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

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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!

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 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.

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.

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.