T.S.A. Expands Duties Beyond Airport Security

[MaggieD]

No you didn't. You just said if they have a good reason, but if you were doing something illegal you'd want them to have a warrant (it's a sick mind that equates exercising one's rights with committing crimes), however, you never stated what you'd do if they didn't have either warrant or reason. If they have no reason, you wouldn't demand a warrant would you? That would mean you were doing something illegal by your own admission. So obviously, you'd let them in whenever they want for whatever reason you want, seeing as you aren't doing anything illegal.

And if that's how you want to run it, you're free to run it all day long. Just don't force me to abdicate MY rights because you don't care if the government sets up cameras in your home.

If there were a child missing in the neighborhood, you would demand officers have a search warrant to search your home? See, I find that sickening. If you have drug paraphernalia sitting around, I can understand your reasoning. If you have illegal guns in your home or are running a meth lab, I can understand your reasoning. But to impede an investigation just to protect your rights? That I don't get.

Coppers want to search my car? Have at it. I want to be on my way. You want to make a mountain out of a mole hill to protect your rights? That's up to you. Most of the rest of us have things to do and places to be. You want them to call out the drug dogs on you? Have at it. Me? I'll be enjoying a gin and tonic on my patio long after you've made an ass of yourself on the road.

But thank GOD there are people like you in the world. Otherwise, why, our government'd be shredding the constitution before nightfall. *massive eye roll*

Edit: Tommy Boy (taxi driver) was caught in the middle of a bust with his fare one night. Someone (stranger) he picked up at a motel. When he pulled away, suddenly there were six squad cars (or whatever) pinning him in, cops came streaming out like clowns, surrounded the car and arrested their suspect in the back seat. (Tom's fare)

They ran Tom's license and saw he had a FOID card (gun permit). Asked if he had his gun with him. He said, "No." They asked if they could search his car. He said, "Sure, go ahead. Is a box cutter illegal?" "Nope," they answered. They searched his car and he was on the road again in five minutes.

You? Though you had nothing to hide, you would have said, "No, you cannot." They would have then detained you as they obtained a search warrant. (Probable cause being you had an escaped felon in your cab. Piece of cake.) You'd have waited around two hours. For nothing.

Our rights are in place to protect us. If we don't need protection, we don't need to exercise them. And I guarantee you I go through life easier than those who are looking to make statements every day of the week.

 

[Thoreau72]

Gosh, I feel so darn safe now!

 

[Texmex]

We can't beef up EVERY SINGLE one of them, so yes I think closing them was an acceptable solution. Would you rather Americans died?

If we cannot supply security to these people, we should shut down the embassies permanently. Only a fool would want to be in these backward countries anyway!

 

[blackjack50]

http://youtu.be/Y2Q-b0liW4o

 

[Zyphlin]

T.S.A. Expands Duties Beyond Airport Security - NYTimes.com

Yet another governmental agency using the terrorism threat to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and harass American citizens without probable cause.

I sure hope the "I'm okay with it" meme crowd is against these practices.

I love how some of these stories actually acknowledge that the VIPR program was started back in 2011 but are writing these stories as if "suddenly" just now TSA is "expanding its duties".

Contrary to what the article is trying to say, TSA's original mission was not to "provide security screenings at airports". From the very beginning bill that authorized it's creation:

`(1) carrying out chapter 449, relating to civil aviation security, and related research and development activities; and

`(2) security responsibilities over other modes of transportation that are exercised by the Department of Transportation.

Link

Since that point it's been CONGRESS whose been further broadening the TSA's focus. Take the very first line of the 2011 reauthorization:

To authorize the programs of the Transportation Security Administration relating to the provision of transportation security, and for other purposes. Link

Transportation, not "airports". This is further evident by entire sections of the reauthorization:

SEC. 324. EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINE TEAMS FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.
Section 1307 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1116) is amended--

‘(3) PASSENGER SCREENING TEAMS-

‘(A) IN GENERAL- In order to strengthen the Nation’s mass transit infrastructure against explosives threats, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall--

‘(i) increase the number of explosives detection canine teams certified by the Transportation Security Administration devoted to passenger rail and public transportation security activities to not less than 200 canine teams by the end of fiscal year 2012;

‘(ii) increase the assistance provided to passenger rail and public transportation agencies for participation in the Transportation Security Administration’s canine program to $75,000 per canine team; and

While the TSA's most prominent area of responsability in the public eye has been with Airports, that has NEVER been its singular responsability both in practice or through constitutional authority. For example, TSA inspectors at shipping ports have been going on before the VIPR program even began. The congressional authority for the TSA is the protection of the nation's transit system.

VIPR teams, largely, do not function entirely on their own. Instances with various train stations or with local authorities typically occur through an agreement with those locations due either to their request or intelligence spurring action on TSA's part. The primary makeup and leaership of these VIPR teams is from the Law Enforcement element of TSA (which you can google to figure out what that is) not Joe Average Screener at the airports.

Additionally, yes...during events where additional security or law enforcement is requested (such as during the aftermath of the bombings in boston) the TSA's law enforcement branch does the same thing as EVERY federal law enforcement agency, in that it provides the assistance off some of it's LEO assets to assist with the particular event in a manner that relates to their area of responsability OR in general LEO duties.

This is "expanding" has been happening for 3 years now, spurred by Congress not by TSA, rather than the sudden occurence that the articles are attempting to project. They are not outside the original scope of what TSA was created for and are specifically required under the current reauthorizations of the agency. Those performing any law enforcement duties are LEO's with training in that avenue of work, not your average screeners.

If you want to bitch about TSA or specifically the VIPR teams be my guest, but at least get your facts straight and your implications accurate.

 

[blackjack50]

The obsession with safety from "terrorists" has gotten out of hand for sure I shouldn't lose my rights (aka freedom) because some anti-freedom douche wanted to send a statement. They win. When we lose our minds...they win.

I am ok with the metal detectors. The screening for bombs. Cool. But it has gone too far.

 

[calamity]

Americans are so damned fickle. In one breath they whine about being spied on but the minute something bad happens, they cry about how the government did not do enough. Make up your damned minds.

 

[Ikari]

If there were a child missing in the neighborhood, you would demand officers have a search warrant to search your home?

Nice appeal to emotion.

See, I find that sickening. If you have drug paraphernalia sitting around, I can understand your reasoning. If you have illegal guns in your home or are running a meth lab, I can understand your reasoning. But to impede an investigation just to protect your rights? That I don't get.

I'm talking about general case and you know it. So stop with these hysterics and address the questions honestly.

Coppers want to search my car? Have at it. I want to be on my way. You want to make a mountain out of a mole hill to protect your rights? That's up to you. Most of the rest of us have things to do and places to be. You want them to call out the drug dogs on you? Have at it. Me? I'll be enjoying a gin and tonic on my patio long after you've made an ass of yourself on the road.

Some are leaders, some are sheep. The problem is that your lax attitude puts my rights at risk and that's when we have problems. It's not a mountain out of a mole hill, it is proper use of government force against the free exercise of rights. If you don't see that importance, then you'll never understand the consequences of freedom nor be able to keep it.

But thank GOD there are people like you in the world. Otherwise, why, our government'd be shredding the constitution before nightfall. *massive eye roll*

Nope, people like you have already allowed it to happen. You're who Daniel Webster was talking about.

Edit: Tommy Boy (taxi driver) was caught in the middle of a bust with his fare one night. Someone (stranger) he picked up at a motel. When he pulled away, suddenly there were six squad cars (or whatever) pinning him in, cops came streaming out like clowns, surrounded the car and arrested their suspect in the back seat. (Tom's fare)

They ran Tom's license and saw he had a FOID card (gun permit). Asked if he had his gun with him. He said, "No." They asked if they could search his car. He said, "Sure, go ahead. Is a box cutter illegal?" "Nope," they answered. They searched his car and he was on the road again in five minutes.

You? Though you had nothing to hide, you would have said, "No, you cannot." They would have then detained you as they obtained a search warrant. (Probable cause being you had an escaped felon in your cab. Piece of cake.) You'd have waited around two hours. For nothing.

Our rights are in place to protect us. If we don't need protection, we don't need to exercise them. And I guarantee you I go through life easier than those who are looking to make statements every day of the week.

So be meek, be weak, submit and everything will be OK. Well you got that one story of a dude who made it out, but given our prison population not as many made it so likely; and that's just what we know about.

Rights must always be exercised, rights are not here to "protect us", they are here to limit government power and force. Obviously rights and freedom makes everything more dangerous. This is obvious.

 

[TheNextEra]

If we cannot supply security to these people, we should shut down the embassies permanently. Only a fool would want to be in these backward countries anyway!

Fine I'm all for that, but that isn't how it's going to happen regardless of who is president. So given the fact we KNOW they won't be shut down permanently would you rather err on the side of caution and have them closed, or keep them open and risk an attack on one of them where Americans die?

 

[Ikari]

Americans are so damned fickle. In one breath they whine about being spied on but the minute something bad happens, they cry about how the government did not do enough. Make up your damned minds.

I take the former. I have guns and I can protect myself, so the government can piss off. And if I realize the probabilities associated with freedom, then that is but a natural consequence of the free state.

 

[Oftencold]

If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care about something that has the potential to save your life? I've never understood the mindset, frankly. If they'd have been in the right place at the right time, the Boston bombing could have been prevented. We live in a complicated world. Strangers are trying to annihilate us. I wish they'd walk around with portable metal detectors. Might get some illegal guns off the streets.

Maybe there are no good answers?

History tells us though that a strong centralized police or internal military force will usually eventually be turned against the political enemies of the ruling elite.

 

[Ikari]

Fine I'm all for that, but that isn't how it's going to happen regardless of who is president. So given the fact we KNOW they won't be shut down permanently would you rather err on the side of caution and have them closed, or keep them open and risk an attack on one of them where Americans die?

Americans die all the time. 30,000+ from cars alone, gravity gets us, disease gets us, random crime gets us. Lots of things get us. Mortality is the price of life. But just because all men die doesn't mean we have to freak out about low probability events and start authorizing government with powers it shouldn't have.

Terrorism and crime are probabilities. I might have to deal with it. Government is a guarantee, I WILL have to deal with it. If you want me to give up a probability for the guarantee, it's gonna have to be an awfully high probability.

 

[Ikari]

Maybe there are no good answers?

History tells us though that a strong centralized police or internal military force will usually eventually be turned against the political enemies of the ruling elite.

In America, that's the People in general.

 

[TheNextEra]

Americans die all the time. 30,000+ from cars alone, gravity gets us, disease gets us, random crime gets us. Lots of things get us. Mortality is the price of life. But just because all men die doesn't mean we have to freak out about low probability events and start authorizing government with powers it shouldn't have.

Terrorism and crime are probabilities. I might have to deal with it. Government is a guarantee, I WILL have to deal with it. If you want me to give up a probability for the guarantee, it's gonna have to be an awfully high probability.

So is your solution then to keep them open? And if so, did you complain about how Benghazi didn't have the proper security when they were attacked?

I only ask, because it's assinine to say we should keep the embacies open and then complain when they were attacked and people die.

 

[Ikari]

So is your solution then to keep them open? And if so, did you complain about how Benghazi didn't have the proper security when they were attacked?

I only ask, because it's assinine to say we should keep the embacies open and then complain when they were attacked and people die.

I didn't say **** about Benghazi. Embassies are dangerous places particularly in a world where America plays World Aggressor.

 

[Oftencold]

. . .The Bus stops in orlando and we all have to get off for a cleaning. . .

Did they march you through a car wash?!

 

[TheNextEra]

I didn't say **** about Benghazi. Embassies are dangerous places particularly in a world where America plays World Aggressor.

I didn't claim you did, that's why I asked. Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[j-mac]

Mortality is the price of life.

Stand alone, that is a stunning statement.

 

[Oftencold]

In America, that's the People in general.

It certainly seems so sometimes. The problem as I see it, if that the misuse of such entities, is a constant tmeptation to he political classes, and one they ca surrender to incrementally. So each office holder in his term can say "I just changed thins a little, in the interest of safety, security."

 

[Binary_Digit]

If there were a child missing in the neighborhood, you would demand officers have a search warrant to search your home?

If they want to search your home it probably means you're on the potential suspect list. Suppose they find a hair tie in your bathroom that sort-of matches a description of what the missing child was wearing. Now you're going to spend the next three hours explaining where you got it, where you were on the night in question, who else saw you there, etc. And if they have just one witness who mistook someone else for you and puts you somewhere other than where you said you were, then you're taking a ride in handcuffs and hoping you can find a lawyer who is good at defending he said/she said cases.

Your rights are to protect you from being railroaded and falsely accused like this. They are not intended to protect your criminal activity, even though sometimes that's the effect.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Now wait a minute. The right was complaining about Benghazi in saying that we "ignored" the warnings, so now that the U.S. hasn't ignored the warnings you think the terrorists have won?

What would happen if Obama let the embacies stay open and there was another attack that Americans die from? The right would have a field day. We can't beef up EVERY SINGLE one of them, so yes I think closing them was an acceptable solution. Would you rather Americans died?

Ignoring Benghazi was about not providing proper security and then not reacting when the ambassador came under attack, it was not about running with your tail between your legs like we just did all over the Arab world.

 

[j-mac]

Ignoring Benghazi was about not providing proper security and then not reacting when the ambassador came under attack, it was not about running with your tail between your legs like we just did all over the Arab world.

And continue to do...

 

[TheNextEra]

And continue to do...

So please clarify your statement, you think we should be MORE involved then? Boy it's hard to keep up what you guys on the right want. First you don't want to get involved, then you do, then you don't. It's amazing how it always seems to fall on who is president and whether he is a Republican too.

 

[j-mac]

So please clarify your statement, you think we should be MORE involved then? Boy it's hard to keep up what you guys on the right want. First you don't want to get involved, then you do, then you don't. It's amazing how it always seems to fall on who is president and whether he is a Republican too.

More involved? Well, rather than running around making excuses for our enemies, and covering up our inability to thwart their murderous attacks against innocents, yes. Not everything includes injecting military force you know.

 

[Tigger]

I sure hope the "I'm okay with it" meme crowd is against these practices.

I'm of split mind on this one..... While I have no doubt that the searches go beyond Constitutional limitations at times, I do believe that we need to go to much greater lengths to secure all of our mass ransit services (air, rail, bus). Despite the fact that I am a legal CCW holder, I am restrained from exercising my Constitutional rights on these forms of transportation, yet the government does little to nothing to ensure my safety after having disarmed me in this locations and while on these conveyances.