Harrassed & Detained For Carrying Cash @ Airport

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by coadie

You probably need to be told the man called judge in the video is a real judge. He has studied law.

Sure Coadie... but he is a mere judge and University Law Professor...

These guys were TSA Agents. They know better than he does.

TIC ... of course.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

So people with money are suspects?

Good grief.

You're right... this isn't Hollywood... but, increasingly, this isn't America either.

While I think it's his right to carry that much cash, I also think that airport security are within their rights to ask him a few questions. He is within his rights in declining to answer. Of course airport security are also within their rights to deny him access to an aircraft. No one has a Constitutional "right to fly" or even a Constitutional "right to drive" for that matter.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Let me ask you a question.

If you were a TSA agent at an airport....

How important a role would each persons Constitutional rights play in how you executed your job?

I look at it like this. You have the right to choose not to cooperate. You have the right to refuse to pass through metal detectors. You have the right not to answer questions. But we have the right to keep you off a plane also. You are not Constitutionally entitled to a flight.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Aquila

While I think it's his right to carry that much cash, I also think that airport security are within their rights to ask him a few questions. He is within his rights in declining to answer. Of course airport security are also within their rights to deny him access to an aircraft. No one has a Constitutional "right to fly" or even a Constitutional "right to drive" for that matter.

Wow... that is one twisted & convoluted statement.

They were within their rights for detaining him for doing something that he was within his rights for doing. He was within his rights to decline to answer and yet they were also within their rights for deny him access because he was doing things completely within his rights.

I won't even comment on the rest. I don't EVEN want to get that whole "travel is a privilege" thing going

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Wow... that is one twisted & convoluted statement.

They were within their rights for detaining him for doing something that he was within his rights for doing. He was within his rights to decline to answer and yet they were also within their rights for deny him access because he was doing things completely within his rights.

I won't even comment on the rest. I don't EVEN want to get that whole "travel is a privilege" thing going

For example, with the actual job I will be doing. You have to fill out an application providing extensive information regarding yourself for SIDA access. You also have to give your fingerprints. You're free to decline from providing any bit of information you choose. You're even free to decline from having your fingerprints taken. But at the same time the airport has the right to deny you access and/or employment. You are not entitled to it. The airline industry has standards and so do the government agencies that ensure the safety of our skies. You can either abide by those standards...or walk.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

Sure Coadie... but he is a mere judge and University Law Professor...

These guys were TSA Agents. They know better than he does.

TIC ... of course.

They work out of a manual. Your question regarding the "constitution" is above the pay grade of the police paraprofessionals. Some better cities prefer a degree in criminal justice. Police training is creating higher standards. The FBI interceded here. The core issue here is they are calling a ron Paul supporter a conservative activist and messing with him. That goes back to the memo in Missouri 4 weeks ago trying to link ron Paul folks with dangerous activities.

My irony meter is now broken. Ron Paul runs with regard to going back and respecting the constitution. This is now a group especially targeted by the liberal police state.

[Aquila]

This is from the Department of Homeland Security:

6.2 Do applicants have the opportunity and/or right to decline to provide information?
The individual is notified that they have an opportunity and/or right to decline to provide the identifying information requested. However, failure to provide the required information will result in TSA declining to process the application or being unable to determine whether the individual poses a threat to transportation or national security, which will result in a denial of access privileges or access credentials for which the individual applied.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This is from the Department of Homeland Security:

6.2 Do applicants have the opportunity and/or right to decline to provide information?
The individual is notified that they have an opportunity and/or right to decline to provide the identifying information requested. However, failure to provide the required information will result in TSA declining to process the application or being unable to determine whether the individual poses a threat to transportation or national security, which will result in a denial of access privileges or access credentials for which the individual applied.

I would like to know what the section is about that this is under.

This seems to be about someone applying for access privileges or credentials.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

I would like to know what the section is about that this is under.

This seems to be about someone applying for access privileges or credentials.

Yep... I answered my own question.

This is Section 6.2 of the Security Threat Assessment for Airport Badge and Credential Holders.

This is about people applying for Airport badges & credentials.

Nice try though.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I look at it like this. You have the right to choose not to cooperate. You have the right to refuse to pass through metal detectors. You have the right not to answer questions. But we have the right to keep you off a plane also. You are not Constitutionally entitled to a flight.

You are a danger to freedom. You are making dishonest statements above. You are deliberately omiting that there are limitations.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was ratified as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. The amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court ruled the Fourth Amendment to be applicable to the state governments by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.

it sounded like the jerks wanted to be hero for the day and unlawfully detain a passenger.