Airport Security vs. The Constitution (Big Govt. Alert)

You wouldn't think Aaron Tobey and Donald Rumsfeld have much in common. Tobey is the guy who stripped down to his shorts at the Richmond, Virginia airport last December. Rumsfeld is the former Defense Secretary under George W. Bush. Tobey, who was protesting the invasive airport screening practices that have outraged a good portion of the traveling public, is a stickler for constitutional rights. Rumsfeld? Not so much.

The two of them, however, are united by a common case: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. The other day a federal appeals court said two Americans who claimed to have been tortured by U.S. armed forces in Iraq can sue Rumsfeld for violating their constitutional rights. The court relied on the Bivens precedent. Bivens just happens to be the hook Tobey is hanging his hat on in his lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole.

Basically, the 1971 Supreme Court ruling in Bivens says you can seek monetary damages for the violation of your constitutional rights. That's what Tobey is doing, with the help of the Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute.

He spent the next 90 minutes in handcuffs while police officers and FBI terrorism task-force agents questioned him, berated him, and threatened to tell on him by calling administrators at his university. They threw some of his personal belongings in the trash—his toothbrush and highlighter would be considered contraband in jail, they explained. Finally they issued him a summons for disorderly conduct before releasing him to catch his flight.

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here

Congrats to Aaron Tobey for filing suit against those who detained him in retaliation for quoting the Fourth Amendment as a protest against TSA airport search policies. Good luck in the litigation.

Only by suing arrogant and callous government officials in courtrooms where judges have the guts to rule for the abused citizen against Big Brother can civil liberties survive in this era of unprecedented statism.

BTW, the writer should know that the Bivens case is an extremely common strategy used by civil liberties plaintiffs accusing federal officials of Constitutional rights violations.

The mere fact that Donald Rumsfeld was cited as a defendant in another, unrelated Bivens suit is hardly relevant to this case. Cabinet level federal officials are not infrequently defendants in these types of cases. They have qualified immunity - immunity which can be overcome by the facts of the case - as opposed to officials such as judges and prosecutors, who have absolute immunity from suit for any actions taken in the course of their professional duties. And you can bet that any federal official ultimately found liable in court for damages in a case such as this will be indemnified by the Treasury.

"threatened to tell on him by calling administrators at his university" They threw some of his personal belongings in the trash—his toothbrush and highlighter would be considered contraband in jail, they explained.

Jeez.....

That's what we're paying these people for? To basically get their kicks play-interrogating some poor guy who didn't do anything when there are real threats out there? I'd fire them all and then lock them up, without toothbrushes. They can brush with their fingers.

I know, I include them in my criticism.

There’s real crime out there and cops find the time to do this crap. Seems like more and more cops are just former schoolyard bullies grown up.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.