Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Man who was arrested at TSA checkpoint for having text of 4th amendment printed on his torso wins court case for false arrest and violation of his civil rights to the tune of $250,000   (wired.com ) divider line 234
    More: Spiffy, misdemeanors, TSA, false arrest, civil rights, amendments, court cases, Henrico County, x-ray machines  
•       •       •

29235 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 11:45 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



234 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-26 08:54:26 PM  
www.mememaker.net
 
2013-01-26 09:10:32 PM  
Contempt of cop is not a crime and much more importantly contempt of fake cop is not a crime
 
2013-01-26 09:26:02 PM  
Good. I'll be flying in April and I plan on doing this.
 
2013-01-26 09:33:37 PM  
i1079.photobucket.com
Ideas for a new tattoo...
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 09:52:51 PM  
He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.
 
2013-01-26 10:12:50 PM  
He's not a man subby, he's a young, toned, impressionable youth with a drive and some admirable shoulders.
I would make his liberties less than civilized if you know what I mean.
Mentoring and such.
/fap
 
2013-01-26 10:52:46 PM  

ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.


Well, he didn't win damages but he did win the right to continue his suit and therefore has won a moral victory over the TSA, whose lawyers must surely be gnashing their teeth, writhing in agony and contemplating suicide over their failure to prove that the Bill of Rights is not valid when say it isn't.
 
2013-01-26 11:16:49 PM  

ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.


according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.
 
2013-01-26 11:17:49 PM  

FTFA:

In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.


Perhaps if the TSA agents hadn't been small minded douches having to prove how "important" they were, they would have just had a chuckle, patted the guy on the back for being snarky, and sent him on his way to his flight. Then there would have been no diversion of the "defendants" from their passenger-screening duties. THEY caused their "distraction", not some harmless kid.
 
2013-01-26 11:32:24 PM  

Weaver95: ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.

according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.


mhmm
 
2013-01-26 11:34:34 PM  

Weaver95: according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.


Meanwhile there are some people (mostly Freepers) who would be fine with the TSA if it only gate raped Muslims.
 
2013-01-26 11:50:14 PM  

themindiswatching: Weaver95: according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.

Meanwhile there are some people (mostly Freepers) who would be fine with the TSA if it only gate raped Muslims.


You've got that wrong.

Meanwhile most people are find with the TSA because they are irrationally scared of Muslims.

The islamophobia we have is akin to walking around on a clear sunny day absolutely petrified with fear that lightning is about to strike you... and it's the reason the government gets away with making things like the TSA and DHS.
 
2013-01-26 11:50:26 PM  
The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

I doubt he'll win the case, and even if he does, the damages will likely be minimal. Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense. Hopefully passengers will also refrain from creating unnecessary distractions in security screening areas, and do something useful, like protest in front of their Congressman's office.
 
2013-01-26 11:51:16 PM  
FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"
 
2013-01-26 11:51:54 PM  
FTFA: According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.
 
2013-01-26 11:52:25 PM  
I always opt out of the scanner. It is somewhat comical what a big deal some TSA agents make of it.
 
2013-01-26 11:52:53 PM  

ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

I doubt he'll win the case, and even if he does, the damages will likely be minimal. Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense. Hopefully passengers will also refrain from creating unnecessary distractions in security screening areas, and do something useful, like protest in front of their Congressman's office.


He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.
 
2013-01-26 11:53:04 PM  

AbbeySomeone: He's not a man subby, he's a young, toned, impressionable youth with a drive and some admirable shoulders.
I would make his liberties less than civilized if you know what I mean.
Mentoring and such.
/fap


For your reference...

www.wired.com

/Useless without pictures...
//Hot
///Hot linked that is....
 
2013-01-26 11:54:28 PM  
Article just says he has sued. Not won anything. With a quote from a judge about how he created a public disturbance. Doesn't sound promising for him.

Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.
 
2013-01-26 11:56:55 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.


THIS

Instead, they broke the law and falsely arrested him. The TSA/government will settle out of court, unless the kids sticks to wanting 250k, hell they might even pay that is they can get him to sign an NDA.

YAY, TSA wasting more of our tax payer dollars.
 
2013-01-26 11:57:42 PM  
Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.
 
2013-01-26 11:57:53 PM  

No Catchy Nickname: FTFA: According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.


Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.
 
2013-01-26 11:58:16 PM  
He only did it just to show off his hot bod.
 
2013-01-27 12:00:13 AM  

No Catchy Nickname: Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.


There have been Federal law enforcement manuals exposed recently that point to possession of a copy of the Constitution as an indicator.
 
2013-01-27 12:01:57 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


fark you?
 
2013-01-27 12:02:04 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Article just says he has sued. Not won anything. With a quote from a judge about how he created a public disturbance. Doesn't sound promising for him.

Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.


If the Federal Government acts as gatekeepers to that property, it absolutely does. If it didn't, this case would already have been dismissed.

/If American Airlines or whatever had banned him from a flight for this, he probably wouldn't have a case
 
2013-01-27 12:02:39 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Do you like movies about gladiators?
 
2013-01-27 12:02:46 AM  

bluefox3681: Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.


What part of the first amendment and 4th amendment are unclear?
Toss in false arrest and it looks like the TSA over reacted like the brown shirts that they are.
I love that the appellate court sent it back for trial or settlement.
Expect the government to settle soon.
 
2013-01-27 12:03:05 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Do you get grossed out when you have to feel the balls of other men?
 
2013-01-27 12:03:27 AM  
Yeah, this isn't a "win," strictly speaking. The DoJ is probably going to push for the full 15-judge panel for rehearing, and petition the SC if that's denied. It's a really good step for him, but it's far from over. Very interesting case, though. One of the attorneys on this is actually one of my professors, so I'm interested in seeing how this progresses.
 
2013-01-27 12:04:02 AM  

ExcaliburPrime111: Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Keep dreaming.
 
2013-01-27 12:04:14 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Why do you hate America?
 
2013-01-27 12:04:25 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.


True

...but I'm pretty sure it's clear on the government imposing the same conditions on said personal property when it violates an individuals own right to privacy and security.

The TSA is a government agency, not Southwest Air's.
 
2013-01-27 12:05:25 AM  

moothemagiccow: FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"


The dissenting opinion has to be one of the stupider things I've read in quite some time. Essentially, the logic of the argument is that one has a right to protest except to the extent that it "diverts" public safety officers.

So, it is precisely because you are doing nothing illegal that you are doing something illegal, because the officers choosing to illegally detain you have been "distracted" from catching people doing illegal things.

That's some fine jurisprudence, Lou.
 
2013-01-27 12:05:34 AM  
Say what you will about the TSA.
 
2013-01-27 12:05:38 AM  

justoneznot: He only did it just to show off his hot bod.


I'm ok with that.
 
2013-01-27 12:06:17 AM  
He looks like a young superman...

league.jmkprime.org

/4 the ladies
 
2013-01-27 12:07:01 AM  

blottoman: He looks like a young superman...

[league.jmkprime.org image 802x600]

/4 the ladies


I bet he has better acting skills.
 
2013-01-27 12:07:14 AM  

Kraftwerk Orange: ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.


While this whole thing seems like a waste of time, and I hate to defend the TSA, from the article it didn't sound like they made him strip. It sounded like he just took his clothes off of his own volition. In an airport (or anywhere but a bath house), that's probably going to create a scene.
 
2013-01-27 12:07:20 AM  
nice but he'll never fly again.
 
2013-01-27 12:07:32 AM  
It's about time Fark got some eye candy for the ladies.
 
2013-01-27 12:07:49 AM  
If I'm understanding Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson's opinion correctly, doesn't logic imply that it is imperative for the government to make absolutely certain that the people manning the security checkpoints are the absolute best? That is to say, not the people that are currently employed by the TSA?
 
2013-01-27 12:09:01 AM  
note to self: buy sharpie, plane ticket
 
2013-01-27 12:10:37 AM  

MurphyMurphy: ...but I'm pretty sure it's clear on the government imposing the same conditions on said personal property when it violates an individuals own right to privacy and security.


True. And the bolded word above is key. You don't have any "right" to other people's private property. You can enter into an agreement to use their property under agreed upon conditions.
 
2013-01-27 12:10:48 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


What's the trick to making really good pancakes?
 
2013-01-27 12:11:19 AM  

LessO2: tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.

Do you like movies about gladiators?


Yes. Yes I do. Perhaps I should've indicated that I used to work for TSA a little more clearer.
 
2013-01-27 12:11:26 AM  

Kraftwerk Orange: ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

I doubt he'll win the case, and even if he does, the damages will likely be minimal. Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense. Hopefully passengers will also refrain from creating unnecessary distractions in security screening areas, and do something useful, like protest in front of their Congressman's office.

He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.


He certainly did cause a scene.

Alternative "grope-search" screening doesn't involve a strip search unless they feel something under the clothing that is unusual and may pose a security risk. There was no indication that he was directed to undress and doing so served no purpose except to cause a scene.

Normal, rational people do not behave like that in an airport. It seems perfectly reasonable to secure and detain someone who behaves like that at an airport until it can be determined that he's just an attention whore and not a threat to safety.

His behavior did nothing to further the cause of freedom.
 
2013-01-27 12:11:37 AM  

namatad: bluefox3681: Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.

What part of the first amendment and 4th amendment are unclear?
Toss in false arrest and it looks like the TSA over reacted like the brown shirts that they are.
I love that the appellate court sent it back for trial or settlement.
Expect the government to settle soon.


Unless you count all airport security screenings as unconstitutional, how is this a 4th amendment issue? He could have had the lines to the mickey mouse theme song written on his chest. He was detained because he took his clothing off in protest. That would get you at least a disorderly conduct pretty much in any public area.

I am not a fan of the TSA either, but this seems to me to be attention whoring. And he knew it would work because of how terribly non-common sense the TSA operates.
 
2013-01-27 12:12:11 AM  

namatad: Kraftwerk Orange: He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.

THIS

Instead, they broke the law and falsely arrested him. The TSA/government will settle out of court, unless the kids sticks to wanting 250k, hell they might even pay that is they can get him to sign an NDA.

YAY, TSA wasting more of our tax payer dollars.


As a fan of NWA, I'm not down with the TSA's NDA. Because I'm straight outta the Colorado hills, crazy motherfarker named brainon
From the gang called (sponsored) Total Farkers With Attitudes
When I'm called off, I got a sawed off
Squeeze the trigger, and liters are hauled off

/nevermind that soon I'll be a liter again
 
2013-01-27 12:12:14 AM  

notmtwain: ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.

Well, he didn't win damages but he did win the right to continue his suit and therefore has won a moral victory over the TSA, whose lawyers must surely be gnashing their teeth, writhing in agony and contemplating suicide over their failure to prove that the Bill of Rights is not valid when say it isn't.


No, they will get paid with your tax dollars nonetheless.
 
2013-01-27 12:13:06 AM  

Earl of Chives: tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.

fark you?


Actually that one is easy to answer.
 
2013-01-27 12:13:57 AM  

gingerjet: blottoman: He looks like a young superman...

[league.jmkprime.org image 802x600]

/4 the ladies

I bet he has better acting skills.


LOL!!
 
2013-01-27 12:17:51 AM  
I worked for TSA for 8.5 years and talked about it a lot here on Fark. When I filed a sexual discrimination letter against my Sup. they promptly fired me for disclosing SSI here on Fark and so I lawyered up and am suing them currently.
 
2013-01-27 12:19:15 AM  

ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.


In a case of this sort, it's pretty much the same thing. There isn't a factual dispute, and no available legal defense other than qualified immunity. My guess is that the plaintiff's attorney will now move for summary judgment, and probably get it.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.


Airports aren't private property.
 
2013-01-27 12:20:41 AM  
I've flown a ton. I hate the TSA.

But if I was in their situation, where a kid strips down with anything scribbled across their body, my first thought would be: What is he distracting me from?

He's not the threat. He's the pawn to distract everyone while the real threat(s) get through security.

/CSB
 
2013-01-27 12:20:53 AM  

BMulligan: Airports aren't private property.


Which is why you aren't searched before entering an airport. Only before boarding the airline's plane.
 
2013-01-27 12:21:11 AM  

rwhamann: No Catchy Nickname: Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.

There have been Federal law enforcement manuals exposed recently that point to possession of a copy of the Constitution as an indicator.



An indicator, maybe, but surely it's meant to be taken in context with other indicators. In this guy's case, there don't appear to be any other indicators.


Attention-seeking, perhaps, but worthy of detainment and interrogation, no.
 
2013-01-27 12:21:28 AM  
Imagine if it had been the 2nd Amendment on his shirt.
 
2013-01-27 12:22:35 AM  
Is diggin it...

starcasm.net
 
2013-01-27 12:23:57 AM  
"According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know 'about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.'"

Might fine security work there, Lou.

"Are you with a terrorist organization?"

"No."

OMG the terrorist has outsmarted us! He's just too clever!!
 
2013-01-27 12:25:00 AM  
Oops, wrong thread
Oh, beer is beauty.
 
2013-01-27 12:25:04 AM  
The descending judge offered up a failed view by striking out at the young man for using up TSA resources at a time of need. For fark sakes, it was TSA decision to detain and arrest. TSA could have said "oh how funny" and then proceeded to let him go.
 
2013-01-27 12:25:20 AM  

metlboy: Kraftwerk Orange: ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.

While this whole thing seems like a waste of time, and I hate to defend the TSA, from the article it didn't sound like they made him strip. It sounded like he just took his clothes off of his own volition. In an airport (or anywhere but a bath house), that's probably going to create a scene.


Like the US we in Australia have had some pretty stupid rules about air safety in many airports since September 11 2001. I say 'many' airports because there are still regional airports where passengers can board a commercial flight with no screening of themselves or their luggage whatsoever. But it seems that our rules, as nonsensical as they can appear, are nowhere near as intrusive as in the US.

The TSA would be very used to passengers being pissed at them; even if passengers say or do nothing particularly unusual, their body language would scream "why the hell am I putting up with this lunacy?". Some Americans, if I've understood you guys correctly, would not be able to hold your tongues and would express their annoyance and dissatisfaction. TSA officials would surely experience this on a daily if not hourly basis. Perhaps Tonguedepressor and his 8.5 years TSA experience can confirm or disconfirm this statement.

The guy pointing out the 4th amendment having declined to go through the body scanner but exposing his body to a similar degree as the scanner would reveal is only going one step further. Nothing that deserves a 90-minute handcuffing or questioning about terrorist activity. Yeah it's a bit unusual but it's a simple and legal protest in an environment that most passengers feel a desire to make their own protest, even if most don't follow through on this.
 
2013-01-27 12:28:42 AM  
Bravo young man. Bravo.
 
2013-01-27 12:30:00 AM  
Was the only article of clothing he took off his shirt? If so, how is that "stripping" and why is it arrest-worthy?

It's amazing, the people here trying to defend the TSA.
 
2013-01-27 12:33:42 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Did you answer an advertisement for the job on a pizza box?
 
2013-01-27 12:34:21 AM  

Aussie_As: metlboy: Kraftwerk Orange: ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.

While this whole thing seems like a waste of time, and I hate to defend the TSA, from the article it didn't sound like they made him strip. It sounded like he just took his clothes off of his own volition. In an airport (or anywhere but a bath house), that's probably going to create a scene.

Like the US we in Australia have had some pretty stupid rules about air safety in many airports since September 11 2001. I say 'many' airports because there are still regional airports where passengers can board a commercial flight with no screening of themselves or their luggage whatsoever. But it seems that our rules, as nonsensical as they can appear, are nowhere near as intrusive as in the US.

The TSA would be very used to passengers being pissed at them; even if passengers say or do nothing particularly unusual, their body language would scream "why the hell am I putting up with this lunacy?". Some Americans, if I've understood you guys correctly, would not be able to hold your tongues and would express their annoyance and dissatisfaction. TSA officials would surely experience this on a daily if not hourly basis. Perhaps Tonguedepressor and his 8.5 years TSA experience can confirm or disconfirm this statement.

The guy pointing out the 4th amendment having declined to go through the body scanner but exposing his body to a similar degree as the scanner would reveal is only going one step further. Nothing that deserves a 90-minute handcuffing or questioning about terrorist activity. Yeah it's a bit unusual but it's a simple and legal protest in an environment that most passenger ...


Yeah, not so much. People more or less just wanted to get through the experience with the most positive attitude possible, at least in my experience.
I rarely had trouble w/ passengers but I was nice to everyone, it just helped make the job more bearable.
 
2013-01-27 12:35:08 AM  
DNRTFA, thought it was printed on his shirt. After review, it does strike me as a little attention-whorish, but certainly not an arrestable offense.
 
2013-01-27 12:35:37 AM  

Amusement: The descending judge offered up a failed view by striking out at the young man for using up TSA resources at a time of need. For fark sakes, it was TSA decision to detain and arrest. TSA could have said "oh how funny" and then proceeded to let him go.


forward-now.com
 
2013-01-27 12:35:58 AM  
not a SPIFFY tag subby, next time try a HERO tag.
 
2013-01-27 12:36:04 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.

Did you answer an advertisement for the job on a pizza box?


Nope. Was there from stand up. At least for the checked baggage side of screening. We cam in about 6 months after check point screening. Back then it wasn't a dual function and we were called screeners not officers.
 
2013-01-27 12:36:16 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: BMulligan: Airports aren't private property.

Which is why you aren't searched before entering an airport. Only before boarding the airline's plane.


You are searched while you are in the airport. That's public property. You are searched by employees of the federal government, pursuant to federal statutes and regulations promulgated by a federal administrative agency. It's all state action, no matter how you look at it, and to the extent that there are any gray areas in play here they have been well-litigated. You are simply and inarguably wrong.
 
2013-01-27 12:40:27 AM  
What the hell is "Amendment HI"?
 
2013-01-27 12:40:37 AM  

Oznog: "According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know 'about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.'"


"I want to sail around the world in a schooner. Nike told me they would sponsor me if I agreed to do this stunt, and if I agreed to sail shirtless with the Nike logo tattooed over my rippling shoulders. Have you ever been in a Turkish prison? I want to be washed by another man..."
 
2013-01-27 12:41:50 AM  

GoldSpider: DNRTFA, thought it was printed on his shirt. After review, it does strike me as a little attention-whorish, but certainly not an arrestable offense.


Indeed it's not, but as I understand it, this wasn't an arrest, except in the same way that pulling you over for speeding is an arrest. This is a civil suit for False Imprisonment, a tort with some specific standards to qualify. I think the DoJ goofed in arguing qualified immunity, there are other ways they could have gone where this would never have survived summary judgment. It's kind of similar to how a store owner can detain a suspected shoplifter given certain conditions.
 
2013-01-27 12:43:32 AM  

BMulligan: You are simply and inarguably wrong.


Lol. As "wrong" as the supreme court and every single circuit and appellate court that has ever heard a case on the subject and upheld the searches, yes. Not a bad kind of wrong to be, I guess.

"As other circuits have held, and as the Supreme Court has strongly suggested, screening passengers at an airport is an "administrative search" because the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack.....An administrative search does not require individualized suspicion. ...Instead, whether an administrative search is "unreasonable" within the condemnation of the Fourth Amendment "is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001)....
 
2013-01-27 12:44:34 AM  

Last Man on Earth: GoldSpider: DNRTFA, thought it was printed on his shirt. After review, it does strike me as a little attention-whorish, but certainly not an arrestable offense.

Indeed it's not, but as I understand it, this wasn't an arrest, except in the same way that pulling you over for speeding is an arrest. This is a civil suit for False Imprisonment, a tort with some specific standards to qualify. I think the DoJ goofed in arguing qualified immunity, there are other ways they could have gone where this would never have survived summary judgment. It's kind of similar to how a store owner can detain a suspected shoplifter given certain conditions.


Precisely. And the case will come down to how long is it reasonable to detain a passenger for security reasons. And since he didn't miss his plane, this detainment may be ruled as acceptable.
 
2013-01-27 12:46:38 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Since you no longer work for the TSA, do you now rescind your "ask you anything" statement?
 
2013-01-27 12:48:17 AM  

WorldCitizen: FTFA:

In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.


Perhaps if the TSA agents hadn't been small minded douches having to prove how "important" they were, they would have just had a chuckle, patted the guy on the back for being snarky, and sent him on his way to his flight. Then there would have been no diversion of the "defendants" from their passenger-screening duties. THEY caused their "distraction", not some harmless kid.


true dat. besides which how did his actions "divert them from their duties" if their duties are to screen passengers? was the judge just admitting what we all know, that the TSA is theater and has no other purpose?

and while this guy was "diverting" the heroic TSA was the nefarious actor just going to waltz through while their backs were turned? keep in mind that judge dumbshiat sits on the federal appeals court. feel better now?
 
2013-01-27 12:48:47 AM  

marcre3363: I've flown a ton. I hate the TSA.

But if I was in their situation, where a kid strips down with anything scribbled across their body, my first thought would be: What is he distracting me from?

He's not the threat. He's the pawn to distract everyone while the real threat(s) get through security.

/CSB


TSA people do not watch TV cop shows and so have no idea how this kind of thing works.
 
2013-01-27 12:49:46 AM  
According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

quoting the constitution makes you a farking terrorist now? holy farking shiat.
 
2013-01-27 12:53:48 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: BMulligan: You are simply and inarguably wrong.

Lol. As "wrong" as the supreme court and every single circuit and appellate court that has ever heard a case on the subject and upheld the searches, yes. Not a bad kind of wrong to be, I guess.

"As other circuits have held, and as the Supreme Court has strongly suggested, screening passengers at an airport is an "administrative search" because the primary goal is not to determine whether any passenger has committed a crime but rather to protect the public from a terrorist attack.....An administrative search does not require individualized suspicion. ...Instead, whether an administrative search is "unreasonable" within the condemnation of the Fourth Amendment "is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001)....


You realize, of course, that this passage is completely inapposite - right?
 
2013-01-27 12:57:38 AM  

wambu: marcre3363: I've flown a ton. I hate the TSA.

But if I was in their situation, where a kid strips down with anything scribbled across their body, my first thought would be: What is he distracting me from?

He's not the threat. He's the pawn to distract everyone while the real threat(s) get through security.

/CSB

TSA people do not watch TV cop shows and so have no idea how this kind of thing works.


But I'm assuming they do watch shows on FOX or the WB.
 
2013-01-27 12:59:10 AM  

WorldCitizen: FTFA:

In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.


Perhaps if the TSA agents hadn't been small minded douches having to prove how "important" they were, they would have just had a chuckle, patted the guy on the back for being snarky, and sent him on his way to his flight. Then there would have been no diversion of the "defendants" from their passenger-screening duties. THEY caused their "distraction", not some harmless kid.


My first, second, third and fourth thoughts.

If it's that easy to "distract" the TSA, then we're totally screwed.
 
2013-01-27 01:00:28 AM  

UsikFark: Oznog: "According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know 'about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.'"

"I want to sail around the world in a schooner. Nike told me they would sponsor me if I agreed to do this stunt, and if I agreed to sail shirtless with the Nike logo tattooed over my rippling shoulders. Have you ever been in a Turkish prison? I want to be washed by another man..."


I am a vile man, I confess it! My crimes and sins are beyond counting. I have lied and cheated, gambled and whored. I'm not particularly good at violence, but I'm good at convincing others to do violence for me. You want specifics, I suppose. When I was seven, I saw a servant girl bathing in the river. I stole her robe and she was forced to return to the castle naked and in tears. I close my eyes, but I can still see her tits bouncing...

When I was ten, I stuffed my uncle's boots with goat shiat. When confronted with my crime, I blamed a squire. Poor boy was flogged, and I escaped justice. When I was twelve I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew. I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage. I made the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I do believe my sister ate. At least I hope she did. I once brought a jackass and a honeycomb into a brothel...
 
2013-01-27 01:01:14 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.


This bears repeating.
(insert some clever use of a bear image being duplicated several times.)

You do not have a right to board a privately owned aircraft. Privately owned aircraft do not have the right to use publicly owned airways. Commercial airlines are required to comply with certain regulations and rules before they are allowed to travel over populated areas. Some of those regulations involve preparing and filing flight plans and submitting to instructions from air traffic controllers.

Much like the automobile regulations, you do not have the right to use self propelled machines on public property (roads). If you fail or make a mistake while trying to control one of these machines or adversely effect the person who is trying to control one, especially if this causes damage to another person, you should not be allowed to do anything like this again. I know that the laws aren't that strict, but this is the basis for all the nonsense that is drunk driving check points and the TSA. You can still travel as far and as long as you want to without using these machines. If you run into a situation, using any other methods, I will be one of the first to support and trumpet your cause.
 
2013-01-27 01:01:40 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Did you ever stop a terrorist attack?
 
2013-01-27 01:08:01 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Contempt of cop is not a crime and much more importantly contempt of fake cop is not a crime


Whenever I see those videos of cops threatening arrest because some teens are "disrespecting my uniform", I wish someone had taught those kids that there is no law against treating a douche like a douche and you can't be arrested for "failure to show respect".

"Show me respect!"

"Fark you, earn my respect first."
 
2013-01-27 01:08:35 AM  
They got trolled hard.
 
2013-01-27 01:09:22 AM  
In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.

I have to disagree. It was poor judgement, theater, and grandstanding on the part of the "law enforcement" agencies that was actually the cause of them taking their attention off searching for possible terrorists.
 
2013-01-27 01:11:19 AM  

Bumblefark: moothemagiccow: FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"

The dissenting opinion has to be one of the stupider things I've read in quite some time. Essentially, the logic of the argument is that one has a right to protest except to the extent that it "diverts" public safety officers.

So, it is precisely because you are doing nothing illegal that you are doing something illegal, because the officers choosing to illegally detain you have been "distracted" from catching people doing illegal things.

That's some fine jurisprudence, Lou.


He had also said something about it not being the right time or place for a protest. My belief is the best time and place for a protest against injustice is exactly when and where the injustice is occurring.
 
2013-01-27 01:12:39 AM  

Oznog: UsikFark: Oznog: "According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know 'about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.'"

"I want to sail around the world in a schooner. Nike told me they would sponsor me if I agreed to do this stunt, and if I agreed to sail shirtless with the Nike logo tattooed over my rippling shoulders. Have you ever been in a Turkish prison? I want to be washed by another man..."

I am a vile man, I confess it! My crimes and sins are beyond counting. I have lied and cheated, gambled and whored. I'm not particularly good at violence, but I'm good at convincing others to do violence for me. You want specifics, I suppose. When I was seven, I saw a servant girl bathing in the river. I stole her robe and she was forced to return to the castle naked and in tears. I close my eyes, but I can still see her tits bouncing...

When I was ten, I stuffed my uncle's boots with goat shiat. When confronted with my crime, I blamed a squire. Poor boy was flogged, and I escaped justice. When I was twelve I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew. I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage. I made the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I do believe my sister ate. At least I hope she did. I once brought a jackass and a honeycomb into a brothel...


"'Beauty, Beauty,' he whispered, 'You have conquered me as surely as I have conquered you. Don't ever arouse my jealousy again. I don't know what I would do if you did it!'"
 
2013-01-27 01:14:15 AM  

Philbb: ThrobblefootSpectre: Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.

This bears repeating.
(insert some clever use of a bear image being duplicated several times.)

You do not have a right to board a privately owned aircraft. Privately owned aircraft do not have the right to use publicly owned airways. Commercial airlines are required to comply with certain regulations and rules before they are allowed to travel over populated areas. Some of those regulations involve preparing and filing flight plans and submitting to instructions from air traffic controllers.

Much like the automobile regulations, you do not have the right to use self propelled machines on public property (roads). If you fail or make a mistake while trying to control one of these machines or adversely effect the person who is trying to control one, especially if this causes damage to another person, you should not be allowed to do anything like this again. I know that the laws aren't that strict, but this is the basis for all the nonsense that is drunk driving check points and the TSA. You can still travel as far and as long as you want to without using these machines. If you run into a situation, using any other methods, I will be one of the first to support and trumpet your cause.


This is gibberish.
 
2013-01-27 01:29:35 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


How does it feel knowing that when shiat hits the fan that your kind will be terminated with extreme prejudice?
 
2013-01-27 01:32:07 AM  

MurphyMurphy: themindiswatching: Weaver95: according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.

Meanwhile there are some people (mostly Freepers) who would be fine with the TSA if it only gate raped Muslims.

You've got that wrong.

Meanwhile most people are find with the TSA because they are irrationally scared of Muslims.

The islamophobia we have is akin to walking around on a clear sunny day absolutely petrified with fear that lightning is about to strike you... and it's the reason the government gets away with making things like the TSA and DHS.


Me thinks thou art a troll.
 
2013-01-27 01:34:38 AM  
why was the '4' the only character he wrote backwards?
 
2013-01-27 01:38:24 AM  
jtown

Normal, rational people do not behave like that in an airport.
1.bp.blogspot.com

cdn4.blogs.babble.com
 
2013-01-27 01:38:45 AM  

jtown: His behavior did nothing to further the cause of freedom.


But if it inspires just one hot college chick to emulate him, it was worth it.
 
2013-01-27 01:44:02 AM  

OgreMagi: Bumblefark: moothemagiccow: FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"

The dissenting opinion has to be one of the stupider things I've read in quite some time. Essentially, the logic of the argument is that one has a right to protest except to the extent that it "diverts" public safety officers.

So, it is precisely because you are doing nothing illegal that you are doing something illegal, because the officers choosing to illegally detain you have been "distracted" from catching people doing illegal things.

That's some fine jurisprudence, Lou.

He had also said something about it not being the right time or place for a protest. My belief is the best time and place for a protest against injustice is exactly when and where the injustice is occurring.


Yep...this idea that you're perfectly within your rights to protest so long as you do it quietly and where nobody will notice...it's disgusting, but it's also disturbingly popular these days. And not just in the courts.

Scroll through, and note the accusations of "attention whoring." Apparently, the idea that drawing attention to one self might be logically entailed in the act of "protesting" seems to be lost on a great many people.
 
2013-01-27 01:44:35 AM  
I suspect that people are defending this kid for a very valid, though ultimately incorrect reason.

I have to fly a few times a year, and I do feel a loss of dignity as I stand in line, waiting for the opportunity to take off my shoes, take out my laptop, and dump my belongings into several of the plastic trays. I feel annoyed that I must submit to these indignities, to smile and be polite to the screening officers when I show my ID and go through the metal detector, raising my hands above my head as if I am some sort of criminal, and then hastily reassembling my luggage and wearing my shoes. All while smiling, lest I look too angry, lest I get approached by a TSA officer (who may or may not have finished high school) might ask if anything is wrong, lest I vent into his/her face saying that this is inhuman and I feel criminalized for wanting to fly from Point A to Point B, and then have to miss my flight because I opened my mouth.

I get it. We all get it.

All that said, I can't think of a better way to screen people and to reduce the possibility of terrorist attack or transport of harmful substances. The kid in this case created a scene in a security screening area by taking off most of his clothes in a public area that is not a beach. He was briefly detained, screened, and did not miss his flight. I see no case for him, and more importantly, his "winning" will not change any of the feelings that I or any of us might have that I described in the previous paragraph.
 
2013-01-27 01:46:05 AM  

Charles_Nelson_Reilly: Me thinks thou art a troll.


why?

because I don't piss my pants and forfeit my 4th amendment rights whenever someone tells me I'm supposed to be scared of the boogey man?

If I was trolling I imagine it would be more along the lines of:

"I think the TSA and the Judge both acted correctly here. This young man could have been responsible for permitting the next great terror act against our nation. He's lucky he's not (justifiably) locked up in Guantanamo for life without trial... as any terrorist like him deserves. We need to just trust our authorities, that's why we have them. Not bother them with distractions and attention whoring.

And he is a terrorist! He was doing this to shock and frighten people for a political goal, that's terrorism."
 
2013-01-27 01:46:37 AM  

Bumblefark: OgreMagi: Bumblefark: moothemagiccow: FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"

The dissenting opinion has to be one of the stupider things I've read in quite some time. Essentially, the logic of the argument is that one has a right to protest except to the extent that it "diverts" public safety officers.

So, it is precisely because you are doing nothing illegal that you are doing something illegal, because the officers choosing to illegally detain you have been "distracted" from catching people doing illegal things.

That's some fine jurisprudence, Lou.

He had also said something about it not being the right time or place for a protest. My belief is the best time and place for a protest against injustice is exactly when and where the injustice is occurring.

Yep...this idea that you're perfectly within your rights to protest so long as you do it quietly and where nobody will notice...it's disgusting, but it's also disturbingly popular these days. And not just in the courts.

Scroll through, and note the accusations of "attention whoring." Apparently, the idea that drawing attention to one self might be logically entailed in the act of "protesting" seems to be lost on a great many people.


I have had a permitted action I participated in - as nice and polite as you can get - referred to as "minimum-intensity terrorism" because it disrupted traffic. This wasn't a cop or reactionary talking head, mind, it was one of my co-workers who considers himself "pretty liberal".
 
2013-01-27 01:56:18 AM  

ExcaliburPrime111: He was briefly detained, screened, and did not miss his flight.


In your world being detained for 90 is brief?

I bet you think "sticking it only part-way in" isn't rape.
 
2013-01-27 01:56:29 AM  
Comments on the original article:

Have you ever seen what happens when someone lets a toad loose in a yard full of turkeys? Sure the toad gets hurt, but dozens of turkeys die! Its like a Manchester Soccer Game!


What a strange analogy...
 
2013-01-27 01:57:38 AM  
And the home...of the....braaaaave!

/ashamed of a country whose response to terror was pants-shiatting capitualtion
 
2013-01-27 01:59:41 AM  

Philbb: . Privately owned aircraft do not have the right to use publicly owned airways. .


Actually they do. Laws governing aircraft and use of air space are a much different and often supersede national laws.

There are 10 Freedoms of the Air. The 1st Freedom is the right of flying into a countries air space.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air


They can be given to an entire nation or a single carrier (often the official national airline).
For example, British registered aircraft have the right to over fly the US and US aircraft have the right to over fly British airspace.

Even though we are technically at war with Cuba, US commercial jets can still over fly Cuban airspace. In fact, several US airlines have 3rd Freedom rights with Cuba and can carry passengers between Havana and Miami/Dallas/etc. (and can even conduct commercial business with the Cuban government which is banned for all other US companies).
 
2013-01-27 02:05:58 AM  
There really is no good guy in TFA.

Y'all projecting your TSA hate and trying to make a hero out of an AW.

/not a fan of TSA theatre either
 
2013-01-27 02:09:39 AM  

ExcaliburPrime111: I suspect that people are defending this kid for a very valid, though ultimately incorrect reason.

I have to fly a few times a year, and I do feel a loss of dignity as I stand in line, waiting for the opportunity to take off my shoes, take out my laptop, and dump my belongings into several of the plastic trays. I feel annoyed that I must submit to these indignities, to smile and be polite to the screening officers when I show my ID and go through the metal detector, raising my hands above my head as if I am some sort of criminal, and then hastily reassembling my luggage and wearing my shoes. All while smiling, lest I look too angry, lest I get approached by a TSA officer (who may or may not have finished high school) might ask if anything is wrong, lest I vent into his/her face saying that this is inhuman and I feel criminalized for wanting to fly from Point A to Point B, and then have to miss my flight because I opened my mouth.

I get it. We all get it.

All that said, I can't think of a better way to screen people and to reduce the possibility of terrorist attack or transport of harmful substances. The kid in this case created a scene in a security screening area by taking off most of his clothes in a public area that is not a beach. He was briefly detained, screened, and did not miss his flight. I see no case for him, and more importantly, his "winning" will not change any of the feelings that I or any of us might have that I described in the previous paragraph.


It's because you're not very smart. There are many easier, less intrusively, cheaper, and quicker ways to do effectively what the TSA does poorly, slowly, and intrusively.
 
2013-01-27 02:13:07 AM  

Flying Code Monkey: There really is no good guy in TFA.

Y'all projecting your TSA hate and trying to make a hero out of an AW.

/not a fan of TSA theatre either


Nope, just a garden variety idiot.
 
2013-01-27 02:21:47 AM  
He needs to put a how-to blog up. Spell it out and he'll get a lot more followers.
 
2013-01-27 02:22:32 AM  

BMulligan: This is gibberish.


I have no idea what you mean. When the fourth amendment was championed and put in place, there was no idea that people would have access to heavy, fast moving, vehicles that could cause destruction, injury, or even death.

This is why, if you want travel with the aid of modern day mechanical equipment, you need to rethink your travel plans.

If you want to walk, you can. If you want to travel by horse back you can. If you want to travel with any vehicle you have to have a license for. You must decide how important pushing the fourth in this case is.
 
2013-01-27 02:22:59 AM  
www.und.nodak.edu

like a toad in a yard of turkeys.
/ read the comments.
 
2013-01-27 02:24:19 AM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


How does it feel to be part of the problem?
 
2013-01-27 02:48:04 AM  

jtown: Kraftwerk Orange: ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

I doubt he'll win the case, and even if he does, the damages will likely be minimal. Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense. Hopefully passengers will also refrain from creating unnecessary distractions in security screening areas, and do something useful, like protest in front of their Congressman's office.

He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.

He certainly did cause a scene.

Alternative "grope-search" screening doesn't involve a strip search unless they feel something under the clothing that is unusual and may pose a security risk. There was no indication that he was directed to undress and doing so served no purpose except to cause a scene.

Normal, rational people do not behave like that in an airport. It seems perfectly reasonable to secure and detain someone who behaves like that at an airport until it can be determined that he's just an attention whore and not a threat to safety.

His behavior did nothing to further the cause of freedom.


Except for the TSA agents who do a search so they can feel up an innocent woman's breasts. It's sick how they how free rein to see a naked passenger in the name of safety, and your attitude only encourages those perverts.
 
2013-01-27 02:49:01 AM  

cowgirl toffee: What the hell is "Amendment HI"?


President Obama has just signed legislation outlawing Hawaii. The bombing begins in 5 minutes.
 
2013-01-27 02:50:56 AM  

Weaver95: gate rape


I like that. I'm stealing it.
 
2013-01-27 03:18:17 AM  
1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.
 
2013-01-27 03:19:15 AM  

Philbb: BMulligan: This is gibberish.

I have no idea what you mean. When the fourth amendment was championed and put in place, there was no idea that people would have access to heavy, fast moving, vehicles that could cause destruction, injury, or even death.

This is why, if you want travel with the aid of modern day mechanical equipment, you need to rethink your travel plans.

If you want to walk, you can. If you want to travel by horse back you can. If you want to travel with any vehicle you have to have a license for. You must decide how important pushing the fourth in this case is.


Wow your follow up was even dumber. I didn't think it was possible.
 
2013-01-27 03:23:24 AM  

TerminalEchoes: 1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.


1) It's not the purpose that's unreasonable. If you failed to grasp that, I'm surprised you were able to read the article. It's the method by which they do it, which is ineffective, possibly dangerous, and completely invasive.

2) The TSA is rapidly expanding to try and affect all forms of transportation. Ask amtrak about it. How about highways in TN? Ferries have been game for awhile. Wanna go to a Vikings game? Better watch out for the TSA.
 
2013-01-27 03:26:12 AM  

redmid17: 2) The TSA is rapidly expanding to try and affect all forms of transportation. Ask amtrak about it. How about highways in TN? Ferries have been game for awhile. Wanna go to a Vikings game? Better watch out for the TSA.


What about highways in TN? And how did you know I lived in TN? Are you in the TSA? >.>

And fill me in about the TSA at Viking games. I hadn't heard of that one.
 
2013-01-27 03:26:53 AM  

TerminalEchoes: 2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't


People have the right to buy tickets for their chosen mode of transport. If the carrier agrees to carry them, that's the end of it.
 
2013-01-27 03:27:18 AM  
Hmm... maybe I'll try that using a metallic marker. Maybe that'll show up during the millimeter wave scans.
 
2013-01-27 03:31:03 AM  

themindiswatching: Weaver95: according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.

Meanwhile there are some people (mostly Freepers) who would be fine with the TSA if it only gate raped Muslims.


Don't forget communists (anyone who isn't a freeper/WNDer) and gays.
 
2013-01-27 03:33:30 AM  

TerminalEchoes: redmid17: 2) The TSA is rapidly expanding to try and affect all forms of transportation. Ask amtrak about it. How about highways in TN? Ferries have been game for awhile. Wanna go to a Vikings game? Better watch out for the TSA.

What about highways in TN? And how did you know I lived in TN? Are you in the TSA? >.>

And fill me in about the TSA at Viking games. I hadn't heard of that one.


No, I'm literate and not a farking idiot. I neither knew you lived in TN nor do I care. I can neither confirm nor deny your idiocy.

http://bit.ly/WpakR0

http://bit.ly/Wpao36
 
2013-01-27 03:37:39 AM  
www.global-air.com

Underwear sporting the 4th Amendment, with metallic ink is designed to show up on the computer screen of your friendly TSA full-body scan evaluator. (new window)
 
2013-01-27 04:13:14 AM  

TerminalEchoes: 1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.


The Supreme Court ruled that to be reasonable there needs to be probable cause. Wanting to travel is not probable cause except in the minds of the paranoid.

The Supreme Court also ruled long ago that you do have the right to travel (and this was an airline case). Also, you were to be treated as a "welcome guest", not with suspicion. It's too farking late for me to locate that case so if you gave a damn, google away. I'm going to bed.
 
2013-01-27 04:18:29 AM  

OgreMagi: TerminalEchoes: 1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.

The Supreme Court ruled that to be reasonable there needs to be probable cause. Wanting to travel is not probable cause except in the minds of the paranoid.

The Supreme Court also ruled long ago that you do have the right to travel (and this was an airline case). Also, you were to be treated as a "welcome guest", not with suspicion. It's too farking late for me to locate that case so if you gave a damn, google away. I'm going to bed.


Saenz v Roe
 
2013-01-27 04:20:18 AM  

Philbb: If you want to travel by horse back you can.


Perhaps you don't realize that horseback riding is often severely restricted, especially in cities, to designated equestrian trails.

Also, you seem to be extremely ignorant of the Constitution. Let me introduce you to the 9th Amendment:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


The right to travel was considered so basic that they didn't think it was necessary to actually spell it out. After all, only a complete moron would think you didn't have the right to travel.
 
2013-01-27 04:25:21 AM  
A true Tea Party Patriot.
 
2013-01-27 04:36:16 AM  

david_gaithersburg: A true Tea Party Patriot.


he wrote the 4th on his chest, not the 2nd

/ or 13th
 
2013-01-27 04:40:24 AM  

winterbraid: david_gaithersburg: A true Tea Party Patriot.

he wrote the 4th on his chest, not the 2nd

/ or 13th


derp
 
2013-01-27 04:44:18 AM  

Amusement: The descending judge offered up a failed view by striking out at the young man for using up TSA resources at a time of need.


But he's the highest form of patriot...
 
2013-01-27 04:48:14 AM  

ExcaliburPrime111: I suspect that people are defending this kid for a very valid, though ultimately incorrect reason.

I have to fly a few times a year, and I do feel a loss of dignity as I stand in line, waiting for the opportunity to take off my shoes, take out my laptop, and dump my belongings into several of the plastic trays. I feel annoyed that I must submit to these indignities, to smile and be polite to the screening officers when I show my ID and go through the metal detector, raising my hands above my head as if I am some sort of criminal, and then hastily reassembling my luggage and wearing my shoes. All while smiling, lest I look too angry, lest I get approached by a TSA officer (who may or may not have finished high school) might ask if anything is wrong, lest I vent into his/her face saying that this is inhuman and I feel criminalized for wanting to fly from Point A to Point B, and then have to miss my flight because I opened my mouth.

I get it. We all get it.

All that said, I can't think of a better way to screen people and to reduce the possibility of terrorist attack or transport of harmful substances. The kid in this case created a scene in a security screening area by taking off most of his clothes in a public area that is not a beach. He was briefly detained, screened, and did not miss his flight. I see no case for him, and more importantly, his "winning" will not change any of the feelings that I or any of us might have that I described in the previous paragraph.


Try harder.
 
2013-01-27 05:23:47 AM  

TerminalEchoes: 1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.


Here's the problem with this argument:
There's a Right to Movement in the US Constitution and common law. It basically says you have the freedom and right to move within and between the states without being subject to search. First, we need to agree that this right exists or the rest of the argument won't make any sense.

The rest goes like this: You restrict method A of traveling between the states and subject people to searches. You argue "Well, it doesn't say I can't restrict traveling via method A, you can travel between the states using any other traveling method such as B, C, or D, etc". And then you also restrict and do searches on people traveling via methods B, C, or D, etc, using the same exact rationale. You've just infringed the collective right to travel, by individually restricting rights to travel.

So you can always argue "you don't have the right to do (slightly narrower version of what your right is) only (broader version of what the right is)", but if you collectively restrict all the ways to practice that right, then you HAVE infringed the right.
 
2013-01-27 05:25:45 AM  

TerminalEchoes: 2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.


I don't think anyone here is arguing that we have an inalienable right to fly on an airplane, just that we don't lose the rights we do have when we fly.
 
2013-01-27 05:45:30 AM  
The Constitution doesn't say you can't infringe on someone's freedom of speech.
 
2013-01-27 05:46:45 AM  

img.photobucket.com

 
2013-01-27 05:49:45 AM  
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson does not have a firm grasp on the constitution. Either that or he's being paid by Al-Qaeda to keep Americans paranoid.
 
2013-01-27 05:50:55 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: The Constitution doesn't say you can't infringe on someone's freedom of speech.


It also doesn't say that you're not a moron, but somehow both are true.
 
2013-01-27 05:59:21 AM  
How much jail time would he be facing if he had written something blasphemous to the prophet of Islam on his chest?
 
2013-01-27 06:00:00 AM  

TerminalEchoes: 1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.


I'm not sure what your definition of "inalienable right" is, but at least as far as federal law is concerned, we have the right to fly:

49 USC § 40103: "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
 
2013-01-27 06:01:57 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: How much jail time would he be facing if he had written something blasphemous to the prophet of Islam on his chest?


none.
 
2013-01-27 06:04:17 AM  

log_jammin: Noam Chimpsky: How much jail time would he be facing if he had written something blasphemous to the prophet of Islam on his chest?

none.


Are you saying the future would still belong to him?
 
2013-01-27 06:18:34 AM  

WorldCitizen: FTFA:

In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.


Perhaps if the TSA agents hadn't been small minded douches having to prove how "important" they were, they would have just had a chuckle, patted the guy on the back for being snarky, and sent him on his way to his flight. Then there would have been no diversion of the "defendants" from their passenger-screening duties. THEY caused their "distraction", not some harmless kid.


"Nefarious actors"?

Like Nicholson?
 
2013-01-27 06:19:41 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Are you saying the future would still belong to him?


I'm saying that the answer to your original query is "none".
 
2013-01-27 06:22:42 AM  

redflag: Comments on the original article:

Have you ever seen what happens when someone lets a toad loose in a yard full of turkeys? Sure the toad gets hurt, but dozens of turkeys die! Its like a Manchester Soccer Game!

What a strange analogy...


OK, none of those--toads, turkeys or Manchester soccer riots--would immediately come to mind upon reading this story, no.
 
2013-01-27 06:23:48 AM  

david_gaithersburg: winterbraid: david_gaithersburg: A true Tea Party Patriot.

he wrote the 4th on his chest, not the 2nd

/ or 13th

derp


herp?
 
2013-01-27 07:27:31 AM  

marcre3363: TSA people do not watch TV cop shows and so have no idea how this kind of thing works.

But I'm assuming they do watch shows on FOX or the WB.


I think they're only allowed to watch Fox News and select programs on the USA Network
 
2013-01-27 07:38:43 AM  
I want to see what happenes to this kid in the future. You KNOW the government will try to make his life a nightmare.
 
2013-01-27 07:40:11 AM  
All these comments and no one noticed the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals invoked Benjamin Franklin. How long have they been doing this? Is Ben been constantly on top of what is going on in the world? Is anyone else wondering why a dead man still has powers within our courts? Although, it does make sense to be able to talk to a man that was a founding father about the US Constitution. It would also make sense to tell us sooner, so we can tell Glen Beck to shut up.

/too early, feeling extra snarky
 
2013-01-27 08:26:47 AM  
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, kiss my pale, freckled, pimply, hairy white ass.
 
2013-01-27 08:36:06 AM  

illannoyin: [img.photobucket.com image 799x460]


I've always wondered: why was the cucumber wrapped in aluminum foil?
 
2013-01-27 08:45:12 AM  

planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195]

Underwear sporting the 4th Amendment, with metallic ink is designed to show up on the computer screen of your friendly TSA full-body scan evaluator. (new window)


I think it would be better if it said "The person reading this is a dick."

Or "Is looking at naked people in the name of security theatre how you get your tiny penis hard?"
 
2013-01-27 08:51:25 AM  

Mayhem_2006: planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195]

Underwear sporting the 4th Amendment, with metallic ink is designed to show up on the computer screen of your friendly TSA full-body scan evaluator. (new window)

I think it would be better if it said "The person reading this is a dick."

Or "Is looking at naked people in the name of security theatre how you get your tiny penis hard?"


plenty of people travel several times per week, there's a market :P
 
2013-01-27 09:03:36 AM  
According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

I would simply respond to each of these questions by saying, "that's a stupid question."
 
2013-01-27 09:04:34 AM  

ExcaliburPrime111: I suspect that people are defending this kid for a very valid, though ultimately incorrect reason.

I have to fly a few times a year, and I do feel a loss of dignity as I stand in line, waiting for the opportunity to take off my shoes, take out my laptop, and dump my belongings into several of the plastic trays. I feel annoyed that I must submit to these indignities, to smile and be polite to the screening officers when I show my ID and go through the metal detector, raising my hands above my head as if I am some sort of criminal, and then hastily reassembling my luggage and wearing my shoes. All while smiling, lest I look too angry, lest I get approached by a TSA officer (who may or may not have finished high school) might ask if anything is wrong, lest I vent into his/her face saying that this is inhuman and I feel criminalized for wanting to fly from Point A to Point B, and then have to miss my flight because I opened my mouth.

I get it. We all get it.

All that said, I can't think of a better way to screen people and to reduce the possibility of terrorist attack or transport of harmful substances. The kid in this case created a scene in a security screening area by taking off most of his clothes in a public area that is not a beach. He was briefly detained, screened, and did not miss his flight. I see no case for him, and more importantly, his "winning" will not change any of the feelings that I or any of us might have that I described in the previous paragraph.


[on soapbox]
I quit flying when they got those body scanners. I'll fly again when they stop using them. Fourth Amendment does mean something. Unfortunately too many people are willing to give up their privacy rights for just about anything anymore. For the people removing these rights, it's the smart way to do it.. a little at a time and through fear. The next generation will never miss the liberties that have been lost, because they never had them in the first place.
[off soapbox]

/puts on Hazmat suit
 
2013-01-27 09:06:07 AM  

diaphoresis: ExcaliburPrime111: I suspect that people are defending this kid for a very valid, though ultimately incorrect reason.

I have to fly a few times a year, and I do feel a loss of dignity as I stand in line, waiting for the opportunity to take off my shoes, take out my laptop, and dump my belongings into several of the plastic trays. I feel annoyed that I must submit to these indignities, to smile and be polite to the screening officers when I show my ID and go through the metal detector, raising my hands above my head as if I am some sort of criminal, and then hastily reassembling my luggage and wearing my shoes. All while smiling, lest I look too angry, lest I get approached by a TSA officer (who may or may not have finished high school) might ask if anything is wrong, lest I vent into his/her face saying that this is inhuman and I feel criminalized for wanting to fly from Point A to Point B, and then have to miss my flight because I opened my mouth.

I get it. We all get it.

All that said, I can't think of a better way to screen people and to reduce the possibility of terrorist attack or transport of harmful substances. The kid in this case created a scene in a security screening area by taking off most of his clothes in a public area that is not a beach. He was briefly detained, screened, and did not miss his flight. I see no case for him, and more importantly, his "winning" will not change any of the feelings that I or any of us might have that I described in the previous paragraph.

[on soapbox]
I quit flying when they got those body scanners. I'll fly again when they stop using them. Fourth Amendment does mean something. Unfortunately too many people are willing to give up their privacy rights for just about anything anymore. For the people removing these rights, it's the smart way to do it.. a little at a time and through fear. The next generation will never miss the liberties that have been lost, because they never had them in the first place.
[off soap ...


aka "boiling the frog"

/sadface
 
2013-01-27 09:12:16 AM  
And how much more money is TSA blowing on this bullshiat? The guy is not a terrorist and he's now nowhere near an airplane.

Get back to work.
 
2013-01-27 09:17:08 AM  

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: I always opt out of the scanner. It is somewhat comical what a big deal some TSA agents make of it.


My pregnant wife didn't want to go through the scanners opting for a pat down, and the TSA agent kept telling her "it's ok to go through here pregnant" etc etc for about 5 minutes.

Moral: don't mess with a pregnant woman

/CSB
 
2013-01-27 09:24:39 AM  

planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195]

Underwear sporting the 4th Amendment, with metallic ink is designed to show up on the computer screen of your friendly TSA full-body scan evaluator. (new window)


Holy shiat that is awesome.
 
2013-01-27 09:26:58 AM  
Do you admire this kid such that you'd be cheering for him when he causes you to miss your flight?
 
2013-01-27 09:34:08 AM  

illannoyin: [img.photobucket.com image 799x460]


What's wrong with being sexy?
 
2013-01-27 09:41:46 AM  
Here's my cleansed, non-SSI take on TSA. First of all, most of the people I worked with were hard working, empathetic, sane, reasonable, intelligent, educated people. We had a few nervous Nelliys who would have a bag check on every other passenger but by and large we tried to keep folk moving.

Secondly, I think if there were methods and means to do the job better those methods would be implemented. Its simply the nature of the beast right now. If you have a mouse problem and you have to lay mouse traps all over your house you do it because there's no better way.

Thirdly, I can see how some people would be royally pissed about TSA as I've flown through some airports and I see what's being done particularly in the bigger airports so in closing I'd have to say that when I fly in a coupla weeks I'm going to be one of the passive smiley's who just wanna get through the experience with the least amount of residual angst.
 
2013-01-27 09:50:21 AM  
So if I'm following this correctly, if I act like a total douche bag at the airport and get handcuffed for being a douche bag I can sue the TSA.

Good to know.
 
2013-01-27 09:50:47 AM  

planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x195]

Underwear sporting the 4th Amendment, with metallic ink is designed to show up on the computer screen of your friendly TSA full-body scan evaluator. (new window)


Sold out.
 
2013-01-27 09:55:03 AM  
If you don't let the TSA feel your children's genitals, the terrorists win.
 
2013-01-27 09:55:25 AM  

tonguedepressor: Secondly, I think if there were methods and means to do the job better those methods would be implemented. Its simply the nature of the beast right now. If you have a mouse problem and you have to lay mouse traps all over your house you do it because there's no better way.


Except we don't have a mouse problem.
 
2013-01-27 09:56:20 AM  

Animatronik: Do you admire this kid such that you'd be cheering for him when he causes you to miss your flight?


Each time I go to the airport, I'm aware I may not depart on time for any number of reasons, many of them TSA-related.

Affirming the Fourth Amendment is among the pleasanter possibilities.
 
2013-01-27 10:07:43 AM  

moothemagiccow: FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"


It's the TSA, so the lines are more like "Shouldn't you be stripsearching a 90 year old white woman?", or "Shouldn't you be stripsearching a 3 year old white toddler"?, or, if the TSA agent in question is a female, "Shouldn't you be stripseaching a 14 year old white girl, and then demanding a full body cavity inspection, then polaroids, and dvds of the whole thing?"
 
2013-01-27 10:12:13 AM  
TSA pat downs, available in Feel Around.
 
2013-01-27 10:25:50 AM  

jtown: Alternative "grope-search" screening doesn't involve a strip search


Hmm.

Lets see what you got in there, big boy...
timeopinions.files.wordpress.com

Drop 'em... unless you don't wanna fly today
www.afterelton.com

Let me pull your shirt a little lower...
4.bp.blogspot.com

Let's irradiate you and see that Package...
images.dailytech.com

Thank god it's blurred:
politicalfailblog.com

The TSA evidently apologises for thing it doesn't do:
TSA admits wrongdoing in cases of two elderly woman who claim they were strip-searched

But, the TSA does not strip search people!!
www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com
 
2013-01-27 10:29:35 AM  

bluefox3681: He was detained because he took his clothing off ....That would get you at least a disorderly conduct pretty much in any public area.


Arrest these people!!
cdn01.cdn.justjared.com
and these:
images.fineartamerica.com
and all these:
i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2013-01-27 10:31:25 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.

Did you answer an advertisement for the job on a pizza box?


I think it was an ad on a gas pump:

nyc.indymedia.org
 
2013-01-27 10:37:27 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: BMulligan: Airports aren't private property.

Which is why you aren't searched before entering an airport. Only before boarding the airline's plane.


You're searched before entering the terminal. Which is part of the airport, which, as we've already established, is not private property.
 
2013-01-27 10:39:42 AM  

I think I will write on my chest something like

I got yer package,
right here!
|
|
|
V

 
2013-01-27 10:40:42 AM  

HeartBurnKid: ThrobblefootSpectre: BMulligan: Airports aren't private property.

Which is why you aren't searched before entering an airport. Only before boarding the airline's plane.

You're searched before entering the terminal. Which is part of the airport, which, as we've already established, is not private property.


Also, you are not being searched by, or at the behest of, the airline, but by the federal government on their own volition. This is a classic Fourth Amendment violation, and if the world hadn't gone nucking futs over one security failure and decided that paranoia is the proper way to live, we'd recognize it.

The terrorists have accomplished their objective. We are well and truly terrorized.
 
2013-01-27 10:52:37 AM  

tonguedepressor: Here's my cleansed, non-SSI take on TSA. First of all, most of the people I worked with were hard working, empathetic, sane, reasonable, intelligent, educated people.


Um, they worked for the TSA
Secondly, I think if there were methods and means to do the job better those methods would be implemented. Its simply the nature of the beast right now. If you have a mouse problem and you have to lay mouse traps all over your house you do it because there's no better way./i>

Get a cat.

You see, there IS an easier way. One a TSA employee was too dumb to see.
 
2013-01-27 10:57:06 AM  
how many bad guys has the TSA caught? oh yeah, ZERO. and there have been bad guys that have made it through. enjoy your governmental psyop they're carrying out against y'all.
 
2013-01-27 11:03:01 AM  

bluefox3681: He was detained because he took his clothing off in protest. That would get you at least a disorderly conduct pretty much in any public area.


You mean like a beach?
news.menshealth.com

Or a park?
farm9.staticflickr.com

Or a concert?
i148.photobucket.com

Or on the sidewalk?
www.tyrain.com
 
2013-01-27 11:11:01 AM  

fredklein: bluefox3681: He was detained because he took his clothing off ....That would get you at least a disorderly conduct pretty much in any public area.

Arrest these people!!
[cdn01.cdn.justjared.com image 850x800]
and these:
[images.fineartamerica.com image 850x566]
and all these:
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 850x534]


There's Waldo!

TSA MUST DIE!
 
2013-01-27 11:16:33 AM  

lohphat: And the home...of the....braaaaave!

/ashamed of a country whose response to terror was pants-shiatting capitualtion


The French still do it better.

TSA MUST DIE!
 
2013-01-27 11:17:09 AM  
The dissenting opinion in this case is retarded. His actions drew TSA away from their security duties? Farkety Fark Fark.
 
2013-01-27 11:24:08 AM  

snocone: lohphat: And the home...of the....braaaaave!

/ashamed of a country whose response to terror was pants-shiatting capitualtion

The French still do it better.

TSA MUST DIE!


I didn't remember posting in this thread, but it's nice to see I'm being quoted.
 
2013-01-27 11:26:34 AM  

MurphyMurphy: themindiswatching: Weaver95: according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.

Meanwhile there are some people (mostly Freepers) who would be fine with the TSA if it only gate raped Muslims CHRISTIANS.



FTFY
 
2013-01-27 11:29:40 AM  

Last Man on Earth: Yeah, this isn't a "win," strictly speaking. The DoJ is probably going to push for the full 15-judge panel for rehearing, and petition the SC if that's denied. It's a really good step for him, but it's far from over. Very interesting case, though. One of the attorneys on this is actually one of my professors, so I'm interested in seeing how this progresses.


DOJ will push for full panel.
Win or lose, the case would then got to SC. Both parties would be upset with a loss.
And the SC would rule that they stop screwing around and give the guy his due process and start the trial immediately. LOL

It will be interesting to watch either way.
 
2013-01-27 11:35:57 AM  

Dahnkster: The dissenting opinion in this case is retarded. His actions drew TSA away from their security duties? Farkety Fark Fark.


Seems the judge has run out of lies.
And why waste the effort coming up with a new one?

Like Hill says, "What difference does it make?"
 
2013-01-27 11:38:34 AM  

Sin_City_Superhero: bluefox3681: He was detained because he took his clothing off in protest. That would get you at least a disorderly conduct pretty much in any public area.

You mean like a beach?
[news.menshealth.com image 850x952]

Or a park?
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 640x481]

Or a concert?
[i148.photobucket.com image 548x442]

Or on the sidewalk?
[www.tyrain.com image 400x552]


Admit it, you just wanted to post those hot dudes. Especially the first one.
 
2013-01-27 11:43:19 AM  
So did this guy get passed out drunk and his buddies write all over him?
 
2013-01-27 11:53:16 AM  

Savage Belief: Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, kiss my pale, freckled, pimply, hairy white ass.


Reagan appointee, and ideologically pure enough that he was on the SCOTUS shortlist when the chief justiceship came up in 2005. Surprised?

He's also the one who wrote the ruling in Hamadi v. Rumsfeld that got overturned by the Supreme Court. He's not exactly a fan of the 4th amendement.
 
2013-01-27 12:09:20 PM  

BMFPitt: Good. I'll be flying in April and I plan on doing this.


Why would you? Are you an attention whore or just a dick? Both?

If you were in front of me and delayed my travel I'd soooo shake my fist at you.
 
2013-01-27 12:37:29 PM  
In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.

Hey, Wilkinson.

You want to know how I know you're a bought and paid for autocratic cocksucker?
 
2013-01-27 01:11:22 PM  
It's sad that the dozens of people who are outraged at this will vote for the same Democrats and Republicans who created and will continue to fund the TSA.
 
2013-01-27 01:14:08 PM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


McDonalds hasn't been hiring for 8.5 years there? Wow, low turnover!
 
2013-01-27 01:17:23 PM  

Dahnkster: The dissenting opinion in this case is retarded. His actions drew TSA away from their security duties? Farkety Fark Fark.


The dissenting judge was a Reagan appointee, which will come to the surprise of nobody.
 
2013-01-27 01:31:23 PM  


milk milk

lemonade

 
2013-01-27 01:34:58 PM  
Call me when TSA actually catches a terrorist.

10 years with a ZERO success rate. What other federal agency would survive with that kind of record?
 
2013-01-27 01:36:05 PM  

KidneyStone: Why would you? Are you an attention whore or just a dick? Both?

If you were in front of me and delayed my travel I'd soooo shake my fist at you.


Seriously THIS. It's just like when you get pulled over. While you're dealing with the police or faux-police, there at that moment is not the proper time to make a stand. It's afterwards, after all the evidence has been recorded, that you make your case and seek restitution.

Gumming up the works gets you pulled aside and the other few hundred people you're inconveniencing cheer.
 
2013-01-27 01:38:40 PM  

eggrolls: Call me when TSA actually catches a terrorist.

10 years with a ZERO success rate. What other federal agency would survive with that kind of record?


Yeah call me when its their job to catch a terrorist.
 
2013-01-27 01:39:06 PM  

Dansker: Amusement: The descending judge offered up a failed view by striking out at the young man for using up TSA resources at a time of need.

But he's the highest form of patriot...


The Highest form of patriot would be an ascending judge. The descending judge is floating down at the bottom (?).
 
2013-01-27 01:39:11 PM  
cdn.killerstartups.com

Original Constitutional Attention Whores.
 
2013-01-27 01:49:40 PM  

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: I always opt out of the scanner. It is somewhat comical what a big deal some TSA agents make of it.


Me too. The full-body grope actually reminded me of a Swedish massage, it was kind of nice.

Seriously.
 
2013-01-27 01:49:58 PM  
Yummy.

...fist of an angry god and all that.
 
2013-01-27 01:55:48 PM  

AndreMA: tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.

McDonalds hasn't been hiring for 8.5 years there? Wow, low turnover!


Dissed from somebody from ME? Now I truly am ashamed.
 
2013-01-27 02:46:59 PM  

WorldCitizen: FTFA:

In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.


Perhaps if the TSA agents hadn't been small minded douches having to prove how "important" they were, they would have just had a chuckle, patted the guy on the back for being snarky, and sent him on his way to his flight. Then there would have been no diversion of the "defendants" from their passenger-screening duties. THEY caused their "distraction", not some harmless kid.


THIS!! The dissenting judge in the case sounds like an authoritarian dick who would have fit right in with the Nazi Gestapo.
 
2013-01-27 02:53:28 PM  

bluefox3681: No Catchy Nickname: FTFA: According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.

Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.


The article isn't clear on exactly when and where he exposed his chest. If he took off his shirt in the open terminal then yeah, he's being a bit of an attention whore but if he was required to remove his shirt during the pat down after being detained, then this is a clear overreaction by the TSA.
 
2013-01-27 03:26:41 PM  

radiovox: bluefox3681: No Catchy Nickname: FTFA: According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.

Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.

The article isn't clear on exactly when and where he exposed his chest. If he took off his shirt in the open terminal then yeah, he's being a bit of an attention whore but if he was required to remove his shirt during the pat down after being detained, then this is a clear overreaction by the TSA.


The kid removed his shirt on his own volition and without prompting by the TSA. The "intensive pat down" search does not require removing your shirt. Moreover, if a really invasive search is needed (i.e. strip search for suspected drug mules,) then such searches are (obviously) conducted in private, away from the public security-screening area.
 
2013-01-27 03:31:13 PM  

namatad: Weaver95: ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.

according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.

mhmm

FTFA: According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."


mhmmm. Just because it also came out of Alex Jones' mouth at some point in time doesn't mean it's crazy.
 
2013-01-27 04:21:42 PM  

Bumblefark: OgreMagi: Bumblefark: moothemagiccow: FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"

The dissenting opinion has to be one of the stupider things I've read in quite some time. Essentially, the logic of the argument is that one has a right to protest except to the extent that it "diverts" public safety officers.

So, it is precisely because you are doing nothing illegal that you are doing something illegal, because the officers choosing to illegally detain you have been "distracted" from catching people doing illegal things.

That's some fine jurisprudence, Lou.

He had also said something about it not being the right time or place for a protest. My belief is the best time and place for a protest against injustice is exactly when and where the injustice is occurring.

Yep...this idea that you're perfectly within your rights to protest so long as you do it quietly and where nobody will notice...it's disgusting, but it's also disturbingly popular these days. And not just in the courts.

Scroll through, and note the accusations of "attention whoring." Apparently, the idea that drawing attention to one self might be logically entailed in the act of "protesting" seems to be lost on a great many people.


It's the internet, where everyone acts like assholes because they're anonymous. The Greater Internet Farkwad Theory is always proven very true over and over again.
 
2013-01-27 04:30:33 PM  

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


Well, I was going to ask what the coolest thing you ever stole was, but since apparently your fark posting is being monitored by The Man, I'm going to ask... "what kinds of things have you seen stolen at the airport?"
 
2013-01-27 04:40:02 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: bluefox3681: He was detained because he took his clothing off in protest. That would get you at least a disorderly conduct pretty much in any public area.

You mean like a beach?
[news.menshealth.com image 850x952]

Or a park?
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 640x481]

Or a concert?
[i148.photobucket.com image 548x442]

Or on the sidewalk?
[www.tyrain.com image 400x552]


I'd happily search them. Intimately.

/unf unf unf unf
 
2013-01-27 04:43:52 PM  

ExcaliburPrime111: radiovox: bluefox3681: No Catchy Nickname: FTFA: According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.

Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.

The article isn't clear on exactly when and where he exposed his chest. If he took off his shirt in the open terminal then yeah, he's being a bit of an attention whore but if he was required to remove his shirt during the pat down after being detained, then this is a clear overreaction by the TSA.

The kid removed his shirt on his own volition and without prompting by the TSA. The "intensive pat down" search does not require removing your shirt. Moreover, if a really invasive search is needed (i.e. strip search for suspected drug mules,) then such searches are (obviously) conducted in private, away from the public security-screening area.


Still not an arrestable offense. More people need to do this, we as a country need to get our balls back and stop cowering in terror over an event that happened more than 11 years ago.
 
2013-01-27 04:55:49 PM  

Alonjar: tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.

Well, I was going to ask what the coolest thing you ever stole was, but since apparently your fark posting is being monitored by The Man, I'm going to ask... "what kinds of things have you seen stolen at the airport?"


I personally haven't seen anything stolen but it was purported that employees stole some prohib knives and maybe some pills may have been purportedly missing.

And thats all I have to say about that
 
2013-01-27 05:02:41 PM  

danno_to_infinity: nice but he'll never fly again.


He will when he buys his own plane.
 
2013-01-27 06:06:41 PM  
I am a bit astonished at the farkers calling this guy a douche or attention whore for making a legal and peaceful protest. It would appear that by THEIR definition Rosa Parkes and the entire civil rights movement were very douchy and the American Revolution was just attention whoring in the eyes of these clowns.

/or maybe they just REALLY like the patdowns and body scans
 
2013-01-27 08:46:17 PM  
Remember, the TSA is mostly looking for pot.

So, how long until the TSA federalizes traffic cops?
 
2013-01-27 09:39:56 PM  
In other news, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson expressed a need to fellate authoritarians, citing that "distraction" should be enough for the authorities to violate your Constitutional rights.
 
2013-01-27 09:50:40 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: bluefox3681: He was detained because he took his clothing off in protest. That would get you at least a disorderly conduct pretty much in any public area.

You mean like a beach?
[news.menshealth.com image 850x952]

Or a park?
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 640x481]

Or a concert?
[i148.photobucket.com image 548x442]

Or on the sidewalk?
[www.tyrain.com image 400x552]


thanks ... I need to be alone now
 
2013-01-28 12:30:06 AM  
 
2013-01-28 12:51:53 AM  

eggrolls: Call me when TSA actually catches a terrorist.

10 years with a ZERO success rate. What other federal agency would survive with that kind of record?


That just proves it's working because it's scared all the terrorists away. Much like the special wooden spoon that keeps monkeys out of my kitchen.
 
2013-01-28 10:24:54 AM  

WordyGrrl: the special wooden spoon that keeps monkeys out of my kitchen.


WordyGrrl, I'd like to buy your spoon
 
2013-01-28 12:24:22 PM  

another cultural observer: Dansker: Amusement: The descending judge offered up a failed view by striking out at the young man for using up TSA resources at a time of need.

But he's the highest form of patriot...

The Highest form of patriot would be an ascending judge. The descending judge is floating down at the bottom (?).


Perhaps so, but observe this bit of culture:
farm4.staticflickr.com
QED
 
2013-01-28 04:02:01 PM  

Aussie_As: I am a bit astonished at the farkers calling this guy a douche or attention whore for making a legal and peaceful protest. It would appear that by THEIR definition Rosa Parkes and the entire civil rights movement were very douchy and the American Revolution was just attention whoring in the eyes of these clowns.

/or maybe they just REALLY like the patdowns and body scans


I bet they think those blacks who sat at the lunch counter in protest should have done it at a picnic table at the local park instead of at the place where the actual discrimination was occuring.
 
2013-01-28 06:49:59 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: I've always wondered: why was the cucumber wrapped in aluminum foil?


To set off the metal detector, so that the security agent would have to ask awkward questions and get flustered at Derek reaching into his pants to whip out the... offending object. They were playing a practical joke, in-universe.
 
2013-01-28 07:25:32 PM  

WorldCitizen: FTFA:

In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.


Perhaps if the TSA agents hadn't been small minded douches having to prove how "important" they were, they would have just had a chuckle, patted the guy on the back for being snarky, and sent him on his way to his flight. Then there would have been no diversion of the "defendants" from their passenger-screening duties. THEY caused their "distraction", not some harmless kid.


Hmm, who is this guy?

i.imgur.com

Oh. That explains a lot.
 
2013-01-28 07:27:57 PM  

ExcaliburPrime111: Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense.


Trying to comprehend what a TSA with common sense would look like.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-28 11:52:48 PM  

tonguedepressor: eggrolls: Call me when TSA actually catches a terrorist.

10 years with a ZERO success rate. What other federal agency would survive with that kind of record?

Yeah call me when its their job to catch a terrorist.


I'm pretty sure that's sarcasm. But you worry me.
 
2013-01-29 12:04:26 AM  

eggrolls: tonguedepressor: eggrolls: Call me when TSA actually catches a terrorist.

10 years with a ZERO success rate. What other federal agency would survive with that kind of record?

Yeah call me when its their job to catch a terrorist.

I'm pretty sure that's sarcasm. But you worry me.


TSA's job is to screen passengers and their flying belongings to ensure no dangerous or prohibited items are allowed on a commercial flight, plane and simple.
 
2013-01-29 07:58:22 AM  

tonguedepressor: TSA's job is to screen passengers and their flying belongings to ensure no dangerous or prohibited items are allowed on a commercial flight, plane and simple.


Then why do they ask for ID? If all they are looking for is dangerous items, why does it matter who the person is??

/looking forward to you ignoring me, like you did before
 
2013-01-29 09:00:55 AM  

fredklein: tonguedepressor: TSA's job is to screen passengers and their flying belongings to ensure no dangerous or prohibited items are allowed on a commercial flight, plane and simple.

Then why do they ask for ID? If all they are looking for is dangerous items, why does it matter who the person is??

/looking forward to you ignoring me, like you did before


Checking ID's ensures that no unauthorized people are allowed through a checkpoint of an airport which would constitute a breach of the sterile area.

And I'm not ignoring you, I work 3rd shift.

What are we arguing about again? Oh yeah, TSA isn't designed to catch terrorists its intent is to prevent them through a rigorous screening process. They have other agencies whose goal it is is to catch terrorists.
 
2013-01-29 11:18:50 AM  

tonguedepressor: fredklein: tonguedepressor: TSA's job is to screen passengers and their flying belongings to ensure no dangerous or prohibited items are allowed on a commercial flight, plane and simple.

Then why do they ask for ID? If all they are looking for is dangerous items, why does it matter who the person is??

/looking forward to you ignoring me, like you did before

Checking ID's ensures that no unauthorized people are allowed through a checkpoint of an airport which would constitute a breach of the sterile area.



But you just said "TSA's job is to ... ensure no dangerous or prohibited items are allowed on a commercial flight". Now you are talking about "unauthorized people". Which is it? Are you trying to stop dangerous objects (then it doesn't matter WHO passes the checkpoint), or are you trying to stop certain people, which ties in with "its their job to catch a terrorist."
 
2013-01-29 03:28:46 PM  

fredklein: tonguedepressor: fredklein: tonguedepressor: TSA's job is to screen passengers and their flying belongings to ensure no dangerous or prohibited items are allowed on a commercial flight, plane and simple.

Then why do they ask for ID? If all they are looking for is dangerous items, why does it matter who the person is??

/looking forward to you ignoring me, like you did before

Checking ID's ensures that no unauthorized people are allowed through a checkpoint of an airport which would constitute a breach of the sterile area.


But you just said "TSA's job is to ... ensure no dangerous or prohibited items are allowed on a commercial flight". Now you are talking about "unauthorized people". Which is it? Are you trying to stop dangerous objects (then it doesn't matter WHO passes the checkpoint), or are you trying to stop certain people, which ties in with "its their job to catch a terrorist."


They do whatever tonguedepressor says they do so he can troll and argue all day long.
 
2013-01-29 04:23:58 PM  

fredklein: tonguedepressor: fredklein: tonguedepressor: TSA's job is to screen passengers and their flying belongings to ensure no dangerous or prohibited items are allowed on a commercial flight, plane and simple.

Then why do they ask for ID? If all they are looking for is dangerous items, why does it matter who the person is??

/looking forward to you ignoring me, like you did before

Checking ID's ensures that no unauthorized people are allowed through a checkpoint of an airport which would constitute a breach of the sterile area.


But you just said "TSA's job is to ... ensure no dangerous or prohibited items are allowed on a commercial flight". Now you are talking about "unauthorized people". Which is it? Are you trying to stop dangerous objects (then it doesn't matter WHO passes the checkpoint), or are you trying to stop certain people, which ties in with "its their job to catch a terrorist."


Oh for Chris' sakes, you're jus using semantics. An unauthorized person inside of a sterile area IS a prohibited item dumbass and tell Keizer_Ghidorah I don't work for TSA anymore but you morons aren't able to grasp a simple, plain and obvious little point.
TSA's job is to screen, prohibit and dissuade the entry of possibly harmful and or prohibitied objects up to and including unauthorized people and persons into the sterile area of a commercial airport now pelase stfu both of you.
 
2013-01-29 06:07:25 PM  

tonguedepressor: An unauthorized person inside of a sterile area IS a prohibited item dumbass


I assume a terrorist is an "unauthorized person". Thus, the TSA's job IS to catch them.

TSA's job is to screen, prohibit and dissuade the entry of possibly harmful and or prohibitied objects up to and including unauthorized people and persons...

Like terrorists?

Ring.

Ring.

Ring.

[answer the phone. You TOLD me to "call me when its their job to catch a terrorist"...]
 
2013-01-29 06:18:46 PM  

fredklein: tonguedepressor: An unauthorized person inside of a sterile area IS a prohibited item dumbass

I assume a terrorist is an "unauthorized person". Thus, the TSA's job IS to catch them.

TSA's job is to screen, prohibit and dissuade the entry of possibly harmful and or prohibitied objects up to and including unauthorized people and persons...

Like terrorists?

Ring.

Ring.

Ring.

[answer the phone. You TOLD me to "call me when its their job to catch a terrorist"...]


lol..ok you win, TSA's job is to catch terrorists and they haven't caught a one.
 
Displayed 234 of 234 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report