Concerned about TSA at major stations.

[jis]

Refusal leads to not flying, not arrest. Arrest would occur if you refuse and then make a stink about it by disrupting the security area and then disobeying law enforcement orders to leave. Just refusing the screening will not get you arrested.

The TSA claims otherwise.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-11-20/business/sfl-airport-scans-pat-downs-refual-20101121_1_tsa-airport-checkpoint-sari-koshetz

I would point out that detention for questioning is not arrest. You could be detained for questioning or even just detained for nothing, even if someone with an overactive imagination fingers you or the vehicle that you are traveling in and at that point in time the powers that be have nothing better to do with themselves, as was evidenced by an entire train full of people being detained for over 6 hours in Jacksonville based on a false report.

BTW, any of you ever been through TSA "Freeze" exercise? Another bit of circus brought to you by misuse of your tax dollars

See: http://wewontfly.com/tsa-likes-to-play-freeze-tag-at-atl

I can just see TSA doing a "Freeze" training exercise in the middle of the Amtrak concourse in Penn Station just to show off how powerful they are. You know a my d*ck is bigger than yours exercise in effect.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't fly much any more since I'm retired and have never experienced being patted down. Before they start the process do they ask your permission to pat you down? I guess if they do and you say no you wouldn't be granted access to the flight. In other words if you are consenting to a pat down then I wouldn't think you wouldn't have any right to complain about it.

Last news report I heard (and I don't fly much either) you are given the option of the enhanced scanner which takes pictures of you nude, or an enhanced pat down, refusal to both led to being arrested.

This is where the true genius of the DHS in general and the TSA in particular finally becomes clear. From my understanding the TSA does not have the authority to formally arrest an American citizen who can provide evidence of his or her citizenship. However, they do have authority to routinely perform extremely intimate search and seizure on personal and private items both inside and outside your presence and without the usual limits and protections including probable cause. If and when they find or suspect a law has or is about to be broken they also have the authority to forcibly detain you and to then provide whatever they found or suspected to an arresting officer. In the opinion of the TSA even the simple act of entering a checkpoint and then refusing to cooperate with their ever-changing policies and protocols is grounds not just for refusal of entry but also for detainment and questioning. In other words it appears to be a carefully crafted and largely unchallengeable end-run around our civil liberties. It also has a potential of becoming yet another example of how our famed system of checks and balances has become little more than an impotent academic construct that rarely offers more than a theoretical solution when it comes to actually protecting us from our own government.

 

[alanh]

Although I haven't encountered the full pat-down from the TSA, I have encountered it when visiting a prison facility.

The rule of thumb is that if you aren't uncomfortable, they aren't doing it right. If there are areas they're not allowed to check, then duh, that's where the contraband will be hidden.

DHS's options are to either do the very intrusive screenings, or tell the public that bombs will get smuggled onto planes and the public will just have to put up with it. Guess which they're going to pick.

My real fear at this point is that it's inevitable that someone will get a small explosive onboard hidden in a body cavity. You think screening is bad now....

 

[jis]

This is where the true genius of the DHS in general and the TSA in particular finally becomes clear. From my understanding the TSA does not have the authority to formally arrest an American citizen who can provide evidence of his or her citizenship.

I don't believe TSA by itself has any authority to formally arrest anyone, citizen or otherwise. They can call actual law enforcement and hand over the situation to them to handle, and they can then proceed to detain, arrest or whatever depending on what the situation warrants, and even there I don't think citizenship is a necessarily at issue. Of course once you are in the hands of law enforcement they might take the opportunity to also try to establish that you are legally present in the country, but one can of course be legally in the country and not be citizen. All that you need is a valid Green Card or I-94 to establish that.

Now certain norms can be bent a bit I suppose in order to try to intimidate those that may erroneously think that they have reduced rights in the eyes of the law for just being non-citizens. OTOH, many citizens even apparently don;t think that they have certain rights that they actually do have.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't believe TSA by itself has any authority to formally arrest anyone, citizen or otherwise.

I believe you are absolutely correct and I really don't know why I put that meaningless distinction in there. I was about to edit my post but you were a little too quick for me. However, I believe you'll agree that my primary point is in no way reversed or lessened as a result.

 

[jis]

I don't believe TSA by itself has any authority to formally arrest anyone, citizen or otherwise.

I believe you are absolutely correct and I really don't know why I put that meaningless distinction in there. I was about to edit my post but you were a little too quick for me. However, I believe you'll agree that my primary point is in no way reversed or lessened as a result.

I would just point out that "it is largely unchallengeable" because the current SCOTUS has ruled so, and that is not necessarily a permanent state of things.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't believe TSA by itself has any authority to formally arrest anyone, citizen or otherwise.

I believe you are absolutely correct and I really don't know why I put that meaningless distinction in there. I was about to edit my post but you were a little too quick for me. However, I believe you'll agree that my primary point is in no way reversed or lessened as a result.

I would just point out that "it is largely unchallengeable" because the current SCOTUS has ruled so, and that is not necessarily a permanent state of things.

Thankfully the SCOTUS has its own set of checks and balances to ensure they uphold the constitution without undue influence from those with the power to corrupt the process. Unfortunately those checks and balances are also largely academic and theoretical in actual practice, as we have seen when sitting justices are accused of active participation in partisan funding events and conferences, intentionally misusing government security personnel, providing legal guidance to political action groups, refusing to recuse themselves from conflicts of interest and lying on financial documents. It's true that any injustices we suffer from today may not remain in effect forever, but the trend lines appear to be pointing to even fewer privileges and protections for American citizens in the future. Honestly, the more you learn about the potential for practical and effective implementation of America's checks and balances the less faith you're likely to have in them, at least from the perspective of a mere citizen.

 

[leemell]

Although I haven't encountered the full pat-down from the TSA, I have encountered it when visiting a prison facility.

The rule of thumb is that if you aren't uncomfortable, they aren't doing it right. If there are areas they're not allowed to check, then duh, that's where the contraband will be hidden.

DHS's options are to either do the very intrusive screenings, or tell the public that bombs will get smuggled onto planes and the public will just have to put up with it. Guess which they're going to pick.

My real fear at this point is that it's inevitable that someone will get a small explosive onboard hidden in a body cavity. You think screening is bad now....

This description is exactly correct and applies to sworn police anywhere as well.

 

[MattW]

Actually, the TSA likely won't arrest you (though the blue-shirted thugs will undoubtedly try), they'll just hit you with an ELEVEN-THOUSAND dollar fine for "failure to complete the screening process." It's not a criminal fine though defined in the U.S. Code, it's an Administrative fine (read: no court, no judge, no trial by jury) defined under dhs's little section in the United States Code of Federal Regulations.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The DHS and TSA are a load of BS. Much of the law is screwed up.

Think about it. You have the right to remain silent, but if you do you will be annoyed and harassed and sleep deprived until you change your mind. You have the right to an attorney, but if you (like most people) can't afford their huge fees, you have the right to have an attorney so dumb he can't set up a profitable private practice botch your defense in court. You have the right to plea bargain for a smaller sentence than you'd get if you were convicted of what you didn't do. But if you don't take it, you have a right to a trial of the twelve people in your area so stupid they can't come up with a coherent excuse why they can't serve jury duty.

You have the right to stick to the law... but if you followed every bloody rule, law, regulation, and so forth to the letter, your head would explode because half of them contradict each other.

So, today, we all have the right to the pursuit of misery out of prison. All other courses of action will result in people being miserable in prison. Anyone who manages to escape this will be shot and buried in a miserable grave.

 

[AlanB]

But if you don't take it, you have a right to a trial of the twelve people in your area so stupid they can't come up with a coherent excuse why they can't serve jury duty.

I don't know how NJ laws have evolved, if at all since I moved out of the state, but here in NY there very few excuses that will get you out of jury duty. Being a sole proprietor won't do it; being a lawyer won't do it; heck even being the mayor of NYC won't do it. You might not be picked to serve on an actual jury, but you will be called to at least show up and participate in the process.

 

[Nexis4Jersey]

They were searching ppl at Philly 30th Street yesterday...

 

[amamba]

They were searching ppl at Philly 30th Street yesterday...

More information, please. Did you personally see this? Who was searching people - amtrak police or TSA uniformed people? Was it everyone or random? Was it just bags or was it personal searches with wanding, pat downs, etc?

 

[leemell]

But if you don't take it, you have a right to a trial of the twelve people in your area so stupid they can't come up with a coherent excuse why they can't serve jury duty.

I don't know how NJ laws have evolved, if at all since I moved out of the state, but here in NY there very few excuses that will get you out of jury duty. Being a sole proprietor won't do it; being a lawyer won't do it; heck even being the mayor of NYC won't do it. You might not be picked to serve on an actual jury, but you will be called to at least show up and participate in the process.

The only people exempted in California now are judges and law enforcement. One day or one trial and they really mean it. Even politicians of all stripes :lol: are serving, although I don't think I'd want a politician on my jury.

 

[Nexis4Jersey]

They were searching ppl at Philly 30th Street yesterday...

More information, please. Did you personally see this? Who was searching people - amtrak police or TSA uniformed people? Was it everyone or random? Was it just bags or was it personal searches with wanding, pat downs, etc?

TSA , some Amtrak..... unfortunately my photos came out in a blur...

 

[dlagrua]

Again this whole TSA B.S. is not about keeping us safe. Its about getting the population use to being controlled. We are now living in a Police State folks.

I'll say it again; how is the TSA or HSC going to protect 100's of thousands of miles of trackage? Putting a device on a train may cost some lives and do damage in one car. However, if terrorists tampered with the rails at critical points, they could send a whole train into a river and the event could be far worse. There are places along the tracks that you don't see a soul for miles. I'd like to ask TSA how they intend to protect those points and for that matter all the trackage in the system. .

 

[Ryan]

Again this whole TSA B.S. is not about keeping us safe. Its about getting the population use to being controlled. We are now living in a Police State folks.

For the love of all that is holy, will you stop repeating that crap? WE DO NOT LIVE IN A POLICE STATE.

Express your disagreement with the TSA all you want (heck, I do), but making ridiculous statements like that just demonstrate profound ignorance of what a police state actually is and serves to discredit everything else that you say.

 

[Tumbleweed]

I agree, we do not live in a police state (thank God).......but TSA is beginning to emit the odor of one...... h34r:

 

[jis]

Again this whole TSA B.S. is not about keeping us safe. Its about getting the population use to being controlled. We are now living in a Police State folks.

For the love of all that is holy, will you stop repeating that crap? WE DO NOT LIVE IN A POLICE STATE.

Express your disagreement with the TSA all you want (heck, I do), but making ridiculous statements like that just demonstrate profound ignorance of what a police state actually is and serves to discredit everything else that you say.

I agree. I have personally never lived in a police state. But I know several people who had and who escaped with their lives, literally - remember Caucescu's Romania and Zhivkov's Bulgaria, the Shah's and then Khomeini's Iran and not to mention Mao's China during the Cultural Revolution? One of my Romanian friends could not go back for his Dad's funeral for fear of being incarcerated upon arrival. Trust me those who cavalierly throw about such terms know not what they are talking about, and have not experienced the likes of the Savak or the Stasi.

 

[tp49]

But if you don't take it, you have a right to a trial of the twelve people in your area so stupid they can't come up with a coherent excuse why they can't serve jury duty.

I don't know how NJ laws have evolved, if at all since I moved out of the state, but here in NY there very few excuses that will get you out of jury duty. Being a sole proprietor won't do it; being a lawyer won't do it; heck even being the mayor of NYC won't do it. You might not be picked to serve on an actual jury, but you will be called to at least show up and participate in the process.

The only people exempted in California now are judges and law enforcement. One day or one trial and they really mean it. Even politicians of all stripes :lol: are serving, although I don't think I'd want a politician on my jury.

Not anymore. Judges and law enforcement are not automatically exempted. I would definitely use a challenge to not have to empanel them but they can sneak in. I had a friend who tried a case with a sitting US District Court judge on the jury because he had run out of challenges.

 

[Ispolkom]

I agree. I have personally never lived in a police state. But I know several people who had and who escaped with their lives, literally - remember Caucescu's Romania and Zhivkov's Bulgaria, the Shah's and then Khomeini's Iran and not to mention Mao's China during the Cultural Revolution? One of my Romanian friends could not go back for his Dad's funeral for fear of being incarcerated upon arrival. Trust me those who cavalierly throw about such terms know not what they are talking about, and have not experienced the likes of the Savak or the Stasi.

Quoted for truth.

 

[leemell]

But if you don't take it, you have a right to a trial of the twelve people in your area so stupid they can't come up with a coherent excuse why they can't serve jury duty.

I don't know how NJ laws have evolved, if at all since I moved out of the state, but here in NY there very few excuses that will get you out of jury duty. Being a sole proprietor won't do it; being a lawyer won't do it; heck even being the mayor of NYC won't do it. You might not be picked to serve on an actual jury, but you will be called to at least show up and participate in the process.

The only people exempted in California now are judges and law enforcement. One day or one trial and they really mean it. Even politicians of all stripes :lol: are serving, although I don't think I'd want a politician on my jury.

Not anymore. Judges and law enforcement are not automatically exempted. I would definitely use a challenge to not have to empanel them but they can sneak in. I had a friend who tried a case with a sitting US District Court judge on the jury because he had run out of challenges.

I was wrong about judges (bad memory or change in the law) but not about law enforcement, this is from the Code of Civil Procedure:

The following persons are exempt from serving jury duty:

• Persons who are not citizens of the United States
• Persons who are less than 18 years of age
• Persons who are not residents of the County for which they were called
• Persons who have been convicted of a felony, or malfeasance of office, and have not had their civil rights restored
• Persons who do not understand the English language
• Peace officers, as defined in Penal Code Sections 830.1, 830.2(a,b,c) and 830.33(a) only
• Persons who have served as grand or trial jurors in any court of this state within the last 12 months
• Persons who are the subject of a conservatorship

 

[Devil's Advocate]

We are now living in a Police State folks.

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A POLICE STATE.

I agree.

Quoted for truth.

While I agree with each of you who say we do not live in a police state, I would also like to point out that police states rarely develop overnight. They tend to take time to envision, sell, create, and solidify. In many cases the early stages of the process are the only time average citizens have a chance for a just and moral solution. If they instead decide to simply wait and see what happens before taking any action then it may already be too late to do much of anything by the time they're finally willing to act.

 

[amamba]

Nexis4Jersey, even if your photos didn't come out, can you give us some more information? I am assuming you were a personal witness to the event since you said your photos. Again, were they on the platform? Did they set up a gate to search everyone before they reached the platform? Were they in the station? Were they searching bags, or doing personal/body searches with wanding, pat downs, etc? Or were they just a presence there like they were in PVD?

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Ryan]

While I agree with each of you who say we do not live in a police state, I would also like to point out that police states rarely develop overnight. They tend to take time to envision, sell, create, and solidify. In many cases the early stages of the process are the only time average citizens have a chance for a just and moral solution. If they instead decide to simply wait and see what happens before taking any action then it may already be too late to do much of anything by the time they're finally willing to act.

Agreed wholeheardtedly. And the best way to fight it is not be be classified as a loon for making ridiculous statements like those that I replied to.