Comments on: Detained by TSA

By: john

john — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:30:07 +0000

stop complaining guys. TSA is just doing their job. yes, TSA agent should be suspended and retrained for his bad language. TSA agents have to equally profile everyone. this “white guy” could have been dangerous. sure he looks okay, clean cut, well spoken etc. but everyone no matter how they look, has to be vetted to make sure they are okay to travel. i have travelled the world, and have gone thru other countries version of TSA and let me tell you my co-americans, that we have it much easier. in other countries, customs and their versions of TSA can legally kick your ass, put you in a hole underground, and basically treat you like shit. in some other countries, people dont have the rights like here in the states. this guy for even challenging the govt (TSA representatives) would have been beaten in some other countries. but here he can complain, “your violating my rights, im going to sue” only in america can you say this kind of quote. so com’on people travel abroad, get out of the states, and you will see some realy ugly stuff.

By: Claude Hendrickson's Douglas AD-4N Skyraider seized by Department of Homeland Security / Transportation Security Administration for paperwork errors. | Popehat

Thu, 21 May 2009 17:06:17 +0000

[...] Assuming that Hendrickson is really a collector of antique warplanes who’s guilty of improper filing of a form, and not a terrorist, impounding and threatening to destroy his unique bird does seem rather excessive. One assumes most legitimate pilots would be given a deficiency notice and told to correct their filings. But in the battle between TSA bureaucrats and world terror, the notion of excess often goes out the window. [...]

By: Murph

Murph — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:09:29 +0000

First of all, I love some of the morons’ replys, like the one about the judge being a bigot because of his comment about the “white guy.” The way I read it, he was referring to his baby face, not his race. It takes a genuine bigot to read race into his statement. Second, every member of the military and everyone elected to office swears an oath to a piece of paper, the U.S. Constitution, NOT “the president” or even “the government.” You people are willing to give up everything for “security.” You need to go back and read your history books, start out with pre-Nazi Germany in the 1930′s. Even when you are in court, accused of a crime, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TALK! So now, you need answer some flunky’s questions about whatever? MONEY DOESN’T BLOW UP! It isn’t a threat! And $4,700 ain’t a great deal of money anymore (thanks to the liberals in Congress). And these tough guys with the idle threats and foul mouth ought to be fired. If they represent the legitimate law enforcement profession, I’m a hamster. And if the moron who said he was with the FBI wasn’t, he should go to jail for impersonating a federal agent. Oh, and I AM a professional law enforcement officer.

By: GT

GT — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:23:40 +0000

It’s funny that these GEstapo types are fond of the ‘if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear’… until you take THEIR photo.

Why not try to encourage EVERY liberty-minded person to ask – politely – to snap photos of the TSA goons and anyone else who turns up. If they refuse, start asking them why they have something to hide; why they are subject to different laws to the rest of the livestock… and so on.

By: cApitalist

cApitalist — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:47:28 +0000

I wish he could have worked in something like, “I’m not carrying money. Theses are federal reserve notes.”

By: Nancy Lebovitz

Nancy Lebovitz — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:34:30 +0000

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/06/paris_hilton_or_mary_winkler_f.html

A discussion of poor people who are put in mental institutions in lieu of imprisoning them. I don’t know if they show up in the standard imprisonment stats.

By: Yizmo Gizmo

Yizmo Gizmo — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:36:18 +0000

The money in his wallet came from *me.*
I was playing a game with Ron Paul’s cronies to see how much cash it would take to subvert the Fourth Amendment.

By: JS

JS — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:42:38 +0000

As for the money amount there Z, should I be stopped when I was traveling to the UK and France for vacation last fall and had 2000+ in cash on my person and travel bag? Rates were fluctuating every day and BofA isn’t always, say the most competitive with their credit card exchange rates.

By: JS

JS — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:39:40 +0000

Ahh the TSA. My favorite story is when they held up my mother in LA as she was coming back from a cruise in Mexico. Apparently the duty free scotch she bought as a gift for a friend who took care of her cats while she was away was verboten. Sealed, bought n paid for etc. but just not “safe”. She is told she can’t go on with it and TSA guy moves to take it off and away (to put it in his locker no doubt). Mom tells him, hold on, give it back to me then and I’ll come back through security without it. Somewhat reluctantly the agent gave her back the scotch and she went and found garbage can and dumped the whole bottle out.

Back in, 04 or so I was in San Jose airport and one agent actually asked me what my glasses repair kit was. It had various screws and nosepads in a small plastic tube with a small screwdriver. The idiot actually responded, “Good answer!”. The guy himself was wearing prescription glasses….

By: Z

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:59:38 +0000

#121- because the republicans are very good at sounding a certain way and the democrats, clintons excepted, are not. The Republicans have been very good at pretending to espouse and advocate a certain set of values: rural or “lightly” suburban/exurban, predominantly white, predominantly Christian/Southern Baptist, predominantly southern/midwestern. A value system where guns are good (but militias aren’t), free speech is to be protected as long as its popular, religious and racial minorities are tolerated if they know their place, gays are relentlessly demonized along with immigrants and (hypocritically) Muslims and anyone who asks for government funding and actually needs it. This last one really burns me up because while individuals are relentlessly hounded for their welfare/social security etc etc drawdowns, corporations are given a free pass to suck the government tit and evade taxes with impunity while using the world as their race course towards the lowest paid workers they can find.

By: Craig

Craig — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:23:59 +0000

“As I said before, I may have been a Republican up to about 1964. However, you can show your memo to Republicans circa 2009 and ask why they never talk about individual liberty except when it comes to waving guns around.”

Truth be told, republicans since the 80′s have NOT been for gun rights.

Reagan banned the use of full auto weapons.

G HW Bush created the much laughed about gun free zones.

GW Bush stated that he would re-authorize the Assault weapons ban if congress presented it to him.

Clinton/dems get the gun control label, because they signed on to the Brady bill…which was proposed by a Reagan, republican staffer…

Not sure why Republicans get a pass on this and Dem’s get a fail. They are all really working together in bipartisan spirit restrict your right to own a weapon.

By: Z

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:29:59 +0000

#119 historically true on both counts and also not relevant to Gitmo. As I said before, I may have been a Republican up to about 1964. However, you can show your memo to Republicans circa 2009 and ask why they never talk about individual liberty except when it comes to waving guns around. The government, since at least 1980 but especially since 2000 has gone out of its way to stamp out individual freedoms except for when the threat of losing those freedoms could be harnessed to manipulate the masses. I’d like the Republicans to talk about individual liberty a lot more consistently: liberty doesn’t just mean buying Uzis and keeping your kids segregated from the darkies yanno.

By: Pinandpuller

Pinandpuller — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 04:52:34 +0000

Well Z if you have the God given right to carry a gun its a lot harder for people to exploit you and your labor and the like. Most gun laws put in place in the south were to keep black people from getting them. To own a handgun in Missouri for the longest time you would have had to take two references to the local sherrif and get his approval-not usually a problem if you were white. Can you imagine a stipulation like that put on abortion? Not really, Planned Parenthood has the express lane for minorities.

By: comatus

comatus — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 01:26:42 +0000

#49 “I suspect the same would happen with the airlines:”
Look again. We’ve been bailing out airlines since the Fifties.

Look, I don’t want to spoil anybody’s rant here, but I got stopped by TSA with live ammunition in my carry-on. And I’m pretty damn scary. And they were pretty damned scared.

And they were perfectly decent and nice about it. They apologized for the inconvenience, and I made my flight.
There are some American citizens actually working there.

By: anarch

anarch — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:19:14 +0000

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask a guy violating the Fourth Amendment where it came from.

By: Z

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 22:17:32 +0000

#115- Yes that is the way things are done in Cuba but I thought the whole point of the WoT was to show that we are better people with better values so to suddenly kiss Cuban Commie rear ends is not helpful. And yes, Lincoln did suspend HC. We can argue over its merits (I don’t know the circumstances so I can’t defend or oppose it) but that was basically half of United States containing large numbers of people who though that their way of doing things, that is to say holding black people hostage and exploiting their labor and, in the case of many women, their bodies, was so wonderful that it outweighed the constitution and the unifying primacy of the federal government in applying that constitution. (The alternative is anarchy which is less fun than it sounds. BTW how come that when people invoke “states rights” its almost always done to defend restricting the rights of the individual? Hell nobody who was frothing at the mouth to ban gay marriage is rushing to defend medical marijuana laws. The only area in which these people support expanding individual rights is when it comes to carrying guns.)

By: Pinandpuller

Pinandpuller — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:11:09 +0000

Why isn’t someone at American Express using incidents like this to market Travelers Checks? If the police confiscate them can you call up and report them as stolen then get your money back?

By: Pinandpuller

Pinandpuller — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:09:21 +0000

Yes, I have heard of Gitmo. That’s just the way they do things in Cuba (throw people in jail indefinitly without trial).

Funny you should bring up the party of Lincoln-another guy who threw dissenters in jail and suspended Habeus Corpus.

I think my main point to you is don’t be so blind as to attribute loss of civil rights to just right wingers. I hope you don’t try and take any transfat through JFK.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:15:45 +0000

I would like to know who decided it was going to be TSA’s job to look for money and drugs, and whatever else they wanted. Was this, government intrusion, not to make airline travel SAFER?? How can it be safer when they are not concentrating on weapons and bombs? It seems as they are more worried about how much money you are carrying and where you work. They were questions I would not answer. They have no baring on whether or not I will have a safe flight. And who is most likely NOT to crash the plane? A guy with nothing in his wallet, or a guy carrying $5,000? All this just adds up to the fact that I will not be flying commercially again.

The responsibilities of the TSA need to be decreased if they have time to hassle someone over money. It should only matter if the questions they ask have to do with flight safety! Otherwise, they need to butt out!

By: CoyotesGrin

CoyotesGrin — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:51:41 +0000

@ Z

So you originally complain that the guy was causing unnecessary trouble and spoiling for a fight. Now your argument is that he wasn’t causing enough problems since he was only standing up for his own rights and not the rights of the multitudes.

May i present the theory that you are the one spoiling for a fight, because you dislike the man’s boss?