This is exacltly why I'll keep to the rails thank you

[the_traveler]

Corky even sleeps in her bed with her when I am away :lol:

No can do! My cat takes up the whole bed!

(YOU tell her to move!

Cats do what they want, when they want and where they want!

)

 

[Green Maned Lion]

That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?

They can give some awful papercuts, you know.

That being said, I side completely with PRR60 without even reading the article. I don't know the article, but I know the PI and their adherence to proper journalistic procedure is... uh, limited. I refuse to trust a story that pointedly favors a side from the New York Times, let alone the Philly Inquirer.

Without extensively reading about this episode in detail, I refuse to draw a conclusion. However, as an aside, I tend to agree with general police treatment of people who act unjustifiably obnoxious towards them. People who treat hardworking law enforcement officials to the the kind of self-inflating nonsense that some people suggested as a possible cause for this incident deserve to be thrown in jail. They are committing the crime of being a total jerk. It isn't illegal to do so. But perhaps it should be.

 

[LA Resident]

That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?

They can give some awful papercuts, you know.

That being said, I side completely with PRR60 without even reading the article. I don't know the article, but I know the PI and their adherence to proper journalistic procedure is... uh, limited. I refuse to trust a story that pointedly favors a side from the New York Times, let alone the Philly Inquirer.

Without extensively reading about this episode in detail, I refuse to draw a conclusion. However, as an aside, I tend to agree with general police treatment of people who act unjustifiably obnoxious towards them. People who treat hardworking law enforcement officials to the the kind of self-inflating nonsense that some people suggested as a possible cause for this incident deserve to be thrown in jail. They are committing the crime of being a total jerk. It isn't illegal to do so. But perhaps it should be.

Wow! That's quite a statement.

I guess that the Birmingham, Alabama sheriff Bo Connors was perfectly justified, then, in sicking dogs on those citizens protesting for Civil Rights because they had the audacity to call his cops bad names. The police in the South were always in the right, of course.

And of course we know that there is no such thing as police brutality; only a justified loss of temper and mayhem by police when they get upset, as you put it, by people calling them names or being obnoxious.

And police, of course, are not trained to act professional in the face of stupid acts by people. They are trained, of course, to go off on a rant and brutalize them for poor manners.

Here's hoping I never run into you.

 

[tp49]

It's not quite that simple. If, in the course of security inspections, the TSA finds evidence of a crime not connected with security, they are authorized to detain that person and involve the local police. If, for example, they search a carry on and find a pound of cocaine, that person will not be cleared.

That's not the same thing at all. Cocaine is in itself illegal to possess. Sequential checks are not. Of course any law enforcement agency has to stop someone who is clearly in the process of committing a crime in plain sight of that law enforcement agency.

Sequential checks may be "suspicious" to certain people, but they are not criminal in themselves. The TSA is not authorized to check for anything other than a danger to the flight. Even if the TSA had suspicions, they had no right to continue this line of investigation. All they have a right to do is check if she's a danger to the flight. By their own admission, nothing about their suspicions had anything to do with danger; they suspected she was embezzling money from her husband. This is why they detained her. That is flat-out illegal.

The only thing is that unless she consented to the search of her wallet the TSA officer should never have gone through it. That is a violation of the 4th Amendment plain and simple.

 

[dlagrua]

Law abiding middle age people being treated as criminals.

This illustration speaks for itself:

Those that would sacrifice their liberty to obtain a little security deserve neither liberty or security- Ben Franklin

 

[jis]

It would be good to get the other side of the story before reaching sweeping conclusions on this matter. The Inky is known to be a sensationalist paper which has little qualms about coloring up a story to make it more exciting.

A proper investigation of what actually happened would seem to be in order. Also what the Inky reporter conveniently chooses not to mention should be interesting to discover too.

I guess that I don't trust the Inky any more than I trust the TSA officialdom. Looks like many here trust the Inky more. I don't, having had the misfortune of being on the other side of their agenda at times. In my mind a newspaper has to earn the trust of its readership, and in the case of Inky they have not earned it, indeed they have actively managed to loose it as far as I am concerned.

I do agree with PRR's basic premise that people here sometimes tend to rise to the defense of railroads and train travel even when there is little justification for the same, while running down air travel any chance they get, even when there is little justification. This is unbalanced behavior and that does amuse me. However, I hasten to add that until we know more about this incident this falls in a gray area.

Note that this does not imply that I (or even PRR for that matter) condone violations of 4th amendment rights which does occur from time to time at the hands of various authorities.

As far as my personal experience with TSA goes, I have not had a personally targeted negative experience with them in many years. OTOH, their general level of lack of competence has been a bother from time to time, like their inability to clear checked baggage for a flight even when you checked in 3 hours before the flight, thus causing a misconnect; or almost routinely breaking TSA certified locks instead of using the key that they have to open them.

I actually have very little confidence that anyone who really wants to carry contraband and dangerous materials onto a flight will actually get stopped by TSA, which makes the whole song and dance a bit of a charade at the checkpoints. But then we all get exactly the form of governance that we choose and deserve. So we have no one else to blame at the end of the day.

Oh and unlike some of you.... I intend to keep flying over 100,000 miles a year and ride trains about 15,000 miles a year. I actually immensely enjoy both flying and riding trains, and refuse to give either up just because of governmental idiocies.

 

[tp49]

Jishnu, I generally agree with you which is why I limited my comment to the 4th Amendment violation. I reread the article and there is no mention that she consented to having her wallet searched. Obviously taking into account potential omissions by the columnist I would stand by my comment regarding the search of the wallet which I don't believe is a sweeping conclusion either.

I too intend to keep flying both because I don't mind it and because the train schedules between my most common destinations is slower and more inconvenient than driving.

 

[leemell]

That's really what it boils down to: how did her having sequentially-numbered checks endanger the flight? Did they think they would explode, or that she would use them to attack the flight attendants?

They can give some awful papercuts, you know.

That being said, I side completely with PRR60 without even reading the article. I don't know the article, but I know the PI and their adherence to proper journalistic procedure is... uh, limited. I refuse to trust a story that pointedly favors a side from the New York Times, let alone the Philly Inquirer.

Without extensively reading about this episode in detail, I refuse to draw a conclusion. However, as an aside, I tend to agree with general police treatment of people who act unjustifiably obnoxious towards them. People who treat hardworking law enforcement officials to the the kind of self-inflating nonsense that some people suggested as a possible cause for this incident deserve to be thrown in jail. They are committing the crime of being a total jerk. It isn't illegal to do so. But perhaps it should be.

LEO types refer to these knuckleheads as "felony stupid".

 

[leemell]

Law abiding middle age people being treated as criminals.

This illustration speaks for itself:

Those that would sacrifice their liberty to obtain a little security deserve neither liberty or security- Ben Franklin

If they were criminals, trust me they would not be scanned but handcuffed and thoroughly searched by hand.

 

[Ryan]

Those that would sacrifice their liberty to obtain a little security deserve neither liberty or security- Ben Franklin

Ben Franklin never said that. The closest he came was "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." Not really the same thing.

If they were criminals, trust me they would not be scanned but handcuffed and thoroughly searched by hand.

Don't let the facts get in the way of dlagura's hysteria.
As usual, Jisnu nails it. What amuses me is that there's no room these days for a nuanced opinion, everything has to be black or white, and distilled down to one sentence or less (preferably with no words greater than 3 syllables).

 

[leemell]

Those that would sacrifice their liberty to obtain a little security deserve neither liberty or security- Ben Franklin

Ben Franklin never said that. The closest he came was "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." Not really the same thing.[snip]

Actually he did say something very close:

John Bartlett (1820–1905). Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. 1919.

NUMBER: 3929

AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)

QUOTATION: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

ATTRIBUTION: Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

 

[Ryan]

There's actually a lot of reading to do about that quote, but even Bartleby got it wrong. Here's some interesting reading on the topic: http://futureofthebook.com/franklin-quoted-by-minsky/

In reality it was such a common sentiment back then, and the various versions of the quote significantly muddied, that the origin of the quote is lost to time.

 

[sportbiker]

In a similar manner, I've had some uncomfortable experiences trying to back into this country from Canada. ICE is like TSA on steroids. What I don't care for, in general, is that I'm supposed to act happy when I'm barraged with questions about where I'm going and what I'm doing and where I'm going and who I'm seeing and where I live and where I'm going and what I'm doing and who I'm seeing and what I did and who I met...

The law does not say I have to be chipper and smiling and offer the dude a plate of cookies for giving me the third degree about why I can't remember where I was six days ago (on a 10-12 day vacation). GML aside, if I'm treated with respect as an adult I'm more likely to respond as such, and it's clear the person with the power sets the tone of the exchange, not me. If I'm grilled repeatedly in a forward, arrogant manner, don't be surprised if my patience wilts like a flower in the sun. I am not guilty until I can prove myself innocent; and if I'm bullied by the interrogator then strip-searched (it has happened) my fading decorum is not "felony stupid" it is a human reaction to having my dignity ripped from me. Question: why is it my responsibility to maintain a Pleasantville-type demeanor in the face of something that no adult would accept in any other situation?

 

[jis]

I am not guilty until I can prove myself innocent; and if I'm bullied by the interrogator then strip-searched (it has happened) my fading decorum is not "felony stupid" it is a human reaction to having my dignity ripped from me. Question: why is it my responsibility to maintain a Pleasantville-type demeanor in the face of something that no adult would accept in any other situation?

Just don't kid yourself by believing that all the legal niceties that apply when you are in United States applies when you have not yet been admitted into the US by the CBP agent at the port of entry, and you will do just fine. It is prudent to assume that it is upto you to prove that you are eligible to gain entry into the US and not the other way round. As long as your proof of citizenship is irrefutable and you are not doing anything illegal you would be fine, notwithstanding all the silly questions that they ask.

If the repeated questions bother you and you often enter through one of the major port of entry airports, spend $100 and get yourself on the Global Entry System trusted traveler program and never face a human agent again for 5 years, provided no suspicion is raised that you may be doing something illegal. Your membership in the program is marked on your passport and in your entry record in the CBP database, and does smooth the process somewhat even at ports of entry not equipped with the machines. But then again, you have to go through the grilling in the interview to get accepted in the program. Before placing you on the program they will dig up every record that they can find on you and grill you about them, sometimes even using fictitious scenarios.

 

[George Harris]

My all time favorite experiece occurred a few years ago, when entering the US, last stop being Japan.

My oldest son and I came in at Seattle. I plopped down my US passport and was asked, "Why are you entering the United States?"

Being somewhat jetlagged as well as churning around in my head the thought of what sort of trick question is this? I after a goodly pause answered, retuning my son to the US to start college. This was followed by a whole series of inane questions about whose passport belonged to who? I still have no idea whether there was anything going on or we just run into the village idiot of Customs and Immigration.

 

[amtrakwolverine]

My all time favorite experiece occurred a few years ago, when entering the US, last stop being Japan.

I plopped down my US passport and was asked, "Why are you entering the United States?"

I would have answered "uhhhh cause I live here"

 

[AlanB]

I am not guilty until I can prove myself innocent; and if I'm bullied by the interrogator then strip-searched (it has happened) my fading decorum is not "felony stupid" it is a human reaction to having my dignity ripped from me. Question: why is it my responsibility to maintain a Pleasantville-type demeanor in the face of something that no adult would accept in any other situation?

Just don't kid yourself by believing that all the legal niceties that apply when you are in United States applies when you have not yet been admitted into the US by the CBP agent at the port of entry, and you will do just fine. It is prudent to assume that it is upto you to prove that you are eligible to gain entry into the US and not the other way round. As long as your proof of citizenship is irrefutable and you are not doing anything illegal you would be fine, notwithstanding all the silly questions that they ask.

Precisely! Until it is confirmed that you are indeed a US Citizen, you are not entitled to the normal rights you have as a citizen. In fact, as I learned one fateful day in Canada, the only rights you have upon entering most countries are those granted under the Geneva Convention.

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply when you are seeking admittance to the US, even if you are a citizen. It's "you are not a citizen until you can prove it."

On a separate note, I've actually never had a problem coming back to the US. I've always sailed right through with only a few questions. It's getting into Canada that's a problem for me.

 

[Guest]

Thats because you are a Yankee Alan!Regular people are welcomed with open arms! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[RRrich]

Somewhat off topic.

we were on the LSL 48 in July - stopped at Buffalo?? for rather a while.. seems that a couple of uniformed Border Patrol Officers went into coach and questioned pax (we were in a sleeper so they didn't talk to us).

After a while I saw them lead off the train 2 possibly Hispanic men in handcuffs and a woman (not in restraints) with their luggage.

This has been reported here previously, is it better than what happens on boarding a plane??

 

[jis]

This has been reported here previously, is it better than what happens on boarding a plane??

They don't do en-route checks and questioning on planes of course. But they deny boarding on a flight if your name gets red-flagged by CAPS II and they are unable to resolve the issue before the flight leaves. Those who often get flagged by CAPS II can get a special clearance certificate, certifying that they are not the one that are actually flagged in CAPS II, which helps them go through the check without further hassle.

If entering the US on an international flight, if your name as received by the US through APIS gets flagged, then the flight may be denied entry into US airspace too.

 

[jis]

Thats because you are a Yankee Alan!Regular people are welcomed with open arms! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Coming to think of it, I have never had problem with US Immigration agents even when I was on a non-resident student visa back in the 70s and early 80s, and of course none whatsoever after I became a citizen, except for occasional remarks like "Gee you do travel a lot!" to which my response always is "No kidding!".

But then I did get held up by Customs once many years ago (while I was on Green Card), when I was coming in with a huge pile of baggage from India, but they were thoroughly disappointed and let me go after 20 minutes, in disgust. No money to be collected from me. I gave them a full accounting in a spreadsheet of exactly what I had bought while abroad together with receipts for each item This was in JFK when the Customs folks there had gained some notoriety for shaking down unsuspecting visitors. :lol:

 

[PRR 60]

...then I did get held up by Customs once many years ago (while I was on Green Card), when I was coming in with a huge pile of baggage from India, but they were thoroughly disappointed and let me go after 20 minutes, in disgust. No money to be collected from me. I gave them a full accounting in a spreadsheet of exactly what I had bought while abroad together with receipts for each item This was in JFK when the Customs folks there had gained some notoriety for shaking down unsuspecting visitors. :lol:

I would have loved to have seen the look on their faces when you pulled out that spreadsheet and the pack of receipts. That's great!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Just don't kid yourself by believing that all the legal niceties that apply when you are in United States applies when you have not yet been admitted into the US by the CBP agent at the port of entry, and you will do just fine. It is prudent to assume that it is upto you to prove that you are eligible to gain entry into the US and not the other way round. As long as your proof of citizenship is irrefutable and you are not doing anything illegal you would be fine, notwithstanding all the silly questions that they ask.

My understanding is that nobody is legally allowed to prevent an American citizen from otherwise lawfully entering the United States. Any law would likely be unconstitutional if used to prevent entry by otherwise law abiding Americans. Well, at least prior to the Roberts Court. Despite all these new laws saying you need a passport and whatever else they can only detain you so long before they will eventually have to let you in. That's a little known aspect of our immigration process from the articles I've read. You'll be detained and questioned for a few hours and your friends and family will be contacted to corroborate your claims. But eventually you'll be let in so long as you can provide any number of conventional details any American citizen should be able to provide. I suppose if you were an undocumented baby or you lived your adult life as a scavenging loner you might be screwed without any legal recourse.

If the repeated questions bother you and you often enter through one of the major port of entry airports, spend $100 and get yourself on the Global Entry System trusted traveler program and never face a human agent again for 5 years, provided no suspicion is raised that you may be doing something illegal.

I love this line of reasoning. If you feel your rights are being trampled on the solution is to invite far more intrusion willingly. That sort of bizarre subservience to overbearing authority figures isn't what this country represented when I was born here and I see no reason to accept it now.

 

[George Harris]

If the repeated questions bother you and you often enter through one of the major port of entry airports, spend $100 and get yourself on the Global Entry System trusted traveler program and never face a human agent again for 5 years, provided no suspicion is raised that you may be doing something illegal.

I love this line of reasoning. If you feel your rights are being trampled on the solution is to invite far more intrusion willingly. That sort of bizarre subservience to overbearing authority figures isn't what this country represented when I was born here and I see no reason to accept it now.

Exactly!!!!!

I worked in Asia for the most part of 17 eyars, and the country that ALWAYS gave me more hassle on entry than anybody else was the good old USofA. Maybe I was a wimp about it, but I always tried to maintain my cool and answer their stupid questions and figuratively pound my head against a wall later. Equally, dealing with either the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Foreign Affairs police in Taiwan was always easier than having to deal with the American Institute of Taiwan, the US's imitation embassy there. (Funny how the US govenment / State Department pretends that a democratically governered country of 23 million people does not exist because the biggest dictatorship and international bully on this planet does not like it.)

 

[AlanB]

If the repeated questions bother you and you often enter through one of the major port of entry airports, spend $100 and get yourself on the Global Entry System trusted traveler program and never face a human agent again for 5 years, provided no suspicion is raised that you may be doing something illegal.

I love this line of reasoning. If you feel your rights are being trampled on the solution is to invite far more intrusion willingly. That sort of bizarre subservience to overbearing authority figures isn't what this country represented when I was born here and I see no reason to accept it now.

You're missing the pivotal point here. Until it is confirmed that you are a US Citizen, you have no rights except for those granted under the Geneva Convention. Your normal rights as a US Citizen don't start until you are across the border line from no man's land to the US.

With the trusted traveler program you are being given a choice to voluntarily submit to some extra questioning upfront to avoid in effect being in that no man's land upon returning from travel abroad. But no one is forcing you to submit to the up front questioning. That is your choice! You can freely go right on having only Geneva Convention rights upon your return to the US and dealing with all that entails if you like.