Posted on 11/17/2010 11:22:37 AM PST by Mike Evers
I think I would write ‘kiss me I’m Irish’ across my cheeks. Regretfully, I could probably write it in big letters without starting a second line.
As promised, here it is:
American Airlines Condition of Carriage
There is a clause here that I missed: American may refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight at any point, for one or several reasons, including but not limited to the following:
4. Refusal to permit a search of person or property for explosives or for deadly, controlled, or dangerous weapons, articles or substances.
So, you are correct: you may be refused transport if you don't do this. But, the only penalty for non-compliance in this contract is removal from the flight, or not boarding in the first place.
At no point are you explicitly consenting to a search in advance.
Nobody’s perfect. :)
I would have paid your bail.
bttt
9th Circuit in United States vs. Aukai-—Since the 9th Circuit gets overruled frequently by the Supremes, this decision may not stand.
Would make for a good panel discussion.
Yeah, and if a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump its ass when it hopped. Let’s try to stay away from the what-if and stick to the reality, which is horrendous enough.
“...Do your best to look bored and certainly don’t lose your temper. It seems if you make eye contact with the person doing the ‘random’ selections you are more likely to get picked.”
Wow! I can just imagine this type of advice being given to a certain group in Germany during the 1930’s.
“Wow! I can just imagine this type of advice being given to a certain group in Germany during the 1930’s.”
Good call. It was exactly the advice being given to Jews as they passed Nazis in the streets.
Glenn Beck started (& is continuing) his show with this right now!
A year or so after 9/11, my (then) seven yr old daughter and her mother were flying from SeaTac to LAX to see Grandpa for spring break. Daughter had her new art kit in her backpack. When the goons seized her backpack, and began riffling through it, she started to cry. But when she got really upset is when the "officer" told her mom that some of the contents were going to be taken away because they were not allowed.
What was deemed a hazard to aviation safety? A pair of flexible round point plastic scissors you could not cut warm butter with.
This was not nearly as stupefying as what was allowed. A plastic ruler with thin metal edge passed muster as did dozens of needle sharp pencils and the accompanying sharpener with enclosed (removable) razor.
This crap has everything to do with keeping the sheeple in line and ZERO to do with safety.
Dag.....
Almost corn-holed by the gub-mint.
baaaad boy.......
LOL.
Sorry for your unfortunate encounter. It will get worse before things improve I suspect.
Argh
Mike: The Federal Authority is from The Aviation Security Act of 2001(ATSA)(P.L. 107-71)(i.e. 49 USC).
The September 11, 2001 hijacking of four airliners, and the enormous loss of life from the use of these airplanes as weapons, has focused congressional concerns on aviation security. During the debate in Congress the overarching issue was the degree of federal involvement needed both to make commercial air travel safer and to restore the public’s confidence in the security of our Nation’s airway and airports.
On October 11, 2001, the Senate passed, after multiple amendments, the Aviation Security Act of 2001, S. 1447 (introduced by Senator Hollings). The bill provided for the federalization of most aspects of airport security. The responsibility for much of the law enforcement aspect of airport security would have been shifted from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Front-line screening of passengers and baggage would be carried out by federal agents under the authority of the Attorney General. DOT would have continued to administer the Federal Air Marshals (FAM) program but under DOJ guidelines.
On November 1, 2001, the House passed a bill that was significantly different from Senate-passed S. 1447. The Airport Security Federalization Act of 2001 (S. 1447 amended by the text of H.R. 3150, introduced by Representative Young), included provisions to shift the responsibility for the security of all modes of
transportation to a new administration, the Transportation Security Administration(TSA), within DOT. The bill called for the oversight of all airport screeners by uniformed federal agents but would have allowed for the use of contract employees as front-line security screeners.
On November 19, 2001, President Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (P.L. 107-71; H. Rept. 107-296). ATSA, includes elements of both the House and Senate bills as well as new provisions added to facilitate the final compromise that was agreed to in conference. On the contentious issue of whether screeners should be federal agents or contractor personnel, ATSA provides that, within one year, federal employees shall be hired to take over airport security screening services at all but five U.S. commercial airports. Two years later, however, airports may opt-out of the federal screener system and switch to contractor screeners. The Act also establishes a new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) headed by an Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. Within three months of enactment, the responsibilities for aviation security would be transferred from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to the TSA. Also included in the Act are provisions: requiring that, within 60 days, airports provide for the screening or bag-matching of all checked baggage; allowing pilots to carry firearms; requiring the electronic transmission of passenger manifests on international flights prior to landing in the U.S.; requiring background checks, including national security checks, of persons who have access to secure areas at airports; and requiring that all federal security screeners be U.S. citizens...
You may be interested in the below (Virginia COULTER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Transportation Safety Administration, and Patricia Lamb, Defendants.):
“The TSA argues, and this Court agrees, that airport security screeners do not constitute investigative or law enforcement officials within the meaning of the FTCA. The TSA points to a decision by the District Court for the District of Oregon in Welch v. Huntleigh USA Corp., No. 04-663, 2005 WL 1864296 (D.Or. Aug.4, 2005). In that case, the court held that the United States could not be held liable for intentional torts committed by an airport security screener.”
http://www.expressjetpilots.com/the-pipe/showthread.php?39870-Suing-the-TSA&p=425123
It went something like this:
A few weeks ago I flew to Alaska and back.Then a couple of weeks ago ago I flew from Vegas to No Calif.2 flights to get there, 3 to get back.
In Seattle on the way back, I got a seat change for my final flight home from LA
So they gave me a new boarding pass for LA to home, and crossed out the old info for the last flight on the 3 flight pass. They stapled them together.
When I got to LA, I thought I would avoid confusion by un stapling the two passes and only use the new one to board in LA.
The TSA was checking everyone in LA.
When it was my turn, the guy asked me for my drivers license and passport.
I told him I just came from Alaska and that it is part of the USA.
He said, Oh I mean your license and boarding pass.
I showed him my license and the old boarding pass (I kept the wrong one out) with the flight from LA completely crossed out and he looked at it and said OK.
Seems to me that should have been a red flag.
Before my turn came up, I noticed a well dressed older gentleman being asked to remove his coat, so when the TSA approached me I started to remove my coat.
He said that would not be necessary.
Being a scruffy looking bearded guy, I wondered why they want the coat taken off of a nicely dressed man in a suit and not me.
Maybe they are told to only get more serious with those that look completely innocent.
When I was through and got in line for the plane, a couple of 20 something girls had been watching and laughing.
I told them I would have stripped down right there if the TSA wanted me to.
They were relived I didn't...lol but laughed. (I think they may have one of those California “prescriptions.”)
Pingin' you onyx cause you said you wanted to hear this story
There were 4 male TSA and one female(?) (a square little dyke about 5 ft tall) checking people entering another flight.
The four males stood and watched while the female patted down about 5 women, grinning afterward while looking at her workmates.
The guys did not do anything but watch the little dyke feel up the women.
Weird to say the least.
Red herring. So could heteros.
What we need is about a 100,000 people who don’t care if they miss a plane – or can go to the airport long before their plane leaves – to all descend on Reagan in DC and refuse to be photographed but will put up with a grope.
Traffic at Reagan would come to a halt since the grope takes so long (been there, now engaged).
Cloward-Pivan for our side
15 posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:44:29 PM by gartrell bibberts
——————————————————————————–
Good idea. I suggest that be done on November 24th at airports across the Nation. That sort of activist protest of TSA would be sure to get plenty of MSM TV coverage.
——————————————————————————–
BO & Big Sis appear very scared of what is going to happen on November 24th, National Opt Out Day when hundreds of thousands of travelers opt out of the full body scan.
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.