Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: What's the Best Way To Deal With Roving TSA Teams?
An anonymous reader writes "I live in Boston, and I have noticed the TSA performs random security checks at the Copley T (subway station) and other locations. I routinely travel with a laptop, iPhone, and other gadgetry. What are my rights when asked by one of the TSA agents to 'come over here'? Can I say no and proceed with my private business? What if a police officer says that I 'must go over there and cooperate'? Can I decline or ask for a warrant? Like the majority of the population, I turn into an absolute shrinking violet when pressured by intimidating authority, but I struggle with what I see to be blatant social devolution. Has anybody out there actually responded rationally, without complying? What were your experiences?"
Turn around and RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!! Or maybe you can duck and cover... It's up to you...
Unless I'm mistaken, you don't have rights anymore. If the TSA thinks you're a terrorist based on your evasiveness and defiance they can detain you indefinitely.
Seeing as they just passed a defence bill allowing indefinite detention without trial for suspected terrorists, for now I would just go with it.
If the answer to either of those questions is "No", then you better do what they tell you.
Sure, they're violating your rights. But in the United States, you have no recourse except to go to court. Which will costs LOTS of money. More than you have, probably. And don't forget that the cops and TSA will make your life hell while the case slowly progresses.
This country is so fucked.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/tsa-seeks-expand-airport-experience-everyday-life
And
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/know-your-rights-when-traveling
While it might not be exactly your situation, you can probably find 90% of what you need from the EFF. If you need more specific information, you will probably need to ask real counsel.
Unless they are carrying a weapon and a REAL badge, you can probably tell them to fly a kite (especially if it's not a standard gateway procedure such as those as airports)... not sure how that'd stand up under scrutiny... but, they aren't "officers of the law" unless they ARE "officers"... very few of them if any are actually LE...
Good luck!
Why would you want to avoid the TSA? What are you hiding?
You must be a criminal!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
... Dress sharply at all times, and keep a business-like posture and demeanour. Playing bully with a peon is safe enough, but harassing an (apparently) wealthy and influent person is a career-destroying move. You don't mess with the Ruling Elite, so might as well camouflage as one.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
TSA agents are NOT law enforcement, even if they pretend to be. They do not have legal authority to arrest you.
Recently, a bill was proposed to prevent the TSA from wearing badges, or otherwise dressing like real cops. Hopefully this passes.
In Washington, DC, you can refuse to allow inspection of your bags when entering the subway, but then you will be turned away need to find alternative transportation, and *may* be followed. (I don't recall if they *always* follow or not.)
If the police were confronted by this 90% er 50% more like as little as 10% of the time, it would be such a gigantic waste of their resources that they'd stop violating your rights.
You know where they have lawyers and actually might know more than the random crap you'll get here.
Start here: http://www.flexyourrights.org/
Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
"Why are you detaining me?"
"Am I under arrest?"
"Am I free to go?"
Yeah, if only our founding fathers had thought that.
Pussy.
Everyone needs to stand up for their civil rights, or no will have any civil rights anymore. The TSA thinks they're above the law, above the Bill of Rights, and they have to be proven wrong. That, and the TSA needs to be dismantled. If they're "expanding" into non-airport-related areas (train stations, bus stations, docks), how long does anyone think it'll be before they start performing traffic stops at random and committing search-and-seizure without a warrant "because they thought you acted/looked/smelled like a terrorist"?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
When it comes to police in most civilized societies, you get to have a very simple dialogue. You can say: "I refuse to volunteer for any such [delay]; but if you order me to do so, I will comply with any order you give."
If you don't volunteer, and you make that an official statement, then the officer needs to decide to make it an order. They aren't allowed to give illegal orders. If they do, you still must comply with it at the time, and without hesitation, but you can fight that later in court.
Basically, it puts everyone on the their best behaviour. If you aren't happy with what winds up happening, and you later discover that they weren't permitted to do so, then you can easily fight it after the fact.
Just remember two things: a) police are allowed to trick you into volunteering, or even kind of volunteering. So make sure you hear the word "order". b) police can be nice and legal, nice and illegal, or mean and legal. Be sure you know what you're risking.
You _should_ be able to extend you middle finger and walk away (as in out of the station/terminal) and on your merrily private, on-foot way, if you object to warrantless searches. If you wish to ride the train/plain/bus/ whatever, bend over and relax. If you don't like _that_, stop voting for legislators who stomp on your civil rights. That goes for both parties, because 10 years down the road, The Patriot Act is still "law".
Oh, my experience? A while back, I was flying somewhere, with a recently repaired shoulder injury. Having been selected for "random screening" I was asked to partially disrobe. When I explained that that would be difficult for me, and before I could finish my sentence with "...because my shoulder is still just stitched together...", the self-important glorified rent-a-cop immediately went into power-trip mode and demanded to know if I was "...refusing to comply with a lawful request...". So my experience is pretty much like that of hundreds of other travelers every day, especially if they look, you know, like terrorists.
no need to get into trouble
I love that this was posted by AC.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
No no NO! What are you talking about? Slashdot has the best armchair lawyers on earth.
no need to get into trouble
And this is as much a problem as the overreach of authority by law enforcement.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. " - Ronald Reagan
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
I thought the US was turning into a police state, but I didn't realize the TSA gestapo were wandering the subways and accosting people at random.
I weep for the America that once was.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
At least in the DC Metro you don't have to submit to anything but you can be asked to leave the subway system. That's the legal "thinking" that allows the searches to occur because that way they are "voluntary". The really stupid bit is that you are perfectly free to then walk outside and board a bus or walk down to another station and get on the subway there, where the odds of another TSA goon is pretty low (I'm not familiar with how close the stations are in Boston but in DC walking between stations is pretty easy).
You just say no, and then ask to leave. They may ask you for your ID so you should know if you are legally required to give it (in NY you are). Of course don't be shocked then when they search you for "acting suspicious" but at that point you should contact the ACLU because they likely would love to hear about it.
To fight the TSA requires any number of resources in your favor: time, money, influence, or numbers.
Perhaps the easiest way to fight this particular group is by pulling a SEP -> someone else's problem. Attend a city council meeting, and move that the local Boston Police Department have its budget slashed, reasoning that since the TSA is doing their job, the city no longer needs to pay for benefits that the Boston PD is not providing. 3 possibilities are likely -> 1.) the city council will squash the movement (but doing so will draw attention to your plight, and paint the current politicians as being in bed with the TSA -> not a good place to be when the TSA is chafing potential voters), 2.) the city will cut Boston PD's budget (at which point the Boston PD will have to make a tough choice of pissing off the populace because of a pay cut, or letting it slide), or 3.) the Boston PD will become wise to the situation, and take out a jurisdictional grievance against the TSA (they get to keep their budget, remove some competition, and look like the heroes -> kid gloves from the officers reassigned to the public transit beat, something of a junket for the officers concerned as it may be 'easy' compared to other patrols).
This is how you handle problems that you do not have the resources to fight properly -> get someone who has the proper resources to do the fighting for you. It helps if you appeal to this person's / group's best interest in a truthful, sincere way (the untruthful / insincere stuff tends to fall apart before a victory).
And yes, given the Amtrak PD's response to various TSA shenanigans, it has a precedent. And the danger to the Boston PD (or whoever patrolled that beat prior to the TSA) is quite real; you don't want a generation of Bostonians growing up thinking that it takes a guy in tactical gear with a SMG to keep public transportation safe; once they do, the original patrollers will never get that beat back (loss of territory),
I am John Hurt.
There's no point in asking what rights you have, because you have none. You can't even photograph public buildings with that iPhone, much less prevent a goon too dumb to get a job as a mall security guard from seizing it, no matter how much or how loudly you protest. And if you cause enough stink, the TSA meatheads will get an actual cop to come over and give you grief. If they want to badly enough, they can now, thanks to President Obama, detain you indefinitely if they so choose. Even confessing to whatever they think you might well do at some point in the future may not get your released. You won't be allowed to talk to anyone about it, either -- not even a lawyer. And even when (if) you are let go, don't talk about it or they can jug your once again.
For those not counting, the Federal government has in this one encounter wiped its collective ass with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and (probably) 9th Amendments, as well as pissing on the grave of habeas corpus.
Have a nice day.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Call 911, and ask that they send police to the location immediately. Report that you suspect a person or a group of people impersonating the TSA, and that you suspect a fraud or mugging is about to occur.
In Washington, DC, you can refuse to allow inspection of your bags when entering the subway, but then you will be turned away need to find alternative transportation, and *may* be followed. (I don't recall if they *always* follow or not.)
Keep in mind that inspecting your bag means looking at what is inside, in "plain sight" so to speak. They aren't going to be intrusively poking around at the files on your laptop or smartphone.
There seems to be a misunderstanding and exaggeration due to what can happen when entering the US and undergoing a customs inspection. Customs can look at the files, they have the authority to search for contraband, just as they do when they open packages and other sealed/closed items. However this is a very special circumstance involving crossing the US border. These intrusive type of searches can not happen once inside the US without a warrant.
The first thing to remember is the TSA are not officers of the law. This isn't my opinion, this is something making its way thought the senate at the moment:
"Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), the lead sponsor of the Stop TSA's Reach in Policy (STRIP) Act, said that TSA has essentially allowed its airport screeners to play dress-up by giving them metal badges and police-like uniforms in recent years. But she said many airport screeners have no "officer" qualifications, and should have this title removed." source
They've had the ability to abuse rights, previously, because they've had you in confined situations where you've already had certain rights removed. The two most obvious examples being:
You'd like to get on that plane you've already paid a lot of money to travel on? Then, whether you like what we're doing or not, you have to pass through us to get to it. Plus, you've already entered in to a secure screening area. Declining our searches and simply choosing to leave means you violate the security protections and are subject to a $10,000 fine.
You're not on US soil. Until you've passed through customs, you're in magical land where we deny you're actually on US soil and as such have zero consititutional rights. We'd like your phone and laptop to take a copy of all data on it? You have no fourth amendment here, hand it over.
Yes, it's true that the government has basically torn up the constitution in the last few weeks. They can no detain anyone, forgeign or American, indefinitiely, without access to a lawyer, without charging them, without judicial review, just because they say that they're a terrorist threat. They do have a safeguard however: once a year, you're allowed to ask them if they'd like to keep doing it.
The thing is, big brother as that is, it's massively overkill for someone politely telling a TSA goon that the fourth amendment does still apply on the streets of the US and, unless they can provide a legitimate reason for your search and seizure, you will be polite but you will not comply with unreasonable requests from minimally trained screeners who, by the senate's own definition, don't have the qualifications or training to call themselves legitimate officers. If they disappeared every politely spoken person who passively resisted, their jails would rapidly fill and every news channel would run sensational headlines about it. The street goons are going to try to hype their authority a little, they'll most likely call a police officer over to back them up who does have a little more legitimate authority, but you're not going to end up in a secret prison.
So, my take? Stay very polite. Don't get heated. Don't get angry. Simply express that you recognize they are not law enforcement officers, they are essentially an extra type of security guard at this location and that you are happy to comply with reasonable requests that any other security guard makes. If they make unreasonable requests, you will simply leave that location. (If it's a venue, leave, write the management company about how their new security made for a hostile environment and how you'll be encouraging friends not to return until better training or their replacement is arranged - if it's a subway entrance, walk the extra couple of blocks and, again, contact the transportation authority and government to tell them how you were happy to abide by legal requests but their overstepping should not be allowed.)
Politeness, walking away, then slowly burying the decision makers with the weight of the bad decisions usually works far better than shouting and screaming, overstepping in to something you can legitimately get arrested for, then just making their point for them.
Also... The more people politely passively resisting, the harder the abuses become to maintain. I just spent the last week flying. At every scanner, I requested a pat down and was very polite about it. I al
I'd rather my son know that I died for a reason than teach him to be a slave coward.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Find a lawyer. Get a suggestion from that lawyer. Reach an agreement with that lawyer to represent you should you be arrested during such a stop. (This will probably involve putting money into an escrow account equal to the charge of a few hours of his time - also called a "retainer".)
Research your local laws regarding police stops. (Also called "Terry stops".) In some states, you are under ZERO obligation to do anything unless they are explicitly detaining you, and in those locations, the simple first response is "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" If they say you are being detained, the second response would be "On suspicion of the violation of what law am I being detained?" The third response is "I will not consent to any searches, and will not answer any questions until I have an attorney present." Then you call the lawyer mentioned above. You go to booking, you get searched anyway, you answer *NO* questions that are asked.
Take direct legal advice given by random strangers on the internet with a grain of salt.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
There will always be someone who wants to take away your Rights.
The question is, to what extent are you willing to fight for your Rights?
Remember, our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that their signatures would be used to justify their execution if they lost the fight for their liberty.
What are we willing to risk to defend our Rights?
Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA
See links below. Discuss.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/constitutional-expert-president-obama-says-that-he-can-kill-you-on-his-own-discretion-he-can-jail-you-indefinitely-on-his-own-discretion.html
The moment the aforementioned bill was signed, we lost the few rights we still retained after the "Patriot" act.
So remember:
1) You're a terrorist if and when some unelected bureaucrat like a TSA inspector *suspects* you're a terrorist.
2) As a suspected terrorist, you can be detained indefinitely.
Leaving the country with your cash while you can is starting to look pretty good. If you are stopped, you'd be crazy to not comply with the request, but try not to belong to whatever party isn't in power at the time. At the moment, political affiliation isn't a reason for suspected terrorism, but how long do you think that will last?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
In the 1970s I used to hear stories like that from the Soviet-union and their friends.
Eastern-Europe immigrants who lived in the communist time might have experience in these matters ask them how best to avoid random searches.
Some states have a stop and identify law, which means that for a terry stop or higher, when asked you must truthfully tell the officer your name.
Note that this is only for Terry stops and above. An officer may walk up and simply ask that you identify yourself - in the same manner that any regular citizen could do so - and in this instance you are not required to answer. You are not required to interact in any way with a police officer acting in the manner of a regular citizen. To do this they need suspicion and have to escalate it to Terry status.
Note also that in no instance are you required to prove your identity. You need not "show your papers" to anyone.
The statute may be written in such a way that there are one or two other things that the officer may legally ask and that you must answer. New Hampshire, for example, allows the officer to ask your address, why you are there, and where you are going.
Massachusetts does not have such a law, and so you do not have to respond when asked. Period, end of story.
Many people will point out the difference between theory and practice, in that the police will simply disregard the rules and do it anyway and inconvenience you so-you-might-as-well-submit-andbeasheepandyoucantfightandsoonandsoon...
Be aware that a civil rights violation is a windfall in your favor. If you have good evidence, such as a video clearly showing what happened, you can get a court judgement of from tens of thousands to a couple of million dollars... if you are willing to press the issue. This will require some investment and a lot of inconvenience on your part - think of it as an investment of 10,000 dollars to make a potential million.
It all boils down to the strength of your ethics. There can be no ethics without courage. If everyone had the courage to press the issue, then the practice would stop very quickly.
As far as they are concerned, you have no rights.
Actually, you have three. With eternal thanks to The Clash
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Yes, but not this class. This specific class was titled "the History of the United States from the Revolutionary War to World War II."
Oops.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide
Not because you are going to turn in to an Internet Toughguy and go shoot at the agents or anything, but just to make their lives difficult and show the stupidity of what they are doing. Nothing makes a checkpoint for weapons worthless like someone who is in fact carrying weapons and doing so legally.
Where I live (Arizona) concealed carry is legal with or without a permit. I don't carry a gun because there's no real reason to, I find it unlikely I would find a situation where I would need to use it. However in the event the TSA starts doing that shit here, I'll start carrying any time I know I might encounter a checkpoint.
Now of course if you are going to do this do some prep work first:
1) Make sure you can legally carry a weapon, either concealed or openly, in your state and city. Laws vary. Make 110% sure you understand the law and you are properly licensed. Most states require a permit for concealed carry.
2) Make sure you can legally carry a weapon in the areas you will be going. Some places will be prohibited by statue, like here schools would be one of those places, others because the owners post a sign that say you can't have weapons. Only carry in an area that is legal. So if the subway is an area that doesn't allow weapons by statute or policy, then you can't do it.
3) Be ready to be arrested and have your gun taken away. If they do that, comply completely. Don't try and fight or something stupid. You'll WTFPWN them in court, but that is where you fight it.
If it is legal, and you are willing to start some trouble, then this is a way to do it and to point out the stupidity. Also, you will have people (like the NRA) on your side in the fight.
. I agree that outright fighting isn't the answer but begging isn't going to work either. I'd suggest impeachments
You really think you can get anyone impeached? Unless they are busted in a FBI corruption sting, I'd say your chances are about zero.
The reason why we are stuck with these idiots and petty tyrants leading us is because 70% of the population just doesn't give a fuck. They want their SUVs and big screen cable TV, and they don't give a damn if somebody passes a law that allows indefinite detention of 'Terrorists'.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Americans have lived through civil war, economic collapse, a surprise military attack on U.S. territory, dictators and world war on two fronts, and, for 50 years, the threat of nuclear Armageddon. Through all these threats, we mostly stayed true to our values and preserved our freedom. And when we didn’t, it didn’t make us safer and we always came to regret it.
The thing to do is to convince our Congressmen
those 'congressmen' do not give zit about what you think. so you cant 'convince' them either. they have been elected there by the monetary backing of private interest groups who are much richer than rest 95% of the population. only they have their ear.
you have 2 choices at this juncture :
- be richer than 5% or so of the population, that controls 72% of the wealth. (in contrast you have only 15% - so its impossible - there would be enough who made it that much up till this point if it would work)
- get rid of the economic system that allows tiny minority of population to command 70-80% of economic wealth.
- get rid of the current existing political system, in which only those who are extremely rich or have the backing of extremely rich can get elected.
Read radical news here
They are in all kinds of trouble if they say that. Refuse the search, let them arrest you, then lawsuit. Refusal of a search is NOT grounds for arrest, this has been tested in court.
A friend of mine in Eugene Or., ended up in a fray with a TSA agent. He has seizures. The result of a brain injury when he was a child (think car accident.) His seizures manifest by loud sometime ranting behavior. He's careful to explain to people not to take it personal or seriously, because he simply can't help it and it doesn't mean anything. While collecting his social security check, he had a dispute with a clerk, which escalated and was asked to go outside. There was a TSA agent in the area who overheard him yelling at the security guard. He explained his problem, what the clerk had done wrong, and why he was yelling.
The TSA agent determined he was a threat and proceeded to beat the ever living hell out of him. When my friend continued to try to explain, he was further charged with resisting and was ultimately charged with over half a dozen felony counts including assaulting a TSA agent. Of course the humorous part is that my friend is about five foot three, one hundred and fifteen pounds soaking wet and the TSA agent was over six foot and more than a hundred pounds heavier. All the while claiming my friend was threatening and menacing. It took two years to finally resolve this in court. It was a ridiculous trial and he escaped jail time by the skin of his teeth and though the agent clearly used excessive force, was never held responsible for his actions.
Our society is shifting in dark and unpleasant ways, and I fear that if the public at large doesn't do something soon, the window of opportunity to put things right may pass us by.
No, but moving around from place to place IS a right.
No one's freedom of movement is being restricted, only the methods that they use to move. Like was said above, the letter of the law is upheld even if the spirit is not.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Vote for Ron Paul. End the TSA
I don't agree with the majority of Ron Paul's policy, but let's say I agree with this one. Is there any evidence that Ron Paul, as President, would have the power to eliminate the TSA? The TSA was created by an act of the 107th Congress. Presumably it would take another act of Congress to repeal it. We have a sitting Congress right now that is majority Republican, and they're doing nothing. What is Ron Paul going to do about it, realistically?
Breakfast served all day!
no need to get into trouble
No kidding, the person posting the question seems to have his tinfoil wrapped too tightly. He has a laptop and a smartphone, like that is not an ordinary every day occurrence that draws no interest, except possibly from thieves. The roving teams most likely just want to look in his bag/pack. Nothing looks ilke a block of C4 with a detonator attached, thank you have a nice day.
You completely miss the point. The fourth amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that
The right of the people to be secure in their persons...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. [emphasis mine]
Warrantless street searches clearly violate the spirit and letter of the law.
What about public safety you ask? According to the US government, four times as many people die from lightning strikes every year than from terrorist activities.
By your logic, we should cover the country with a non-conductive dome.
Nature can't be controlled you say? Okay, how about this: the US government estimated that 730 US persons died as a result of terrorism. in 2007
They also report 17,100 murders in the US during the same year.
I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people who think that we should give up our Fourth amendment protections to stop all the murders. Why then, should we give them up to "fight terrorism."
In any case, I suggest you either grow a brain or stop trolling. Pretty please?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/09/oregon-muslim-on-us-no-fly-list-held-after-sailing-to-britain/1
While not exactly TSA related, more CBP related, there was a gentleman who was on the no fly list, who was in the US. Given he couldnt fly, he took a boat to get back home to europe. Sounds reasonable right? Well, he was removed from the cruise ship prior to the ship arriving in port. You can find more info on the identify projects webpage.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Here's an interesting letter allegedly written by an anonymous DHS lawyer. Summary: DHS knows that the VIPR searches are illegal, and that courts ultimately will not validate TSA's authority to conduct them.
So, if you're a protester-type interested in challenging the constitutionality of VIPR searches in the courts, here's a blueprint for you. If not, I'd just avoid the subway altogether.
The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
Like it or not, this is clearly a measure "provided for by law" and also "necessary to protect national security [and] public order". The fact that the measures are unlikely to actually be effective at protecting the public is unlikely to cause a court to rule them a violation.
Just earlier this week Slashdot ran a story to the effect that the government should never regulate technology, because they don't understand any of it. Well, more or less for the same reason, judges tend to give deference to the decisions of government bodies that are (theoretically) experts on the subject. The judge is going to take the word of the government agencies saying "we need to do this to increase security" because hey, they're the ones who spend all their time protecting the public.
As for the US cases you cite, I find nothing in Paul v. Virginia that's even related to this topic. And Corfield v Coryell is a district court ruling, which means it's not precedent. And it isn't in agreement with the actual precedent on the issue of the 14th Amendment (the Slaughterhouse cases) or the right to travel. Gilmore v Gonzales is the case most directly dealing with this issuek, and it's not a Supreme Court ruling but it is binding precedent for part of the country: You don't have the right to any one particular mode of transportation, even if it is far more convenient than any other.
If it were the only available mode of transportation, the constitutionality question would be very different. But in the particular case at issue, you can take a taxi, or a bicycle, or even simply walk.
I don't wish to leave my car, but I will comply with any lawful order you give me.
I love this. It's perfect because it is so clear, and also because it uses a term of art, which is a subtextual way of telling them look, asshole, I know my rights, and you know my rights, so let's do this one by the fucking book.
The same thing Obama did about Gitmo. Issue an executive order, get stonewalled by Congress, realize that being president isn't like being king, and give up.
i have edited and written articles on the VIPR teams, on various information gathering programs (FBI case files, etc), and so forth and so on.
these people running the national security state are essentially engaged in criminal activity. what do criminals fear most? the simple, objective reporting of basic facts about their activities, and the structure of their organizations.
and be very PUBLIC about WHY you're doing so ...then, watch - as their owner / operator / industry groups ...strong & hard - to bring REASON back
LOBBY the Gov't
into transport security.
Maybe they'll call for Evidence-Based decision-making:
Only where there's EVIDENCE that it's protectively more ...pick your cause)...
than BULLYING & / or HARASSING of (you name it:
beautiful women, minorities, the meek, other low-hanging-
fruit, etc.
only then... does it get to happen.
If not, transport users get to re-write the TSA rulebook BACK :-)
to the Happy Days of, say, the early 1960's or whenever.
Left to itself, the Gov't is sure to drag us - kicking & screaming
- into some Sci-Fi horror show... in which people live in fear
OF THE SECURITY TEAMS, rather than the "TERRORISTS"
who may come, if the Sec Teams aren't permitted to harass us!
How about Free Speech Zones?
They put you in a chain link fence box a couple of miles away from whatever it is you happen to be protesting, so politicians don't see anything that might upset them.
Got news for ya. We're in the declining days of our Republic. A lot of the great ideas the founding fathers had at the beginning are pretty much gone now.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I was entering the MBTA T station at Porter square about two weeks ago, and was accosted by a Massachusetts State Policeman. He politely told me that I was "selected" for a search.
me: "And what does this search entail?"
him: "We swab the outside of your bag and look for explosive residues".
me: "And if I decline?"
him: "You'll have to leave the station."
me: [looking up thru the skylights at the nice day outside]
me: "It's a beautiful day. Thank you officer, I think I'll walk."
him: "Have a nice day."
me: "You too."
..... and I turned, went up the escalators, and out of the station.
No problems, nobody followed me, shouted to me, nothing.
And no Gitmo team either.
I'd say, by demonstration and experiment, you can just decline
and walk out without any repercussions besides having to walk
to the next T station, which is usually about a 15 minute
walk away (worst case: catch a cab).
At least the supreme court has held that declining a search on
public property is not cause for arrest nor for a search.