"We're gonna need a bigger scanner."
Posted on 11/20/2010 7:31:28 AM PST by chickadee
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning that any would-be commercial airline passenger who enters an airport checkpoint and then refuses to undergo the method of inspection designated by TSA will not be allowed to fly and also will not be permitted to simply leave the airport.
That person will have to remain on the premises to be questioned by the TSA and possibly by local law enforcement. Anyone refusing faces fines up to $11,000 and possible arrest.
"Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave that process," says Sari Koshetz, regional TSA spokesperson, based in Miami.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
They need to stamp “Inspected” on (your) rear with an expiration date.
Could be kind of embarrassing if it ‘slips’....
people are free not subjects of the political class....
this will only end bad for the political class.....
Nigel Tufnel: It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Since when did Sheriff’s Deputies or State Troopers become an arm of the Federal .gov? They certainly aren’t enforcing state law.
I smell a rat.
Don't hold your breath for that - the last hearing by the Transportation 'OVERSIGHT' committee that I saw on C-Span two days ago was the most obsequious display of fervent ass-kissing theatre I have ever witnessed.
From the chairman, Sen Rockefeller, on down they sought to out grovel each other before the smug, arrogant John Pistole.
*** Since when did Sheriff’s Deputies or State Troopers become an arm of the Federal .gov? ***
Good point. We know the Obama administration objects to Arizona law enforcement assisting the feds on illegal immigration.
Finally, someone in real law enforcement gets it.
There are multiple circuit court and Supreme Court precedents that say that refusing a request for a voluntary search is not grounds for an involuntary search.
The US Code giving TSA the authority for a search is explicitly voluntary. It says that they are required to search people and cargo that WILL BE boarding a plane. The emphasis is mine, but those specific words are used.
Once you decide that you don't want to board the plane, TSA's authority to search you vanishes. US district and circuit court decisions differ on this point, but the most (in)famous one appears to intentionally misquote the law to rationalize their decision.
Unless Congress acts and specifically specifies this, this point is probably going to have to go to the Supreme Court. And right now, I'm not optimistic.
It’s been a $10,000 fine for quite some time....you’re not allowed to withdraw from the screening process once you start.
“Security” at the airport has been fascist and half-assed since September, 2001. Yes, ladies and gents, it sucked out loud when the sainted George W. Bush was president.
I hope the airlines go broke and shut down operation.
Time for a HEA....not TEA....party to protest in front of the terminals. HEA = Harassed Enough Already, or
Humiliated Enough Already. Everyone can wear T-shirts that say, “Potential Terrorist” or “Don’t Tread on My Junk!”
"We're gonna need a bigger scanner."
All your important belongings are OUT OF YOUR CONTROL while you are being touched. Your passport, wallet, money, keys, phone, baggage are OUT OF YOUR CONTROL while this is happening. You are completely vulnerable.
Understand the situation the government has placed you in. You are made naked by a machine or a stranger is touching your privates, and you have no posessions.
THAT IS TOTAL SUBMISSION.
have never gone away. They re-surface and find their application when these monsters acquire control of the apparatus of the state. When that control becomes absolute, mass murder begins. There is only one way to stop it.
Tyranny - simple, clear, and obvious.
Those hearings were held by the ahole democrats in control of the Senate.
When the GOP holds hearings in the new, GOP controlled House, they had better kick ass and take names, because the TEA Party is watching, and every member is up for re-election in 2 years.
Ditto that!
#51
Wow. That is very sobering when spelled out like that.
I'm talking about hearings in the next Congress, run by Republicans, most of whom despise Napolitano and the rest of the Obama gang. It may just happen.
Sounds like a technique used 70 years ago.....”Show me your papers”.
EODGUY
If you smell anything, it's your misunderstanding about the ownership/management of US airports.
Airports are not owned by the federal government. They are usually owned by municipalities or municipal/county/state joint ventures. So, depending on the airport, you might have any number of multi-jurisdictional agreements where jurisdiction is consolidated in a kind of "unified command" where police, sheriff and even state police all participate in the police activities. Or, the agreement might delegate a singular entity - like ATL's agreement with Atlanta PD, even though the airport is not located inside the city limits. Or, you might have a separate policing agency set up, like you see in the NY tri-state area with the "Port Authority".
Yes, screening passengers is a federal responsibility in most airports, but whomever owns/manages the airport retains primary jurisdiction. That doesn't mean the FBI can't assert jurisdiction when they want, because they do - frequently - but generally speaking, the lion's share of the manpower is local/state. For instance, if you shoplift from an airport merchant right next to the boarding gate, that's not a federal offense. But, if you slap the boarding agent, that might be a federal offense, and even though you'll be apprehended by the airport security/police force, you'll be turned over to federal officials.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.