"Unidentified Flying Objector" arrested

[shanek]

I've been lucky enough to fly in small aircraft from small airfields. There was no security presence there whatsoever.

Is there anything that would stop airlines doing the same thing?

Yes: The TSA, according to 49 USC §44901(a) and the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.

 

[shanek]

This is a claim that just screams for evidence. What proof do you have that the only reason for the clause is government threats?

See the above post.

Further, what proof do you have that the airlines would not be doing the same security checks if the government was not?

I never claimed that they wouldn't.

 

[Thanz]

Think of it: they arrested him for CRIMINAL TRESPASS. By the definition I posted, which no one here has refuted, that means that he was attempting to commit a crime on the property. They already assumed he was going to commit a crime! And it's up to him to "prove" otherwise, by submitting to a search and ID check that doesn't do the first thing towards actually making anyone safer.

Well, that's just wrong. You obviously didn't read the code section that was posted by MKJ. Here it is:

635:2 Criminal Trespass. –
I. A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.
II. Criminal trespass is a misdemeanor if:
(a) The trespass takes place in an occupied structure as defined in RSA 635:1, III; or
(b) The person knowingly enters or remains:
(1) In any secured premises;
(2) In any place in defiance of an order to leave or not to enter which was personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person; or
(3) In any place in defiance of any court order restraining him from entering such place so long as he has been properly notified of such order.
III. All other criminal trespass is a violation.
IV. As used in this section, "secured premises" means any place which is posted in a manner prescribed by law or in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, or which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders.

He clearly remained in a place in defiance of an order to leave personally communicated to him by an authorized person. Nothing in there about intention to commit some other crime on the premises.

 

[Thanz]

See the above post.

Thank you.

I never claimed that they wouldn't.

So your complaint is not that you need ID to fly, or that you have to go through security, or that your bags can all be checked - it is simply the fact that the government is doing all of this. The same security could be set up by a coalition of the airlines, or by the individual airport, and you would have no problem with it. But if a gov't agency does it, it sucks. Is that your position?

 

[rdtjr]

Because the issue here is why and how is the government responsible for the security at airports, as opposed to the airline companies.

Because the gov't owns the airports (mostly).

Also, you brought up the issue of personal responsibility. Well, that only comes into play, at least in a free country, if you endanger or threaten others. He did neither.

Sorry, a risk accepted by one is a risk imposed on all. How do I know this guy is no threat? Because he said so? Oh goody, I feel better now. Just go through the metal and explosive residue detectors like everyone else. Maybe you just can't grasp why a guy who refuses to go through routine searches, in an environment in which he can cause the death of dozens and massive property loss, might be perceived as a threat. The fact that you don't get this is why some people here don't seem to take you seriously.

Again, that's fascism, and completely counter to the Fourth Amendment.

I'll say it again, a risk accepted by one is a risk imposed upon all. Isn't that a form of facism too? One person imposing his risk taking behavior on dozens of others? Again, the inability to understand this may be why some folks aren't taking you seriously. It doesn't abridge the 4th Amendment because it is a reasonable search. It is reasonable to search someone when they have done something to cause concern or other evidence of guilt or when the potential for harm is so great from one unreasonable person as to make a slight imposition on individuals acceptable to protect the whole.

Remember we're talking about unreasonable searches here. It is not unreasonable to search individuals when one could easily kill dozens (even hundreds) with the application of nothing more than a boxcutter.

Again, you subject yourself to that search by entering the gov't or even private property. There are signs right there, "by entering the facility you agree to be subject to search of your person or belongings..." You explicitly agree to those conditions when you enter, even if you are there for legitimate purposes. Pentagon and other gov't workers are subject to random searches at any time under the conditions of simply doing their jobs. They agree to it explicitly by entering the facility.

BTW - Same deal with a private place. If I tell you that you are subject to search upon entering my home or business, then you are subject to search upon entering my home or business. If you don't like it, then don't come in or leave... you are completely free to do that.

 

[Leif Roar]

Because the issue here is why and how is the government responsible for the security at airports, as opposed to the airline companies.

Then why don't you discuss that, the underlying question of wether the government should be responsible for the security at airports, rather than the incidental and symptomatic matter of the particulars of how the government does what it is currently responsible for doing in one particular incident.

You might be of the opinion that the government should not have this responsibility, but that's an entirely different subject from wether the government acted correctly in this particular situation -- because the government do have this responsibility, wether you like it or not.

To use a football expression, "Go for the ball, not the man."

Also, you brought up the issue of personal responsibility. Well, that only comes into play, at least in a free country, if you endanger or threaten others. He did neither.

I talked about personal responsibility for fulfilling your part of an agreement -- in particular getting to the gate on time. I fail to see how personal responsibility in this context "only comes into play if you endanger or threaten others."

Again, that's fascism, and completely counter to the Fourth Amendment.

This might surprise you, Shanek, but I see no reason to give your interpretations of and opinions about the US constitution any weight whatsoever.

 

[CFLarsen]

When did we vote on that?

Since when do you accept what the majority decides?

When it fits your political agenda?

 

[RandFan]

My 2 cents, FWIW (2 cent's).

Fine legal points aside, I have no problem with the government's involvement. Air traffic is crucially important to commerce. There is a compelling interest to both the government and the people for the government's involvement. Any impinging on personal freedoms are brief and are restricted to a narrow use (the airport).

Vote? We voted on the representatives that created these procedures for our protection. I'm not convinced that the involvement of the government is illegal. I'm not an attorney but I don't think the case has been made. I will acknowledge that an argument has been advanced however. Perhaps someone needs to follow through with their activism and NOT plead guilty. It makes me think that perhaps an attorney got to this person and informed him that his case was going no where. Perhaps the attorney told the person that he did not have a legal leg to stand on. Pure speculation of course. But one has to ask the question of the gentleman, what was the point?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Since when do you accept what the majority decides?

When it fits your political agenda?

As Shane's original comment was, "Have you people really become this jaded", addressed to those of us who don't have problems with airport security, he's not entitled to a vote in this respect anyway.

 

[Leif Roar]

Perhaps someone needs to follow through with their activism and NOT plead guilty.

Judging from the article Shanek linked to, the person in question was demonstrating because he felt airport security had gone too far, not because he felt the government didn't have the right to ensure airport security:

"Kanning, an accountant and staunch Libertarian, said last week he hoped his actions would highlight what he considers overly burdensome state intrusion.

"What he was trying to get across is that people need to be able to travel with dignity," said his wife. "They've just gotten to a point where security is ridiculous."

Emphasis mine. There's a difference between objecting to what one percieves as ridiculous and overly burdensome government enacted security (like this person does) and objecting to government enacted security on a general principle (like Shanek does.)

 

[Ed]

Judging from the article Shanek linked to, the person in question was demonstrating because he felt airport security had gone too far, not because he felt the government didn't have the right to ensure airport security:

"Kanning, an accountant and staunch Libertarian, said last week he hoped his actions would highlight what he considers overly burdensome state intrusion.

"What he was trying to get across is that people need to be able to travel with dignity," said his wife. "They've just gotten to a point where security is ridiculous."

Emphasis mine. There's a difference between objecting to what one percieves as ridiculous and overly burdensome government enacted security (like this person does) and objecting to government enacted security on a general principle (like Shanek does.)

I get it. Given recent events it does not seem onerous to be searched and present ID. I can recall a far bigger pain in the ass leaving from Heathrow to the States long before 9/11.

I really do not get the problem.

 

[Solitaire]

Thanks Shane. Nothing breaks up a monotonous day like a story about a crackpot. I almost had milk come out of my nose. Why the bible?
Daredelvis

I'll quote the expert here:
Transcript

ROY MOORE: The center of the message is judges need to answer to the Constitution. They need to answer to the law. And our law recognizes God. And today, we've divorced God from many things. So, it's not answering directly to God. It's answering to our Constitution, which recognizes the sovereignty of God.

That's the whole purpose of the First Amendment. And the first thing that our forefathers did when they wrote the First Amendment was to acknowledge God. It was all about God. So, when you say that God's not in the Constitution, it is because people don't understand what the Constitution is about.

Okay. Back to the topic at hand.

 

[shanek]

So your complaint is not that you need ID to fly, or that you have to go through security, or that your bags can all be checked - it is simply the fact that the government is doing all of this. The same security could be set up by a coalition of the airlines, or by the individual airport, and you would have no problem with it. But if a gov't agency does it, it sucks. Is that your position?

Yes, because the government a) isn't supposed to be doing it at all, b) doesn't and shouldn't have the power to tell airlines how they're supposed to do business, and c) doesn't give us an option. If it were left to the airlines, they would have an incentive to make sure their safety procedures actually work and with a minimum of fuss for their legitimate customers, and in all probability different airlines would try different things, giving us a choice.

 

[shanek]

Because the gov't owns the airports (mostly).

That doesn't answer the question. That's just a restating of the point.

Sorry, a risk accepted by one is a risk imposed on all. How do I know this guy is no threat? Because he said so? Oh goody, I feel better now. Just go through the metal and explosive residue detectors like everyone else. Maybe you just can't grasp why a guy who refuses to go through routine searches, in an environment in which he can cause the death of dozens and massive property loss, might be perceived as a threat. The fact that you don't get this is why some people here don't seem to take you seriously.

It's called "freedom." If you want to live the way you just described, move to Cuba.

It doesn't abridge the 4th Amendment because it is a reasonable search.

The Fourth Amendment doesn't say that all reasonable searches are allowed. It says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Where was the probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the search of his person?

 

[shanek]

I talked about personal responsibility for fulfilling your part of an agreement

An agreement made under duress is no agreement at all.

 

[shanek]

Perhaps someone needs to follow through with their activism and NOT plead guilty.

That's exactly what needs to happen. Pleading guilty changes nothing.

 

[Leif Roar]

An agreement made under duress is no agreement at all.

There's no duress involved in buying an airline ticket. Accepting the only offer in town isn't duress, Shanek. Of course, you know this, and the retort over is only your way to avoid answering the rest of my post.

 

[shanek]

There's no duress involved in buying an airline ticket. Accepting the only offer in town isn't duress, Shanek.

Only being allowed one option by force is. YOU know THIS.

 

[Leif Roar]

Only being allowed one option by force is. YOU know THIS.

Except that there iare two options: a) Buy the ticket or b) Don't buy the ticket. Duress is if someone is making you, by force or threat of force, choose option a) over option b).

 

[Thanz]

Yes, because the government a) isn't supposed to be doing it at all,

This the problem that you run into when trying to use an 18th century document to determine which gov't has jurisdiction over the completely unforeseen airline industry. As the vast majority of flights cross state lines, it only makes sense that the jurisdiction be federal.

b) doesn't and shouldn't have the power to tell airlines how they're supposed to o business,

I don't see the airlines clamouring to get into the security business. The fact that they aren't only makes sense. it is one less thing to worry about (and insure).

and c) doesn't give us an option. If it were left to the airlines, they would have an incentive to make sure their safety procedures actually work and with a minimum of fuss for their legitimate customers, and in all probability different airlines would try different things, giving us a choice.

Ah yes, I can see it now - discount airlines skimping on security. "Terrorair - Come fly the exciting skies - when you don't know who lives and who dies!" [here is where you put your obligatory FUD comment]

In all seriousness, the way most airports are designed it only makes sense to have one security system as opposed to a hodge podge for different airlines. I can't see an airline in this climate to want to provide less security - or even appear to provide less security. I think that the current system would set a floor, rather than a ceiling, on security measures.