Ron Paul Supporter Detained By TSA For Carrying Cash?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Law, Missouri, Money, Ron Paul, Video

A truly dumb move by St. Louis airport employees is recorded and shared here by Fox News…



Is Missouri’s militia/Ron Paul tie still in full effect?

One note, the commentator in the middle who tries to tie this to Obama’s economic policies at the very end was a truly hacky move. He didn’t need to go there, but there it is nonetheless.

Otherwise, a very good clip.

(h/t: Below The Beltway)


This entry was posted on Thursday, April 2nd, 2009 and is filed under Law, Missouri, Money, Ron Paul, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

93 Responses to “Ron Paul Supporter Detained By TSA For Carrying Cash?”

  1. kranky kritter Says:

    This is a teachable moment. So here’s a quick note about parsimony. Occam’s razor. We have most all of us traveled through airport security. So we know for a fact that making this journey is best done by assuming that these gov’t agents are borderline retards (sorry for that insult to the mentally challenged, but it had to be said), regardless of whether or not they really are. The vast majority of them are more than fine, and just want to get everyone through safely. They have my respect, admiration, and sympathy. But we all know that the lower tiers of law enforcement include a handful of folks who are dumb petty authoritarians who worship the letter of the laws and regulations they are trying to uphold. It’s a problem.

    Every trip through airline security is a gauntlet run through an obstacle course of an @ss-covering festivalof workers whose primary motivation is to keep their jobs by doing as much as possible a) by the book and 2) according to whatever the most recent pronouncements of that day’s idiot supervisor are.

    Ron Paul supporters are just as subject to such random idiocy as the rest of us. As well as being subject to the sort of random idiocy we are all guilty of ourselves, like forgetting a lighter or a pocketknife in our pockets or making a last minute decision to carry on luggage that would have been Ok if checked, but is not Ok to carry on because of what is inside.

    So unless we know for pretty sure that this person was singled out because of his political activities, it’s pretty safe to assume that this traveler got ensnared in random harassment.

    IMO, you really don’t need to go through such an incident more than once to wonder whether its worth it. So what if a dumb airport cop asks you a question you are not legally required to answer? Sure, you have the legal right to be uncooperative. Does that make it smart, wise, or worth it?

    When a legal authority asks you questions and you decide to tell them the answers are none of their business, you can pretty much plan on hanging around for awhile. That’s just the way it is. This is SO NOT A NEW THING. It’s no shock and no surprise, and it doesn’t mean we’re being overrun by jack-booted thugs. It just means that if you give cops a reason to think you have something to hide, they sniff harder.

  2. Greg Says:

    “One note, the commentator in the middle who tries to tie this to Obama’s economic policies at the very end was a truly hacky move.”

    He did not. He tied it to every president since Woodrow Wilson. All of them, including Bush and Obama, have all been tying business with government and creating fascism. He did not call out your favorite president or anyone elses.

  3. popurls.com // popular today Says:

    popurls.com // popular today…

    story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…

  4. HoneyBaked Says:

    Un. Be. Lievable.

    Welcome to America 2009 — where everyone is a suspect until you show your papers, account for your actions in detail and are willing to hand yourself over to law enforcement without cause.

    Every law enforcement person involved in this detainment needs to be outed and publicly shamed.

  5. Numberwang Says:

    Seconding Kranky on the assertion that it happens to everyone, pretty much evenly applied to the point that almost everyone old enough to remember what it used to be like has a story about it. I had a pretty normal-looking friend relieved of a hex wrench in his ski jacket on the way to the Statue of Liberty. I don’t know if they’d call the DEA down for that one, but it’s indicative of how far screeners will go beyond any practical security measure. When they saw that money, they were probably thinking of promotions.

  6. Mathews Says:

    That guy who was detained is so stupid; So is the Fox news commentators. This has nothing to do with terrorism. It has got to do with drug money. You carry so much money, then you may attract the attention of local enforcement agencies who would like to know if you are carrying drugs.

    The STL TSA probably notified the FBI to do a background check on him and when he came clean, they let him go, which is obvious. Nothing to do with his political leanings.

    The police are not required to know the complete law off hand. So asking a police officer whether you are required by law is dumb. What should have been done is that the detainee should have requested the presence of a lawyer, which is his right. And yes, the police can take you to the station for questioning.

  7. John Says:

    Kranky, you had it mostly right but I think you missed the point. Yes, it is more probable than not that this man was selected simply as a random victim, but his refusal to answer was wise. Conceding your rights to a bunch of idiots because you want to try to save a few minutes of your day is not as prudent as you might think.

    That interaction was likely being recorded by the TSA as well. Which could have made that entire conversation a potentially admissable conversation. If nothing else, it could have given them more reason to unjustifiably harass him. Also, given that Missouri recently declared that Ron Paul followers were potential terrorists, it was in his best interest to not freely admit anything that they can use and hold against him. Since they do not have the authority to ask or detain you for innocence, you should never admit anything, even if you think it is harmless because they can twist it. Also, the good cop/ bad cop “if you have nothing to hide just tell us” interrogation tactic was clearly being employed. Lucky for him he was at least able to extract that he was being detained and forced by the TSA out to the police station.

  8. A Nony Mouse Says:

    The whole point of the search process at airports is to get the general population comfortable with being searched.

    Soon, the Supreme Court will rule that search applied somewhere else (for going to a shopping mall, or going into movie theaters or what have you) are valid BECAUSE we submit to the same type of search at airports.

  9. Surfer Says:

    @kranky kritter, you have a lot to learn about WHY you need to stand up for your rights. So many people are apathetic that we have this problem. I guarantee that if the US people were to protest the same way other countries’ citizens protest, we wouldn’t have this kind of nonsense. I would gladly give up my time to defend my rights. They’re given to me for a reason and unreasonable harassment is unreasonable. The only way to change it is to stand up and demand the guilty party is removed and, where possible, prosecuted, and then bring it to the attention of every piece of media possible while pushing for policy change.

  10. Ogus Says:

    Cash is a red flag for these guys, they are hunting for terrorists.

    The plane was going to Kentucky, and if he would have released that money on the plane, not only would panic ensue, but the plane would be ripped apart from the inside.

    No doubt the work of an evil genius

  11. kranky kritter Says:

    Surfer and John,

    You both make good points, and I don’t actually disagree much with what you say. I especially agree with you John about the SOP routine of “if you have nothing to hide…”

    I have been through such confrontations with authorities several times before, and kept my cool, and had varying results. So actually surfer, I really DON’T have much to learn about why one ought to stand up for his or her rights, which is a sort of gratuitious insult, by the way.

    When I say that one ought to ask oneself whether it is worth it, I mean precisely that. I am not suggesting that it is never worth it. Instead, I am suggesting that it is not always worth it. You do a cost-benefit analysis, and you pick your battles, because like it or not, most folks encounter more than they have time and resources to fight.

    I would gladly give up my time to defend my rights. They’re given to me for a reason and unreasonable harassment is unreasonable. The only way to change it is to stand up and demand the guilty party is removed and, where possible, prosecuted, and then bring it to the attention of every piece of media possible while pushing for policy change.

    Go ahead. If you are so eager, why not bring about a few such instances on your own. Stand up, make demands, and spend you time and resources accordingly. I will be interested to hear your report on what changes. Like I said before, this is SO NOT A NEW THING.

    So surfer, here’s your vocabulary assignment: quixotic. Use it in a sentence.

  12. liberty's fan Says:

    This guy, Steve, is my new hero.

  13. Trip Says:

    Matthew, I have some follow ups to your comments.

    “That guy who was detained is so stupid; So is the Fox news commentators.”

    Erroneous and opinionated, try and use some facts instead of attacking people you don’t know.

    “This has nothing to do with terrorism.”

    Have you read the MIAC Report? It specifically stated that Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul supporters are a security risk and may be connected with a violent militia movement.

    “You carry so much money, then you may attract the attention of local enforcement agencies who would like to know if you are carrying drugs.”

    I’m allowed to carry as much money as I want, period! Normally you shouldn’t so you don’t attract the attention of thieves; are you telling me we shouldn’t to avoid the supposed “good guys?” They have NO RIGHT to ask about that. They can ask if you’re carrying drugs, but they didn’t do that. It’s a simple question, but they chose to address the Federal Reserve Notes he was carrying.

    “The STL TSA probably notified the FBI to do a background check on him and when he came clean, they let him go, which is obvious.”

    Background checks aren’t as fast as they are on TV. They take a lot longer than that altercation lasted, and they wouldn’t sent an agent in civilian clothes unless they were trying to play down the fact that these “agents” were completely out of line!

    “The police are not required to know the complete law off hand.”

    Wrong again, they are REQUIRED to know the limits on their jurisdiction and authority.

    “So asking a police officer whether you are required by law is dumb. What should have been done is that the detainee should have requested the presence of a lawyer, which is his right. And yes, the police can take you to the station for questioning.”

    You seem quite naive. They have the ability to arrest him for probable cause, but if they are “detaining” him they are required to read him his Rights! In failing to do so they are illegally arresting him. He had the Right to a lawyer, but that’s the authorities responsibility to inform him. He continually was asking for guidance on the law and they shoved their “authority” down his throat.

  14. LeeAnn Says:

    While I am of like mind with the commentators in being disturbed over this incident, I have to say I am more disturbed by the comment that the primary commentator made towards the end:

    “Is that the face of a terrorist?”

    What, pray tell, would the face of a terrorist look like? Is he actually advocating profiling?? This was a very telling and very troubling slip of the tongue. If anything positive could come from such a moronic incident it is that the TSA didn’t prejudge him to be innocent simply because he appeared to be an affluent young white male.

  15. Guy Says:

    Really…. 4700 dollars is not alot of money…. What can you really buy with that!? A house in Detroit? who cares. With massive inflation looming, even 10K will be a joke. Get rid of the penny? Get rid of all coinage – its all worthless. I wonder what they would have done to some one with a trazillion Zimbabwe dollars in a suitcase. Monopoly money? hahahha.

  16. Ari Says:

    This reminds me of the case two weeks back where the cops confiscated $26,000 from a man without charging him of any crime. If you’re interested you can find the story here….

    “No charges, but police can keep the cash
    http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20090322/LOCAL/303229940

    If someone is detained with a large amount of cash who is to say if the money is related to drugs or not? Personally I believe the burden of proof should be with the government to prove cash is from illegal activities. There should be a presumption of innocence instead of this attitude of if you’re not doing anything wrong you won’t mind answering our questions.

  17. Bertie Wooster Says:

    Until I saw Fox News, I thought this was for real… now I know that it’s a complete setup.

  18. Frank Says:

    Cash is a dangerous thing. How can the world’s capitalistic businesses trace cash spending habits? How can they get consumers over their head in debt with cash? Cash should be destroyed, and let us all use credit.

  19. Trip Says:

    Bertie Wooster, congratulations on once again proving the ignorance of the common American in your bipartisan rhetoric. While Fox news has a strong bias, it is no more so that CNN in the opposite end. They’re all slanted.

    To discredit a respected and distinguished gentleman like Judge Napolitano shows you have a limited knowledge of the world and current events and would do this country a service by getting educated or keeping silent so the rest of the adults can have a meaningful discussion.

    Ari, I completely agree. And you don’t have to think we should be innocent until proven guilty, we ARE innocent until proven guilty thanks to the 5th Amendment!

  20. Lelia Katherine Thomas Says:

    Steve was needlessly uncooperative in this case; however, it is law enforcement, and they are supposed to advise him when it comes to his rights. While I think he could have worded the question of “Am I legally required to tell you that?” a little better and friendlier, the question is completely valid. People have a right to know whether what they have done is illegal, as well as what they must reveal. The 5th Amendment keeps them from even having to do the latter, if they feel what they must say might incriminate them in some fashion.

    Again, for this situation, I think he made it more complex than it had to be, but the officers’ reactions to that were way out of line. They were attempting to bully him and scare him into cooperating. That is not appropriate, whether you agree with Steve’s actions or not.

    I am left wondering if perhaps one of the reasons they didn’t answer him, and got so angry, was because they actually didn’t know whether he was required to tell them or not. I think it’s rather important to know (in this case, or in any other like it) whether these officers know what the law they’re supposed to be upholding actually says. Because there are so many worthless laws on the books for most things these days, we can almost 100% bet that many are largely unaware of what they’re supposed to do, as well as what rights civilians have. That is scary and worth knowing.

  21. Bob Says:

    There are only two things you need to do when “detained” by police.

    1) Ask if you are being arrested? If the answer is no you are under no obligation to answer any of their questions.

    2) If you ARE under arrest for whatever charge the think up then the only thing you say is “Please advise me of my miranda rights and I would like to speak to a lawyer!”

    Period! you do or say nothing else, don’t make phone calls in the interrogation room or divuldge details as they are recording EVERYTHING in that room.

    At this point they if you are under arrest or being “held for questioning” then 48 hrs later if they aren’t going to formally charge you they have to let you go.

  22. Ian Lipsky Says:

    This isn’t a case of the govt being all evil and overpowering. It’s a case of minimum wage people being employed as security and not knowing what the rules are. If this were a case of the govt being evil, that plain clothes FBI agent would have said “yeah, take him to our office”. Instead, presumably because he knew more then the TSA yahoos, he told them to let him go.

  23. Dan Says:

    Americans had better get used to this. It will only get worse in the next 4 years.

  24. TerenceC Says:

    I just don’t understand why the guy didn’t just tell the TSA people what they wanted to know. What kind of an A-hole pushes back on the TSA? It’s just pure stupidity. The cash problem is supposed to be anything over $5,000 (moving around in bank accounts) warrants a flag and will generate an investigation. He had a legitimate explanation for the money – he should have used it. The TSA are not the people to make a story with – they’re just a pack of mooks doing a stupid job and they know it. So why would anyone create an issue with a bored un respected mini-cop – what was he thinking, what an A-hole.

  25. RickB Says:

    Right on Tripp!

  26. Trip Says:

    Terence C; so you’re telling me that just because I have nothing to hide that I might as well tell everyone everything? We have laws in this country that protect 4th Amendment Right to privacy. And these “bore un respected mini-cop”s are breaking those laws and infringing on those Rights. You may not care about your privacy, but I and other American’s do. They need to know their jurisdictional limitations, period, end of story.

    Furthermore, were you paying attention when he mentioned the MIAC report? The one that stated all Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul supporters were a security risk. He had EVERY reason to not admit that was what the money was for.

    Don’t call someone an A-Hole because they have a pair and you don’t. I suppose you would call our founding fathers that as well since they didn’t ask “how high” when England said “jump!”

  27. Friend of Liberty Says:

    To all opposed to this guy’s principled stand, I wonder how you would feel if the questions had to do with religion or speech? Would you feel the need to tell TSA which religion you do (or don’t) follow?

    “Why do you have these Bibles in your luggage, where did you get them?”
    or
    “What is your purpose with those Obama bumper-stickers? Where did you get them?”

    Yet, you think it is OK to presume guilt when the subject is money. Radix malorum est Cupiditas?

  28. Tom Steele Says:

    I have always been under the impression that you do not have to declare anything under $10,000 on a plane. I wouldn’t answer it either.

    Why are you all so willing to give up your rights just for convenience? I don’t carry that kind of cash for obvious reasons, but I knew a guy who used to carry more than $5k on him at all times because he liked to carry that much cash. I think it was part “showing off” and it was part “security blanket” but it wasn’t, and isn’t illegal to carry large sums of cash.

    Those cops are idiots.

  29. TerenceC Says:

    You misunderstand. I’m in favor of privacy just as much as anyone but there are times where that battle is a good fight and other times when it’s simply a waste of time. If you travel very often you should realize that any argument with TSA personnel is a waste of time – they may let you go but the inconvenience factor is high. Haven’t you ever seen how arbitrary their questions, searches, and seizures are? Arguing with TSA at the airport can be equated to poking a mean Pit Bull with a stick. Unless you really want to fight a mean dog don’t poke it with a stick. They think they are looking for terrorists and suspicious people, everyone else knows they are there as little more than window dressing. Yes those cops were idiots, no doubt about it – but that passenger was an A-hole for even bothering with them. It’s not like he was hit with 20 questions – he was asked 5 questions repeatedly and copped an attitude without answering. The cops were idiots but they were doing their job – he was being an A-hole.

  30. Trip Says:

    You seemed to not even read my response. That is NOT their job! That is outside of their jurisdiction. I fly 5-7 times a year, and no amount of inconvenience is enough to make me hand over my rights on a silver platter just because I’m in a hurry or the people I’m dealing with are idiots!

    People and organizations like that need to be exposed and reminded they have limitations just like the rest of us. As for him copping an attitude, I’m not sure which recording you were listening to. He repeatedly and calmly asked for guidance on the law; the “mini-cop”s were the ones cussing at him and threatening him with the DIA, FBI, hand cuffs and the like. Not to mention had he mentioned what the money was from, based on the contents of the MIAC report, (which you seem to keep ignoring) he very well may have placed himself in a position to receive legal injury! Please get educated.

    I suppose you’ll also call Rosa Parks an A-Hole for practicing civil disobedience against someone who was trying to take her rights. All she wanted to do was sit in a certain seat on a bus. Seems far less important than getting on a plane, yet she sparked change by refusing to be a sheep and doing what she was told just because it was more convenient!

  31. TerenceC Says:

    Did you ever read the patriot Act? Specifically Title III – the cops were in their right to detain him for potential money laundering. They could also hold him for up to 24 hours – without charge. It’s stupid to attack the mini-cops for doing their job (as stupid as it is). You sound angry about the turn of events in the USA regarding personal privacy and harmless travel. Don’t blame the TSA. Blame your Congressman and every other Congressman who voted for the Patriot Act – because that’s what caused this type of tyranny. I was angry, wrote letters, made phone calls, wrote more letters – but I did that all before the bill passed. Now that it’s law attacking the fascists who have to enforce it is counter productive.Take your anger and focus it at an area that could actually make a difference – blaming mini-cops for doing their job is waste of time and serves no purpose.

  32. Jared Says:

    When the 2008 election was alive and well I was flying out of Buffalo and was wearing a Ron Paul for President hat and lapel button while waiting for the security checkpoint. I noticed a couple of the security officials glancing at my button and then giving a head nod to someone further ahead at the checkpoint. A woman working for security than approached me got a close look at my button and asked, “Ron Paul who is that?” I briefly gave a quick talking point to get rid of her as I had a bad feeling about what was going on. It wasn’t surprising that when it was my turn to go through the metal detector that I was pulled aside, given an extensive search, and then brought to a “holding” booth (located just feet away from the checkpoint where I was extensively questioned by a security official as to my travels. I didn’t bulk the way this man did because I was late for my flight as it was, but I look back and wish I had.

  33. Jared Says:

    Terrence,

    If $5,000 warrants a flag than I would say two things; A. They weren’t in their right to do what they did to him as he had $4700 on him and B. That the Ron Paul people may have set this situation up for this exact reason. Seems interesting to me that he had just under $5000 on him and a recording device in his breast pocket that was placed perfectly so he could tap it to record.

  34. TerenceC Says:

    I never thought about that – but it certainly is plausible if peaceful civil unrest was the goal.

  35. Trip Says:

    Thank you for bringing up that wonderful piece of legislation. First off it’s illegal. I don’t care who signed it. It’s in direct violation of the Bill of Rights and pursuant to Marbury v Madison 5 US 103 “is null and void of law as if it had never existed…citizens may ignore the law with impunity.” They HAVE NO JURISDICTION!

    Secondly, I have and will continue to do all I can to see it’s repeal and those who put it into law removed from office under indictment of treason if I got my way.

    Thirdly, the Congressmen were the ones that passed the laws saying “coloreds” had to sit in the back of the bus. Yet Rosa Parks peaceful civil disobedience to a lowly bus driver, and later 2 policemen sparked a massive change against some very bad laws. I never blamed them, but as an instrument of the administration they place themselves in a position to deal with the ramifications of people protesting those laws. Just as the bus driver in Mrs. Park’s case.

    And I am angry, but the people I am more angry at than the politicians is the people who complacently allow these types of things to happen and gladly give up their and my Rights under the guise of security or convenience!

  36. Trip Says:

    And while I doubt they set that up, I’m sure he was prepared for such an occassion and his goal was to peacefully question the status quo. I would have thought that part was obvious.

    That’s how things change without a violent revolution. That’s the Campaign for Liberty’s entire goal is to bring change and return this Country to it’s Constitutionally limited government roots. In the peaceful likes of Mrs. Parks, Dr. King, Gandhi, Thoreau etc…

  37. Jon Kay Says:

    Isn’t the right way to handle this to GRUMBLE TO OUR CONGRESSIONAL REPS AND TO the Obama Administration?

    The pilerfage and detainment stats show you face far more danger from TSA agents than from terrorists, and in any case, as, I believe, most Americans, I’m happy to face risk to keep my liberties. But I’m not being given that option.

    What reasonably justifies this kind of interruption of our privacy and travel rights? I seem to remember being told it’s a free country. Haven’t serious incidents been prevented by other passengers and tips rather TSA’s security theater? I grew up in a world where my parents told me the countries with the travel checkpoints were the BAD ones.

    I just wish Fox had had more articles about these problems under the Bush Administration!

  38. Zac Says:

    Ok this is just plain moronic. They thought he was a drug dealer or something because of the cash. If he had answered 3 questions, they would have let him go. Why would you make law enforcement officials have to fuck around like this? Stop being a child. This was the biggest pile of crap i’ve heard in a long time.

  39. fred schwartz Says:

    way up at the top,matthew says the guy and fox commentators are stupid. that cash means drugs. are you on drugs matty boy? if you think carrying cash is illegal,or should draw suspicion,you need a course in intelligent thinking. in this day and age 4700 is not a lot of money. there is no law to detain him,or any reason to suspect him of anything.
    do you own a copy of the constitution? you can even look it up on the web…it seems you have access
    by the way…your views make you a fascist.

  40. fred schwartz Says:

    leeann thinks profiling doesn’t happen today or shouldn’t.
    leeann dear,what is the difference between profiling and affirmative action?
    i really want to know…dont you have to be profiled to receive affirmative action?
    or doesn’t it count when it benefits certain people?

  41. Joy Says:

    I applaud this young man for his courage and for keeping his head cool.

    He did an excellent job of standing up for his and every American right to privacy and his God-given enumarated Constitutional rights.

    When we have done nothing wrong we should be treated properly with respect, not like a criminal.

    Either we have done something wrong that warrants an investigation or an arrest, or if not, we need to be told our rights and told why they may want us to answer questions.

    If we have rights, and we do, then we all need to always be diligent in protecting them or we will lose them by default.

    Always stay calm and collected like this young man did!

    God bless him, Ron Paul, and all his supporters! Way to go!

  42. Nick Benjamin Says:

    Guys you do realize there is no Constitutional right protecting people from being inconvenienced?

    Steve was well within his rights. He was clearly being an asshole on purpose, but in America you have the right to be an asshole. Unfortunately for Steve the police have the right to take a long look at anybody going through a valid security checkpoint. There’d be no point in setting the dang things up if they didn’t. In this case they took half an hour.

    BTW Guy, If you think $5,000 is worthless I’ll gladly take all your money. Just send it to:
    5024 Avery
    Detroit, MI 48208

  43. Dave2 Says:

    Nick Benjamin,

    Being an asshole? I thought he sounded extremely polite.

    Anyway, surely you don’t think it’s okay for TSA agents to threaten to sic the DEA and the FBI on someone simply because he politely refuses to answer questions he’s not required to answer.

  44. KafeKafe » Blog Archive » Donklephant » Blog Archive » Ron Paul Supporter Detained By TSA For Carrying Cash? Says:

    [...] Donklephant » Blog Archive » Ron Paul Supporter Detained By TSA For Carrying Cash?. [...]

  45. TerenceC Says:

    Nick – you shouldn’t have done that. They’re coming for you now.

  46. john Says:

    steve was NOT being an asshole. he was extremely polite.

    an innocent person can be totally honest about something, and police can still use it against them. the police are trying to figure out how you are guilty, not how you are innocent. they are looking for any clue that might connect you with a crime. police are trained interrogators. it is not a fair fight.

    this video explains why it is never a good idea to talk to the police without your lawyer:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

    your lawyer is trained in talking with the police. you’re not. if you would still like to take your chances (out of ignorance), be my guest.

    you were classy all the way, steve.

  47. Jay Says:

    “And I am angry, but the people I am more angry at than the politicians is the people who complacently allow these types of things to happen and gladly give up their and my Rights under the guise of security or convenience!”

    I could not have said it better myself, Trip. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who wants the Constitution back…

  48. Jackson Pollock Says:

    I don’t buy that he was “asking for guidance” – Or at least if he was, he chose a horrible way to do it.

    Simply repeating “Am I legally required to answer that question?” or “Am I legally required to go to the station?” is not an adequate way to ask for guidance.

    The reason for that, as it has been proven already by the prior comments, is because people interpret his questions differently. Some think he is being an asshole, some think he is being very nice and polite.

    Perhaps a better way to phrase these questions and truly ask for guidance would be to explicit use the words IE: “Please advise me on what to do, is it my legal obligation to answer your question?” “I don’t know what to do, I need guidance. Am I legally required to follow you to the station?”

    This difference may seem minute/unimportant to some of you, but the fact that there is debate on him being an asshole or being polite seems to prove (at least to me) that how he phrased the question was not the best way.

  49. TerenceC Says:

    He was a polite A-hole, but an A-hole in a nice way none the less.

  50. Trip Says:

    So apparently we’ve determined that if you practice peaceful civil disobedience you must be an A-Hole. Am I getting this right? Then by all means please put Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Dr King, Mrs Parks, Gandhi and the rest of us with the guts to do this on that list as well!

    Call us what you want, but at least we’re willing to fight for our Rights and the Rights of all you who lack the courage or heart it takes for continued labor in maintaining these freedoms. If it’s too inconvenient to you to stand up then please stay seated when the victory is eventually won!

    And Jackson, I’m sorry, but have you ever tried to get an entire sentence, let alone two, out when multiple “cops” are yelling obscenities at you and threatening you with incarceration? I didn’t think so. Not to mention how nerve racking that has to be. The fact that he stayed calm and his voice didn’t crack is pretty impressive as far as I’m concerned. Lastly when found in a position that may bring legal injury, especially without a lawyer, it is always wise to say as little as possible. You’re bringing semantics into a Constitutional liberties discussion and I’m calling erroneous.

    Furthermore, he did say multiple times that he doesn’t understand the law. Listen to it again. Plus by asking those very simple questions (simple being the key), he got on tape an admission that he was being arrested without being informed of his Rights or being given probable cause. Three huge issues! Flowery semantics are useless in a court of law!

  51. TerenceC Says:

    Trip – are you sure your name isn’t Steve?

  52. Trip Says:

    Unless my parents forgot to tell me something, yeah i’m sure.

  53. Jackson Pollock Says:

    I hate to make such a blanket state, but it is very typical for ACists/Libertarians to take someone you say, twist it into something you obviously wouldn’t say and then suggest there is no difference.

    There is a very stark difference between Rosa Parks, Gandhi, MLK, etc and this guy. I know it, you know it, and we also both know that no one is saying the Parks, Gandhi, or MLK were wrong.

    I cant listen to it right now at work, but from what I remember, he was several times asking complete sentences without being interrupted. If he did explicitly say guidance or help, then I do not remember it, but I will listen to it again.

    I will echo again that I do think he was at least looking to cause some type of scene. Who travels with $4700 (in small bills at that) in a box? $4700 in wadded up 10s and 20s is a little mroe reason to expect drug deal I think. I know you will now say that it isn’t illegal to carry cash and that I don’t value my privacy, but I also think because most libertarians and ACists are generally smart people, that they would be able to recognize a difference without a clear brightline.

  54. Blogger Bob Says:

    Good day! We (TSA Blog) just posted a statement on this incident. Click here —> http://tinyurl.com/cqvg4o

    Thanks,

    Blogger Bob
    EoS Blog Team

  55. Blogger Bob Says:

    We (TSA Blog) just posted a statement on this incident. Click here —> http://tinyurl.com/cqvg4o

    Thanks,

    Blogger Bob
    EoS Blog Team

  56. links for 2009-04-03 « cygweb Says:

    [...] Donklephant » Blog Archive » Ron Paul Supporter Detained By TSA For Carrying Cash? Via No Agenda: Don't carry too much cash if you're traveling by air, or the TSA may decide to detain you for no legal reason. Spread the word. (tags: news privacy government tsa freedom usa) [...]

  57. Trip Says:

    I suppose you’re also going to tell me that Rosa Parks was not looking for trouble when she sat at the front of the bus. Perhaps she was just confused and then when they told her to move, she must have forgotten how to speak English. Apparently bringing social change has to be purely accidental. Is that the gist of what you’re trying to tell us? We’ll never get this Country back if you’re banking on one epic accidental event that steers this Country back on it’s grand destiny!

    Please tell me what the difference is? I didn’t twist anything. I took what you said and applied to people who did the same. And I’m pretty sure I just showed that at least one of those examples did the same, with the exception that what Mrs Parks did was actually illegal!

    Where did you hear it was wadded up 10′s and 20′s? I just listened to it again and I didn’t hear that anywhere in there. Steve explained to the Judge and other commentators that it was money from merchandise sales and other sales from the Campaign for Liberty rally they had just had the days before.

  58. Jackson Pollock Says:

    That is not the gist of what I’m saying. Taking what I said about this and applying it to Parks, Gandhi, MLK, etc (CDers) is not using my point correctly.

    I am actually assuming it was 10s and 20s because 1) It was in a box, not a wallet like 47 100s would be. 2) It was from merchandise and ticket sales and I doubt everyone paid in crisp hundreds. Even if that isn’t the case, who puts $4700 in a box as luggage?

    There is a difference in degree of what is happening. Furthermore, all of the CDers were actively engaging in protest. This was just some dude (possibly) being rude, or at the very least, using language that could be interpreted as rude. I’m not saying that all protest must be premeditated, but I do think this was much more looking for a fight than it was protest. I also do not think it ever evolved from looking for a fight into protest either.

    Maybe I do not see what a horrible infringement on privacy that this is. I do not think it is unreasonable to answer a TSA agent’s questions when we have given them the right to question us. I additionally think that they are more qualified to make a judgment on who to question than you are or I am.

    Maybe it is additionally muddled for me because I have no reason to look for a fight. I don’t travel with $4700 in a box. If I travel with cash, I keep it in my wallet. If asked, I would have no problem saying “I sold merchandise at a political rally.” What the report says is largely irrelevant. Do you think if they ask him at the gate why he has this money they are going to A) Ask him what rally or B) Know enough about the report or care enough to bother with this? They are just $10/hour security doing their jobs to get by.

  59. Val Wiggin Says:

    Are you kidding, Jackson Pollock, with this semantic insanity?

    You say: “Simply repeating “Am I legally required to answer that question?” or “Am I legally required to go to the station?” is not an adequate way to ask for guidance.”

    Um, maybe the government–or you–could print us all out a handy-dandy card we can all carry with us so we’ll know exactly what to say the next time we are illegally interrogated.

    If I’m being harassed by security officials, the last thing I’m worried about is whether or not I look like a jerk. I just want to get out of there, (in this order) first, with my rights undefiled, and second, without being charged with anything. (As with anything else, you’re innocent of being a jerk until proven one.)

    If they’re going to deprive me of my rights, I’m gonna civil disobedience them until the end of time.

    And BTW, Jon Kay, love this comment at the end of your thoughts: “I just wish Fox had had more articles about these problems under the Bush Administration!” Maybe you could go back to the playground now and point fingers at some of the other children, so we can have a grownup discussion now.

  60. Trip Says:

    Have you ever had a yard sale? You put your money in a metal cash box. That’s what set off the scanner his luggage (which contained the box among other things) was going through. So to answer your question… pretty much everyone puts money in this type of box. Or maybe it would make your point better if it were an old cigar box?

    Actually if you knew anything about the Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul, they both preach changing bad laws through the use of peaceful civil disobedience. As he works for them I kinda think he might have taken that idea to heart. Just a hunch though.

    Furthermore he wasn’t fighting. He remained calm. So what exactly makes something a protest? Does it take more than 1 person? Does it have to be premeditated? What exactly about what he did doesn’t qualify as a protest? Is it because he wasn’t carrying a sign and screaming a mantra to the other passengers? You kind of have a narrow view of what protest means. Here let me help you: Protest

    And they were never given the Right as you put it, to ask those questions. Had they been given the Right then they should have said that when he asked whether he was legally obligated to answer the question. In fact at one point the officer even says, “you may not be legally required to tell me that, but you may be legally required to tell when a police officer comes.” Thus they didn’t have this Right you speak of.

    You’re also telling me you have no problem having to prove that you’re innocent to a “$10/hour security doing their jobs to get by” who you also claim are “more qualified to make a judgment on who to question.” Yes, very highly trained in covert tactics, especially at what they’re getting paid, wow! You’re also telling me they’re this at their jobs, yet they wouldn’t care enough to read a report that went out to all law enforcement in the State specifically regarding domestic terrorism? Kinda contradicting yourself aren’t you?

    In case you’re curious, we’re innocent until proven guilty in this Country. Not the other way around. And no $10 an hour worker or anyone else has the right to pry into mine or anyones private life because they have hunch with all that high caliber training they receive. Get a warrant, show probable cause and then I’ll cooperate with a lawyer present!

  61. Jackson Pollock Says:

    @Val
    Here is my tip for talking to the government: If you either think they are being hostile or (as in this case) they are being hostile, not acting like a jerk will get through the process faster. I do not think he was acting in such a manner that would lend to his speedy release. Furthermore, I think he knows it and I think you know it.

    If you do not, the TSA website explicitly says belligerent behavior will not be tolerated and will result in delays. Do you see at all how his actions could have been perceived as belligerent? Refusing to answer the questions of the initial security person would at the very least equal “could be perceived as belligerent” to me. Even if you don’t personally, do you see how someone could?

    @Trip
    Yes. Yard sale money is often kept in a cash tin. Do yard sale beneficiaries then travel with that cash box full of money or do they act differently? I can tell you when I, friends, or relatives have had a yard sale, we did not carry the money around in the cash box after the sale was finished. It was shifted into an easier to carry/less of a hassle form.

    I love the condescension. “Just a hunch though.” Seriously, I haven’t talked down to anyone and you come at me with this basic level of disrespect?

    It’s great that he, like the rest of the campaign, practices civil disobedience. I would never act in such a manner over this type of issue, but I also am not sure I place the same value on my privacy as you do.

    I did not say he was fighting, I said I thought he was looking for a fight. There are several small things he could have done to avoid the altercation all together. I recognize that he did not raise his voice. If you will read in my prior post, I said that protest does not have to be premeditated. It has no requirements on amount of people either. But I think there is a distinguishable difference between mounting a protest and what happened here.

    To suggest that because they said he was legally obligated to tell a police officer means that they do not have the right to momentarily detain/question someone is a strawman. They are given the responsibility to question people that are acting suspicious. If the people they are questioning are legally required to answer is unimportant. You aren’t obligated to answer some questions from police officers (or let them into your house, for example), but that doesn’t mean the police officer cannot ask you questions.

    Does the fact that he won’t tell the police in the name of privacy but has no problem telling the people interviewing him change anything about his heroic stand to you? (Just wondering this. I am not sure of this myself. I recognize the gravity of telling police officers or whoever vs regular joes, but is it really in the name of privacy if you will tell one group but not another?)

    I am telling you that I have no problem proving my innocence in this situation to anyone in any authority position.

    I am not contradicting myself. Here is why. I used to be a bank teller. I made less than $10/hour. I was doing my job to get by and that was the only reason. I never once even so much as glanced at the list of names of who money could not be wired to. Regardless, I was still in a better situation to advise clients about bank related issues. Similarly, these employees do not have to be trained in covert tactics to be more qualified than you or I to decide who should be questioned based on their luggage. Please do not continue using the bold text. It is particularly annoying.

    I’m glad you will stand up for yourself in this situation. I will not. I will answer any question a TSA agent asks me. I do not believe this to be an infringement on my privacy. I am in their building, using their organization, following their rules. I think that by operating under these conditions I have agreed to a level of cooperation. That means if they ask why I have both work boots and a suit in my luggage, then I will answer the question.

    What I am most interested in however, is do you think he did nothing that could possibly be viewed as being a jerk? Asking if he was legally required to answer the questions (before he asked for guidance)? Refusing (or possibly once again asking if he was required) the initial check point person? He was brought to the room for not answering what he was asked at the metal detector. He obviously did something there to be taken in the other room. If you believe he was taken for being kind, please tell me. If you think something happened to make him out to be a jerk, please tell me.

  62. Val Wiggin Says:

    Jackson Pollock:
    It doesn’t matter if he was “acting in such a manner that would lend to his speedy release,” so much as if he was acting in such a manner that broke any actual laws. And you do realize, that a “speedy release” was not his main objective, right? His main objective was to be treated as an individual born with certain rights, rights the TSA was manhandling mercilessly.

    (And yes, I do concede that this may have been a setup, a fact I find irrelevant. If the TSA employees were wrong, they were wrong. Are they going to now claim that they were only kidding around with Steve?)

    As for a definition of “belligerent,” I’d have to say the belligerent behavior is in the eye of the beholder. Who should decide what constitutes jerkiness? You? Me? How about a jury or judge—what do you think they would make of this situation, for example? Hmm.

    Do I personally think Steve was obstinate, jerky, belligerent—take your pick? Sure. I would have been, too, however, if treated in such a manner. In my opinion, since you asked, TSA employees win this one on a scale of one to ten, ten being most jerky: Steve 4; security 7.5.

    But here’s the problem: it is not illegal to be a jerk. Steve can be a jerk all day long, and as long as he breaks no actual laws while being a jerk, he can be a jerk forever, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

    But these officials were not acting within the confines of the law. Even the TSA admits that they were out of line; they said, “The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate,” in their recent statement.

    Here’s the bottom line for me: the TSA can “explicitly not tolerate belligerent behavior” and make it “cause delays” all they want, but if they’re abusing passengers in the name of peacekeeping, I, for one, will explicitly not tolerate that either, and I hope, by golly, that Steve gives them a moment’s pause, if nothing else.

  63. Trip Says:

    It’s funny that you don’t care enough to stand up for your Rights yet you’ve been going back and forth on here with people who will, hmm… Or is that because you’re not scared of us since we can’t arrest you?

    First off I can see how his actions can be taken as hostile by an uneducated person. And I’m pretty sure most people here have determined that was the point. He found himself in a situation with the means to bring light to an inherent problem in this country where a badge gives you unlimited powers. And he did that without hesitation true to the training the Campaign for Liberty supports.

    Now who’s twisting meanings. He had a cash box full of money that had to get back to VA. So why on earth would he empty it out and put the empty box back in his luggage and the cash elsewhere when that’s what the box is designed for? Perhaps he should have just thrown the box away and wasted money buying another one for the next rally…

    As for disrespect, I personally feel you are disrespecting every soldier in this country’s history who valued civil Liberty so much that they died for the Rights you could care less about. I’m not asking you to fight for them, clearly that isn’t going to happen. However, you could at least read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and show some respect for people who care about them more than their own lives by placing some value in what you clearly take for granted. History has proven that what starts small always grows. This small invasion will only get worse until you have no privacy left. Would you value it if you didn’t have it?

    And you still haven’t said what the difference between a protest and what he did was. He, in a word, protested when the TSA tried to enforce their supposed authority. Successfully I might add. They backed down, his recording got out, is being heard by others and the TSA is having to acknowledge this incident instead of shoving it under the rug. That sounds like a pretty good protest to me.

    “If the people they are questioning are legally required to answer is unimportant.”

    Wrong! Please educate yourself on your Rights. Bill of Rights aside, the Miranda Rights say “anything you say can and WILL be used AGAINST YOU,” and give you the Right to not answer anything without the presence of a lawyer. Then there’s the 4th Amendment which protects your privacy, the 5th Amendment which protects against self-incrimination and provides innocence until proven guilty. Yes they can ask, but you DO NOT have to answer. It doesn’t make you a jerk, it makes you educated and ballsy enough to stand up for it. Sure he knew he was goading them a little, but what would have been better, “I plead the 5th” or “I want my lawyer”? Let them ask until their blue in the face, I wouldn’t answer either unless they show me respect and show some respect for the law they’re claiming to defend by following DUE PROCESS!

    One of the people he “told” on Fox news, he had just spent the day with. Secondly, none of those people were in a position to inflict legal injury on him. It’s about the fact that his Right to privacy was infringed not that he cared all that much about the history of the money. Although thanks to the MIAC report he did have a viable reason to not disclose that information thus possibly self-incriminating himself and refusing the safety of the 5th Amendment!

    “I am telling you that I have no problem proving my innocence in this situation to anyone in any authority position.”

    This terrifies me to think you don’t mind being told your guilty and having to prove you’re innocent! That’s one of the greatest things about this Country is that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty. You’re willingness to give that up is appalling at best. And a blatant slap in the face of people who lived through times before we split from England. It is their job to prove your guilt, not make you prove otherwise.

    How is he to know who read the MIAC report and who didn’t? Ultimately I don’t really care whether they’re able to spot “suspicious” behavior or not. They don’t have the legal capacities to start a criminal investigation, especially without following due process of law. Which is exactly what they do when they ask a question of that nature.

    “I will answer any question a TSA agent asks me. I do not believe this to be an infringement on my privacy. I am in their building, using their organization, following their rules.”

    This very clearly makes you a fascist! Airports are NOT the government’s buildings! Airlines are NOT the government’s property! They are privately held companies which the Federal government injects the TSA through forced mandates. Saying that the government owns any of those subsidiaries makes it a capitalized government which is the very definition of FASCISM! However, that’s not too far from the truth, so apparently you’re ok with a fascist regime.

    And really I don’t care if he was a jerk or not. I don’t believe he was. If being blunt and to the point while not messing with frivolous niceties makes him a jerk, then yes he was. He got straight to the point and protected his Rights without insulting anyone, talking down to anyone or otherwise threatening any member of the TSA or STLPD staff. A tone of voice and not taking time to say please and thank you or caveat your statement with “I really like how you did your hair today” is far from a crime.

  64. Jackson Pollock Says:

    Here is the thing, apparently Steve was jerky/obstinate/belligerent before he started recording or he likely wouldn’t have been in the private room with the agents.

    I admit the TSA people were rude/jerky/whatever, but I don’t think I would go so far as to say abuse.

    Their job is to protect everyone in the airport/on planes/whatever through their security/screening process. If someone is being jerky (which you admit) it is easy to view that as being hostile. I wouldn’t really, but I think it is easy to interpret it that way. Refusing to answer the questions of the first screener, giving them a hard time, etc seems jerky to me, to the point of belligerence. I do not think the TSA people were out of line in removing him from the line and questioning him.

    I applaud that you are willing to take a principled stance in this situation. I also think that that is the reason libertarians/ACists are largely regarded as a joke. Most people think that petty battles are for petty people. This causes most people to give the heard all too often “Why not just tell them?” I realize it is more complex than that, but this is the reaction of a large portion of the population and why numbers are small.

    I agree that belligerence is in the eye of the beholder. I also think that in the airport, the beholder is the TSA and TSA officials (among other law enforcement agencies).

  65. Val Wiggin Says:

    Jackson Pollock:
    Just out of curiousity, what would you take a stand on?

    You can call the TSA people rude, jerky, abusive, whatever–the semantics are irrelevant. The point is, they were WRONG.

    I have no idea what happened before Steve started recording, I can only work with what I have. And from what I heard, the people being the most belligerent were the very people who should have been upholding and sustaining the law, not abusing their power.

    In light of what happened on this tape, I find it alarming that you think that the TSA should be the “beholder of all that is belligerent.” Just because someone wears a badge, doesn’t give the right to be a bully.

  66. Trip Says:

    And how may I ask are they protecting the people on the plane by asking why he had $4700? Perhaps he was going to give someone a paper cut with it. Or throw it up in the air on the plane and incite a riot!

    Please tell me how they were protecting anyone by asking that question. And these “petty people” as you say people view Libertarians, are the types of people you and everyone else has to thank for even having this country so I’d work on changing some of those people’s attitudes. Furthermore the population of people getting fed up is a lot larger than you obviously know.

  67. Trip Says:

    Oh wait, I got it! Perhaps the bills were laced with Anthrax and when he threw them up in the air and everyone rand for the big $20 bills they would all get sick and die. Yep, that’s how they were protecting the passengers by asking why he had that money and where it came from. I’m so glad they saved everyone from that disaster.

    Seriously though. How were they protecting anyone? I want to hear your answer. He didn’t have a weapon, he wasn’t on drugs so even if he was a dealer, he wouldn’t be a threat. Please do respond, I’m curious how this can possibly be a safety screening measure.

  68. Jackson Pollock Says:

    @Trip
    I am not scared of any officer of the law in the United States that does have the power the arrest me, just as I am not scared of the people here.

    If he is being hostile (which I think any rational person will agree is a synonym of belligerent) then they are correct in delaying them for that reason to question him. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone that truly believes a badge gives you unlimited power. They questioned him, they didn’t tie him up and stick bamboo chutes under his fingernails. Please do not get away from the topic with dramatic language.

    He could have put the box in his checked luggage. He could have not brought the box at all. I may be making an assumption here, but I do think most people could foresee the problems of carrying on a lock box with $4700 dollars in small bills. If, however, most people could not foresee this, I am willing to concede that not bringing it isn’t a valid point. But he would still have the option of checking it instead of taking it as a carry on.

    I apologize that you feel this way. Many constitutional lawyers and historians do not believe the right to privacy existed in its current form until relatively recently. Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy and a scare tactic.

    It is hard to quantify the difference, but I do think that there is something distinguishable, even if hard to explain. Should the TSA people question drug dealers? As you said if the money was in an old cigar box maybe they would have been more justified. What is the cut off point? I think you want a perfect level of granularity in security, but I would be willing to wager that you would not be ready to foot the bill of such enhanced security. With any level of imperfection there are going to be people that aren’t questioned that should have been and that are questioned that shouldn’t have. I’m sure you don’t want to settle for less than perfect, but I also don’t think you’re prepared to pay for the alternative.

    I understand he doesn’t have to answer. But I do recognize their authority to ask the questions. If a teacher asks you a question about whether or not you cheated, you are not legally obligated to answer. That doesn’t mean the teacher can’t ask the question. Answering it, however, provides you with an easier day. If you want to make a moral/principled stand, expect consequences. It may be trouble with the dean or the teacher, or it may be sitting in a room at an airport listening to people ask you more questions.

    I wish it didn’t terrify you. I do not think I fully understand such private people. I do think that if you are private to one person you don’t know you should be private with all of them that you do not know.

    Proving my innocence would be very easy because when the first checkpoint person asked me I would have told them that I travel to different events selling merchandise, and that is why I have the locked box of money and I would be more careful and check it next time. They would likely let me pass because I wouldn’t have demanded they inform me if I was legally obligated to answer them. TSA agents, police officers, judges, etc are people also. If you show them a basic level of respect, they will show you respect. I think we differ in what respect means, however. I do not think asking repeatedly “Am I legally required to answer that?” to the metal detector worker is showing them a basic level of respect. In fact, I think most would think they were being mocked.

    If they can’t start an investigation, they can put the wheels in motion. If they swab your shoes and residue from an explosive is on them, they can call the proper authorities. However, they are the first level of security. In being the first level of security, they do have some level of responsibility. They aren’t starting an investigation when asking that question. If you don’t want to answer it, don’t answer it. But also don’t expect to be let go immediately if you tell them you aren’t going to. If you want to sit there for an extra amount of time before someone clears you to leave, then don’t answer. If you want to answer and not be any more hassle for you or them, then do so.

    That hardly makes me a fascist. If I misspoke and lead you to believe that I thought the TSA owns airlines and airports, I apologize. That was not my intention. But I do think that it being the place they work I have some level of a cooperation agreement. I also don’t think it is unreasonable to believe such an agreement exists. I’m sure the airlines would want to ask similar questions as teh TSA agents, but TSA agents are the resource they must use. While they may not be an official question-asker of the airlines, I’m sure they can’t be too far off. Would it be different if the owner of the airport was requiring you to comply with those guidelines? Or are you upset that it is the governmental agents questioning you?

    I know you don’t believe he was being rude. I think that while you may not think so, others do and it is evidenced by dissent on this page as well as the several others throughout the internet. There are better ways to handle the situation he was in and I know you can at least recognize that. I think manners – saying please and thank you, complements, etc – are never out of line. Being curtious will get you much further than just being curt.

    @Val
    It would be impossible for me to list the endless things I would take a stand on. I will say that premeditated discrimination is one of those things.

    What were they wrong about? Asking him what the money was for?

    Well the agent said “He was playing this game out there and now is playing it in here” so I am led to believe that he was in fact asking for “guidance” from the metal detector worker.

    @Trip
    I’ve addressed some of this. You cannot have perfect granularity. If we would like them to question people with money in an old cigar box or with thousands of dollars heading to South America, we should be willing to accept some degree of leeway both ways until we are ready to foot the bill for some mix of perfect granularity and the maintenence of privacy.

    Please do not compare yourself to revolutionary heroes. It devalues what they did. Their longing for a peaceful agrarian lifestyle with representation to congress is not the same as what happened here.

  69. Jackson Pollock Says:

    I apologize for any grammatical or spelling errors. I did not proof read anything written.

  70. Trip Says:

    He became “hostile” after being asked an erroneous question. One they had no business either legally or professionally asking. What part of this are you missing? They started it by being ignorant of their job.

    What dramatic language led to bamboo chutes? “Unlimited power”? And I can site a multitude of cases where officers act well outside their Constitutionally limited power and have been reprimanded for it, so clearly this is a trend that most people recognize by their sheepish compliance with their every wish.

    I don’t see how having a cash box full of cash would make any sane person think…gee maybe they’ll think I’m a really well organized drug dealer if I leave this money in a container that was designed for this very purpose…

    “Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy and a scare tactic.”

    Please show me evidence of this and the previous statement. Because I know a great number of Constitutional lawyers and I’ve never heard this. The scare tactic is what the government does to get sheep to stand in line and give their Rights away in the guise of security.

    “Those who sacrifice Liberty for security deserve neither” Unofficially credited to Benjamin Franklin

    Way to balk once again on protest, especially as that’s kinda the whole point of this argument. The DIA is responsible for trying to catch drug dealers. Using the Transportation Safety Administration as a counter measure to find drug dealers is like using a fork to eat soup. And it’s out of the scope of the TSA’s responsibilities.

    If I have the Right to stay silent, they clearly don’t have the authority to ask. They may have freedom of speech and use that to ask, but they don’t have authority. Teachers are part of private institutions and thus have the Right to ask whatever they want as an officer of that institution you chose to enroll in. Unless you’re referring to public school, but children under the age of 18 have limited Rights under their parents allowance. And finally, cheating is relevant to school. Cash is NOT RELEVANT to air travel safety!

    Furthermore I don’t want to “foot the bill” for any of it. The government does not have the Constitutional Rights to force security mandates on privately held companies. Let the airlines protect their passengers just as banks protect their cash with armored car drivers, or a liquor store owner protects his store with the gun behind the counter. Protect the planes to have passengers, protect the passengers to keep the planes. Try hijacking a plane with a plastic shiv when you know the pilot has a shotgun in the cabin. So yes, I would be fine with the airlines running the security, and placing restrictions on amounts of money they want on THEIR planes, but not to question me if I come in under that amount. They’re privately held and I don’t have to agree with what they deem safe, anymore than they have to let me on THEIR plane. Notice the accountability that was created by removing the TSA?

    All or nothing on privacy huh? So black or white, in or out, no choice or ability to change your mind? cool.

    The point isn’t proving it. It’s that you shouldn’t have to! (This is like talking to a wall.) And these people need to be aware of what their job is and should be trained in how to respond should someone ask the questions he asked. Questions he had every Right to ask! If they aren’t trained to answer that then that’s clearly another shortfall of this waste of money oranization, and further evidence to why people get irate about it.

    If they aren’t investigating by asking that question then what are they doing? Casually being curious about your personal belongings for fun? I thought they were there to protect, but they aren’t investigating when they ask about your personal items, hmm…not sure how that works, but why not. It clearly makes sense to you. That paradoxical “logic” aside, their responsibility as you put it, is to find weapons or potential weapons to secure the plane. That’s a full time job in and of itself. Why the hell are they asking about cash? There is NO POSSIBLE danger cash presents unless you’re the best origami master in the world!

    And you missed it again. I don’t care if he was being rude. It’s irrelevant. The TSA broke the law, he responded curtly and you think he was wrong. Even though the TSA broke the law, cursed at him, threatened him, and detained him. Perhaps had they hit him you would have a problem. Is that what it takes to get you to understand that legal injury is just as serious as physical? Screw it if he was rude, HE WASN’T THE ONE WHO DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL!

    And I never compared myself to the like. I compared our beliefs and willingness to struggle for them. You’re the spineless wimp who could care less if what they died for is run through the ringer by detached Congressmen passing laws like the so called “patriot Act.” So don’t you dare make comment on my passion to resist a socialist dictatorial government. I can only pray that if the time arose I would be capable to doing even a fraction what they did! And I’ll do all I can to be as much like them as I’m capable of being to protect Liberty even for people like you. Because that’s what fighting for Liberty is all about. “Protecting someone else’s Right to do something you don’t like.” Even if it’s being rude.

  71. Vast Says:

    Law enforcement has the right to detain anyone if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. Carrying a large sum of cash is more often than not a sign that a crime has been committed and most likely drug related.

    While you have the right not to answer the questions of an officer, using that right only heightens their suspicion.

  72. Trip Says:

    So going on vacation with cash is now suspicious enough to get you arrested. Yes detained is legally no different than an arrest. Are you listening to yourself? That’s effing ridiculous and if you don’t believe so then get the hell outta my Country!

  73. Trip Says:

    He became “hostile” after being asked an erroneous question. One they had no business either legally or professionally asking. What part of this are you missing? They started it by being ignorant of their job.

    What dramatic language led to bamboo chutes? “Unlimited power”? And I can site a multitude of cases where officers act well outside their Constitutionally limited power and have been reprimanded for it, so clearly this is a trend that most people recognize by their sheepish compliance with their every wish.

    I don’t see how having a cash box full of cash would make any sane person think…gee maybe they’ll think I’m a really well organized drug dealer if I leave this money in a container that was designed for this very purpose…

    “Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy and a scare tactic.”

    Please show me evidence of this and the previous statement. Because I know a great number of Constitutional lawyers and I’ve never heard this. The scare tactic is what the government does to get sheep to stand in line and give their Rights away in the guise of security.

    “Those who sacrifice Liberty for security deserve neither” Unofficially credited to Benjamin Franklin

    Way to balk once again on protest, especially as that’s kinda the whole point of this argument. The DIA is responsible for trying to catch drug dealers. Using the Transportation Safety Administration as a counter measure to find drug dealers is like using a fork to eat soup. And it’s out of the scope of the TSA’s responsibilities.

    If I have the Right to stay silent, they clearly don’t have the authority to ask. They may have freedom of speech and use that to ask, but they don’t have authority. Teachers are part of private institutions and thus have the Right to ask whatever they want as an officer of that institution you chose to enroll in. Unless you’re referring to public school, but children under the age of 18 have limited Rights under their parents allowance. And finally, cheating is relevant to school. Cash is NOT RELEVANT to air travel safety!

  74. Trip Says:

    Furthermore I don’t want to “foot the bill” for any of it. The government does not have the Constitutional Rights to force security mandates on privately held companies. Let the airlines protect their passengers just as banks protect their cash with armored car drivers, or a liquor store owner protects his store with the gun behind the counter. Protect the planes to have passengers, protect the passengers to keep the planes. Try hijacking a plane with a plastic shiv when you know the pilot has a shotgun in the cabin. So yes, I would be fine with the airlines running the security, and placing restrictions on amounts of money they want on THEIR planes, but not to question me if I come in under that amount. They’re privately held and I don’t have to agree with what they deem safe, anymore than they have to let me on THEIR plane. Notice the accountability that was created by removing the TSA?

    All or nothing on privacy huh? So black or white, in or out, no choice or ability to change your mind? cool.

    The point isn’t proving it. It’s that you shouldn’t have to! (This is like talking to a wall.) And these people need to be aware of what their job is and should be trained in how to respond should someone ask the questions he asked. Questions he had every Right to ask! If they aren’t trained to answer that then that’s clearly another shortfall of this waste of money oranization, and further evidence to why people get irate about it.

    If they aren’t investigating by asking that question then what are they doing? Casually being curious about your personal belongings for fun? I thought they were there to protect, but they aren’t investigating when they ask about your personal items, hmm…not sure how that works, but why not. It clearly makes sense to you. That paradoxical “logic” aside, their responsibility as you put it, is to find weapons or potential weapons to secure the plane. That’s a full time job in and of itself. Why the hell are they asking about cash? There is NO POSSIBLE danger cash presents unless you’re the best origami master in the world!

    And you missed it again. I don’t care if he was being rude. It’s irrelevant. The TSA broke the law, he responded curtly and you think he was wrong. Even though the TSA broke the law, cursed at him, threatened him, and detained him. Perhaps had they hit him you would have a problem. Is that what it takes to get you to understand that legal injury is just as serious as physical? Fuck it if he was rude, HE WASN’T THE ONE WHO DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL!

    And I never compared myself to the like. I compared our beliefs and willingness to struggle for them. You’re the spineless wimp who could care less if what they died for is run through the ringer by detached Congressmen passing laws like the so called “patriot Act.” So don’t you dare make comment on my passion to resist a socialist dictatorial government. I can only pray that if the time arose I would be capable to doing even a fraction what they did! And I’ll do all I can to be as much like them as I’m capable of being to protect Liberty even for people like you. Because that’s what fighting for Liberty is all about. “Protecting someone else’s Right to do something you don’t like.” Even if it’s being rude.

  75. Trip Says:

    Furthermore I don’t want to “foot the bill” for any of it. The government does not have the Constitutional Rights to force security mandates on privately held companies. Let the airlines protect their passengers just as banks protect their cash with armored car drivers, or a liquor store owner protects his store with the gun behind the counter. Protect the planes to have passengers, protect the passengers to keep the planes. Try hijacking a plane with a plastic shiv when you know the pilot has a shotgun in the cabin. So yes, I would be fine with the airlines running the security, and placing restrictions on amounts of money they want on THEIR planes, but not to question me if I come in under that amount. They’re privately held and I don’t have to agree with what they deem safe, anymore than they have to let me on THEIR plane. Notice the accountability that was created by removing the TSA?

    All or nothing on privacy huh? So black or white, in or out, no choice or ability to change your mind? cool.

    The point isn’t proving it. It’s that you shouldn’t have to! (This is like talking to a wall.) And these people need to be aware of what their job is and should be trained in how to respond should someone ask the questions he asked. Questions he had every Right to ask! If they aren’t trained to answer that then that’s clearly another shortfall of this waste of money oranization, and further evidence to why people get irate about it.

  76. Trip Says:

    If they aren’t investigating by asking that question then what are they doing? Casually being curious about your personal belongings for fun? I thought they were there to protect, but they aren’t investigating when they ask about your personal items, hmm…not sure how that works, but why not. It clearly makes sense to you. That paradoxical “logic” aside, their responsibility as you put it, is to find weapons or potential weapons to secure the plane. That’s a full time job in and of itself. Why the hell are they asking about cash? There is NO POSSIBLE danger cash presents unless you’re the best origami master in the world!

    And you missed it again. I don’t care if he was being rude. It’s irrelevant. The TSA broke the law, he responded curtly and you think he was wrong. Even though the TSA broke the law, cursed at him, threatened him, and detained him. Perhaps had they hit him you would have a problem. Is that what it takes to get you to understand that legal injury is just as serious as physical? Fuck it if he was rude, HE WASN’T THE ONE WHO DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL!

    And I never compared myself to the like. I compared our beliefs and willingness to struggle for them. You’re the spineless wimp who could care less if what they died for is run through the ringer by detached Congressmen passing laws like the so called “patriot Act.” So don’t you dare make comment on my passion to resist a socialist dictatorial government. I can only pray that if the time arose I would be capable to doing even a fraction what they did! And I’ll do all I can to be as much like them as I’m capable of being to protect Liberty even for people like you. Because that’s what fighting for Liberty is all about. “Protecting someone else’s Right to do something you don’t like.” Even if it’s being rude.

  77. Trip Says:

    If they aren’t investigating by asking that question then what are they doing? Casually being curious about your personal belongings for fun? I thought they were there to protect, but they aren’t investigating when they ask about your personal items, hmm…not sure how that works, but why not. It clearly makes sense to you. That paradoxical “logic” aside, their responsibility as you put it, is to find weapons or potential weapons to secure the plane. That’s a full time job in and of itself. Why the hell are they asking about cash? There is NO POSSIBLE danger cash presents unless you’re the best origami master in the world!

    And you missed it again. I don’t care if he was being rude. It’s irrelevant. The TSA broke the law, he responded curtly and you think he was wrong. Even though the TSA broke the law, cursed at him, threatened him, and detained him. Perhaps had they hit him you would have a problem. Is that what it takes to get you to understand that legal injury is just as serious as physical? Fuck it if he was rude, HE WASN’T THE ONE WHO DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL!

  78. Trip Says:

    And I never compared myself to the like. I compared our beliefs and willingness to struggle for them. You’re the spineless wimp who could care less if what they died for is run through the ringer by detached Congressmen passing laws like the so called “patriot Act.” So don’t you dare make comment on my passion to resist a socialist dictatorial government. I can only pray that if the time arose I would be capable to doing even a fraction what they did! And I’ll do all I can to be as much like them as I’m capable of being to protect Liberty even for people like you. Because that’s what fighting for Liberty is all about. “Protecting someone else’s Right to do something you don’t like.” Even if it’s being rude.

  79. Trip Says:

    And Vast,

    If you want to live in a country where you have to show your papers, then be my guest to move to Russia, China, North Korea, South Africa or any other country that will acquiesce your request. But most people have the brainpower to realize that carrying legal tender printed and backed by the US government is not a crime nor a suspicious act punishable in ANY WAY!

  80. Richard Bell Says:

    It’s always annoying when some government functionary starts acting in ways which you believe to be illegal or unconstitutional. People keep comparing this guy’s action to Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat on the bus. What’s missing here is the personal and political context: at the personal level, Rosa Parks had years of experience in fighting segregation. Here’s part of her history, from the Highlander School:
    “At the time of her arrest, Rosa Parks was a respected community leader already working to counter humiliating racist laws and traditions. She became secretary of the Montgomery NAACP chapter as early as 1943 and tried to register to vote three times before doing so for the first time in 1945….In July 1955 she came to the original Highlander Folk School located in Monteagle, Tennessee, for a workshop on school desegregation, one of many workshops that Highlander held for civil rights freedom fighters during that time…..http://www.highlandercenter.org/n-rosa-parks.asp.

    Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on December 1, 1955. As her history shows, there was a very rich personal and political context which helped give her action much greater meaning than the simple act itself. There is nothing wrong with individual acts of resistance, but as many previous writers have noted, such isolated acts are unlikely to be effective in achieving any larger social or political change.

  81. Jackson Pollock Says:

    “They started it…” Are you serious? They are charged with protecting passengers. You want to limit this protection to solely determining if people have weapons. Do you think that as long as no one around you has a gun that you are perfectly safe? If not, what makes you unsafe?

    “I don’t see how having a cash box full of cash would make any sane person think…”
    I am a sane person. I believe having a cash box full of small bills would make me appear suspicious. But the point is that it doesn’t matter that YOU don’t see it. It does matter that SOME people see it. The fact that some people see it as a security risk means that some people in charge of security probably see it as a security risk. I think they are in a better position to determine security risk for the general public than you are. In fact, I would blindly wager that any airport security person is a better judge than you of what makes the public feel safe.

    Ask any of your constitutional lawyer friends about the state of privary prior to the Brandeis court. The modern definition of privacy wasn’t really mentioned at the national level until an 1890 piece in a Boston (I think) newspaper demanding gossips stay away from the parties of socialites. While the actual article did nothing, it did lead to the Brandeis led supreme court to make mention and eventually rule and overturn laws regarding privacy.

    What are some situations where your line of thinking (if we don’t stop them, they will take the right all together) would have been correct and prevented some removal of citizens rights? Or has that never actually happened?

    Your Ben Franklin quote means nothing. It was said, but on what grounds is it true? I would give up my liberty to murder people at random if I get reasonable assurance that my security is enhanced by not being at risk of random murder. Does this make me deserve neither liberty nor security? Have you given up your liberty to murder at random?

    The TSA’s responsibility is to ensure the safety of passengers. I think being in a metal box at 45,000 feet with a drug dealer is a risk to my safety. Thankfully, some people (the TSA) agree.

    “If I have the Right to stay silent, they clearly don’t have the authority to ask.”
    You always have the right to stay silent. Does this mean police officers have no authority to ask you anything? The right to remain silent is in your Miranda Rights, after all. Police officers can initiate a criminal investigation. Do they not have any authority to ask you questions?

    “Teachers are part of private institutions and thus have the Right to ask whatever they want as an officer of that institution you chose to enroll in.”
    Do TSA officers (or police officers – The EoS blog said one of the people in the tape was a police officer) that work in the airport as security officials act as an officer of the airport/airline (institution) that you want to fly through/on (enroll in)? If no, what is the difference? The airport is private with TSA people and police officers being utilized and in charge of first wave security.

    “Cash is NOT RELEVANT to air travel safety!”
    I think indications that someone is involved in illegal activities is relevant to air travel safety.

    Whether it comes from the airlines or the government, you would still be footing the bill for enhanced granularity in searches. In fact, you would probably pay more if it is done by the airlines because the of the governments propensity to make money out of thin air while each airline has a balance sheet and a board of directors to answer to. A pilot with a shotgun would probably be just as likely to harm passengers as the hijacker.

    Banks, liquor stores, most other places that provide their own security — their product is likely insured (Banks definitely, some liquor stores). It is much harder to satisfactorily insure human lives. Furthermore, an incident of hijacking will damage the entire air traffic industry, while robbery does not stop people from using banks or liquor stores.

    You are purposely being obtuse. I specifically used investigation in reference to a criminal investigation. I did not say questioning people was not investigating in the colloquial sense you are using it here. There is no paradoxical logic. This is a perfect example of you twisting what I am saying. Again, I think we can go agree that their responsibility is to enhance the safety of passengers on board and I think a possible criminal or belligerent causes some threat to the level of safety on an airplane.

    I know YOU don’t care that he was being rude and YOU think it is irrelevant. My point is that some people do think it is relevant and some of the people that thought it was relevant were also the people in charge of security. (First the metal detector person and then the TSA agent and police officer). I think it is very important that he was rude, beyond just a legal standpoint, in fact. Rudeness (referring to his responses to the questions) can be interpreted as being defensive, which many officers think is suspicious. Being rude to random security people at the metal detector is also just mean and serves little point. If you’ve noticed, the TSA response hasn’t included anything about the questions being improper, only how the questioning was performed. He was being rude by asking the metal detector person if was legally required to answer the questions.

    “You’re the spineless wimp who could care less if what they died for is run through the ringer”
    I have representation and am happy with how I am being governed. Taxes are not being imposed on a single arbitrary group. Soldiers are not making residence in my home. My American products don’t even need stamps!

    “So don’t you dare make comment on my passion to resist a socialist dictatorial government.”
    These two adjectives are antithetical both in the philosophical sense or even historically proven, pick your poison. Philosophically, a left/liberal government does not value a single competing conception of desirable ends. A right/conservative government holds a single conception to be the desirable goal while instituting measures in the name of the “common good.” Historically, right/conservative/dictatorial governments allow for fewer aims or goals, while promoting a specific communal plan (Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy). Left/Liberal/Socialist governments do not put specific values on certain plans and leave citizens more open to choosing a specific end goal.

    I do not think the person in the recording was protecting anything. I think he was purposely being difficult.

  82. Jackson Pollock Says:

    My comment did not go through. It looks like there are problems because your first post was really long and the others were broken into smaller chunks. I will wait it out for a bit to see…

  83. Jackson Pollock Says:

    “They started it…” Are you serious? They are charged with protecting passengers. You want to limit this protection to solely determining if people have weapons. Do you think that as long as no one around you has a gun that you are perfectly safe? If not, what makes you unsafe?

    “I don’t see how having a cash box full of cash would make any sane person think…”
    I am a sane person. I believe having a cash box full of small bills would make me appear suspicious. But the point is that it doesn’t matter that YOU don’t see it. It does matter that SOME people see it. The fact that some people see it as a security risk means that some people in charge of security probably see it as a security risk. I think they are in a better position to determine security risk for the general public than you are. In fact, I would blindly wager that any airport security person is a better judge than you of what makes the public feel safe.

    Ask any of your constitutional lawyer friends about the state of privacy prior to the Brandeis court. The modern definition of privacy wasn’t really mentioned at the national level until an 1890 piece in a Boston (I think) newspaper demanding gossips stay away from the parties of socialites. While the actual article did nothing, it did lead to the Brandeis led supreme court to make mention and eventually rule and overturn laws regarding privacy.

    What are some situations where your line of thinking (if we don’t stop them, they will take the right all together) would have been correct and prevented some removal of citizens rights? Or has that never actually happened?

    Your Ben Franklin quote means nothing. It was said, but on what grounds is it true? I would give up my liberty to murder people at random if I get reasonable assurance that my security is enhanced by not being at risk of random murder. Does this make me deserve neither liberty nor security? Have you given up your liberty to murder at random?

    The TSA’s responsibility is to ensure the safety of passengers. I think being in a metal box at 45,000 feet with a drug dealer is a risk to my safety. Thankfully, some people (the TSA) agree.

  84. Jackson Pollock Says:

    “If I have the Right to stay silent, they clearly don’t have the authority to ask.”
    You always have the right to stay silent. Does this mean police officers have no authority to ask you anything? The right to remain silent is in your Miranda Rights, after all. Police officers can initiate a criminal investigation. Do they not have any authority to ask you questions?

    “Teachers are part of private institutions and thus have the Right to ask whatever they want as an officer of that institution you chose to enroll in.”
    Do TSA officers (or police officers – The EoS blog said one of the people in the tape was a police officer) that work in the airport as security officials act as an officer of the airport/airline (institution) that you want to fly through/on (enroll in)? If no, what is teh difference? The airport is private with TSA people and police officers being utilized and in charge of first wave security.

    “Cash is NOT RELEVANT to air travel safety!”
    I think indications that someone is involved in illegal activities is relevant to air travel safety.

    Furthermore I don’t want to “foot the bill” for any of it. The government does not have the Constitutional Rights to force security mandates on privately held companies. Let the airlines protect their passengers just as banks protect their cash with armored car drivers, or a liquor store owner protects his store with the gun behind the counter. Protect the planes to have passengers, protect the passengers to keep the planes. Try hijacking a plane with a plastic shiv when you know the pilot has a shotgun in the cabin. So yes, I would be fine with the airlines running the security, and placing restrictions on amounts of money they want on THEIR planes, but not to question me if I come in under that amount. They’re privately held and I don’t have to agree with what they deem safe, anymore than they have to let me on THEIR plane. Notice the accountability that was created by removing the TSA?

    Whether it comes from the airlines or the government, you would still be footing the bill for enhanced granularity in searches. In fact, you would probably pay more if it is done by the airlines because the of the governments propensity to make money out of thin air while each airline has a balance sheet and a board of directors to answer to. A pilot with a shotgun would probably be just as likely to harm passengers as the hijacker.

    Banks, liquor stores, most other places that provide their own security — their product is likely insured (Banks definitely, some liquor stores). It is much harder to satisfactorily insure human lives. Furthermore, an incident of hijacking will damage the entire air traffic industry, while robbery does not stop people from using banks or liquor stores.

  85. Jackson Pollock Says:

    You are purposely being obtuse. I specifically used investigation in reference to a criminal investigation. I did not say questioning people was not investigating in the colloquial sense you are using it here. There is no paradoxical logic. This is a perfect example of you twisting what I am saying. Again, I think we can go agree that their responsibility is to enhance the safety of passengers on board and I think a possible criminal or belligerent causes some threat to the level of safety on an airplane.

    I know YOU don’t care that he was being rude and YOU think it is irrelevant. My point is that some people do think it is relevant and some of the people that thought it was relevant were also the people in charge of security. (First the metal detector person and then the TSA agent and police officer). I think it is very important that he was rude, beyond just a legal standpoint, in fact. Rudeness (referring to his responses to the questions) can be interpreted as being defensive, which many officers think is suspicious. Being rude to random security people at the metal detector is also just mean and serves little point. If you’ve noticed, the TSA response hasn’t included anything about the questions being improper, only how the questioning was performed. He was being rude by asking the metal detector person if was legally required to answer the questions.

    “You’re the spineless wimp who could care less if what they died for is run through the ringer”
    I have representation and am happy with how I am being governed. Taxes are not being imposed on a single arbitrary group. Soldiers are not making residence in my home. My American products don’t even need stamps!

    “So don’t you dare make comment on my passion to resist a socialist dictatorial government.”
    These two adjectives are antithetical both in the philosophical sense or even historically proven, pick your poison. Philosophically, a left/liberal government does not value a single competing conception of desirable ends. A right/conservative government holds a single conception to be the desirable goal while instituting measures in the name of the “common good.” Historically, right/conservative/dictatorial governments allow for fewer aims or goals, while promoting a specific communal plan (Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy). Left/Liberal/Socialist governments do not put specific values on certain plans and leave citizens more open to choosing a specific end goal.

    I do not think the person in the recording was protecting anything. I think he was purposely being difficult.

  86. Jackson Pollock Says:

    You are purposely being obtuse. I specifically used investigation in reference to a criminal investigation. I did not say questioning people was not investigating in the colloquial sense you are using it here. There is no paradoxical logic. This is a perfect example of you twisting what I am saying. Again, I think we can go agree that their responsibility is to enhance the safety of passengers on board and I think a possible criminal or belligerent causes some threat to the level of safety on an airplane.

    I know YOU don’t care that he was being rude and YOU think it is irrelevant. My point is that some people do think it is relevant and some of the people that thought it was relevant were also the people in charge of security. (First the metal detector person and then the TSA agent and police officer). I think it is very important that he was rude, beyond just a legal standpoint, in fact. Rudeness (referring to his responses to the questions) can be interpreted as being defensive, which many officers think is suspicious. Being rude to random security people at the metal detector is also just mean and serves little point. If you’ve noticed, the TSA response hasn’t included anything about the questions being improper, only how the questioning was performed. He was being rude by asking the metal detector person if was legally required to answer the questions.

  87. Jackson Pollock Says:

    “You’re the spineless wimp who could care less if what they died for is run through the ringer”
    I have representation and am happy with how I am being governed. Taxes are not being imposed on a single arbitrary group. Soldiers are not making residence in my home. My American products don’t even need stamps!

  88. Matt R Says:

    @Nick Benjamin, who said: “Guys you do realize there is no Constitutional right protecting people from being inconvenienced?”

    Um, yes there is. It’s the Fourth Amendment.

    Holding a guy for 30 minutes in the absence of any evidence forming “reasonable suspicion” is a seizure. That is to say, he was under arrest – not free to leave.

    The mere possession of cash (and not very much, for that matter) is PERFECTLY LEGAL and does not give rise to a reasonable suspicion.

    If he were on a street corner known for drug trafficking, it MIGHT. But simply taking a domestic airline flight – no way.

    TSA and the STL cops were WAY out of line here.

  89. Jackson Pollock Says:

    My final part keeps getting rejected…

    But you describing the government that way is incorrect. Those two words should not be used together in that sense. They are in direct opposition both philosophically and historically. A left government is more open to options while a right government is more apt to subscribe to a single common goal for the entire population. If you would like more info please let me know.

  90. Trip Says:

    Jackson, I will start by saying that I have not twisted your words. I have taken what you said, responded and asked every time for clarification as to whether or not that’s what you meant. I have also addressed almost every line of your retorts while you take a single line from my entire paragraphs and mount a counter based solely on single sentences. Stop playing the damn martyr!

    Yes, they started it by overstepping their Constitutional bounds with someone who knew his Constitutional Rights! Then their ignorance of their Constitutionally limited powers led to the altercation escalating instead of them knowing how to answer his question. Notice he was set free, rather inconspicuously I might add. So clearly he did nothing wrong!

    I suppose you’re going to tell me people with martial arts training shouldn’t be allowed on planes. I can tell you with a black belt in Taekwondo, as well as Judo and Kung Fu training that I’m far more dangerous than a drug dealer with absolutely no weapons or means to attain them at 45,000 ft! Furthermore, I’ve sped before and I’m pretty sure that’s illegal so you might as well throw me off the plane for that too, because I engage in illegal activities that endanger others.

    So tell me how is a drug dealer threatening your security on that plane if he has no weapons? Seriously, how? What could he or any of his enemies, even, do to you while you’re trapped in that plane at 45,000 ft? Hire an Air Force pilot to shoot the plane down and you with it? Or maybe some cocaine residue is on his shirt and you might inhale some of it and get high! Answer this, please.

    So are you trying tell me that the TSA is supposed to keep us safe or make us feel safe? You keep switching that and I’m confused. And I know exactly how to make the teeming masses feel safe. You give them a warm glass of milk, let them watch TV and rub their back til they fall asleep then you steal all the money out of their wallet. Much like our government has been doing since Woodrow Wilson. “Oh don’t you worry, we’ll take care of that for you. We’ll start Social Security to take care of your retirement for you, just don’t pay too close attention cause we’re also going to use that money as our own personal piggy bank for other projects.”

    And please tell me what would make that money not suspicious? OK, let’s put it in multiple envelopes (way too many bills for 1 to hold) and then place it in the carry on bag. That won’t look at all suspicious compared to small bills in a cash box normally used in cases where small dollar items are sold. Or perhaps we could check it in and let the pricks who stole my friend’s laptop, DVDs and my cologne and electric razor have a go at it! Perhaps we should try and hide it on our person as to not get harassed. Oh wait, it’s too many bills to do that and I can’t walk through the metal detector with my jacket on. Well I guess they could exchange it for larger bills, wait it’s the weekend and banks aren’t open! Then there’s wiring, but that would cost an additional $250 which makes a ton of sense when you’re physically going to the same place. So please enlighten me. How do you get legal tender through security without being harassed? And of course there’s still the question as to why are we getting harassed over legal tender?

    As for the 1890 article you mentioned, lets take something into account shall we? Federal power was rightfully limited in those times. Issues of personal privacy was handled at the local or at highest State level. It didn’t have to be mentioned or otherwise ruled on. The Forth Amendment clearly states:

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

    So it was a non-issue prior to Federal seizure of power from the States. Actually just reading that single Amendment proves my entire point!

    “Or has that never actually happened?”

    Wow, someone just upgraded to condescending jackass. Glad you can use flowery language because your knowledge of world history is clearly sub-par. Public schooling I presume? Can you not see that our government is corrupt and is leading us to our end unless We The People get it under control? Try studying Roman history, specifically in the last 50-100 years before the empire fell. Then have fun taking your foot out of your mouth and head out of your ass. When you’re finished with that I’ll give you another assignment.

    “Have you given up your liberty to murder at random?”

    WTF are you talking about? For arguments sake, you don’t have the Liberty to take someone’s life, since the most important Freedom we have is to Live. Way to use a stupid ass example. Secondly, you do forfeit your Liberty if you take someone else’s. It’s called prison. Third are your retarded? What did you hope to accomplish with that off-the-wall, unrealistic and completely unrelated example? I’m sure it sounded better in your head, right?

    And the Franklin quote is true on the grounds it was said by a guy who helped found this Country and clearly had a better idea of what they were fighting against and what was dear to them than you or I. If you can give up the Unaliable Rights the government is supposed to protect for you, then why on Earth do you deserve or think you’ll get security from the government that just asked you to give away your Rights?

    You like using big words, but the simple ones confuse you. They have the freedom of speech to ask you a question, but if you have the Right to remain silent they have no authority until due process has been served. Unless you give up your Right, or a lawyer is present, they have no authority to ask questions. Should a conviction come from any statements made without due process then any lawyer would have a field day ripping the case apart and getting the officers in question dismissed. If they had authority, then you would have to answer immediately. You just picked a fight over semantics, which in the legal world means everything!

    TSA agents are NOT employees of the airline or airport. They are a post defacto corporation created by unconstitutional Federal mandate! The difference is the airlines have no choice whether or not to utilize the TSA.

    “I think indications that someone is involved in illegal activities is relevant to air travel safety

    So are you telling me that we place ourselves subject to criminal investigation every time we fly? That every time we choose to exercise our First Amendment Right to travel freely, that we are under investigation? If they’re looking for signs of criminal acts then clearly we are all under investigation. If so then they need to inform us of that and make us aware of our Rights before we place ourselves in that position (entrapment, which is illegal without warrant). Steve asked for his Rights to be explained and he was arrested for it. Do you see the problem yet?

    You’re right, it would cost more for that type of security, but it’s the airline’s Right to choose. The government has no jurisdiction to mandate security. Secondly the government has a “board” it has to answer to, but clearly ignores. That would be us! And this propensity to make up money is another example of why i don’t trust them to run anything. Organizations like the TSA are what’s running this Country’s finances into the ground. Spending with no return; socialized security.

    “A pilot with a shotgun would probably be just as likely to harm passengers as the hijacker.”

    Grow up. It is unreasonable to think a shotgun would be the weapon of choice. I used it in a larger example and you ran with the detail. Nice work, A-Hole! But since I apparently need to spell it out for you; the pilot would have a 9 mm or 45 cal pistol with Air Marshal shells (they shatter when they strike the hull) and would undergo target and weapon retention training.

    “…will damage the entire air traffic industry,…”

    So it’s up to the all knowing government to protect it, huh? Clearly they know how to protect airplanes better than the airlines would. They know so well that they made it illegal for a pilot to carry a weapon even if the airline would prefer it. Good choice, let the government handle it.

    “…in the colloquial sense you are using it here.”

    Wrong, i was referring to criminal investigations. I shortened it and apparently I’m not allowed to do that for fear of your digging for loopholes. You said they’re the first line and they’re looking for criminal activity. Thus they are starting a criminal investigation every time they swab a shoe, X-Ray your bag, metal detect your person, or ask a question. And since that is what they are doing, they need to know their limitations and should someone ask what their Rights are, or in this case, where the TSA’s jurisdiction lies, they need to be able to answer that. Can you at least see this?

    So I didn’t twist anything, you said they weren’t starting investigations, but admit what they discover can be used against passengers and they have arrest powers. That’s a paradox. Yes, detaining them until a police officer arrives is still an arrest. If you are not free to go, you’re under arrest.

    “TSA response hasn’t included anything about the questions being improper, only how the questioning was performed. “

    Keep reading. The incident is under investigation. Why is it under investigation if the manner in which it was handled is the only concern? The questioning was all recorded no further investigation is needed if that’s all they’re worried about. And Dick Cheney said he didn’t see a problem with what he authorized done to prisoners. Are you going to believe him to? He was a lot higher up than the TSA’s PR, so surely being a government official he’s infallable, right?

    “I have representation and am happy with how I am being governed. “

    Congratulations, I and most other educated Americans are not. Those of us who realize that State’s Rights are not to be mandated by the Feds. That running a Country on credit is unethical and unconstitutional. That “taking care” of the people is not a power granted to the government by the Constitution. i.e. forced government assistance of any kind. And that the government has NO RIGHT to question or detain me simply for exercising my Right to free legal passage through this Country. I am innocent of all things until proven guilty and no one can assume I’m doing something wrong without proof. And cash sure as hell isn’t proof.

    “My American products don’t even need stamps!”

    But apparently your Federal Reserve Notes need to have proof of acquisition!

    “Philosophically, a left/liberal government does not value a single competing conception of desirable ends. A right/conservative government holds a single conception to be the desirable goal while instituting measures in the name of the “common good.””

    Gee…what are your political views. Spoken like a true bipartisan, well done! And may I add, over-simplified and highly stretched. Communism, or “right/conservative/dictatorial” governments stem from the concepts of socialism (a la Marxism) and providing equal distribution of funds, food, care, etc among the citizens. And you painted the left/liberals as a Utopian society where the government takes care you, but you still have choices. Bull Shit! Let’s go with another prominent historical figure…

    “A government which is strong enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” Thomas Jefferson

    Furthermore, a true Conservative isn’t concerned with social issues to the degree of a Liberal. a true Conservative is a fiscally conservative and thus realizes the limitations of budget prevent them from even attempting to place restrictions or sanction citizen’s social activities. Republicans in this Country are NOT this. They are social conservative, fiscal liberals.

    “…while promoting a specific communal plan”

    Those are exceptions where that happened, not the rule. What’s Cuba’s communal plan? Or North Korea’s communal plan? China? Russia? Or an number of African countries? They’re just dictatorial governments, some of which are rather socially liberal, and all have socialist tendencies if not entirely socialist. So tell me again that a socialist dictatorial government is antithetical. Just because your political views are narrow/closed minded doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    “I do not think the person in the recording was protecting anything. I think he was purposely being difficult.”

    Please read up on the Campaign for Liberty. He most definitely was standing up for something. He freakin works for the organization, for penny’s I might add. You don’t think he believes in the organization he’s basically volunteering for?

    And ultimately I don’t trust a government to protect me after passing laws like the “Patriot” Act, which strips me of some of my most basic freedoms. Protecting my life is meaningless if you’ve stripped me of my Rights!

  91. Trip Says:

    NEW DEVELOPEMENT:

    It appears the cash box also contained personal checks made out to “Campaign for Liberty”!

    It appears the “suspicious” wad of cash was not only small bills, and those check clearly stated who it was being paid to. Care to comment now on why they needed to ask why he had that money? Or perhaps you would prefer to once again say they knew nothing about the MIAC report!

    In Liberty,
    Trip

  92. Libertas Says:

    Some of the responses are truly disheartening. It doesn’t matter if he was singled out because he was a Ron Paul supporter. No one should be putting up with this. Each time we’re silent in order to just get by and not have any trouble is another step, another act of consent to tyranny.

    Only when we say enough, no more, we will not cooperate, will the government back down.

  93. Weekly TSA Rant « Delayed Again Says:

    [...] of cash. The large amount was supposedly about $4,700. Guess what?  He recorded it and it’s right here. This is the most chilling audio I’ve heard in some time.  Please do ignore some of the Fox [...]

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: