Just this past week in three separate incidents, our officers found the following prohibited items: (These are just a few of the many good catches from the past week)
Orlando (MCO): A man attempted to bring a bag containing 3 pistols through the checkpoint. The bag contained a .25-caliber and .40-caliber semiautomatic and a .357-caliber revolver. Also in the bag were loose ammo and a loaded magazine. Orlando police arrested the passenger who was later released from the Orange County Jail on a $2,500.00 bond.
Baltimore (BWI): Three throwing knives were found in a carry-on bag. There have been many “pointed” discussions about whether or not knives should be allowed on planes, but 3 throwing knives is a tad much… Police cited the passenger on a state charge.
Atlanta (ATL): Inert grenades found in checked baggage. (Read here, and here about all the inert grenades we find and why they’re a nuisance)
Maybe it’s just me, but when I travel I am cautious about what I pack or what is in my luggage. That’s apparently not the case for a lot of people out there. The number one reason is “I forgot that was in my bag.”
All of the items I mentioned above are common finds. Just over the weekend alone, we found 10 firearms across the nation.
This year alone, TSA Officers have found over 800 firearms in carry-on bags.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.
If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.
53 comments:
Keep up the good work!
Does TSA do any analysis of what strategies identified the most threats? I suppose the number of hits is perhaps so low that statistics would still be unreliable?
Maybe it’s just me, but when I travel I am cautious about what I pack or what is in my luggage.
----------------------------------
Maybe it's just me, but when I go to work, I don't steal from our customers.
Why do some TSO's?
I think these three reports would have much more meaning if you also provided some context for the people who tried to bring these items on a plane, especially the three handgun guy. Is this mostly a matter of someone rushing to pack for a trip and forgetting he hid his weapons from the kids in an old suitcase? Or is this someone who planned to cause problems on the plane? The $2500 bond suggests the former.
Bill, I'm sure we do, but I don't have that info handy. I don't shoot from the hip too often here on the blog, but I think it's pretty safe to say we find the majority of prohibited items via X-ray screening. Simply because in most cases, the passenger has forgotten that these items were in their bags and we screen the bags via X-ray.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
I am curious how efficient the screening process would be if all the "I forgots" were taken out of the equation. I forgot my gun, I forgot my knife, I forgot to empty my pockets, I forgot my bottle of water, I forgot my ID, I forgot my ammunition, I forgot my grenade. I know there seems to be a lot going on at the screening checkpoints and the perception is that the policies are the reason for the delays. I would argue these delays or stagnant chokepoints are being caused by the people in front of you that do not read or listen to policies and advisements. Next time you are in line take a look around at the other travelers that "forgot" all these things and waste the resources that efficiently process you and those who require alternative or additional screening through the checkpoint.
Anonymous said... Maybe it's just me, but when I go to work, I don't steal from our customers. Why do some TSO's? September 28, 2011 1:07 PM
--------------------------------
Not exactly sure why those who have done so were compelled...
Probably for the same reasons as others who have made the same choice in practically every occupation known.
We obviously don't condone theft and have zero tolerance for it.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
I have to agree with a previous comment in the fact that I'd like to have a bit more information over the character of the individuals/circumstances involved. Overall, I believe the TSA is doing a good job. It is a frightening thought to realize "this year alone, TSA Officers have found over 800 firearms in carry-on bags".
Blogger Bob, You stated that the TSA finds the majority of prohibited items by X-ray, "Simply because in most cases, the passenger has forgotten that these items were in their bags and we screen the bags via X-ray."
Glad to hear you say that the majority of prohibited items are caught do to an oversite by the passenger. For a second there, I thought the TSA may have actually found prohibited items in the posession of someone who intended to cause damage to the US transportation system. How many times have you found something in a passenger's underware because the passenger has forgotten that they have a prohibited item there?
The only thing this proves is that warentless searches will result in the detection of prohibited items. This does not prove that there was an improvement to the safety of the transportation system. Keep working as an unchecked arm of law enforcement that is not restricted by the fourth amendment.
Not Scared of Terrorists
Anonymous said... I think these three reports would have much more meaning if you also provided some context for the people who tried to bring these items on a plane, especially the three handgun guy. Is this mostly a matter of someone rushing to pack for a trip and forgetting he hid his weapons from the kids in an old suitcase? Or is this someone who planned to cause problems on the plane? The $2500 bond suggests the former. September 28, 2011 1:12 PM
------------------------
You just don't know. I'm sure most of them were accidents but that's not for us to decide.
After we find the firearms, we step back and law enforcement steps in and they decide if there was any malicious intent and whether or not there will be charges filed or arrests made.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
"We obviously don't condone theft and have zero tolerance for it."
You stand against theft, but are proud to support the generation of child pornography and sexually assaulting over 50,000 people each day.
You are correct that the TSA officers stole for the same reason anyone else would, they believed that they would not get caught. Perhaps their belief that they would not get caught is based on the fact that passengers are not allowed to question anything that happens at a checkpoint. I have had several items disapear from my checked luggage, and every time the TSA has simply denied that they are responsible and the matter is dropped. Forgive me if I believe the pollicies of the TSA create an environment where theft is made easy and oversight is lacking.
Can I fly with my pistol if I give it to a TSA officer?
What are the step in order to do it?
Thanks..
Olimpio
Bob,
Are you planning to respond to comments on a regular basis, or is this a short term thing?
Just to be clear, Bob, not a single one of these people was found to be attempting to harm any aircraft or its passengers, correct?
And these items were found by x-raying bags, one of the most passive and least invasive screening techniques there is?
And you've never found a gun thanks to your strip-search scanners or their attendant gropes, correct?
And none of these was detected using whole body scans.
Stop irradiating people with ionizing radiation in order to virtually strip-search them!
Blogger Bob said...
Anonymous said... Maybe it's just me, but when I go to work, I don't steal from our customers. Why do some TSO's? September 28, 2011 1:07 PM
--------------------------------
Not exactly sure why those who have done so were compelled...
Probably for the same reasons as others who have made the same choice in practically every occupation known.
We obviously don't condone theft and have zero tolerance for it.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
September 28, 2011 1:30 PM
.............
I'm not so sure that TSA does not condone thieves at least based on my experience at FLL and the lack of any action on the part of the FLL FSD.
Let me see...I just got caught trying to bring my weapon onboard an airplane and to hijack this thing or even worse and you are asking we why I have this gun.. “Well sir, I just forgot to take it out of my bag”. None of know how many of these people have nefarious intentions, it’s just good to know TSA kept them off the airplane!
How are the inert grenades a "good catch"?
Seems to be more of a waste of time.
ust over the weekend alone, we found 10 firearms across the nation.
This year alone, TSA Officers have found over 800 firearms in carry-on bags.
The real question isn't how many innocently forgotten weapons you've discovered... it's how many you've missed.
Go to Google or Bing and type in 'TSA missed weapon'. The results will surprise you.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20023820-71.html
"Mythbusters' Savage: I got past TSA with razor blades"
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/loaded-gun-slips-past-tsa-screeners/story?id=12412458
""It's just impossible to miss it, you know. I mean, this is not a small gun," Seif told ABC News. "How can you miss it? You cannot miss it."
But the TSA did miss it, and despite what most people believe about the painstaking effort to screen airline passengers and their luggage before they enter the terminal, it was not that unusual. "
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/dec/tsa-misses-guns-bombs-tests
"...airport security screeners missed hundreds of fake bombs during tests at three major airports. In those runs, TSA agents in Los Angeles, among the world’s busiest airports, missed 75% of the bogus bombs and screeners at O’Hare missed 60%."
And my personal favorite:
On the 10th anniversary of 9/11- the day when hijackers armed with blades caused one of the worst terrorist incidents in the US- the TSA misses a knife in the bag of a passenger at a New York City airport.
(http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/tsa_misses_knife_in_passenger_luggage_DHAqwDkno9JMO1hOdWPG6L?utm_campaign=Post10&utm_source=Post10Alpha)
I think the point is made, but I can post dozens more if you really want.
I repeat- It's not how many forgotten guns, knives, or even fish you find, it's how many you don't find that's important.
What is the success rate at finding guns, bombs, etc? The last number published was about 30% (70% failure). Has the TSA improved? That would be something to trumpet.
If it hasn't improved, that means that if you found 800 guns, over 1800 guns flew. Thankfully they weren't used in any hijackings.
Stop the war on liquids, stop the shoe dance, stop looking for drugs, stop looking for money, concentrate on keeping guns and bombs off the airplanes! Improve your rate of detecting guns and bombs and LET US KNOW!
I'm sure everyone on here who is critical of the TSA would applaud you if you got the rate up to 99%. Most would applaud you if you got it up to 80%. Keep the success rate at 30% and you get an F, just like you would in school.
For those of us who work, the only way that we're going to get TSA in line is to tell our employer that we believe the searches by TSA violate our 4th amendment rights. Then, if we're fired, suspended, et al., we can bring lawsuit and have the SCOTUS decide the matter. The Sole Organ doctrine does not apply here, yet it is what DHS & TSA use to justify their decision to strip search passengers.
IF you go through the "strip search" machine, and the TSA agent sees something in the area of your foot, why does the TSA agent then grope your groin and (as the draft Texas law attempted to illuminate) "fondle your anus" to find something near your foot?
TSA takes HS/GED graduates and empowers them to run roughshod over people exercising their freedoms. Where is the ACLU? Why hasn't the ACLU stepped forward demanding the courts address this matter? I guess they'd rather complain about renditions and GTMO detainees who want to kill us (remember that one prisioner who was released from GTMO was killed in Afghanistan not too long ago because he was #2 in the mix over there).
I would assume that these people didn't but these items just before the security checkpoint. They transported them in their cars and walked through the airport with them up to the check point. Why do they suddenly become more dangerous on the other side of the check point?
Every day when walking down the street you are probably walking past people with knives or guns on them. Are you afraid to leave your house?
I don't understand why some people are so paranoid about airplanes. Risks that are ignored the majority of the time suddenly become huge because it's in an airport.
its a natural reaction to try and downplay an event when a person is caught in the wrong, as any police officer and they hear the same excuses. just because the person doesnt know an item is in their bag doesnt mean that their couldnt be bad intent. perhaps if an educated terrorist know the system and saw that certain individuals werent payiing that much attention that they could place an item in another persons bag to try and get it through. then if that person was to get it through they could get it back on the other side of security. however if they are caught then the 'mule' would be the one that is caught and wouldnt know anything about the item. if screening of children and the elderly were to get more lax then this would be a perfect way for someone to attempt to get something through. remember the old days when you were asked if anyone had given yu anything to take with you or if your bags wwere out of your possension for a period of time? this was an easy way for someone to make this happen.
I can see the value in analyzing these "good catch" situations as a learning tool for both the TSA insiders and the flying public.
What I'd like to see is some analysis of the converse scenario -- the "bad catch" and "questionable catch" situations.
This blog is laden with stories of items that were wrongly prohibited (Mr. Gel Pack's tale, plus others revolving around breast milk and infant formula, for example).
There are also stories of items prohibited where the TSA's actions were questionable at best. Consider the recent tale if the prohibited screwdriver bits -- the passenger couldn't keep them because they "could potentially be used as projectiles." Get real -- the battery out of my MP3 player could be used as a projectile. I can throw a hard cover book hard enough to do way more damage than a screwdriver bit.
If the TSA directly acknowledged these sorts of mistakes and the corrective actions taken, that would a positive step with respect to credibility.
Mark
qui custodiet ipsos custodes
The issue I see here is that these items were cdetected using the x-ray scanners that have been used for many years. The new, more invasive scans and patdowns weren't used. I've also read that pleated cltohing and hair cause problems for the new scanners.
I just came across the following story: http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/police-take-medical-marijuana-from-calif-cancer-patient
The article says the TSA screener discovered medical marijuana in a passenger's luggage. The woman had a the proper paperwork for it for her state, but not Indiana. Why does the TSA care that she was carrying it? How does this affect aviation security? The police seemed to use some common sense and didn't arrest her. It seems like the TSA could be used to circumvent the 4th amendment. I'm not seeing how a prescribed drug is a threat to aviation.
Bob writes: Maybe it’s just me, but when I travel I am cautious about what I pack or what is in my luggage.
Maybe it's just me, but when someone makes a mistake, I don't make judgments about their lifestyle.
People make mistakes, even with dangerous items. Anyone who has ever handled a firearm can tell you numerous stories about discovering an unloaded weapon was actually loaded, even though they routinely unload their weapons after use all the time. I have no difficulty in seeing how someone could routinely check their bags to remove all weapons and miss one.
Hanlon's Law states: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I'm glad TSA found these items. But what do you think was more likely: that these passengers intended to cause mischief aboard an aircraft, or that they simply forgot the items were in their bags? I tend to think it's the latter --- and, consequently, I'd ease up a bit about the self-congratulatory tone here.
Otherwise, just for fairness, we can start a discussion about all the times that TSA fails to detect a gun in a passenger's bags ...
Hey Bob, you forgot one.
A Montana woman was caught trying to board a flight in Albany, NY with a handgun.
Maybe you "forgot" to include this one, because TSA missed the handgun when she flew from Montana to Albany
As a retired LEO, I am perplexed by the number of folks who can't remember that their guns are in their bags.
I think that it's about time for TSA to start levying some fines regarding this. In my opinion, anyone who "forgets" where their weapon is should have it confiscated by the TSA or local LEO, and have it held back until the owner shows proof that they have attended a certified gun safety course. Upon presentation of the certificate, they should then be fined an appropriate amount (maybe $100 for each occurrance) and then the gun can be released to them.
If they start having to pay and give up their time to have to attend classes, maybe they will start to "remember" where they left it. Something similar can be done with knives, but since I am not aware of any "knife safety course", maybe just confiscation and a fine. If you hit people where it hurts ($$), they might start paying attentention.
Anonymous said...
"I'm sure everyone on here who is critical of the TSA would applaud you if you got the rate up to 99%."
No we wouldn't, don't try to speak for everyone.
Even if they were 100% effective at keeping weapons off planes I would still object. It still wouldn't be making me any safer and it would still be a violation of my rights.
TSA official Lorie Dankers said Quayle's story about getting the gun through Gallatin Field Security is "pure speculation." She said, at this point, TSA has no concrete evidence that the gun came from Montana, so they are not doing anything to investigate until they see evidence that Quayle did bring it through security.
http://www.kbzk.com/news/tsa-not-investigating-woman-s-claim-that-she-got-loaded-handgun-through-gallatin-field-security/
Bob, is this true?
"...so they are not doing anything to investigate until they see evidence that Quayle did bring it through security."
----------------------------------
So the TSA doesn't look for evidence and then says "See, there isn't any evidence".
In response to the coment started as shown below.
"As a retired LEO, I am perplexed by the number of folks who can't remember that their guns are in their bags."
You may be perplexed by peoples forgetfullness, but I am perplexed by you proposed solution. You want to give the TSA direct athourity to issue fines and confiscate prohibited items. I would be OK with this if the searches were in accordance with the fourth amendment, and the person accused would be given the oportunity to face their accuser and have their case tried in a court of law. Your proposed solution would not allow for any protection against false accusations and would alow the issue of fines and penelties without due process.
The fact that you are a retired LEO makes your disreguard of due process appaling to me. What laws did you feel were worth upholding, and which others did you disreguard because the hindered you?
Not Scared of Terrorists
There is another aspect to this whole issue of airport security. When I go to the airport and pass through a TSA security checkpoint, I have already paid hundreds of dollars--or more--for my airline travel arrangements. I don't care for the treatment meted out by TSA screeners to someone who has dished out hundreds--or perhaps a thousand or more--of hard-earned dollars.
I can think of no other situation in which an individual pays so much money to be subjected to such treatment. I KNOW who I am, and I am not a terrorist. I don't want my pocket knife confiscated, I don't want a bottle of water confiscated, and I don't want to be scanned, patted down or wanded.
All these anecdotes about guns, knives & other weapons that get through TSA checkpoints--yet no incidents are reported on airplanes--tells us that all of this hand-wringing and angst about weapons just does not apply to the average American flying on commercial airliners.
Some people may find this hard to accept, but many Americans have NO problem with handguns--loaded or not. Many Americans have dealt with & handled guns most of their lives, beginning when they were children.
I had a $32 pocket knife confiscated by the TSA at SFO. I was not and am not a happy camper over that incident. By the way, I'd flown on flights several times with that same knife in my pocket or in a carryon bag before TSA at SFO determined that it couldn't go on board.
I want my thirty-two effing dollars reimbursed by TSA--as far as I'm concerned the government has no right to simply take personal property without compensation. There is a term for that, and most people go to jail for committing it.
The TSA is supposedly the price we have to pay--that ALL Americans have to pay--for the success for foreign jihadist Muslim terrorists in hijacking 4 airliners on 9.11. I continue to disagree that such price has to be paid. Every TSA pat-down and scan is symbolic of the massive, spectacular success of the jihadist horrors of 9.11, and the terrorist victory is extended by TSA every day.
Does TSA make any attempt to determine if the person who forgot the gun was in their bag presented an actual threat, or is the thought of injecting any intelligence at all into the process just too much to handle?
Stan, I may not be a TSA employee, but I can see why the TSA doesn't even try to assess the danger of the gun owner. It's simple - objectivity.
When you let people make decisions, they will use their training, but there are cases that some will catch and some will not, and that's a risk the TSA is not willing to take.
Therefore, all threats, whether guns in baggage or talking about bombs in airports are taken seriously, regardless of the person, his/her name, and the TSA worker's assessment of how dangerous the person is.
Nadav
TSA,
These blogs which highlight "how the TSA did what they are supposed to do" are just the latest examples of government bureaucrats wanting acclamation for doing their jobs. Ask the breast cancer survivor who was recently accousted at JFK if she thinks the TSA workforce is well trained? My guess would be NO!
[[Does TSA do any analysis of what strategies identified the most threats?]]
Yes, they do, and it was reported a week and a half ago in the popular press what that is: profiling is 10x more effective in finding actual threats and dangers than the random and universal nonsense they've been throwing around for almost 10 years.
...this was DHS who said it, by the way.
So when "blobber bog" says otherwise, he's doing some strenuous CYA.
...and when he says they find the majority ... he's flat-out lying.
[[We obviously don't condone theft and have zero tolerance for it.]]
And when blobber bog says this he's deliberately missing the point. It is actually TSA policy to steal from passengers. Billions of items are stolen annually, most of it of nominal value, but combined worth billions of dollars; they justify it by calling it "security". There are bins in every checkpoint line containing stolen items - none of it dangerous.
What they are not allowed to do is steal it and KEEP IT.
[[Where is the ACLU? Why hasn't the ACLU stepped forward demanding the courts address this matter?]]
Frankly, and cynically, because the ACLU is far too busy representing the NON-Americans captured in foreign combat against the "oppression" of the US exercising its sovereign authorities under International Law.
The ACLU believes, as do many soft-skulled Americans, that US civil rights extend to everywhere on the planet that Americans deal with. That is not so - and honestly, it's what got us into this mess in the first place: US arrogance in world affairs, pushing our beliefs and ideals onto others.
US civil rights apply only to Americans ... IN America. Not Americans in Italy ... not Yemenis in America ... not Pakistanis captured by Americans in Afghanistan.
Americans. In. America. Period.
And we can start with the 4thAM in US airports. If you want to inspect us, TSA, find Probable Cause and use it to get a warrant.
.
And since I cannot comment with "Name/URL", I'll sign as if I am anyway:
rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/
"Frankly, and cynically, because the ACLU is far too busy representing the NON-Americans captured in foreign combat against the "oppression" of the US exercising its sovereign authorities under International Law."
That is not frank or cynical. It is bigoted, xenophobic nonsense.
[[That is not frank or cynical. It is bigoted, xenophobic nonsense.]]
Your objection to reality is noted.
rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/
"Your objection to reality is noted."
My objection is to your claim.
Can you provide references backing your claim that the "ACLU is far too busy representing the NON-Americans captured in foreign combat".
Or do feel that ANY investigation of Americans by the ACLU that benefits any foreigner makes them "too busy"?
[[My objection is to your claim.]]
Like I said: you have an issue with reality.
[[Can you provide references backing your claim that the "ACLU is far too busy representing the NON-Americans captured in foreign combat".]]
Do you not pay attention?
Number of ACLU representations of 4thAM-denied Americans at US government airport checkpoints: zero.
Number of ACLU representations of foreign combatants objecting to the US exercising sovereign authority under IntLaw: >zero.
Do the math.
[[do feel that ANY investigation of Americans by the ACLU that benefits any foreigner makes them "too busy"?]]
US civil rights exist for Americans, not foreigners. I realize that many people disagree, but that can't really be helped. If they are okay being wrong, then I'm okay saying so.
Read the Constitution sometime. "We the People of the United States of America". NOT "We the People who may happen to wander through".
Now, EVEN IF you propose an argument that US civil rights are justifiably applied to foreigners in our country - with permission - and behaving themselves - that does not apply to those captured in foreign combat under the auspices of the IntLaw governing war, which very specifically denies those captured combatants legal representation and makes them subject to the capturing nation's military law.
In any event, when there are AMERICANS being subjected to very obvious excessive government, any agency which advertises itself as the wathdog of American rights for Americans and which does not jump at the chance to represent an American subjected to his own excessive government but which can somehow find time to represent a foreigner ... is not fulfilling their stated purpose and philosophy.
Now, son, do YOU believe that foreigners deserve more US civil rights than US citizens?
rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/
"Now, son..."
Amusing. You are not my father. What was your intention there? Was that intended to be patronizing or denigrating?
I guess a flip response and tossing around unsupported numbers was easier than responding with actual references.
"Number of ACLU representations of 4thAM-denied Americans at US government airport checkpoints: zero."
That is not true.
You don't count the ACLUs work over the no fly list? You are only looking at 4th amendment cases?
The case that immediately comes to mind is Bierfeldt. In this case the ACLU and Bierfeldt caused the TSA to change their screenings.
And what about Nick George?
Anonymous said...
I am curious how efficient the screening process would be if all the "I forgots" were taken out of the equation. I forgot my gun, I forgot my knife, I forgot to empty my pockets, I forgot my bottle of water, I forgot my ID, I forgot my ammunition, I forgot my grenade. I know there seems to be a lot going on at the screening checkpoints and the perception is that the policies are the reason for the delays. I would argue these delays or stagnant chokepoints are being caused by the people in front of you that do not read or listen to policies and advisements. Next time you are in line take a look around at the other travelers that "forgot" all these things and waste the resources that efficiently process you and those who require alternative or additional screening through the checkpoint.
September 28, 2011 1
*****************
this point is perfect and I also want to add that AT LEAST 4 times a day I'll have people come thru the metal detector telling me after they've alarmed 5 or 6 times
(and yes their holding up the line)
"oh my gosh i forgot i have a knee replacement!!" and then it takes a minute to get a female available or male cuz at our airport were a little understaffed to pat them down
Another thing I get prolly 15 to 20 times a day is "oh i knew that water was in there but i figuered id just leave it and have you guys throw it away"
YES PEOPLE DO THESE THINGS!!!!!!!!
so next time you want to try to blame TSA for long waits and things of that sorts look around you and evesdrop on the people getting their bags checked i guarentee youll see these same things happening
[[Amusing. You are not my father.]]
But you are avoiding the question.
Do you believe that foreigners deserve more US civil rights than US citizens do?
It's a yes/no question, but I'll accept an essay.
[[You don't count the ACLUs work over the no fly list?]]
On whose behalf? Who is on the No Fly that the ACLU is working over it?
While I'm certain there are Americans on it, I'm leery that Americans are the cause, in whole or in substantial part, of ACLU outrage over it. And what's more, I believe so are you leery.
[[You are only looking at 4th amendment cases?]]
The 4thAM is what's at issue here. So ... yes.
[[In this case the ACLU and Bierfeldt caused the TSA to change their screenings.]]
You don't get it, do you.
Screenings AT ALL is the issue.
The 4thAM doesn't stutter. You want to search, get a warrant. Don't simply search in a different way. There is no "except for 'administrative' search" exception; there is no "unless too many Americans are wetting their panties in fright" exclusion. "Reasonable search" is tied to the existence of a warrant citing probable cause.
Any search, for any reason, without it is - by the definition in the Constitution - unreasonable.
And the folks who claim to organizationally uphold the Constitution through annoying litigation until the US Government cries 'Uncle' need to start doing what they say they do.
[[And what about Nick George?]]
What about him? Did he, or his case, get the TSA to suddenly start following the Constitution as written?
I'm going to cut to the chase here and assume 'no'.
Now, if the ACLU is currently pushing a case through the system built around a "You gotsta follow the 4thAM as written so start getting warrants for US citizens" then:
1] I'm unaware of it even after having asked the ACLU periodically, and
2] I'll apologize for saying they aren't doing so. I will gladly admit to being incorrect.
But I doubt that's the case.
I stopped donating to the ACLU some years ago when they started defending the A part of the CL thing for foreign combatants, and when they asked why I told them. Periodically they ask me again, and they haven't yet told me about a case they're working that would prioritize our 4thAM at airports, drugstores, or on our city streets.
But they haven't contacted me in a while; things may have changed.
Did they?
rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/
jim huggins said:
"Maybe it's just me, but when someone makes a mistake, I don't make judgments about their lifestyle."
actually its done to tso people on here on an hourly basis. look at the previous posts on this thread... why is it ok for a person to "forget" their gun in their bag but its not ok for a tsa person to make a mistake? after all both are human correct? its funny that everything is so very much one sided on here.
"I stopped donating to the ACLU some years ago when they started defending the A part of the CL thing for foreign combatants"
I know you brand yourself as some sort of expert uber-contractor-consultant but could you please translate "the A part of the CL thing for foreign combatants" into English? Thank you.
I know it is popular among some to say, without any truth in it, that the ACLU has not taken on TSA issues.
You seem to be obsessed and troubled by the ACLU doing something that benefited people who were not Americans. But you have so far, despite repeated requests, failed to explain what specific ACLU actions you are troubled by.
I will ask again. Please explain what specific actions of the UCLA have you so incensed. Thanks in advance for an actual, specific answer.
"On whose behalf? Who is on the No Fly that the ACLU is working over it?"
You have falsely claimed that the ACLU has not taken up TSA issues regarding Americans. You have falsely claimed that the ACLU's actions are only benefiting people who are not Americans. Your views are not based on facts. As previously stated: your false statements are bigoted and xenophobic. It is not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you on this matter.
[[could you please translate "the A part of the CL thing for foreign combatants" into English?]]
"American" ... "Civil Liberties"
Seriously, it wasn't that difficult.
[[But you have so far, despite repeated requests, failed to explain what specific ACLU actions you are troubled by]]
The ACLU is the pro bono legal representation for a number of detainees currently held at Gitmo - as you well know - and they are consulting with the hired attorneys of many others ... also as you well know.
I mentioned this before - as you well know - which means that your continued harping on the matter is due to either you being unable or unwilling to read, or you playing anti-intellectual games. Neither puts you on very good terms, frankly; it paints you as dishonest.
[[Thanks in advance for an actual, specific answer.]]
It's the third time, hopefully this time it sinks in and you'll stop being a putz; now - for also the third time - do you believe foreigners deserve more US civil rights than Americans?
rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/
[[You have falsely claimed that the ACLU has not taken up TSA issues regarding Americans.]]
Incorrect. I said I wasn't aware of any that pushed 4thAM rights. And I still don't. I'm dearly wishing to be proven wrong rather than called names by someone who has no clue how to construct an argument.
[[You have falsely claimed that the ACLU's actions are only benefiting people who are not Americans.]]
Incorrect. I never said "only". I said that they are defending the CL of non-A rather than defending the CL of A who fly.
[[your false statements are bigoted and xenophobic]]
If I make false statements that are bigoted and xenophobic then you'll be right.
None of the statements I've made here, though, are false, and none are bigoted, and certainly none are xenophobic.
Now, if you wish to demonstrate that any of my statements are false, then look up Hamdan and see who it was that represented it before the USSC. That's right: ACLU.
You could also read the US Constitution and tell me where it says "We the People who happen to wander through, in order to form a more perfect squatting zone ...". I think you'll find it doesn't; it defines the government and the rights for the people of the United States. Now you may think it's bigoted and xenophobic to not give everyone on the planet the same rights and government we have; you're entitled to that opinion - as presumptuous and self-righteous as it may be.
But I will just remind you that the concept of International Law, and the separations of national sovereignty it requires, frowns very very very very heavily on what you are suggesting. We have no more authority in the US to impose our "rights" onto citizens of other countries than other countries have to foist their "rights" onto us. It tends to get seen as a form of imperialistic hegemony.
And I will again remind you that among the reasons most cited for 9-11 in the first place and the subsequent cause for the creation of TSA is because the US has a superpower's tendency to do exactly that; certain of the foreign people we did it to took offense to it.
[[It is not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you on this matter.]]
I'd agree, but for a wholly different reason than the one you allude to. Mine would be that those who would seek to dispute me are incapable of doing what they demand of me, and are enamored of unsubstantiated slander. You should probably stop demanding that I answer the same question over and over and over again while calling me a bigoted xenophobe, and start answering the questions I've asked YOU multiple times.
Now, once again, kids, since the 4thAM **IS** the issue with TSA and airports, find me the ACLU pushing a 4thAM case against the TSA. If you can't, then it would seem that my concern is accurate enough to justify my criticism of them: they are more interested in defending foreign combatants' non-existent US civil rights than they are defending the civil rights of Americans doing nothing more heinous than trying to visit Grandma for thanksgiving.
rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/
"None of the statements I've made here, though, are false,"
"I said I wasn't aware of any that pushed 4thAM rights. And I still don't."
You have chosen to ignore the ACLU's work on Bierfeldt v. Napolitano. Even after it was pointed out to you.
You continue to ignore the case and continue to make false statements about the ACLU, the TSA and 4th amendment rights.
Matching with everyone's demand about those three guy, I would also be pleased if you could give some statements from them. I would like to know in what circumstances they were compelled to carry those. Or did they carry casually? I am very curious to know it.
Post a Comment