TSA fining passengers with "attitude"

Sean Elkins writes:

Was it creeping facism during WWII when we posted armed guards at the
ends of railroad bridges?

Yes.

Get your heads out of the sand! There are people who want to destroy
us!

I agree. We have to stop electing such people!

Nicey nicey talk and holding hands isn't going to keep them away.

Voting will.

How come it was OK when Bill Clinton asserted that average Americans
would have to give up a few rights after the OK City bombing?

Was it?

There was no outcry then.

It was a drop in the bucket compared to the current steamrollering of
civil liberties.

Along comes a Republican, however, and suddenly the
Nazis are goosestepping down main street?

The problem is having the wrong person as President; his political
affiliation is irrelevant.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Clare Sleeter writes:

I discovered recently that you can only carry two disposable lighters that
are not in checked luggage. It seems I had three. Two located in the
bottom of my purse and one somewhere in the carry on. One was confiscated.
I wonder what my fine will be?

That depends on your attitude. Did you assume the position in front of
the screener as required? Did you lick his boots? Did you salute her
hat?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Clare Sleeter" wrote in message
...
I discovered recently that you can only carry two disposable lighters that
are not in checked luggage. It seems I had three. Two located in the
bottom of my purse and one somewhere in the carry on. One was confiscated.
I wonder what my fine will be?

I'd be surprised if anything came of it. I had a disposable lighter
confiscated a few months ago claiming I was only allowed one.

If I were to get a fine over something petty such as a disposable lighter,
I'd tell the TSA to go stuff it up their ass and not pay it.

Cheers,

Steve

Sean Elkins wrote:

In article 3VRZb.24$ta.0@newsfe1-win, "Eryk" wrote:

I would be willing to agree except for the blatantly obvious fact that
the federal government hasn't passed more than a handful of laws in the
past 70 years that would pass strict constitutional scrutiny or the
"original intent of the framers" test.

So, just forget about the irritating documents entirely and let the
government do whatever the hell it likes without any protest? USSR tried
that ...look what it got them.

Nope. Insist on strict adherence to it. I wouldn't mind seeing recent
"facist" regulations repealed if the equally offending "socialist"
precursors were canned as well. It just always seems that the only
parts of the constitution that are being upheld are those that result
in the greater redistribution of income and not those that defend
individual rights.

You can't scare a person who is prepared to die anyway with weapons and you
can't kill everyone 'just in case' ...the 'ultimate weapon' has always been
soldiers who don't care if they get killed ...or even aspire to it. Do you
imagine TSA metal detectors serve any useful purpose? Of course they don't.
Innocent people accidentally carry knives onto aircraft whereas professional
terrorists know perfectly well that equally lethal cutting instruments can
be fashioned out of high tensile glass or ceramic. Even a broken beer bottle
would be equal in lethality to the weapons the 9/11 hijackers used. TSA is
however a useful tool for getting people used to having their remaining
rights abridged as a precursor to random stop/search, search of houses
without a warrant, routine random wire tapping and the rest.

Eryk



I don't totally agree-- the metal detectors and especially the new body
mappig radar (or whatever it is) do indeed make the terrorists make a
greater effort or make them resort to less effective weapons. If there
were no metal detectors at all then I would bring a Glock onto every
flight. Not to hijack the plane, but to fight back just in case someone
else tried to. So in that sense they are already keeping weapons off of
the planes.

I do agree in principle with your argument that oppressive rules have
the effect of making the people more compliant. I do, however, think
that air travel is not a constitutionally protected right any more than
driving a car is, and if you want to use the service then you have to
be willing to follow the rules whether you like them or not.

Your mention of the second amandment is a good one---it says in the
constitution very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms is not
to be infringed and we have let the Schumers and Kennedys take it away
piece by piece.

Of course what it says is that you can join the National Guard and go to
Iraq. FFM

We don't really agree on much, but I do appreciate the logic of your
arguments.

Exactly what I'd do---let's see them try & collect, especiallty if there
are no assets to seize or tax refund(when a person always owes, heh)to take.


Steve wrote in message newsYc_b.244632$U%I
was only allowed one.

If I were to get a fine over something petty such as a disposable lighter,
I'd tell the TSA to go stuff it up their ass and not pay it.

Cheers,

Steve

Sean,

Nope. Insist on strict adherence to it. I wouldn't mind seeing recent
"facist" regulations repealed if the equally offending "socialist"
precursors were canned as well. It just always seems that the only
parts of the constitution that are being upheld are those that result
in the greater redistribution of income and not those that defend
individual rights.

I could agree with that subject to the caveat that internment without trial
or legal representation is more serious matter (IMO) than income tax rates
etc. Stealing a person's physical freedom is a more egregious crime than
stealing their money.

I don't totally agree-- the metal detectors and especially the new body
mappig radar (or whatever it is) do indeed make the terrorists make a
greater effort or make them resort to less effective weapons.

True, but the fact remains that the TSA was supposedly created to prevent a
repeat of 9/11 and 9/11 was not carried out by men with Glocks or AK47s. The
weapons the hijackers used were simple blades which, although 'metal' in the
case of 9/11, can easily be fashioned out of other substances.

The issue is therefore preventing a person carrying a bladed weapon onto an
aircraft and whether the procedures of the TSA are designed to prevent this.
Clearly they are not. A 6 inch knife made from high tensile composite
ceramic and strapped to the inside of the thigh would not be detected by
standard TSA screening procedures. Ergo there is either stupidity or
mendacity at the heart of the TSA and the facts are *so* obvious that I tend
towards the latter explanation.

I do agree in principle with your argument that oppressive rules have
the effect of making the people more compliant. I do, however, think
that air travel is not a constitutionally protected right any more than
driving a car is, and if you want to use the service then you have to
be willing to follow the rules whether you like them or not.

If the airline implemented such rules then I would be able to agree with you
but since they are federally mandated I cannot. I agree that air travel is
not a specific constitutional right, just as driving a car is not ...however
the same can be said about walking, skateboarding or any other means of
transportation. If you deprive people of the only practical means of
transportation to a destination then you are abridging: "...or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble,...".

This, again, is an old USSR trick. Many people were 'technically' free to go
wherever they wanted to but were de facto prisoners in a given city because
they didn't have access to practical transportation options ...walking from
Siberia to Moscow is no more practical than walking from Chicago to Miami.
Maintaining rights de jure while systematically abridging them de facto
makes a nonsense of the entire purpose of a constitution.

Your mention of the second amandment is a good one---it says in the
constitution very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms is not
to be infringed and we have let the Schumers and Kennedys take it away
piece by piece.

So you are consequently quite relaxed about the first and fourth amendments
being dismantled as well? I think not. Restoration of rights abridged in the
past is a valid but distinct topic. First the rot has to be stopped ...then
consideration can be given to repairing past damage.

Eryk


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 21/02/2004

"flyer" wrote in message
...
Banned items in luggage bring TSA fines
By Laura Parker
USA TODAY



''Attitude'' is listed among the ''aggravating factors'' that can
result in a fine. Other criteria include the type of item, evidence of
a passenger's intent and history of previous violations. Civil
penalties now range from $250 to $10,000.


They are taking a hint from Brazil, who has arrested and fined US passengers
for "attitude".

"Padraig Breathnach" wrote in message
...
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:

Sean Elkins wrote:
(Irwell) wrote:
Roll on November when JFK MkII is elected President.

How someone could propose the country would be better off in a post-911
world with a soft on defense candidate like Kerry never ceases to amaze
me.

Some people have realized that terrorism is not solved with tanks (George
Bush and Vladimir Putin not among them).

One has to admire the courage, or recklessness, or foolhardiness, of
our Miguel: he draws a parallel between Bush and Putin.

In terms of dealing with terrorism, there are plenty of parallel between
Bush and Putin's approach. Neither of which seems to be effective. It just
take a certain amount of intelligence to see the parallel, no courage or
recklessness or foolhardiness needed.


Will he survive the attack of the enraged whaddyawannacallems?

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

"George Greene" wrote in message
...
Exactly what I'd do---let's see them try & collect, especiallty if there
are no assets to seize or tax refund(when a person always owes, heh)to
take.

I'm not so sure the TSA even has the legal authority to collect these
"fines", let alone to force payment via garnishment, attachment, liens, etc.
Perhaps there is some vague language / wording in the authority given to
them, but as far as I'm concerned, any actions the TSA takes should be done
through our *civilian* civil or criminal court systems at the state or
federal level -- *not* a hearing in front of a Coast Guard (military) judge.
With the TSA "fine" setup, they're the ones imposing the fines, collecting
the fines, as well as judge & jury. I doubt anyone would get a fair hearing
in front of a Coast Guard judge, IMHO.

This crap with fines sounds like a money making scheme they've developed to
waste more money. In the event of a "violation" that warrants attention, it
should be dealt with by proper law enforcement (not TSA goons) & criminal
charges should be filed.

Best,

Steve

Steve wrote:
anyone would get a fair hearing
in front of a Coast Guard judge, IMHO.

This crap with fines sounds like a money making scheme they've developed to
waste more money. In the event of a "violation" that warrants attention, it
should be dealt with by proper law enforcement (not TSA goons) & criminal
charges should be filed.

There should be (and are) penalties for people bring restricted items to
security. Would you like to see them all go to jail and be subject to
financial criminal penalties? I think the fines are a great way to get
people to stop bringing this stuff. It slows everyone down while TSA has
to go through the process of digging through the bag to get the item.