Trip Report - SDF-DTW-AMS-BCN-MAD-JFK-CVG-SDF

Binyamin Dissen wrote:

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:48:37 +0000 (UTC) (Randy Hudson) wrote:

:In article ,
: Binyamin Dissen wrote:

: You have the choice to refuse the search and not fly.

:If you refuse the search, you will not be permitted to simply return to
:landside. You will be detained and questioned at the least.

And you can refuse to answer.

No probable cause for arrest.

How is refusing to answer probable cause for arrest?

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:44:03 GMT mrtravel wrote:

:Binyamin Dissen wrote:

: On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:48:37 +0000 (UTC) (Randy Hudson) wrote:

: :In article ,
: : Binyamin Dissen wrote:

: : You have the choice to refuse the search and not fly.

: :If you refuse the search, you will not be permitted to simply return to
: :landside. You will be detained and questioned at the least.

: And you can refuse to answer.

: No probable cause for arrest.

:How is refusing to answer probable cause for arrest?

It isn't. As I stated.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message ...
me wrote:

(The Bill Mattocks) wrote in message . com...
[snip]

The TSA is going to be out of business very soon. The law that forces
airports to use TSA services expires in 2004 (as I understand it) -
then they can choose to continue to use the TSA, or go with private
security. Unless the law is amended (which could happen, depends on
circumstances), I believe that most airports will dump the TSA - there
is no love lost there.

[snip]

The problem is liability. As long as TSA is there, you basically
can't hold the airlines or the airport authorities liable for anything.
It's why the airlines begged the gubberment to take it over in the
first place. I have no doubt that many airport authorities would
love to dump the TSA. However, unless they believe that they have
protection from risk, I'm finding it hard to believe that they will
dump them.

What risk? To the airlines it is the responsibility of the airport --
usually a part of city government. As a part of city government the
airport can't be sued without the permission of the city. It's possible
that the regional airports might not share the immunity but most
airports are city.


Can't say about "most" but the one I'm familar with is only marginally
under the city. They set up an operating authority and I'm not sure
exactly how well they are protected from suits.

mrtravel wrote:
And you can refuse to answer.

No probable cause for arrest.

How is refusing to answer probable cause for arrest?

You don't understand. In the USA, they don't need "probable cause for arrest"
anymore. Any suspicion is enough, especially at airports. And once in jail,
they can deny you basic stuff such as access to a phone to call a lawyer.

The irony is that the one terrorist they want to get is Ossama. I suspect Bush
Jr wants to keep his capture for his grand finale just a week or two before
the election to boost his popularity and chance for re-election.

Meanwhile, the police and authorities in the USA are told to be excessively
paranoid and vigilant and given rights to arrest everyone and anyone thet feel like.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:03:58 -0500 Phi Mosis wrote:

:mrtravel wrote:

: And you can refuse to answer.

: No probable cause for arrest.

: How is refusing to answer probable cause for arrest?

:You don't understand. In the USA, they don't need "probable cause for arrest"
:anymore. Any suspicion is enough, especially at airports. And once in jail,
:they can deny you basic stuff such as access to a phone to call a lawyer.

Not for a citizen.

[ remaining silly left wing propaganda snipped ]

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

"Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message
...

:You don't understand. In the USA, they don't need "probable cause for
arrest"
:anymore. Any suspicion is enough, especially at airports. And once in
jail,
:they can deny you basic stuff such as access to a phone to call a
lawyer.

Not for a citizen.

[ remaining silly left wing propaganda snipped ]

Ummmmmmm, yes, the OP is absolutely RIGHT. Suspicion is ALL it takes to
have each and every one of your civil rights STRIPPED from you . . . even if
you're a citizen.

Don't be so quick to jump and judge, you're obviously one of those Bush
minion drones who hasn't paid attention to a damn thing that wannabe
dictator has done to you while you were busy spending your extra rebate
check (read: bought and paid for vote in the next election) down at the
local walmart.

Binyamin Dissen wrote:

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:44:03 GMT mrtravel wrote:

:Binyamin Dissen wrote:

: On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:48:37 +0000 (UTC) (Randy Hudson) wrote:

: :In article ,
: : Binyamin Dissen wrote:

: : You have the choice to refuse the search and not fly.

: :If you refuse the search, you will not be permitted to simply return to
: :landside. You will be detained and questioned at the least.

: And you can refuse to answer.

: No probable cause for arrest.

:How is refusing to answer probable cause for arrest?

It isn't. As I stated.

My bad.... I read it as "No. probable cause for arrest"

None wrote:

Ummmmmmm, yes, the OP is absolutely RIGHT. Suspicion is ALL it takes to
have each and every one of your civil rights STRIPPED from you . . . even if
you're a citizen.

I think you misread the Patriot Act..
As bad as it is, it doesn't deny the legal protections, such as right to
consult with an attorney, etc to citizens. It does give the ability to
detain NON CITIZENS for up to 7 days in certain cases.

You're talking Pat I, what you need to read is Pat II - It will scare the
living **** out of you if you're a US Citizen. (It is so bad there are
actually cities passing their own local laws AGAINST the Patriot Act to
protect their own citizens).

Basically what is stated below is correct. Once fingered/accused/suspected
of terrorist activity, your civil rights are conveniently laid aside for as
long as it takes to investigate you, and that includes holding you without
ever being charged for as long as the government wants.

Please, I'm not trying to argue, just check it out, it really is frightening
what Bush/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld have done to U.S. Citizens' rights.


"mrtravel" wrote in message
news
None wrote:

Ummmmmmm, yes, the OP is absolutely RIGHT. Suspicion is ALL it takes to
have each and every one of your civil rights STRIPPED from you . . .
even if
you're a citizen.

I think you misread the Patriot Act..
As bad as it is, it doesn't deny the legal protections, such as right to
consult with an attorney, etc to citizens. It does give the ability to
detain NON CITIZENS for up to 7 days in certain cases.

None wrote:

You're talking Pat I, what you need to read is Pat II - It will scare the
living **** out of you if you're a US Citizen. (It is so bad there are
actually cities passing their own local laws AGAINST the Patriot Act to
protect their own citizens).

Can you post the link to the current Patriot II law that is now in
effect????