent crimes. So even the "catch criminals" argument is pretty lame in terms of additional public safety or eminent threat to others.