TSA Changes Its Rules, ACLU Lawsuit Dropped 285
ndogg writes "Earlier this year, there was much ado about a Ron Paul staffer, Steve Bierfeldt, being detained by the TSA for carrying large sums of money. The ACLU sued on his behalf, and the TSA changed its rules, now stating that its officers can only screen for unsafe materials. With that, the ACLU dropped its suit. '[Ben Wizner, a staff lawyer for the ACLU, said] screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, strictly to keep weapons and explosives off planes, not to help police enforce other laws.'"
Maybe it's just me (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd have rather have a legal precedent set VS a rule that can be changed back.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
...people with large sums of money have more freedoms than people who don't.
He had a large sum of money on him, and as a result was detained for hours and strip-searched, as well as being accused of being a terrorist and denied access to a lawyer or charged with any crime. Meanwhile, the guy who only had $15 and a cracker in his pocket was able to get on the plane. Tell me again how the guy with the money had more freedoms in this case?
Now the TSA will be forced to do their job (Score:1, Insightful)
Which is to create the illusion that the government is doing all it can to protect your security.
$4500 a "large sum of money" for travel? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised the TSA considered $4500 to be a "large sum of money". That's about two weeks of business travel. If that.
With current credit card fees, it may be more cost-effective to carry cash. Even if you get robbed 1% of the time, you're still ahead.
B 'fing' S (Score:1, Insightful)
"screeners get a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment" .06% of the total words available so that is how we measure *narrow exception*
what the eff do we have a Fourth Amendment for? You can actually get 'narrow exceptions' to the fundamental rights? Isn't this step one BIG step towards, "you have freedom of speech except that we have a *narrow exception* to that rule to forbids political statements that paint the current regime in a bad light" kind of crap? How about, ' There are 171,476 words in the english language, you cannot use these 100 words as we have a narrow exception to your freedom of speech. thats only
You know who I blame for this? YOU(me). When was the last time any of us rioted in the streets to stop this kind of BS? been a while huh? wonder why the Gov. can pass anything they like on a whim? The only people they answer to is themselves.
yeah im anonymous, dont need any door knockers this afternoon if you know what I mean. and if your clueless, I dont mean mormons, jahova's, or the schwanz man.
Re:Maybe it's just me (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you think the rules were changed in the first place? The system works as follows: Now those rules are changed to avoid a precedent. Then we wait 'til the waves settle and use the time to think up a more bulletproof version, including terrorists, pedophiles and ... well, whatever other boogeyman shows up in the meantime. Then anyone protesting or even arguing against it is vilified.
You didn't get the memo?
Cash is the anonymous proxy for economic networks (Score:5, Insightful)
And there is nothing the government hates more than anonymity. Can't tax it, track it and control it unless it is electronic, and traceable. That is why they hate cash so much. The only possible reason for economic anonymity is nefarious. You must be using it to avoid taxation or buy or sell something the government doesn't think you should have or fund terrorists. Cash must be stamped out.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if the guy with a cracker had a bottle of soda instead, the roles would have been reversed but he wouldn't be released with a change of rules to take home.
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems to be another exemption from President Obama's promise of transparency in government. In fact, I'm not sure I'm able to distinguish his policies from his predecessor's.
-Peter
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the exact curcumstances of the events being duscussed is the straw man.
It's not your completely unsupported claim with no relevance to the events at hand that is the straw man.
Hint: yes in lots of situations wealthy people get away with things that poorer people don't. But carrying money and being wealthy are unrelated.
The homeless looking man carrying $100,000 in a sack is going to have far more issues with the cops than the well dressed man with $80 in his wallet.
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think his ability to make changes is so great that he could have changed everything by now, you are a damn fool. If you vote as if politicians will quickly achieve all of their stated goals regardless of the opposition they may face, you are poison.
(I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors)
Interpretation, not exception (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not an exception to the Fourth Amendment. It's only an interpretation that looking for guns and explosives when people board a plane does not constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure", but looking for anything else is "unreasonable".
Re:Also: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
(I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors)
I did too. I kind of wish McCain of 2000 was running in the last election instead of McCain of 2008.
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
>
(I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors)
This is the problem with have in politics today. You do not have to be good, or compliant to win. Just not %otherparty. I have had enough of this, and that is why I did not vote for McCain. The little (r) was not enough, and I refuse to vote for people just because they do not eat babies.
(For the record, I voted Libertarian this time.)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case a large sum of money to the TSA was $4,300 in a metal box. We're not talking a suitcase with a million dollars. While I don't carry that much cash, someone carrying that much cash isn't uncommon. Business people may carry that much for one reason or another.
As far as I know only Customs asks people about the amount of money carried by a passenger if you are entering a country. Almost no one asks on domestic flights.
Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath (Score:4, Insightful)
The system basically worked here, the offended party was able to use the system to address his grievance. Let's not forget that for all our bluster about liberty and freedom there are some places where a real politically-motivated detainment could have meant death or worse.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if the guy with a cracker had a bottle of soda instead, the roles would have been reversed but he wouldn't be released with a change of rules to take home.
More often than not, that bottle of soda gets chucked into a 30 gallon garbage bin sitting next to the security screeners.
Which tells you how dangerous they really think it is.
Re:Also: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, the fact that the TSA hasn't changed their culture is a pretty bald statement of exactly how powerful the President is (and it demonstrates that there is a difference between his legal powers and his powers to change reality).
three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
did not vote at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only office you consider voting for, then backed down, was for the federal office of president?
You did not vote for your federal level house rep or senators, or any state/county/city level offices?
Some white guy in a wig, now long dead, once said: "We do not have a government of the majority. We have a government of the majority who choose to participate."
Re:Impact on computer searches? (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never heard of computers being searched on domestic flights. I'm under the impression that that is Customs that performs those searches. So, yes, they will likely continue.
Everyone who thinks that this changes things... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is an idiot.^^
Because now, suddenly money is an "unsafe material" (could be fake, could be to pay "terrorists", could be a bomb inside, "I'm just asking questions."(TM)*),
and therefore it is "by definition reasonable".
Who are those people who think they could stop criminals that don't care for the rules of society (laws), by creating yet another law? Are they drunk?
On the other hand... who said they actually want to stop them...? ^^
___
* Trademark of FOX News.
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
He didn't get the nod in '00 because he wasn't tight with the neocons. Dubya was, so he got the nod.
Personally, as a Republican, I'd LOVE to get my party away from the neocons.
Re:Is it now legal to carry large sums of money? (Score:2, Insightful)
It depends - are you white? If you aren't, kiss that money goodbye unless you can *prove* that it wasn't from selling drugs. After all, it'll be covered in cocaine residue (like any other US currency)...
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
'Lots of money' as in a few thousands in cash that will trigger a search based on the DEA's rules, and 'lots of money' as in mover and shaker who can easily afford good lawyers if hassled are so very different. Conflating the two does create a strawman, a purely hypothetical entity that you can substitute for real ones to have an easier time arguing your point. The people who travel with too much cash, and the people who make large donations to political campaigns and have their pictures taken with governors and presidents, are two overwhelmingly different groups with almost no overlap. Those of you who insist they belong together as one group, are, quite simply, wrong, and yes, it's a strawman argument to substitute the hypothetical person who has over a thousand in cash as also being the person who has the position and power to fight the TSA, and then claim that's what the original poster meant. Hell, it's practically a textbook example of a strawman attack. The moderations applied to Rookoon are therefore abusive, violations of the mod system, particularly the -1 troll on the above post.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the system didn't fully work. The TSA changed its "internal policies".. That is much different than a legal precedent, and of course, they can be changed right back, in a month. A person violating "internal policies" might get "disciplined" which is a long way from what's going to happen to someone for willfuly violating your rights. (And really, some of those minimum wage power tripping ego's really do need to get knocked back a few notches.) Also, if I'm not mistaken, pretty much all of the airports use Contractors to actually hire the agents. I'm not sure exactly how much training the employees get, since that would cut into the companies profits...
Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but to me the real point to keep in mind is that since 9/11, we've been on the slippery slope toward becoming one of those bad places you're describing. And let's also remember that the whole reason Guantanamo exists is so that some parties will not be able to use the system to address their grievances.
I have a recurring alert in my calendar to donate $100 every July 1 to the ACLU, PO box 96265, Washington, DC 20090-6265. I hope everyone here who's posting about what a great victory this was will do something similar. (Note that contributions to the ACLU are not tax-deductible because they use more than a certain % of their money for lobbying.)
What I really love about the ACLU is that even though they're basically a bunch of liberal Democrats, they take cases strictly on what they perceive as the case's legal importance for civil liberties. Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichrist, but they took this case because it was a good, important case.
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
I honestly don't think anybody could have won against Obama, not even a Ronald Reagan. Maybe if you went waaaaay back in time a Teddy Roosevelt would have enough charisma to beat Obama, but even that's iffy considering Obama got almost 100% of the black votes (which is understandable given the history-setting precedent).
Obama is a great speaker who knew how to rally the American people. Plus he had a lousy republican president and a lousy economy in his favor. In my opinion he was unbeatable. Almost any Democrat candidate would also be difficult to beat given the previous 8 years.
Re:Also: (Score:1, Insightful)
If you think his ability to make changes is so great that he could have changed everything by now, you are a damn fool.
And how long does that excuse work when _nothing_ has changed?
I voted for Obama, but mostly because he wasn't McCain-Palin, not because I thought he was going to be so different than his predecessors
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos", try a 3rd party.
Re:Also: (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to take a longer term view. Your vote serves to do more than simply help that candidate win that election. It also serves to increase (however slightly) the profile of that candidate, and by extension the party. Every vote that goes to a third party is one that helps further the belief that a third party candidate is viable.
Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath (Score:3, Insightful)
The system basically worked here
Umm, it was the threat of litigation by the ACLU that worked. If you consider the ACLU as part of the "system", consider why there has to be an AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION in the first place. The "system" is erring ever more on the "side" of the government. Perhaps your just not old enough to remember what it USED to be like. But then again, I remember $0.25 cokes from vending machines, which is strange, considering the government claims only 2-3% inflation since the 80's... at 3% compounded, a can of coke should cost you $0.60 today. Yet strangely a 12-pack at the supermarket will set you back around $11 ($0.91/can) and at least $1 from a vending machine. Ahhh, how wonderful it is that people don't notice creeping things like inflation, or erosion of civil liberties, for that matter. Governments lie. Period. This is not new, Plato even justified it. Please do enjoy your "recovery" in the meantime.
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any leader, political or otherwise, that walks into a large-scale bureaucracy thinking their powers are going to be sufficient to turn around what is the human equivalent of a 100-car train is going to be in for some serious pain. You don't just declare "This is going to happen" and then it happens.
The best example I can think of was China's Great Leap Forward. You had all these low-level functionaries given orders from far-far away on how much iron was going to be produced, how much rice, how much this and how much that. As targets began to fall off, the low-level bureaucrats basically lied to their superiors. Their superiors, for the most part knew what they were being fed was shit but no one was going to go to the chief bureaucrats and the Party apparatchik, and most importantly to Mao and his inner circle, and declare "It ain't working."
What your repeating is the standard "civil servants are lazy bumbs" line, which, like most alarmist statements, is pretty much nonsense. I suspect if you were in charge that you would be the kind of guy leader who in short order would basically be the victim of every kind of sabotage and poor relationship possible.
At any rate, Obama has been in the job for about nine or ten months now. As the head of the pyramid, he's hardly going to be dealing with the minutia of one branch of the Executive. That's what he has a Cabinet for. I guess he can sort of get blame the same way a captain will get blame if his navigator runs the ship into the rocks, but the reality is that the US government is a vast machine, and that even singular departments like TSA, which are branches of larger departments (in this case Homeland Security) would require the President spend every waking moment of every day dealing with departments, sub-departments, branches and so forth.
Besides, even if he deals with problems directly, he's probably not going to take an adversarial tone like you are, because basically calling people useless and stupid and then saying "Let's make it better..." is going to end in a bigger fuck up than what you had to begin with.
Re:Gray areas (Score:4, Insightful)
They are not police, have no police powers, and are bullies and dragoons.
E
P.S. I'm calling modified Godwin's Law on this.
Re:Gray areas (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the OP was pretty specific. Besides the direct duties associated with protecting the planes, such as checking for weapons, the TSA should be doing nothing more than would be expected of any private citizen.
Sightings of missing persons or the FBI's most wanted is something everybody is obligated to report, with no exceptions, not even the police are excluded from this. (They are required to report just about everything anyway.)
The way this, like all 4th amenment exceptions should work:
The TSA must not search more than needed to accomplish their objectives. Should they in the course of this minimal level of searching stumble upon anything suspicious, they should report it to the police. But they should not every be going out of the way to search for things unrelated to the job at hand. If there is no specific security reason to look through a wallet, then the TSA should NEVER be looking though a wallet, etc. One example from the article is that the TSA agents ae not allowed to check that prescription bottles belong to the person carying them, since there is no security concern that relates to that.
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a firm rule about not replying to ACs, but this is quite beyond the pale.
You clearly don't know who you are addressing. Among many other things I'm an honorably discharged combat veteran.
I don't claim to have all the answers, but have put it on the line to defend liberty. I would dishonor my own service, and, infinitely more importantly, the service of those who came before and since, if I followed your advice and blindly licked the hands of my would-be masters.
I'm offended that you would call me "entitled". I ask for only what I have earned, and the rights of a free man.
I'm offended that you would call me "naïve". I willingly sacrificed my innocence on the alter of liberty.
I'm dismayed that you would call me "ungrateful". I'm profoundly grateful for the liberty secured to me by my forebearers. And I have shown that gratitude by defending that liberty to the limits of my abilities.
It is not the place of my government to assure my safety by abridging my liberty. It is my place to speak against such policies. I choose the level of risk I am willing to accept. I am the principal protector of my own safety.
I certainly won't stand for such disrespect from someone who values his own words so little as to post anonymously.
-Peter
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Every vote that goes to a third party is one that helps further the belief that a third party candidate is viable.
Bullshit. When Ross Perot won ~20% of the vote in 1992 (and cost Bush Senior his election), all it did was reinforce the belief that voting for anyone other than R or D was like throwing-away your vote.
Re:did not vote at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>If it wins, everybody has to go back to the drawing board and field new candidates.
Nope. According to the Constitution, the States would then choose the Electors who would select the president, and if no clearcut winner emerges, then the Congress picks the final winner. That's how Thomas Jefferson won in 1800.
Re:Also: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're preaching to the choir, sir.
I like the way Penn Jillette put it, in the voice of the sock monkey in his novel, Sock.
Re:Ron Paul supporters can take a deep breath (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people associated with the ACLU probably think Ron Paul is the antichrist
Yes, because Ron Paul advocates hard work, sound monetary policy, and personal responsibility; all of which are anathema to the liberal Democrats. In many ways Ron Paul represents the "original formula" of American Values; something that we have gotten away from beginning in the later half of the 20th century and continuing, almost uninterrupted, until today. Now, Obama has grasped the steering wheel with both hands, turned it hard left, and romped on the gas. Where will we end up? Nowhere we want to go that's for sure.
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
they are not "ultra capitalists". Capitalism would mean there's no goverment regulation or involvement, which neocons certainly are not about.
A little capitalism is all very well and good, but unrestrained capitalism is nothing but bad.
I strongly disagree. Most of the time when people cite the negatives of capitlism, they are doing just the opposite, they are pointing out why corruption, that is buisness in bed with the government, is bad. Which is certainly true.
Not that capitalism is perfect, so yes there are cases you can make against it, but, compared to the alternates, i'd take capitalism.
Re:Also: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying that the president should be able to make law. I'm just pointing out the fact that this memo is nothing but a waste of bandwidth -- it's a fluff piece. The Obama administration has been just as closed as the Bush administration was. The only difference? Bush didn't lie about it.
Re:Also: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Also: (Score:1, Insightful)
"Unrestrained" capitalism is great until you realize that there are certain things that there really be physically only one of: one power grid, one set of water and sewer pipes, one set of phone/cable/fiber lines, etc. Then you realize the big thing there can really only be one of: a military. As long as our nation wants to be a nation, rather than a geographically linked cluster of warring corporate militias, there has to be a government which levies a tax and is capable of purchasing goods and services from private entities, at which point corruption is also virtually guaranteed.
Would I take the current semi-capitalist systems the US has over many of the alternatives I've seen? Definitely. But "pure capitalism" is an utter joke.