T.S.A. At It Again

#53
#53
utvolpj said:
sure they do
Click to expand...

How? I have a project in my department where 100% of the staff has to travel, by plane, to the work site every week.

That means that they can:

a.) move, which might not be an option or
b.) find a new job, which might be an option if they can find one, but, if they decided that they didn't like the TSA policies anymore, it still means they have to travel for work until they find a new job.

Barring the above, how else do you expect them to get to work? Drive? Two individuals come from Boston to Southern Virginia each week. Two others from Tampa.

The above is not an exception, but standard practice in my department.

What about traveling salesman? Sometimes a meeting necessitates that you be in front of a potential client, virtual meetings don't always cut it.
 
Last edited:
#55
#55
utvolpj said:
you explained it pretty well already. They do have a choice
Click to expand...

The single choice is to find a new job, which isn't always an option depending on individual situations.

My entire career, I've only seen 2 moving allowances be granted. It requires a spouse that can and is willing to move. If a company doesn't move you, then you have the financial burden on yourself.

Now, with all that said, if you pay attention and don't want to be molested, it's pretty easy to get around (which defeats the purpose, does it not?). If not, then your choice is to go through backscatter with questionable safety studies or to submit to the pat down... it is up to each individual traveler, under the present system, on how they want to handle.
 
Last edited:
#56
#56
MystifyingVol said:
TSA at it again: TSA Agent Stuffs iPad Down Pants, Steals $50K in Electronics

In regards to the above discussion, enhanced pat-downs and back scatter technology, if you know what you are doing, at some airports, you can avoid them.

In regards to the backscatter technology, I'd like to point out EPICs FOIA request: EPIC - EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security - Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks

From that request:



Also, just want to throw these cases out there to further the discussion.

Sanez v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 500-03 (1999):

"The right to travel embraces three different components: the right to enter and leave another State; the right to be treated as a welcome visitor while temporarily present in another State; and, for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State." Furthermore, “That right is protected by the new arrival’s status as both a state citizen and a United States citizen, and it is plainly identified in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.”

United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758 (1966):

The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969):

Reaffirmed that, "For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States." It further reaffirmed, “If a law has no other purpose than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it is patently unconstitutional." United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 581 (1968)

United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 912-13 (9th Cir. 1973):

“That screening is more extensive nor intensive than necessary, ... to detect the presence of weapons or explosives, that it is confined in good faith to that purpose, and that potential passengers may avoid the search.”

Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 514 (1964):

"The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country,... may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.

I'd also like to point out that some people don't have the option, currently, to avoid air travel due to work demands.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. Additionally, as highways and interstates become the primary means of passing from one state to the next, one could make the argument that walking is not always an option to exercise this particular constitutional guarantee.
 
#57
#57
judgea.jpg
 
#62
#62
“I thought he was carrying a baton in his pants,” said Amanda Watershed, second shift supervisor of the A Terminal at Nashville International Airport. “Nope… That was his penis.”

Priceless.
 
#63
#63
volinbham said:
No different than getting a pat down and bag search before a football game or concert.
Click to expand...

Big difference is one is being done by the feds and the other is private business.

Pat down law applies to the government.
 
#65
#65
Voodoomonkey said:
“I thought he was carrying a baton in his pants,” said Amanda Watershed, second shift supervisor of the A Terminal at Nashville International Airport. “Nope… That was his penis.”

Priceless.
Click to expand...

In the comments from the original article:

"At the end of the flight they used him to collect the headphones"
:p
 
#72
#72
They may have a point with the afro. You would not believe the amount of product/hair spray women use in their hair. I know some women with permanent coughs caused by hairspray.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top