var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Roy Hobbs
June 22, 2009 10:26 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Some of these guys who have actually read some of the Constitution can be very useful to have around. When they're not spamming you about the fact that the IRS is illegal, of course.

Reply
14 replies
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
June 23, 2009 2:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Roy Hobbs: I'd like to pay my taxes on the Timmy Geithner plan. Of course, my lack of political connections might be an obstacle.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WraithSama
June 23, 2009 12:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Roy Hobbs:
My co-worker has a friend named George Washing who, apparently, actually IS a direct decendant to THE George Washington, our first president, and also happens to be a lawyer.


My friend said that Mr. Washington, immediately after completing the bar exam, sent a lengthy and detailed letter explaining why collecting income taxes from him is illegal and that he will not pay them. 40-some years later, he is now retired and still has not paid a cent of income taxes, and they have never gone after him. If that's true, though, I imagine they'll ravage his estate after he passes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
grumpygirl
June 28, 2009 7:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WraithSama: George Washington had no direct descendants, as he never had biological children. His heir was a nephew and he legally adopted a step-granddaughter.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FinanceGuru
June 26, 2009 3:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WraithSama: And monkeys might fly out of my butt.


I've run into literally dozens of people who \"have a friend\" who has written a letter with the magic words to the IRS and doesn't have to pay taxes.


BS.


I have clients on the Forbes 400/Fortune 500 lists. There's no way that they would be shelling out the ducats they are to Uncle Sam if that's all that was necessary.


Try again.


The part about him being a descendant of GW was cute.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Greasy Thumb Guzik
June 23, 2009 5:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WraithSama:
George Washington had no children, thus there aren't any direct descendants of his!
Someone is lying here!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
June 23, 2009 6:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Greasy Thumb Guzik: A whacky tax protester making up easy-to-verify facts out of their hat? Get. Out. Of. TOWN!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kepler11
June 23, 2009 1:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WraithSama: And I hope everyone knows that not only is it illegal to not pay your taxes, it is illegal to make these \"frivolous arguments\" in support of not paying your taxes. People have gone to prison for it. I hope he does or his estate gets seized. I don't pay my taxes so that freeloaders get away with it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lee Gibson
July 12, 2009 7:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kepler11:

Illegal to make frivolous arguments? Really? I'd sure like to see a citation on that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kepler11:

Listen to this joker.. He calls people who work for their own money and KEEP it \"freeloaders\". Do you see how sick we have become? The idea that the government has the right to steal food off of your children's table, and then when you protest..you are some how a \"freeloader\". His word..not mine..

We wont even get into how he called the \"arguments\" of the founding fathers \"frivolous\".

Unbelievable..

Grow up and you will realize that tyranny is real. Free speech zones are illegal. Detaining traveling citizens for the amount of cash they are carrying is illegal, income taxes on wages are illegal, waging war on sovereign nations(with my tax money), and without declaration, is illegal.

Governments break their own laws on a regular basis. The reason they can do it so blatantly is because of people like you.. Not only are you ignorant but you flaunt your ignorance like a badge of honor. This attitude permeates society until we have a majority who believe its normal and \"legal\" to have their rights violated on a regular basis.

You topped off your comment with \"I hope the government does steal his property and everything he has so that his children may inherit nothing\"

LOL! You make me sick... I wish the whole lot of people like you would move to Russia so we could have our Republic back.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Framling
June 23, 2009 5:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LibertyReign: tl;dr.


\"Brevity is [...] wit.\" - William Shakespeare

Reply
\"user-pic\"
m4ximusprim3
June 23, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LibertyReign: Just out of curiosity, how should the federal government fund itself?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hi
June 23, 2009 6:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@m4ximusprim3: Same way they did it before the Federal income tax was enacted in 1894, which by the way was challenged and in 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.


Now ... GO RESEARCH AND USE THAT BRAIN OF YOURS FOR GOOD! :D

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Fixta Fernback
June 23, 2009 2:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kepler11: Also... it's patriotic to pay taxes...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Murph1908
June 23, 2009 11:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SpruceStreetPhil - doggarn bike thieves:
Actually, it was Obama that said it. But you weren't that far off.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomZero
June 23, 2009 4:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: I'd agree with that statement, personally. But then I like having roads and soldiers and cops and firefighters, so I must be a smelly Communist hippie, right?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amish Undercover
June 23, 2009 3:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

.Xenn.: Also... it's patriotic to pay taxes...

SpruceStreetPhil - doggarn bike thieves: says the soviets

Murph1908: Actually, it was Obama that said it. But you weren't that far off.

It was Biden. (Maybe this was a bit of a long way to go for a correction...)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Patrick Floto
June 23, 2009 12:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Roy Hobbs: Tell them to try reading the 16th amendment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Patrick Floto:

The Supreme Court, though incompetent, incorrect, and practically traitorous, seems to be the authority of choice in this thread, and they decided that the 16th amendment gave no new taxing powers, so I'm not sure what reading it will accomplish. The 16th amendment was also never ratified.

If you bother to actually research the 16th amendment, instead of taking your opinions from talking heads, you will see that it was part of an agenda to centralize our banking system and to enslave the labor force in America. It is in fact Un-Constitutional which in America is the epitome of illegality.

This has nothing to do with Ron Paul or TSA or Federal police or police brutality or police abuse of power though. I love how that becomes the argument. I love how Americans blend everything together and just decide to turn their brains off.

Ron Paul is a kook, therefore government sponsored slavery and terrorism is ok and you are also a kook if you don't just go along.

Or perhaps you don't really dislike \"kooks\", so now it just becomes \"annoying\" or \"amusing\" when someone sticks up for their rights or tries to educate you on how the law actually works.

Refusing to lick the boots of the Federal police also means that you are a tax-protester, and being a tax-protester also means that you are silly or a subject of ridicule. The ridicule coming from people who obviously have no intellectual basis for their argument. You couldn't possibly say the things you say having read the Constitution, unless of course you have extremely poor comprehension skills.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rte148
June 22, 2009 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Roy Hobbs: LOL FTW: That \"no-statute\" crap is annoying.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
June 22, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Roy Hobbs: haha true. That is ONE good use of Ron Paul supporters. Though sometimes their interpretation of the constitution is rater... annoying.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
t-r0y
June 23, 2009 2:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless:

Though sometimes their interpretation of the constitution is rater... annoying.

Truth and reason annoy you? Wow, what a troubling life you must lead.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@t-r0y:

This is a common strife amongst all Americans. Have you tried reasoning with them lately, or telling them the truth about ANYTHING!??! It's like you just killed their dog..

HOW DARE YOU ATTEMPT TO FORCE ME TO THINK, SIR! I SAID GOOD DAY! *gets in his SUV and drives to the mall*

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jayphat
June 22, 2009 10:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: I was literally just thinking the same thing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Carso
June 22, 2009 10:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jayphat: You know, to be fair, one of the major reasons we have a Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. Arguably, these have historically been 9 of the most jurisprudent judges and lawyers in America. They have every resource at their disposal, and even so they usually disagree on almost every issue.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Constitution isn't as cut-and-dry as maybe we'd like to think it is, and I don't think anyone should be criticized for developing a viewpoint based on thorough and thoughtful research.

I think Mr. Bierfeldt was within his rights to ask about the laws concerning the situation and what his legal rights were. Shouldn't he have been mirandized?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Carso:

The job of the Supreme Court is to ENFORCE the constitution. The Constitution is pretty damned cut and dry. It was designed to be resistant to interpretation and manipulation. Interpretation is the enemy to the Constitution.

He was not under arrest. He had in fact broken no laws. He was in fact NOT required to answer their questions. This is the point. He was being harassed by Federal police; so technically, no, he did not need to be Mirandized, but that's the point in a police state isn't it? You create various un-Consititutional \"laws\" and publish bullshit \"interpretations\" which give you the leeway to abuse power.

It's obvious a lot of you are ignorant to the Constitution and apparently the 16th amendment. I recommend you read the Constitution before you comment on it, then proceed to read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers, then examine history to see how these types of usurpations have occurred and developed in the past.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FinanceGuru
June 26, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LibertyReign: Actually, it's the PRESIDENT'S job to enforce the Constitution. Try reading the Take Care Clause some time. You might fiund it enlightening.


16A was lawfully adopted and is the law of the land.


Get over it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SabreDC
June 23, 2009 11:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LibertyReign: \"The job of the Supreme Court is to ENFORCE the constitution.\"

Say WHAT? Please tell me you're joking. Since, apparently, you failed 8th grade civics, let me explain it to you. In the United States, there are 3 branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. The job of the legislative branch is to write the laws. The job of the executive branch is to execute/enforce the laws, as written. The job of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.

Where in the world would you get the idea that it is the job of the Supreme Court (judicial branch) to enforce laws?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
June 23, 2009 2:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Carso: Good question. You're required to be Mirandized when \"taken into custody\" or basically when you are detained. Which doesn't always mean actually being arrested. Here, though, seems sort of immaterial. He didn't answer any questions. Only asked some. So, in a round about sense, his Miranda rights weren't violated. He said nothing incriminating. Had it been determined that he was in custody and he HAD said something incriminating, then the lack of Mirandizing would kick in and make any such statements inadmissible.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
poppageorgio
June 23, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cogito Ergo Bibo:
Actually, you are required to be mirandized before questioning. You can be arrested anytime, but as long as they haven't asked you any questions, they don't have to read you your rights.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
smonkey
June 23, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cogito Ergo Bibo: Actually, you only need to be mirandized if they want to use anything you say. If your arrested for drunk driving and they find a half empty handle in the passenger seat, they really won't need your confession to convict you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
June 23, 2009 2:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Carso: Actually, most of the time the justices make decisions that are 9-0. It's just the particularly controversial ones that end up with 5-4 decisions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SayAhh
June 22, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Roy Hobbs: LOL my coworker still believes that the IRS and income taxes are not legal, even after he lost the house that his inlaws gave him and his wife for their wedding.

People who know the Constitution are not the problem; the problem is how they interpret it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
June 23, 2009 1:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SayAhh: Well, it was an amendment that made it legal to take people's income as a tax. So, it's not illegal, but it never should have been ratified.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse:

It wasn't ratified, and there was argument as to what constituted \"income\". Let us also not pretend that just because we tax income means its ok. You are allowed to apply common sense to the situation regardless of Supreme Court rulings or even the Constitution itself.

..and I could have sworn this was about a guy being harassed by Federal police in an airport for having cash on him.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ColemanNumskis
June 23, 2009 2:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse: Yeah, because politicians would never do anything to screw the people...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Decubitus
June 22, 2009 10:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe they were afraid he was going to buy all the food and drinks on his flight, causing a riot among the other passengers.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
ageekymom
June 23, 2009 12:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Decubitus: He'd better not have been flying Spirit.. they only take credit/debit cards now!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ageekymom:

This is more to the point then some may realize. It was really the CASH that the officers claimed they were afraid of. The CASH is what started this whole deal according to them. Doesn't make it true, but if we take their word for it, they are threatened by one's ability to anonymously make purchases in an untraceable way..

Hmmm..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
2 replies
June 23, 2009 12:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Decubitus:
omg, are you serious?! With a large wad of cash? Have you ever been on a flight lately?
He'd have only enough to buy a couple of snack-boxes and a half a Pringle!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese
June 23, 2009 12:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coop: He heard US airlines were going to follow Ryanair's lead and install pay toilets.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
NightSteel
June 22, 2009 10:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Tomorrow: Traveler arrested and charged for recording conversation with law enforcement personnel without giving the opportunity for the recording equipment to be seized and destroyed.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
golddog
June 23, 2009 2:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NightSteel: Shoot just look at what happened to the guy who snapped a photo of the goons at the ATM inside REI. That situation happens at Dulles and Hello Gitmo!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
razremytuxbuddy
June 22, 2009 11:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NightSteel: I have seriously wondered what would happen if the screeners caught someone recording their screening at the airport gate. I've encountered some screeners who I believe would have treated me like a terrorist if they found me recording their conduct and language.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
June 23, 2009 1:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@razremytuxbuddy: You'd probably lose your camera. I have seen signs that say you're not allowed to record the screening arae.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
June 23, 2009 12:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@razremytuxbuddy: From what I've heard, TSA screeners treat everyone like terrorists.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously:

@razremytuxbuddy: From what I've heard, TSA screeners treat everyone like terrorists.

That's their job.. Terrorist theater...except..YOU are playing the role of the terrorist.. and the guy with the weapon, the badge, and the abusive attitude is the \"good guy\" LOL!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Psychosocial
June 22, 2009 10:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Second time today I've prayed to be on a jury. I'd award this man A LOT of money. This is ridiculous. Tell me again what the TSA do exactly?

Reply
13 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Psychosocial:

The TSA trains the American public to be treated like criminals. It is yet another \"show\" in the cinematic event known as \"The War on Terror\".

Take off your shoes, put your hands in the air, empty your pockets, turn your head, cough, and then shut the fuck up about it. Don't even think about bringing food or water from outside of this government operated facility. Talk back? Carry cash? Take a picture? Expect to be tazered, beaten, and charged with assault..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Landru
January 22, 2012 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Don't even look at them funny.


At Oakland Airport they have signs telling you to be nice to the TSA officers and to respect their rights. Ha ha!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
# 1 Cyber Gother
June 23, 2009 2:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Psychosocial:

The TSA doesn't really do much except milk the system for you taxpayer dollars..oh yeah mine too!

They make a very nice hourly wage, run you through the puffer machine and envy you for traveling everywhere.

Go HoPe!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
craptastico
June 23, 2009 1:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Psychosocial: assuming you're a tax paying citizen all you'd be doing by awarding him money is paying him out of your own pocket.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheObserver
June 22, 2009 11:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Psychosocial: TSA are mostly a bunch of either young punks, or disgruntled middle age/older worker's third part time job. I had a bad experience at the San Francisco international terminal last year. I placed my items on the x ray machine belt. As I stood there, an old guy in front of the personal metal detector yells at me to go through. As soon as I did that, a young punk behind the x ray machine yells at me that I didn't push my items through the machine all the way. The old guy laughs, and then the punk gives me a snide comment that I was lucky he was in a good mood. WTF? Obviously I complained but nothing ever happened.

If it's either TSA or the custom officers, most of them are a bunch of miserable dweebs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AppleAlex
June 22, 2009 10:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Psychosocial:
The Transportation Safety Administration is responsible for regulating what can go on an aircraft. they were behind liquids being banned onboard commercial flights. now they're behind cash being banned aboard commercial flights

Reply
\"user-pic\"
YOXIM
June 22, 2009 10:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Psychosocial: As far as I know, civil lawsuits don't have juries. Awards are awarded by a judge. And the TSA don't do a damn thing. At least not a damn useful thing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
June 23, 2009 6:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YOXIM: I don't know about the federal courts, but here in CT, some civil trials in state courts are conducted in front of juries and decided by them. I was a juror on one such case, in the late 90s.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Quilt
June 23, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop: Hmnmmm, if the TSA doesn't do anything, then I wonder how much a TSA agent gets paid. Perhaps a good career choice.


Get paid.


Hang out.


Eat beans.


Fart.


Sounds like a cushy job.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_DemandsJusticeForOtters!
June 23, 2009 2:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YOXIM: I've been called for jury duty for a civil trial. I Wasn't chosen.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kc2idf
June 23, 2009 12:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YOXIM: I have been called up for Jury Duty about four times in my life. Never actually ended up serving, but I did show up at the courthouse to do my civic duty. In all of these instances, the trial was a civil trial.

I live in New York State. One of these instances was when I lived in Albany County and the others have all been in Schenectady County.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bog
June 23, 2009 12:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YOXIM:

Civil lawsuits do have juries; been on one before, boring as hell. You can demand a civil lawsuit go to a jury much like with criminal cases. However they can be quite expensive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
YOXIM
June 23, 2009 3:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bog: Heh, I'll be damned. I stand corrected. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
June 22, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YOXIM: They do in some states - I mean, my TV wouldn't lie to me, would it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Scuba Steve
June 22, 2009 11:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coren: Perhaps it would, but then again, are we more trustworthy?

As for Juries, I've been on a number of them, some civil, some criminal. This was in Georgia, and of course, It could vary depending on a lot of different things (location, type of case, judges whim, etc)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JohnAllison
June 22, 2009 10:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YOXIM: There are juries in civil trials. The respondent gets to decide if he wants a bench trial where the judge is the finder of fact, or if they want a jury to be the finder of fact.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Joshua Willis
June 22, 2009 10:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hope he takes them to the cleaners. $4,700 isn't even that much money.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
craptastico
June 23, 2009 1:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joshua Willis: it's not, but if i were carrying it, i wouldn't want a whole big production made out of how much money i was carrying. all it takes is one nut job to overhear this and that guy could get mugged for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
June 23, 2009 4:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joshua Willis: it's barely enough to buy a soda, rent the headphones and the blanket. what are you supposed to pay an in flight meal with?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bobloblawsblog
June 23, 2009 2:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joshua Willis: You're kidding me. $4700?!?!? THATS IT?!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
June 22, 2009 10:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joshua Willis: Indeed. As a foreign national, I know this for a fact. There is no limit to the cash you can take with you, but you have to declare it if you are carrying 10K plus.

And that applies only to cash. My first time coming to USA, I was carrying a fair bunch in demand drafts (bankers checks) and travellers checks. And I decided to be safe rather than busted and I ticked off the \"please interrogate me\" check box. However the very sweet helpful and understanding lady at the customs politely told me that it goes only for cash, and travellers checks are cool, and I dont have to worry about it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SabreDC
June 23, 2009 11:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: And that only applies to customs... Traveling throughout the country does not require a declaration; it is only when entering the country.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AppleAlex
June 22, 2009 10:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As stated above, doing this for $4,700 seriously?

last time we flew we were asked if we had $10,000 or more with us, now granted that was back in 2006 and we were asked by customs and not found with a box of cash but still all this for less than 5 grand

What threat is he imposing?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex:

offense #1:
He had the ability to buy and sell goods without being tracked.

offense #2:
He openly asserted his support for limited government and police restraint.

offense #3:
He had the audacity to question a God(Federal Police minion) and to refuse to cooperate with their harassment.

This guy is GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY! Where the hell of you been? Try to keep up..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
June 23, 2009 1:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex:

The $10k figure is only relevant for international flights, where you can carry as much cash as you want, but you need to declare anything over $10k. For domestic flights, you can board with a briefcase with $10 million in it, and you don't need to say a word.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wildhalcyon
June 23, 2009 1:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: That's not entirely true. It has been upheld in courts within the US that law enforcement (which the TSA is not part of) may seize your money and charge IT with a crime. It is up to YOU to provide an \"alibi\" for your money.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cecilpl
June 23, 2009 1:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wildhalcyon: That's true - look up \"civil forfeiture\".

The government is allowed to charge your cash with accessory to drug trafficking or accessory to terrorism. Since you're a third party claimant you need to prove on the balance of the evidence that the money isn't guilty.

In a lot of states, if the highway cops stop you with a lot of cash, they'll just take it and you'd have to spend months filing suit to get it back.

I would never EVER EVER travel with that much cash - if it's from a non-criminal source turn it into a cashier's cheque or a money order at least!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
m4ximusprim3
June 23, 2009 4:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cecilpl: What about the money you could be saving with geico? Could they arrest him? and would anybody bother to sue for his release?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
friendlynerd
June 23, 2009 7:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@m4ximusprim3:
There are exceptions for money with eyes and a soundtrack.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 23, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cecilpl: Except that if you DO have illegal money, the first thing you do is turn it into a money order. Or several little ones, using different people. Basic money laundering.

I've always thought these \"stop people and ask why they have the money\" was pretty much just to catch the really stupid people who would say that it's to buy drugs or finance terrorism. Because what usually happens is you give a reasonable explanation and they let you go. I've heard lots of reports of people getting money confiscated, and usually what's involved is someone not speaking English very well, defending their rights, or they're pulled aside for some other reason and anything is used as an excuse to keep their money. It's kind of crazy what a scam it is in some places, not really in airports, where cops will use not wearing a seatbelt to confiscate someone's under-the-mattress savings. The burden of proof should not be on the citizen that their money is not illegally obtained.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 22, 2009 11:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex: Yeah, I could at least kind of get it if it were customs (though hey, good sign that the person isn't going to be a burden on the country they're visiting). But TSA? What the hell is he going to endanger aloft? Unless he forgot to mention it's all in rolls of quarters...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
June 22, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex: Someone carrying nearly 5K in cash is almost certainly a Ron Paul supporter. And they can be very dangerous with their whole computer chair activism thing. Theres no telling what they might blog about next ;)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sonneillon
June 22, 2009 10:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yay for the ACLU for doing something useful.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
June 23, 2009 2:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rte148: the ACLU can sometimes back kooky cases... like in my opinion they are backing the prosecution in the case in which a rancher held up several ILLEGALS from ILLEGALLY entering his land and ILLEGALLY entering the country at gun/dog point. I mean I personally don't believe organizations should support illegal activity, no matter how controversial it is (and there are not many good stand fast arguments for illegal immigration)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Real Cheese Flavor
June 23, 2009 12:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sonneillon: Where's that image of the Far Side \"Dobie-O-Matic\" comic when I need it?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AppleAlex
June 22, 2009 10:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sonneillon:
doesn't the ACLU handle cases with Racism or Censorship not being detained for having 5 grand??

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
xboxcrazy33
June 22, 2009 10:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So wanting to know your rights under the law is a bad thing now? That makes perfect sense.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xboxcrazy33:

Doesn't it though? If your agenda is to turn Americans into spineless sycophants who lick jack-boots.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
June 22, 2009 10:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xboxcrazy33: It's only in a few situations that Law Enforcement has to tell you your rights. The rest of the time its up to you. So, he should not have asked what his rights were, he should have said, \"I don't have to answer that question,\" or, \"What law have I violated that requires my detainment?\"


PS- It's those pesky librul activist judges that even gave you Miranda rights. Scalia has talked about getting rid of that requirement for years.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Underscore_Lysdexia
June 23, 2009 1:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: He said he didn't know if he had to answer the question
Actually it was the TSA and the cops that were not cooperating, all they had to do was say Yes, and he would have answered

Although it seems they didn't even know themselves so they just tried to push him

Good on ya, Steven

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Spaceboy
June 23, 2009 3:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP:

According to the article you're required to answer all questions posed by the TSA. If he said he didn't have to answer it he would have been detained for another (supposedly legitimate) reason.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ben Miner
June 22, 2009 10:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

With few exceptions (notably Miranda) it is not and has never been the responsibility of the police to inform people of their rights.

The lesson here is that you need to know your rights and be prepared to exercise them, not expect the police to give you a crash course.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ben Miner:

Damn, really?!?!? I thought your rights were the LAW, and it was the job of the police to enforce the law??? Sorry, your assessment is in fact realistic and I agree with you..I'm just pissed and it shouldn't be that way.. Police officers should be someone you can count on to SECURE your rights..not someone you need to protect yourself against from the violation of your rights..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cluberti
June 22, 2009 11:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ben Miner: True, but it was under $10,000 in cash (even if it was in Euros ;)), and if he's not being detained legally I don't believe he has any obligation to answer their questions. In fact, his questions seemed more than appropriate, considering the police and TSA officials were likely the ones in the wrong here. If they wanted to arrest him, he still wouldn't have to answer the questions, although they would then have to inform him of their rights (which makes it a catch 22 - the police don't have the obligation to inform you of your rights if you ask, but do have to inform you of them if they arrest you....).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
June 22, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ben Miner: That's where I'm not entirely behind Steve. I agree that he doesn't have to explain himself if he doesn't want to, but I don't agree that is an officers job to give him legal advice (which is what he's asking).


If he simply repeated, \"What law have I violated that requires me to be detained?\" That would be better.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SarcasticDwarf
June 23, 2009 12:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: But if an average person can't possibly know all the law, and the officers are not obliged to inform them, how can a person possibly know whether or not they should answer a question/follow orders?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
the_wiggle
June 28, 2009 1:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SarcasticDwarf: a person can't. it's designed that way.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SarcasticDwarf:

They shouldn't; hence the culturization of ignorance in our society, and the bastardization of our military and police.. and leading inevitably to these little happy moments @ the airport..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
June 23, 2009 1:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SarcasticDwarf: The average person CAN and SHOULD know their rights; however the average person is ignorant and/or doesn't believe they'll ever have to deal with police/authority figures because they never break the law and police don't arrest/detain innocent people, right?!?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sarah Black
June 23, 2009 2:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously: \"police don't arrest/detain innocent people, right?!?\"

I wanted to say something about \"Abusing Authority\", but you said it already... You have spoken the truth!!
(and you've just been hearted!)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SarcasticDwarf
June 23, 2009 1:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously: It is completely and utterly retarded to claim that the average person should know all the applicable laws. Even lawyers whose entire job it is to know the law have to specialize by topic AND state. I would consider myself to be fairly well informed, but even I don't know what the law is for many possible situations.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SarcasticDwarf:

It's only retarded in our over-regulated slave society. Under a constitutional government, it would and should be expected that every citizen take direct responsibility for adherence to the law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
June 23, 2009 12:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SarcasticDwarf: \"Ignorance of the law is no excuse.\" Yes, its glib, but that the fundamental truth. Did you know that in the State of Illinois that you CAN do a U-turn unless there's a sign that says you can't? Well, in Chicago, its the opposite- you can't do a U-turn unless there's a sign that says you CAN. We're all expected to know these things. It's not fair, but its the reality.


As I mentioned, I think he was in the right but should have approached it differently by either saying, \"No, I won't answer,\" or \"Why am I being detained?\" He shouldn't be asking an officier for what is essentially legal advice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP:

Asking an officer who is asking you questions if you are legally required to answering them is not \"asking for legal advice\", lol.

The TSA was playing head games here, and it was obvious they were getting off on it until a superior told them they had to knock it off.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
June 23, 2009 5:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Speaking of traffic rules, IIRC, here in New York City, you CAN NOT make a right turn on red (after stopping) UNLESS there is a sign that says you can, while in the rest of the country, you CAN make the right turn on red, UNLESS there's a sign prohibiting it.

/just thought you should all be aware of it. So, please watch for the pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
June 23, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nybiker: But that is posted at every entrance to NYC (What with the limited access to an island).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
twophrasebark
June 22, 2009 11:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\\@Ben Miner:

That's right. He had a right to not be detained. And they detained him anyway. And then he very pointedly asked them why he was being detained.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SayAhh
June 22, 2009 10:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not saying nor implying that Steve Bierfeldt or Ron Paul hates the ACLU, but I always felt that the people who want to sue the ACLU should back off, because someday the ACLU will help you, too, when YOUR civil liberties are being violated.

For example, if one day atheists vote to outlaw marriage between Christians, the ACLU will step up to the plate and defend them. Of course there's no danger of that right now, but one never knows.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
Tzepish
June 23, 2009 11:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SayAhh: I'm pretty sure Ron Paul and the Paulites consider the ACLU to be an ally.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
June 23, 2009 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SayAhh: As crouton976 said, he wants to use the ACLU to sue the TSA.

But more to the point, the ACLU defends Christians and other religious groups on a regular basis: [www.aclu.org]

Defending your rights under the Constitution is what the ACLU does, so it makes perfect sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
crouton976
June 23, 2009 12:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SayAhh: Well, that's all well and good, but he's not suing the ACLU, he's suing the TSA...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kd McEntire
June 22, 2009 10:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SayAhh: I can't decide if you're being serious about the \"outlawing marriage\" thing or not.
(Checks sarcasm detector)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
June 22, 2009 10:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SayAhh: Yeah, ACLU is a blade that cuts both ways :P

They can be a bit over the top, and these days they seem to only have progressive causes to defend, but they would just as well support conservative causes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MauriceCallidice
June 23, 2009 7:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Carrying a gun onto a commercial airliner without very specific permission is a crime, and an obvious potential security threat. Transporting a gun in one's luggage is perfectly legal and normal, if the TSA-approved procedure is followed.

Transporting cash domestically is neither a crime nor a security threat.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
June 23, 2009 12:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: They supported Limbaugh not turning over his medical records when he had that little pain killer problem.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lockdog
June 23, 2009 2:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: They also supported Jerry Falwell in a suit several years back.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DionneHorae
June 22, 2009 10:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So how again does carrying money affect the safety of an airline? Was he going to set the bills on fire somehow? Oh that's right, the TSA has NOTHING to do with safety, and everything to do with invasive constitution-free law enforcement (where you get to make up your own laws). I forgot.

Reply
13 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DionneHorae:

!!! EXACTLY !!!! *HEARTED*

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
June 23, 2009 3:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DionneHorae:

Safetywise it doesn't but he could be a money launderer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jimconsumer
June 23, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: Doesn't matter if he's a money launderer. That's not the TSA's job to find out. They are not the police. Their job is not to bust people for laundering money. Their job is ONLY to secure the safety of aircraft.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
June 23, 2009 8:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jimconsumer:
Of course it's not. But they might think that they have to detain someone who might be, because they are fascist assholes.

I just read a whole DOJ .pdf about money laundering and it was FASCINATING.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
June 22, 2009 11:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DionneHorae: TSA is not only around for terrorist, they are basically border patrol for airports. Carrying 5k in cash is not normal, so they asked about it, which is their job. Just like carrying a body part, a gun, etc. With good reason, its no big deal, but it sets off red flags when looked at alone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SabreDC
June 23, 2009 11:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Wrong. TSA has nothing to do with border protection. That is another DHS wing: Customs and Border Protection (CBP). TSA's only jurisdiction is to protect people on a mode of transit, typically airplanes. As microcars said, they are not police officers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kingmanic
June 23, 2009 4:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: When I head to Asia for a few weeks I will carry ~5k for hotel, to purchase gifts, to give to family as gifts and other expenses so that is sort of a poor argument.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 23, 2009 1:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: The TSA's stated mission is to provide for the safety of the flight by preventing the boarding of prohibited items. Cash, any amount withing US borders, is not a prohibited item. TSA are not within their legal rights to ask about any amount of money, it's origin or purpose. These TSA brownshirts were were within their scope to ask for the box to be open to see what was inside, that's it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Drew5764
June 23, 2009 12:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Apparently you've never been to Vegas, either going (likely with 5k) or coming back (hopefully, depending on what you started...) The point of the matter is that there's a point at which you have to declare, otherwise you're within your rights to do whatever you please. Lest we start prosecuting everything you deem as \"not normal\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Landru
June 22, 2009 11:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Border patrol between states? Or between cities within a state? Fail.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DionneHorae
June 22, 2009 11:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: I'm smiling politely, so you know. The TSA's job was SUPPOSED to be about securing air travel. If they found a gun, they would do something about it. If they found pot, which wouldn't harm airline security but is still illegal, they would do something about that too. Carrying cash, $5, $5,000, or $50,000, is not illegal and cannot possibly harm an aircraft. It's disgusting to me that AppleAlex and xtc46 think they're being rational.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
friendlynerd
June 23, 2009 4:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DionneHorae:
Thank you. I will never understand the \"why do you care if you have nothing to hide\" crowd.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AppleAlex
June 22, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DionneHorae:
Maybe they thought he was a drug dealer and wanted to detain him to make sure they can trace the money to the location given (or not given depending if he wants to cooperate)

it makes sense but they should answer him first

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shadowkahn
June 23, 2009 9:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex:

The TSA is the Transportation SAFETY Administration. Their charter is to be sure that anything that gets onto a plane will not jeopardize the safety of the plane. Unless they have reason to believe that the cash is, in fact, made out of an explosive, they have no business doing anything other than waving the person carrying it through.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
microcars
June 22, 2009 11:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex: No, it does not make sense.
The TSA is not the Police or FBI or the BATF or the DEA.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jayphat
June 22, 2009 10:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am listening to this, and just grinning from ear to ear at the fact that these asshats have NO IDEA they are being recorded. Ahh, if only everything I did during the day was recorded so that I could use the things said during the day against asshats.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
carlos_the_dwarf
June 23, 2009 1:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jayphat:

I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the guy wasn't charged with \"illegal wiretapping\" or somesuch. Seems to happen with some regularity when a quick-thinking citizen records government employees acting thuggish.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@carlos_the_dwarf:

Yeah it's interesting isn't it? To further the point they usually charge you with assault after they kick your ass. Luckily for Steve it never got that far in this case.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ZekeSulastin
June 23, 2009 12:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jayphat: ... yeah, then people like us freak out about our infringed liberties because others record us without our knowledge. Just like the ACLU mentioned above, the blade cuts both ways.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 5:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ZekeSulastin:

Uhh recording my private phone conversations or keeping a track of my viewing/reading/listening habits is NOT the same thing as recording a police interrogation in a public place...

Please...don't make the comparison..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
June 22, 2009 11:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jayphat: I hope more people record these 'interviews' and report when things get abusive. I'm all for the TSA protecting us, but it sounds like they were really leaning on this guy when there was no imminent risk.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AppleAlex
June 22, 2009 11:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jayphat:
isn't it illegal ro record conversations with permission from the FBI or something?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
banmojo
June 23, 2009 4:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AppleAlex: depends which state you're in whether both parties need to be 'in the know' or just one party (ie. the one with the recorder) - you can check this online

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
doctor_cos wants you to remain calm
June 22, 2009 11:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The TSA says passengers are required to answer questions about their property.

Is this, in fact, correct? A cursory search for \"TSA Regulations\" nets general information \"helpful\" to travelers.

Where are the official rules governing these brownshirts?

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP:

and be charged with terrorism and detained without due-process for swearing at a \"flight attendant\"

google: \"mother arrested under patriot act for spanking her kids\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
doctor_cos wants you to remain calm
June 23, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: I see (how did you find those) in the relevant CFR...
You are required to present identification and your full name. I don't see where you have to answer any questions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
June 24, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@doctor_cos: The question was: \"Where are the official rules governing these brownshirts?\"

I showed where the rules were. I didn't claim to show where the rules show where you have to answer questions.

Finding the TSA rules are simple. The TSA has a website and their rules are posted on the site.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 24, 2009 10:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey:

I believe the street-poet Ice Cube put it best.. \"Mutha FUCK the TSA\".. wait I just made that up..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
June 23, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@doctor_cos: Maybe its near that idiotic rule that we have to comply with all crewmember instructions, even when they have nothing to do with safety, security, or comfort of other passengers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
David Schwartz
June 23, 2009 6:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: That's a myth. in fact, the law says \"No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part.\" I don't see anything in there about complying with instructions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SonalStevenson
June 28, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@David Schwartz: Not true. There is also this:\"This briefing shall include a statement that the Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with the lighted passenger information signs, posted placards, areas designated for safety purposes as no smoking areas, and crewmember instructions with regard to these items.\" However, I'm pretty sure this doesn't cover most crewmember instructions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
June 23, 2009 1:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@David Schwartz: Interesting. I've flown enough that I'm 99.9% sure they say that during their announcement. Perhaps a post-9/11 addition? Or, do you think we have another situation where people are grasping for too much power?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
June 23, 2009 12:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@doctor_cos: I read that too, and I think it's an overly broad guideline (and apparently not a law or regulation) because the TSA has to ask questions like (for example) \"what is in this unlabeled bottle of liquid?\" and \"Are you carrying any ammo for this weapon?\" etc.

I think extending the requirement for cash is a huge stretch of the intent of the rule, if not an outright breach.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AppleAlex
June 22, 2009 11:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@doctor_cos:
Hidden in a file cabinet somewhere in Texas

seems a lot of companies and administrations these days can't seem to yank up the rules or regulations on a physical sheet they always just say \"it's policy, it's the rules\"

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Shaftoe
June 22, 2009 11:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

One thing I gleaned from reading the article this morning was that the TSA was suffering from Mission Creep. Look we have a potential drug dealer here. lets harras him. Also as soon as he stated that he worked for Ron Paul the let him go..this is fund raising money for Ron Paul? Yes? Your free to go.
That is wrong on so many levels

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
jstonemo
June 23, 2009 1:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shaftoe: The real question is whether he got to keep his tin-foil hat after being released.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
vim876
June 28, 2009 8:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jstonemo:
I can't stand many of Ron Paul's policy positions (mine's more of an ACLU-style civil libertarian streak), but this is a cheap shot. You think Pauloroids are crazy? At least they want you to be able to know when they're screwing you, unlike some Repubs I can name.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jstonemo:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! THAT'S SO FUNNY!!AND ORIGINAL TOO!!

your logic = sticking up for your rights = the belief that aliens are probing your brain but tin foil somehow prevents the transfer of data

Hmmm... Who's the idiot wearing a hat?(duncecap)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xanaxian
June 23, 2009 12:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shaftoe: To be fair, like 90% of Americans, they had probably never heard of Ron Paul.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Maous
June 22, 2009 11:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Being detained at the airport is one of my biggest fears, and listening to the entire thing made me feel anxious- even from just a 3rd person listening standpoint.

Gotta love how the fact that you have a badge makes some people (note; Some) act like this.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Maous
June 22, 2009 11:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Maous: Side note; Why is this being posted now, the article is dated April?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
I Love New Jersey
June 22, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nothing like high school dropouts who couldn't get jobs as Wal-Mart security guards!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
wallspray
June 22, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What's the law on recording people in person whom do not know they are being recorded

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
June 23, 2009 12:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wallspray: \"Oops I left my iPhone recorder on\"

The consent laws also realistically only deal with how those recordings can be used in a court of law. It's pretty hard to prove intent if criminal charges were brought. He could delete the recording, claim the internet copies were forgeries, and they'd have no evidence and he'd still have a pretty good case to sue them even without the recording.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Landru
June 22, 2009 11:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wallspray:


From: [www.citmedialaw.org]
In California:


\"Conversations that occur in a public space or in an area where the parties do not have any expectation of privacy are not covered by the wiretapping statute. Therefore, you generally are free to record a conversation happening between people in a public place, such as a street, a park, or on the steps of a courthouse, even without consent. For example, a California court has upheld a television network's right to use a hidden camera to videotape a conversation that took place during a business lunch on an outdoor patio of a public restaurant. See Wilkins v. NBC, Inc., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1066 (1999). The court held that because the information being recorded was not secret or confidential, the statute was not violated, and the network was free to videotape.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dako81
June 22, 2009 11:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wallspray: In some states only one party has to know they are being recorded. Google it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Joe Navratil
June 22, 2009 11:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wallspray: In Missouri, it would appear that only single-party consent is required: [www.rcfp.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tbonekatz
June 22, 2009 11:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wallspray:
38 states and DC allow recording a conversation to which you are a party without informing the other party. Fortunately for him, Missouri is one of those 38 states.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wallspray
June 22, 2009 11:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tbonekatz: @Joe Navratil: So what are my rights in this situation if I am in a state where all parties must be informed? Can I just tell them I am recording the conversation? Or will they tell me I cannot do so?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tbonekatz
June 23, 2009 12:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wallspray:
Then all parties must be informed and they can either give consent or not. I'm guessing they'd choose \"not\". In which case you would not be allowed to record.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
krista
June 23, 2009 7:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tbonekatz: I'm pretty sure the other party doesn't need to \"consent\" to being recorded, you just have to inform them you are recording it. By continuing to speak, they are consenting to the recording. I live in an \"all parties must be informed\" state.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
htrodblder
June 22, 2009 11:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

paying someone $12.50 an hour, then giving them a badge with questionable guidelines will always cause this. I'm frankly surprised it doesnt happen more.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
carlos_the_dwarf
June 23, 2009 1:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@htrodblder:

It DOES happen more. Most people just put up with it and never report the harassment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
June 23, 2009 1:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@htrodblder: It would have been minimum wage if Bush had gotten his way. He wanted to privatize airport security, so that they wouldn't be subject any unions. So you know those building security guards, they'd be responsible for your safety.


He gave in fairly quickly, but wanted to retain the right to hire/fire/transfer/promote TSA agents without going through the typical processes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
June 23, 2009 10:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: @xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Are you seriously comparing carrying cash to carrying body parts?

The dude went on a business trip and came back with cash. There's nothing wrong with that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP:

If you work for a private company you cannot form a union? LOL! Bush-haters are all the same.. oblivious to reality..

Bush did not support private airport security. All this brown shirt nonsense went down on his watch..

I love how you try to use sarcasm to imply private security works too.. How often do malls get attacked by terrorists or robbed?

That's why rich people hire body-guards to protect them..because the police are doing such a bang up job of keeping us safe..

By the way.. I hate Bush too..I just dont hate him because I love Obama, nor do I love Obama because I hate Bush.. you live in a false reality where there is a difference between Bush and Obama and Clinton and Nixon, etc, etc, etc.. two sides of the same coin..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Joe Reilly
June 23, 2009 12:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Sounds fair to me. Would you rather they be in a union where they will be basically untouchable even if they are poor workers?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joe Reilly:

I would rather they weren't centralized as this is a piss-poor way to run ANYTHING and I would also prefer I had my rights back.. seems to me if a private citizen did to me what TSA officers do on a regular basis I could sue..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
June 23, 2009 1:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joe Reilly: Niether choice is that fantastic, a poorly trained, poorly paid person, with little incentive (other than being fired from his/her min. wages job, just to move to anohter) to maintain safety. Or, a (somewhat) well paid, poorly trained, apaethetic person who can't get fired because they have seniority.


Off Topic- I'm actually OK with unions when it comes to negotiating pay/benefits. But the two things I hate about their structure is the seniority system, and the you can't him/her fire us unless they kill two puppies, while holding up two forms of ID, five witnesses and their grandma watching [Yes, Chapelle show knock-off].

Reply
\"user-pic\"
vim876
June 28, 2009 10:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP:
Seniority is the reason my uncle, who has been a baggage handler since before I was born, didn't lose his job when almost no one flew for a while after 9-11. And I promise, he works extremely hard. In a capitalist system, unions are certainly no worse than corporations. They are representing their own interests, because SOMEBODY has to. If you feel you're being treated unfairly by a union because of it's structure, convince people to vote to change the rules.

Privatization would certainly be worse, because the TSA would then have the incentive to set people up, so we'd have to pay them more for security. Kind of like the private prison lobby creating a lot of info used in opposition to marijuana decriminalization

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP:

Hey.. I have an idea..how about we let the market regulate these things..so that successful airports are the ones who pay WELL trained EXPERTS with experience in both security and dealing with the public and pay them WELL.. I mean..if that is truly what people want??? I dont think it is..I think you just want to get where you're going as quickly and easily as possible..thus an airline with little security and hassle-free boarding would be the most successful..

I would like to say this one time for the record..because it seems as though a majority of you live in a fantasy world where you really believe that you are arguing over things that matter...

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SECURITY.. THERE IS ONLY PREPAREDNESS..

Security is the advertisement slogan of a tyrant..

OH MY FEARS WHAT DID WE EVER DO TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE END OF THE WORLD BEFORE THE TSA CAME ALONG?!?!

THERE COULD BE A SHOE-BOMBER UNDER THAT GUY'S CLOTHES OR HIDDEN IN HIS WAD OF CASH!!!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Willmeister
June 22, 2009 11:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

how hard is a AMi i legally suppose to answer to answer

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Ernest Davis
June 22, 2009 11:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

we have the right to akx those queshuns

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Triterion
June 22, 2009 11:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I never knew carrying something issued by the federal government could get you in trouble with the federal government!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ChuckECheese
June 22, 2009 11:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

He was probably carrying gold and went over the bag weight limit.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
PittDragon
June 23, 2009 3:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ChuckECheese: If thats the case then he should have sent it to Cash4Gold.com instead :D.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
RobertW.TX
June 22, 2009 11:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm sure to be in the minority here but I really don't see the point in refusing to answer a reasonable question. \"Where did this money come from and where is it going.\" If the traveler had simply answered the question honestly and politely I would imagine the TSA Agent would have said, \"Thank you, have a good flight.\"

TSA is not unique, I would imagine any Police Officer in a similar situation would ask the same question. Personally, I would answer the question just as a courtesy to a public authority figure.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RobertW.TX:

LOL!! O.K. let's find some common ground.. I agree with you. The question SHOULD be answered..

\"NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS YOU FASCIST PIG\"

How's that for an answer?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Joshua D. Wise
June 23, 2009 11:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The question isn't reasonable. Why do you assume security has the right to dip into your personal life when they KNOW it has nothing to do with security.


They use their scare tactics on him, but they know they have absolutely NOTHING on him, nor do they even truly suspect him of a crime. This is flagrantly apparent in how easily they let him go.


Imagine you were in security, and you misguidedly believed this guy's $4,700 was Truly and HONESTLY indicative of a crime. Would you really just dick around and ask the same tired questions over and over and fold like a lawn chair as soon as he says he works for Ron Paul? If you ACTUALLY thought he might be a criminal, wouldn't you then think he was LYING?


If they immediately believed his reason for the money, why didn't they immediately believe he was not committing a crime? They must have, and were simply detaining him on a power trip. That's all this was, a power trip. And that is unreasonable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joshua D. Wise:

someone who is paying attention..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
David Schwartz
June 23, 2009 5:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RobertW.TX: How can you tell if you're in the minority or not? Nobody else expressed an opinion on the alternate reality in which he answers the question. We're talking about this reality, where he asks if he is required to answer the question.

Sure, if he had acted differently, the TSA would have acted differently. But the question here is whether his actions and the TSA's actions are appropriate.

If you want to argue his actions were inappropriate, let's hear why what he *did* *do* was inappropriate -- not what else he could have done.

And if you want to defend the TSA's actions, defend what the TSA actually did -- not what they might have done had he acted differently.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
manevitch
June 23, 2009 4:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RobertW.TX: The TSA is charged with keeping our transportation secure, not with asking questions out of idle curiosity. And as cash has never been used as an effective weapon to bring down an aircraft, I'd submit that the question was posed simply for idle curiosity. The fact that they detained him and asked such irrelevant questions, under color of authority, is what will probably make the TSA settle this case before it ever gets to court.

Miranda as read to detainees reads \"anything you say can and will be used against you\" - it says NOTHING about how you can get yourself OUT of trouble by speaking; it only notes that you can get yourself INTO trouble by speaking. So, in answer to your original question: I wouldn't answer any question I wasn't legally obligated to answer. There's no good that can come of it; only bad.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
June 23, 2009 1:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RobertW.TX:

You're traveling with a woman - the officer asks - are you two married? Do you have to answer? What if you say no, and he asks \"are you having sex out of wedlock?\" Do you have to answer?

The decision tree for TSA should be very very simple:

Is XYZ a threat to the plane or its passengers?

If YES, then don't let the person board with the item.

If NO, then pass person through.

There is no POSSIBLE scenario under which a bundle of cash could be a threat to the plane. TSA is 100% in the wrong here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jason Sykes
June 23, 2009 1:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RobertW.TX:

it's his right and your right too Robert!

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO....I forgot what was the rest?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cluberti
June 22, 2009 11:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RobertW.TX: Sure they can ask you such a question, but you have the right not to answer. You do *not* have to declare ANYTHING about the cash you're carrying if it's under $10,000, as that is the law. Sure they can ask, and you can answer. But you also have the choice not to answer, which is what this person did. There was nothing wrong with the actions taken here, just overzealous TSA and law enforcement officials (and I don't consider the TSA law-enforcement either).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RobertW.TX
June 23, 2009 12:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cluberti: The $10,000 limit is a bit misunderstood. I don't pretend to be an expert but the only two laws I am aware of regarding $10k are:

1) Banks must report deposits or withdrawals in excess of 10k to the IRS. Banks can and do report smaller amounts if they have a reason to believe the transaction is suspicious.

2) On international flights amounts in excess of 10k are reported to US customs.

I was not arguing that the traveler was required to answer the question. My point was it seams churlish to refuse to answer a simple question that had a mundane answer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cluberti
June 23, 2009 10:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RobertW.TX: It might be churlish, but it's perfectly legal. What happened afterwards was likely not, hence the lawsuit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 7:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RobertW.TX:

Who determines what is mundane? Plus, in a capitalistic society, it may considered less than \"mundane\" to answer questions about your personal finances.

Let's look at this from yet another perspective..

Here was a guy who works for a member of Congress who was in that state on political business. This state also had recently and coincidentally released a so-called \"how-to\" on fishing out terrorists and other extremists. On this list of terrorists were people who believe in limited government, tax protesters, Ron Paul supporters, pro-lifers, and supporters of property rights for the individual.

So how American it is to be labeled a terrorist extremist and detained in an airport for collecting cash on behalf of a political cause which Homeland Security in that area has already made a public declaration to inhibit.

I understand you consider yourself courteous, and well-tempered, however courtesy in the face of harassment and usurpation of your rights is ill-advised and in my opinion is not a display of balance or patience. It is a display of apathy and ignorance and should be frowned upon everywhere, ESPECIALLY in the US.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sure I could agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
June 23, 2009 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RobertW.TX:

He has a right not to answer.

\"You have the right to remain silent. ANYTHING you say WILL be used against you.\"

It is called the FIFTH AMMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Now, if you want to know WHY he was absolutely correct not to talk to them, I suggest you see this video recorded by a Law professor. I recently was turned on to this video and I must say.. WOW

[video.google.com]

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
twophrasebark
June 22, 2009 11:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Very soon the TSA will announce that you cannot record them. Or will initiate policies to make sure there's no way you can record them.

Of course, any aboard agency would welcome you to record them anytime, anywhere.

But this is the TSA remember.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
June 23, 2009 2:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@twophrasebark: The TSA already freaks out if you try to video recorder the screening process. They claim this is for security purposes (ie not letting a terrorist create a \"fool the TSA\" training video) but we know it is for their liablity.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
June 23, 2009 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@econobiker:

Taping it would make no difference because you can see all that when you go through the checkpoint. So they are stupid. All the terrorist's researcher would have to do is go through the checkpoint and observe.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RobertW.TX
June 23, 2009 12:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@twophrasebark: Depending on the state it may already be illegal. If memory serves there are some states where all parties (not just 1 participant) must give consent before you can record a conversation in an area where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
twophrasebark
June 23, 2009 1:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RobertW.TX: In the most states it is legal to record your own conversations.

There are about 12 where you must get the other's party's consent. This was already addressed in another comment.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
twophrasebark
June 22, 2009 11:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I meant: \"above board agency.\"

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
farmerjeanh
June 22, 2009 11:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That could've been me! I just went to the Cleveland Clinic and carried $4,400 in cash and travelers checks. They checked all my liquid medication to make sure it was not explosives, but that went fairly quickly.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
BeerManMike
June 22, 2009 11:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Eh, i wouldn't worry about it too much, we'll alll soon have chips in our hands so they can just scan us and we'll ASK for it.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
June 23, 2009 12:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Steve is acting paranoid. It was a harmless question and the answer could hardly be read as a threat. The TSA are being bad asses who are being too aggressive. Everyone in that room was playing Who's Got The Biggest Dick?

Waste of everyone's time.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid:

You make me sick.. just thought I would let you know.. by the way ..please empty your pockets and detail where/how you obtained every dollar..thanx..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Joshua D. Wise
June 23, 2009 11:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah I totally can't believe a guy who just left a fundraiser for an organization called CAMPAING FOR LIBERTY might actually try to use the ha ha, \"constitution\" when boarding his flight. What an asshole. Everyone knows the constitution is just toilet paper we keep around for historical purposes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joshua D. Wise:

OMG! That's it..I can't take anymore... Joshua=hearted

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
June 23, 2009 1:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@savdavid:

Please describe in detail your sex life, listing all previous partners. Why not answer? It's a harmless question. You don't want to answer, and you shouldn't, because it's NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Same in this situation.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Sure I could agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
June 23, 2009 12:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Welcome to the People's Republic of America.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
outoftheblew
June 23, 2009 12:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

$5k cash doesn't even trigger the federal government's red flag. A currency transaction report (CTR) is to be filed with the IRS on things like casino cash-outs over $10k, to uncover money laundering and people not paying taxes on large cash incomes.


So saying \"You have $5k cash on you, so you need to be detained\" is a little too red-coatish to me. The kind of thing our founders fought to get away from.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
2 replies
June 23, 2009 12:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

He should have said he planned on checking an extra bag earlier, but didn't bring enough cash.

Reply
2 replies
","","","
\"user-pic\"
haoshufu
June 23, 2009 12:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder what that \"large\" sum is.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Jason Sykes
June 23, 2009 12:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

wait you questioned their right to harass and detain you?

wow you are a trouble maker. I hope the ACLU drags them through the mud!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Haggie1
June 23, 2009 12:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you want to have an entertaining \"who's on first\" conversation, ask a TSA agent if you are required to remove your shoes to pass through a security check point...

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Sure I could agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
June 23, 2009 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

[video.google.com]

THIS is why he was correct in keeping his mouth shut.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chrisjames
June 23, 2009 1:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ah, TSA: the receipt checkers of the airline industry.

Reply
1 replies
","","","
\"user-pic\"
johnfrombrooklyn
June 23, 2009 1:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Trust me. Soon they'll get Tasers and then they'll just Tase someone who dares ask them these questions.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 7:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@johnfrombrooklyn:

Um..only if by \"soon\" you mean \"already\"

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bravo369
June 23, 2009 1:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

there really needs to be some kind of psychological screening for cops and tsa etc. this is the 2nd story i've read today about crazy cops. On digg, there's a story about a woman asking calmly for a cops badge number which he's required to give by law when asked. So what does he do? choke slam her to the ground, arrest her only to have charges dropped at the station. there's certain jobs out there that we should not just be giving to people because they sign up. cops and teachers should be hard to get and even harder to keep if you aren't doing a good job

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 7:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bravo369:

Such tests already exist..how else do you think they recruit psychopathic, violent, control-freaks who will follow orders no matter how unconstitutional..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
the_wiggle
June 28, 2009 1:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LibertyReign: word.

and the few good people who try to do their jobs properly get burned out or shoved out of those jobs.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
joel.
June 23, 2009 2:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Lambert-St. Louis is hit or miss with their TSOs. Sometimes they're super nice and sometimes they're ego-tripping. For the most part the TSA is just ridiculous. We had better security with the contracted independent security agencies used before 9/11/01.

Ridiculous.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
christoj879
June 23, 2009 2:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Keenan left SNL to become a cop.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
outlulz
June 23, 2009 2:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

OP is probably the type of person that walks out of a Best Buy or Costco with merchandise and gets insulted when asked to show proof he paid for it.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 7:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outlulz:

LOL! Listen to yourself..

Next time you are detained for no reason whatsoever..just shut the fuck up and take it slave!

And who the fuck do you think you are carrying around money?!!?!? What the hell do you think this is slave?!?!? The TSA determines how you may carry money on your persons, in what form and in what denomination..

you make me sick..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
outlulz
June 23, 2009 2:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@outlulz:

Oh and I didn't see he carries a copy of the Constitution in his pocket. Screams crazy guy out to cause trouble by arguing with any police figure that dares stop him. Get over it and next time put your money in a bank or carry a cashier's check.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
WhoAsked You
June 23, 2009 2:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am absolutely disgusted and horrified at the way this person was detained, threatened and harassed. It is NOT their job, never has been their job to treat someone this way simply for carrying a large amount of cash, nor should it be!!!!

Although, the only different approach might have been for him to counter them and say \"Could you please read to me the law under which you are detaining me, and spell out what part of the law says it is illegal to have this much money or carry it in an airport? Further, how do you come to the conclusion it is stolen money, just because it is a large amount of money? I have told you it is in my possession, who I work for and why, therefore why are you detaining me?

What threat is it to the airplane or it's passengers or this airport that I carry around a large sum of money?

He produced his ID, so he wasn't trying to hide his identity. He answered who his employer was, although not sure why he didn't provide the phone number, although not sure he has to either.

He was basically verbally abused, kept against his will, with no clear authority for the questions asked. He was right to question it, although he could have headed it off quickly by saying \"If you can't tell me why what I have done is illegal, you have no right to detain me, you are unlawfully kidnapping me, and I will have the police arrest you.

I am THRILLED he is suing, I am aghast at the STOOPID RETARDICULOUS ASSHOLES on the tape. NO, NOT \"just answer the question\", who the HELL are they to be asking those questions when carrying money is not illegal, unless there is an accusation and police are acting on a report of him stealing it, which was NOT the case.

WHAT NEXT, are police going to start lying in wait outside banks, in parking lots, road blocks at every intersection rifling through and asking why we have every little thing?

The absolute definition of a tryannical government is that people aren't citizens, they are only potential or existing criminals, and that's EXACTLY the mindset of the ASSHOLES on this tape.

\"Let's keep questioning, break him down, sooner or later he'll confess to something just to get out of here and we'll make our \"bust quota\" for the day.

FRICKING REVOLTING!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 7:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WhoAsked You:

Hey! Shut the fuck up, slave! Just answer the man's questions and be a good little slave.. This isn't a fucking democratic republic or some shit buddy.. you dont get a vote, k? just stfu and do what you're told.. and not only will i harass you however and whenever i see fit..but i will expect that you stfu about it too..

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
ranchgal
June 23, 2009 3:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I won $15,000 one night in Las Vegas & decided to fly home with the brick of cash. I put it in my carry-on & was shaking the whole way into the airport & on the plane for fear that I would be held up/detained/questioned for carrying that amount of cash. Then, when I took it to WellsFargo to deposit the following Monday, the teller was difficult with me about it, even calling the bank manger over to \"inspect\" the woman depositing \"that much\" cash. Only when I told them my personal business (that I had won it) did they appear to \"allow\" me to deposit it!

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
June 23, 2009 2:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ranchgal: You can thank the Columbian drug lords and crooked Miami bankers for the $10k reporting rule. Too much illegal drug money was being put into legitimate bank accounts back in the 1980's so the Feds changed the rule that limited cash deposits to $10k before it had to be reported. So the drug dealers couldn't wheel luggage carts filled with $300,000 cash into the banks anymore (referenced in the movie Scarface). This money also interests the IRS as taxable income- remember they got Al Capone on taxes not crime back in the 1930s.


I believe that the amount is $5,000 now for reporting. I know that the USPS has a limit of $3000 in money orders which kicks in their reporting.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 8:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@econobiker:

Poppycock! The United States government operates off of drug money. The War on Drugs is just another excuse to violate your rights and to treat you like a criminal in your every day life(THE ESSENCE OF THIS ARTICLE). If anything, the CIA was tired of the competition and that is the only reason if any they \"crack-down\" on drug dealers or their money.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PittDragon
June 23, 2009 3:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ranchgal: As much as I can't stand banks weird policies, I can see in this instance they need to inspect the money since its a very large amount of cash.

Basically they need to make sure the money isn't counterfeit/stolen/what have you because I bet they could get some serious fines and other nasty surprises from the gov't if they were caught dealing with bad money and didn't screen their deposits carefully.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
June 23, 2009 4:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PittDragon: I don't understand needing to know where from you got the cash. However, I can understand being a bit extra careful about it. One part of it is making sure the money is properly counted by bank employees. I know when I worked a cash register for some major retailers we were encouraged to call another cashier or store employee to our check-out if a customer was paying with a large sum of cash and count the currency no less than three times. This was to ensure the customer didn't overpay and also to make sure we didn't get cheated.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
June 23, 2009 5:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MrEvil: The banks fill out forms when a transaction involves more than $10,000 in cash. A piece of the information is where did the money come from? This is one of those times where silence is generally seen as not good.

Since the casino probably completed a similar form when they gave him the cash, the bank's form will confirm (to the IRS, I suspect) that the $15,000 came from his winnings and not some nefarious deeds.

/bank tellers: Do I have my facts straight?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 8:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nybiker:

You understand all of this, but yet don't see how this has become part of culture due to the fact that the government is up our ass, in our bedrooms, in our pockets, and in our heads 24/7? There would be no forms to fill or any IRS to answer to if we didn't have slave labor and we didn't have a 3-letter government agency for every time we breathe, fart, eat, smoke, drink, or take a shit in this country..

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
zentex
June 23, 2009 3:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Steve is my new civil-rights hero

...but I won't be contributing to Ron Paul anytime soon, or later, or ever.

BUT, I'd buy Steve a beer if I ever meet him.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
banmojo
June 23, 2009 4:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

where does the term 'asshats' come from???

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
nybiker
June 23, 2009 5:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@banmojo: See [www.reference.com] for some info. To quote from the listing: \"Asshat is a slightly trendier and less severe variation of asshole, graphically describing someone who has his \"head up his own ass\" (i.e., not knowing what's going on): one is wearing one's ass for a hat. A more modern usage of asshat describes a person doing something stupid, and can apply to anyone.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ageshin
June 23, 2009 4:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think that what the TSA is worried about is that a devious evil doer takes a very large amount of money on plane, and during the flight bribes the crew of the plane to do bad things.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Joshua D. Wise
June 23, 2009 11:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

$4700 might be enough to bribe a stewardess for a bj, but you're not getting much more Caligula with that chump change.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 23, 2009 4:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Years ago I was arrested in Albuquerque (charges dropped later), I had a bit over 10K on me. They kept it and all my property except what I was wearing. Kept it for about 4 years, I got it all back eventually (no interest on the money) but when I bailed out of jail they kept every cent in their evidence/property room. I had to stay that night at the Salvation Army and the next day a friend wired in enough for bus fare and meals to get me home.

Cops can pretty much do whatever the heck they want to do.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
cluberti
June 23, 2009 11:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AntoniaPrometheus: And at that point you consult an attorney and see if what they did was legal (it likely wasn't). Lawsuits are usually frivilous in this country, but the ones you should talk to an attorney about (and probably end up filing) are cases like this.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AntoniaPrometheus:

Yes. You are correct. Now finish that thought in the following manner..

Does that make it right?
Does that make it legal?
How should we respond to these usurpations?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Skater009
June 23, 2009 5:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

HAHA

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
zyodei
June 23, 2009 6:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You all heard about the Ron Paul \"Money Bomb,\" right? Well, then, clearly it was a case of immediate safety of those on the plane! *bada-bing*

Reply
2 replies
","","
\"user-pic\"
squishyalt
June 23, 2009 10:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The TSA had every right to be suspicious! How dare this man carry money in a box when Obama is working so hard to \"redistribute the wealth\".

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Snakeophelia
June 23, 2009 10:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not really surprised to hear about this. Long before 9/11 - back in, oh, 1998 or so - I flew from Raleigh to Toronto with a boyfriend and was stopped and had my bag searched (much less common in those days) because the agents saw something via X-ray in my carry-on bag in the that made it LOOK like I had a huge wad of cash in my bag. I do remember asking, in a very puzzled manner, \"Why is that an issue?\", but I didn't get a response.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@flyromeo3:

LOL! Now carrying cash makes you a drug dealer... Boy you people are so incredibly ignorant its like there's a monkey banging a switch in your head every time you speak.. The man on the TV says this \"blah blah blah blah\" ... \"Im hungry.where's DOminos\"...

you
make
me
sick

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
flyromeo3
June 23, 2009 12:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I bet you if this moron didnt have a chip on his shoulder and just answered his 1 SIMPLE question, I bet you he would of been on his way.


Also, since when do people carry that much cash with them anyway? I know, Drug dealers do that.
Could he just of gotten a bank check, or write a check out.
What an idiot.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
cluberti
June 23, 2009 11:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@flyromeo3: And thankfully (I hope) you aren't a police officer or TSA official, or an official in any form in any government branch anywhere. Reason? Your ignorance is appalling. Just because YOU'D bend over and hand your rights to the badge doesn't mean the rest of us should, and in this case, the person in question with the cash was entirely in the right, the whole time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 8:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@flyromeo3:

Oh and by the way but when you are raising money to help protect people's rights..even if they don't appreciate them(like you), you generally don't say ..hey no thanks pal..keep your money..checks only...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mdoublej
June 23, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@flyromeo3: Why should he have to spend the time he may not have to get to a bank (what if it was a weekend?), when he did nothing wrong?

And even if he was a drug dealer, that is not what the TSA is supposed to be protecting us from.

Would you want to be taken aside and questioned for wearing \"gang colors\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
June 23, 2009 1:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@flyromeo3: I think that some car dealer guy got busted for the same reason due to carrying cash to buy cars. You could conceive that an independent dealer might have $10-$20k with him to buy a car.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
JoeDirt
June 23, 2009 1:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Does an American not have a right to remain silent?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
June 23, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I always thought it was illegal to record a conversation without the other person's consent or without court permission or something like that.

On the other hand...TSA is out of hand. I don't fly often, but when I went on my honeymoon last year, I felt like I was in prison. Everyone in line, shuffling slowly forward, being berated for being too slow or not having their items in order. I almost felt like I was going to be pulled aside and detained if I made eye contact with a \"guard\" or took too long to remove my personal belongings from my prison tray.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
June 23, 2009 2:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Only illegal if it is considered a private conversation such as phone tapping or inside someone's own home. The airport would be a ~quasi~ public place along with interogation being performed by government employees.


Now if the TSA had known he was recording the conversation they probably would have beat him down and hauled him off. I do wish he had not answered \"yes\" to the reasonable person who figured out what the money was from.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cete-of-badgers
June 23, 2009 1:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am all for this guy suing, since the TSA was being pretty flagrant about violating his civil rights, but Steve works for a politician and does not know rather basic legal stuff? It seems he was being deliberately obtuse. If someone won't say \"yes\" to \"Am I required to answer that?\", that means the answer is \"no.\"

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 8:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cete-of-badgers:

So when someone refuses to answer your question because they dont want you to know the answer, and because the answer puts an end to their little ego trip/my cock is bigger than yours/bullshit security game..that makes YOU obtuse? I'm not sure I follow your logic..

When someone with a gun and a badge asks you a question..showing caution is not being obtuse..

I don't think Steve was being obtuse..I think he was put into a situation where HE knew his rights were being violated..but no one else in the room seemed to notice...ironically much similar to posting on this thread..or just walking outside, these fucking days.. you should really listen to yourselves...

We are arguing over this incident..for the same reason the incident occurred..

and that is because..

..knowing your rights these days..makes you obtuse.. makes you a \"kook\" an \"extremist\" a \"terrorist\" a \"nut\" a \"crazy guy\" \"someone looking for a fight\"

YOU MAKE ME SICK!!! literally..like.. a tight nauseous pain in my stomach..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cete-of-badgers
June 23, 2009 10:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LibertyReign:
\"YOU MAKE ME SICK!!! literally..like.. a tight nauseous pain in my stomach..\"

Who, me? Calm down there, Sparky. There are better things to feel sick about.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cete-of-badgers
June 23, 2009 10:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LibertyReign: \"So when someone refuses to answer your question because they dont want you to know the answer, and because the answer puts an end to their little ego trip/my cock is bigger than yours/bullshit security game..that makes YOU obtuse? I'm not sure I follow your logic..\"

I 100% agree that his detainers were using scare tactics. I just think the guy wasn't reading the writing on the wall. Those assholes weren't answering his very simple question because its answer would not be in their favor. The TSA or whomever would LOVE nothing more than to say \"You're required by law to answer all of our questions...and also, you have no rights\", so I would have taken their evasion as highly suspect. And this guy works in politics; he should know a little better, and I sure bet he does now!

Make no mistake, I find this a legit lawsuit and am on the victim's side. The officers were playing every dirty trick they had- intimidation, trying to make him feel stupid for not answering their questions, wrongfully detaining him in the first place, not answering a simple question- but I did get a tinge of annoyance after hearing him say \"Am I required by law to answer that? I don't know my rights.\" However, I admire how cool and polite he was during the whole thing; that was pretty awesome.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
June 23, 2009 2:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cete-of-badgers:


\"If someone won't say \"yes\" to \"Am I required to answer that?\", that means the answer is \"no.\"


And this is one of the mind tricks that law enforcement might and do play. When they ask a question that someone is not required, by law, to answer in such a way that their body lanquage, tone, gaze makes a person either afraid or disarms the persons fear, the answer is a still a \"voluntary\" answer to the court/on paper. So then the enforcement person can testify that the person was asked questions and volunteered to answer even though the answerer may have been intimidated by the -had- to answer.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
John Streeter
June 23, 2009 2:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I remember telling tips@consumerist.com about this MONTHS ago -- and no one seemed to care. Interesting.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Aquaria
June 23, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When we adopted our children overseas, we carried more cash than that, a good chunk of it in foreign currency no less, and never had anyone bat an eyelash. And this was after 9/11, so it sounds to me like some TSA security-cop-wannabe just got on a serious power trip.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Aquaria:

That is exactly what happened but your comment is misleading because it suggests it is out of the norm, or rare in occurence. The reality is it IS THE NORM, and it CAN ONLY BE EXPECTED when you live in a culture of defeatism and statism. When people start to act how Americans act, this shit is inevitable! It is BOUND to happen.. think about it..

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
June 23, 2009 3:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Keep in mind, these TSA idiots think bottled water is a security risk. So I suppose it's not too surprising they think cash is too. I don't think anything will change, but I hope it does. At least this lawsuit is bringing a little attention to the problem.

If someone is carrying a bomb, the TSA should take the person aside and ask questions. If someone is carrying water or shampoo or cash, the TSA should realize those items are not a security threat and let the person board the plane.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
angelzero
June 23, 2009 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@vladthepaler: uh, ok, unless the water isn't water at all, genius, which is exactly why the law is what it is.

I have no love for the TSA, but I understand the security issues they face every day, and I don't envy them for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Costner
June 24, 2009 5:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@angelzero: \"uh, ok, unless the water isn't water at all, genius, which is exactly why the law is what it is.\"


You clearly do NOT understand the security issues the TSA faces, because if you did you wouldn't make idiotic comments about water.


Think for a second - you can't take more than 3.5 oz. of a liquid in a single container past the security checkpoint, but you CAN carry 25 individual 3 oz. bottles past no questions asked. Then, once you are beyond the checkpoint, you can dump all of those liquids together into one large container.


So what exactly is the point of the TSA policy again?


The TSA has nothing to do with security. They are all about the appearance of security to make you feel better about flying - and that is the real issue. Anytime you give someone a badge, even when there is no true authority behind that badge, they suddenly feel like they are in control.


In this case they tried to intimidate the man into answering their questions when they knew they had no reason to stop him or detain him, and it backfired. I wish I could say it is the last time it would happen, but unfortunately most people will never be clever enough to capture their experience on tape and the TSA know this whicy is why they will continue their little charade.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 24, 2009 9:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pupu:

Wait... it has nothing to do with social control..but it has nothing to do with security??? I think that's what you just said..\"[he].. is not a threat..\"

What is it for then?

The preceding comment is in the interest of open-mindedness and in the spirit of encouraging debate..

now back to the real world..

Your statement is completely false..
It is an impressive expression of tyranny and disrespect for the common people of a nation, what occurs in our airports.. except perhaps in comparison to an Israeli or North Korean, or Iranian airport..but if that is what you are striving for..by all means..please maintain this care-free attitude about \"having to take your shoes off\" in order to get on a plane.

In reality you are actually first required to register yourself with the state. Whether it be a locally issued I.D.(driver's license), which is now actually a Federal I.D.(see Real I.D. Act), or an I.D. issued directly from the Federal government itself; You will not be allowed to fly unless you have proof that you are categorized by the state. Secondly you must also declare where, when, and for what reason you are traveling. Your entire body is scanned for metal, and in with the newer technology, your entire body is x-rayed, displaying a naked image of your self on the screen for our oh so talented, and oh so educated, and oh so well-trained TSA agents, a.k.a. government minions of abuse of power. Then you must place your belongings on a conveyor belt..to be scanned, and perhaps at the TSA agent's discretion, even manually searched by hand and in public. You are not allowed to bring food or water, unless purchased at pre-determined government regulated traveling facilities. You are not allowed to defend yourself as metal is not allowed. You may not arm yourself, carry a knife, tazer, pepper-spray or mace, and neither is anyone allowed to protect you ON the plane even if they WORK FOR the airlines. No one is allowed to be armed on a plane...except for those who do it by abusing the system in place. This is a sure way to guarantee only criminals will have the ability to impose coercion \"in-flight\". Then once you get on the plane, you are not allowed to argue with \"Flight-Attendants\" or in some cases even READ whatever type of literature you decide(see Henry Rollins).

In America people have been denied boarding, kicked off a plane or even ARRESTED for the following:

1. Attempting to carry breast milk on the plane.
2. Wearing a shirt someone did not like.
3. Reading a book someone did not like.
4. Spanking their children on the plane.
5. Throwing an empty drinking glass on the floor of a plane and cursing at a \"Flight Attendant\"(this lady was charged with Terrorism under the Patriot Act and detained without habeus corpus for months until she plead guilty LOL!!!)
6. Wearing a skirt someone didn't like.
7. Speaking in Arabic(and obviously for looking Arabic)
8. Having the same name as someone on the \"No-Fly list\" (which is growing every day)
9. Making out. (you cant make this shit up, ARRESTED for getting down with your girl in the airplane seat.)

Here are some things people were ALLOWED on to a plane with:

1. A shoe full of matches
2. Flammable liquids
3. Box Cutters(who can forget.. \"Let's Roll!\")

Seems to me to be pretty straight forward..

The idea of security is bullshit..but when it comes to what you wear, what you read, and where you are from.. well.. we're ALL OVER that shit..

If these incidents do not intimidate you, and set off your tyranny alarm..(or at the very least your bullshit alarm)..then there is something fundamentally wrong with your sense of self-respect.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 8:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@angelzero:

oh my god..you understand the \"security\" issues they face every day? Please..enlighten the rest of us

I'm gonna strap myself in for this one I cant WAIT for you to describe to me how a water bottle even filled with fucking gasoline can bring down a plane or a box full of political campaign contributions for that matter..

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
pupu
June 23, 2009 4:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How did the TSA even know he had the cash on him? Was he carrying a duffle bag full of pennies? I've gone through TSA checkpoints with 20 or 30 $1 bills in my pocket.. I'm sure I could go through with 47 $100 bills - I would keep them in my pocket - not put them on the belt where they might get snagged. I can't think of any reason why the TSA should be concerned about a traveler carrying $4,700. I don't know what the guys rights are - but why escalate the situation by playing games with some glorified crossing guard? If my objective is to make my flight, and some tool with the TSA is delaying me because he wants to know where I work, or why I have $32 dollars in my wallet why wouldn't I just answer his questions so I can get moving? If we are dealing with a government entity that is systematically violating the rights of individuals that is one thing - time to take a stand. In this case all we were dealing with is some low level govt. employee who is asking a question that there may be no legal mandate to answer - why not just tell the guy what he needs to hear so that you can make your flight?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 23, 2009 8:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pupu:

O.K. are you being sarcastic? This is the point kiddies.. He was detained and harassed for NOTHING..it had nothing to do with the cash ..or anything else.. the cash was merely the excuse AFTER the fact because it was the closest thing to a reason the Federales could find for harassing him..

I don't know what it will take to sink in..but there is no such thing as security..only preparedness.. The TSA is not there to keep you safe, they are they to keep you docile, conformative, and \"in-line\".

It is mostly theater, and partly security against YOU! The REAL terrorist, is the American citizen who thinks he doesn't have to tell anybody where or why he is traveling..doesn't feel the need to declare his income to the state, and thinks it's his own private business who he works for or how he chooses to carry money(and then spend it). That is why cash is a threat..that is why Steve Bierfeldt was harassed, threatened and then later released without so much as an apology..

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pupu
June 23, 2009 9:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LibertyReign: they are they to keep you docile, conformative, and \"in-line\".


Are you really that retarded? If social control was the objective they could find a much better way of accomplishing it than making you remove your shoes for 30 seconds before getting on a plane.


95% of the people that go through a TSA checkpoint on a given day ar professionals traveling for work - ie people who are for the most part conforming, docile, in-line folks. These people are not threats. $4,700 is not a threat - what - is he going to buy a used Kia?

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
El_Fez
June 23, 2009 11:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ah, god bless america. . . .

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
arymede
June 24, 2009 11:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

According to international anti money laundering/terrorist financiang standards, any financial transaction that seems irregular or suspicious should be investigated and reported to authorities. However, in the course of an investigation, anyone who is not directly an anti money laundering investigator is required to avoid 'tipping off' and confirming or implying to anyone, regardless of whether or not they are involved in the suspicious activity, that suspicious activity has been reported or is being investigated. Individuals or organizations who are suspicious of financial activity may ask normal business questions only.


Translation:
Yes, the TSA should have asked him about the money. Face it, someone carrying a giant wad of money is suspicious. However, by carrying their interrogation as far as they did, they obviously tipped off the person that a report or investigation was occuring or was being reported, and the particular individuals involved in that interrogation should be investigated and potentially convicted for the criminal offense of tipping off. The man who was carrying the money should be investigated, and if the understanding we gain from this story about why he was carrying said money is correct, no punishment should be forthcoming.


In other words, he's got no ground to stand on if he tries to say they shouldn't have bothered asking him, and they were within their responsibilities to ask questions, but should be punished for carrying it too far and jeopardizing any real investigation that should have occured.


Not American, no real knowledge of American laws, but judging by international standards here.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
LibertyReign
June 24, 2009 10:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

according to \"standards\" ..should be .. investigated \"and reported to authorities\"..

sounds like a bunch of shit to me..

first we are talking about standards not laws.. police must adhere to the law..

second it says it should be investigated and reported to authorities... we are talking about the authorities themselves that are guilty of the abuse of power, not the cashier who saw Steven put the big wad of cash in his pocket, etc, etc..

third, asking a question is one matter.. yes you may make me sick if you are the type of cretin who sees a Ron Paul sticker on my suitcase and then asks me where i got all my money from. You probably will piss me off..I may even \"make a scene\" in front of the other passengers, however you have not violated my rights by \"ASKING A QUESTION\", its when you detain me, delay my flight, impede my right to travel and engage in commerce(and coincidentally in this case impede my 1st amendment rights and rights to political freedom and expression because the money actually belonged to the campaign for liberty) by blatantly harassing me for no other reason but to prove that you are in charge and I am not..

..This is when you have crossed over into illegality, abuse of power, and gross misconduct. I reiterate again, these weren't fellow \"civilians\" as our militarized police likes to refer to us as.. these were credentialed officers sworn to uphold the very rights they were taking a shit all over.

Also, no insult intended but you did mention you were unfamiliar with our laws. Here in America it is illegal to search someone's possessions or to restrict their right to travel or to engage in commerce. The whole idea of Homeland Security and TSA in the airports is illegal. This incident is just the inevitable expression of that tyranny as Americans, including the officers in question, become more comfortable with being told what to do 24/7.

Which brings me to my last point.. No one is talking about how unhealthy it is to find 5 grand in cash suspicious. With inflation, this amount of money is relatively modest. $5 g's might buy you a matching computer for you and your wife, a set of plane tickets to and from some exotic getaway(which might make sense in a fucking airport), maybe a hotel room. Hell..I know Americans who drop 5 gs in a strip club, and trust me you dont want to slip your debit card in her g-string.., Many Americans have $5000 which they carry two, to three, to four times over in their wallets in the form of credit cards; but you see, a credit card has your name on it, and can be electronically traced every single time you use it.. and the government funded, run and regulated bank that issued that credit card, has your name DOB and 9-digit slave-I.D. #.

You know what.. I'm sure this has nothing to do with freedom...freedom to travel, freedom to do business anonymously, or the freedom to keep your private business private..

Upon further reflection I'm convinced Steven Bierfeldt is a member of Al Qaeda.. This is all about security..

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
rainbowsandkittens
June 28, 2009 3:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The only problem I have with this story is that I know this kid Steve, personally. He was finally expelled from our college after repeatedly harassing gay students.

He was always combative, even with professors.

Despite my personal feelings, what the TSA did was wrong. However, Steve is the type of dude who looks for opportunities like this. I have seen it before.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
EyeintheLAsky
June 28, 2009 8:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From what i've read before: the TSA is NOT a law-enforcement agency and has NO authority to arrest people.

Besides, the 4th Amendment covers the guys right to \"not help with an investigation upon himself\" (which would also spill over into his/her 5th Amendment rights).

\"A person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only when by means of physical force or show of authority his freedom of movement is restrained, and in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave.
As long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required, the courts will usually consider the police contact to be a \"citizen encounter\" which falls outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

If a person remain free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no intrusion upon the person's liberty or privacy under the Fourth Amendment - there has been no seizure.\"

That is why, when a police officer or other enforcement-type attempts to detain you, you always ask directly:

\"Am i under Arrest?\"

if the response is 'No.' You can always terminate the 'conversation' and walk away.

Of course, the idiots with the badges don't like this.
Many times this gets their egos involved and they'll tend to follow you and/or attempt to stop you again, putting themselves into more trouble if/when the situation escalates to a courtroom - where the officer has to explain in front of a judge at LEAST, WHY s/he continued to detain you, after acknowledging that you didn't have to stop for them.

Many of our rights are being chipped-away - often under the guise of 'homeland security'. You have to stand up for your rights...or you'll soon find you won't have any left.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
July 15, 2009 2:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What happened to Steven Biefeldt was nothing compared to what happened to me....

The TSA agents are totally out of line at some airports. They should have special training on human relations and make each passenger feel proud to have TSA working for them at the airport to protect them. Instead they are individuals that want to flaunt their power and control over anybody they so desire.

I was traveling out of Burbank airport in April, 2009 with my mother, who is 93 years old, and her caregiver. I was carrying on an ice chest with special food for my mom to eat, which is allowed according to the TSA policy and information posted on their website. Not only would the officers not allow me to take the food on board, but they falsely accused me of battery and placed a citizen’s arrest on me. I was cuffed, hauled off to the Burbank jail, booked and held for over 6 hours. These events devastated me emotionally and psychologically. Mind you I am a 57-year old grandmother of 5, a member and temple recommend holder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the CFO for The Media Cafe, and the primary care-giver for my 93-year old mother.

Reply
","");