Bloomberg

WBC Attacked, Not Good for Bill of Rights

The Westboro Baptist Church arrived in Brandon, Mississippi, to picket the funeral of Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers who was killed in action in Afghanistan.

However, a series of events reportedly kept the WBC from doing any actual protesting: A WBC member was beaten by locals at a gas station; Rankin County pickup trucks strategically blocked Kansas-plated cars outside the WBC’s hotel; protesters that made it to the funeral were “ushered away to be questioned” under cover of an alleged involvement in a crime.

The source of the report is a lone member of the Ole Miss message board The Oxford Square, and the account is nowhere to be found in mainstream media outlets, but it’s interesting to note that the controversial nature of the tactics supposedly employed to prevent the WBC from protesting Rogers’ funeral — namely the beating and the questionable detainment — has forced Redditors and MeFites to do something they likely find as repugnant as the WBC: Defend the WBC.

WBC is among the most despicable hate groups operating in the US today. As such, they are our generation’s litmus test of whether we really believe in the Bill of Rights. If you agree that they should be beaten up and detained by police on false pretenses then the answer is simple, you don’t.

It was really only a matter of time until this happened. They've been baiting this - so now they'll take everyone to court, sue for damages against their assailants, the police department, and everyone else within a 60 mile radius of the alleged events. And the stupid part - Fred and the WBC will win.

[blackfive / reddit / mefi]

4th Amendment Underwear

4th AMENDMENT UNDERCLOTHES

Now there's a way to protest those intrusive TSA X-ray scanners without saying a word. 4th Amendment Metallic ink-printed undershirts and underwear.

Assert your rights without saying a word. [click to order yours].




It should also add, "This message brought to you by the First Amendment. See Rear."

Optional: Have 1st amendment printed on back.

Maybe the 2nd as well? Oh, wait, that's what they're looking for in the first place.

Jedi Thwarts TSA

The following story was sent to me from a reader... and after reading the story of the mother who had her child taken from her for 10 minutes, I thought this one to share. It comes from Matt from the blog Noblasters

He pulls a Jedi Mind Trick on the TSA on his way OUT of the Airport... By using Vulcan Logic. Please read, and also check out Matt's blog.

You Don’t Need to See His Identification

On November 21, 2010, I was allowed to enter the U.S. through an airport security checkpoint without being x-rayed or touched by a TSA officer. This post explains how.

Edit: Minor edits for clarity. I have uploaded the audio and it is available here.

This past Sunday, I was returning from a trip to Europe. I flew from Paris to Cincinnati, landing in Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.

As I got off my flight, I did all of the things that are normally requested from U.S. citizens returning from abroad. I filled out the customs declarations, confirmed that I hadn’t set foot on any farmland, and answered questions about the chocolates that I had purchased in Switzerland. While I don’t believe that these questions are necessary, I don’t mind answering them if it means some added security. They aren’t particularly intrusive. My passport was stamped, and I moved through customs a happy citizen returning home.

But wait – here was a second line to wait in.

This new line led to a TSA security checkpoint. You see, it is official TSA policy that people (both citizens and non-citizens alike) from international flights are screened as they enter the airport, despite the fact that they have already flown. Even before the new controversial security measures were put in place, I found this practice annoying. But now, as I looked past the 25 people waiting to get into their own country, I saw it: the dreaded Backscatter imaging machine.

Now, I’ve read a fair amount about the controversy surrounding the new TSA policies. I certainly don’t enjoy being treated like a terrorist in my own country, but I’m also not a die-hard constitutional rights advocate. However, for some reason, I was irked. Maybe it was the video of the 3-year old getting molested, maybe it was the sexual assault victim having to cry her way through getting groped, maybe it was the father watching teenage TSA officers joke about his attractive daughter. Whatever it was, this issue didn’t sit right with me. We shouldn’t be required to do this simply to get into our own country.

So, since I had nobody waiting for me at home and no connecting flight to catch, I had some free time. I decided to test my rights.

After putting all my stuff through the x-ray, I was asked to go through the Backscatter. I politely said that I didn’t want to. The technician quipped to his colleague, “We’ve got an opt-out.” They laughed. He turned back and started to explain.

After he finished, I said, “I understand what the pat-down entails, but I wanted to let you know that I do not give you permission to touch my genitals or the surrounding area. If you do, I will consider it assault.”

He called his manager over, who again informed me of the policy. Throughout this event, this happened quite a few times. After raising my concerns regarding the policy to an officer, they often simply quoted back the policy. For the sake of brevity, I will simply say “Policy restatement.”

I said, “I am aware that it is policy, but I disagree with the policy, and I think that it is unconstitutional. As a U.S. citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained.”

Policy restatement. “You have two options – the Backscatter or the pat down. It is your choice, but those are the only ways you can go through security.”

I asked if I could speak to his manager.

“I’m the supervisor here.”

“Do you have a manager?”

“Yes, but he’s very far away at the moment. And he’ll say the same thing I am.” Policy restatement.

At this point, I took out my iPhone, activated the voice recorder, and asked The Supervisor, “Per my constitutional rights, I am not allowed to be detained without reasonable cause for arrest. Now, am I free to go?”

He answered, “If you leave, we will call the APD.”

I asked, “Who is the APD?”

“The Airport Police Department.”

I said, “Actually, that’s probably a good idea. Let’s call them and your manager.”

The Supervisor turned and walked away without saying anything. I stood and waited, chatting to The Technician about how they aren’t allowed to wear radiation badges, even though they work with radiation equipment. He said, “I think I’m a couple steps ahead of you regarding looking out for my own health.”

I stood and waited for 20 minutes. Two cops showed up. Big ones. I admit, I did not want to be handcuffed by these guys.

One cop was older than the other, but they were still clearly partners. Neither of them took the lead on answering my questions, and neither of them told the other what to do. They came over to me and asked me to explain the issue. I first showed them the iPhone. After I explained my position, they restated the policy to me.

I said, “Yes sir. I understand the policy, but I still disagree and I still don’t think that I can be made to do these searches in order to go home. Now am I free to go?”

They didn’t answer.

I repeated the question. “Since you are actual police officers and not simply TSA, I am sure you have had much more training on my rights as a U.S. citizen, so you understand what is at stake here. So, am I free to go? Or am I being detained?”

Young Cop answers, “You aren’t being detained, but you can’t go through there.”

“Isn’t that what detaining is? Preventing me from leaving?”

“You can leave if you want, but it has to be that direction.” He points back towards customs. Young Cop asks, “Why are you doing this?”

I explain that I’m worried that the Backscatter has unproven health risks. And that for all he knows, I might be a sexual assault victim and don’t feel like being touched. I say that the policy is needlessly invasive and it doesn’t provide any added security.

He asks, “But didn’t you go through this when you left on your flight?”

“Yes,” I say, grinning, “But I didn’t want to miss my flight then.”

The cops leave, and I stand around and wait some more. It should be noted that throughout this time, no fewer than 10 TSA officers and technicians are standing around, watching me. I was literally the only one still waiting to go through security.

The cops, The TSA Supervisor, and another guy were standing behind the checkpoint deliberating about something. I explained this to my iPhone and The Supervisor shouted, “Does that thing have video?”

“No sir. Just audio.” I was telling the truth – I’m still on an iPhone 3G.

After a while, Young Cop comes and asks me for my papers. My passport, my boarding pass, my driver’s license, and even a business card. I give him everything except the business card. He told me that he was just gathering information for the police report, which is standard procedure. I complied – I knew that this was indeed standard.

He left, and a Delta Airlines manager comes over and starts talking to me. He is clearly acting as a mediator. He asks what I would consent to, if given my options. I explain that I want the least intrusive possible solution that is required. I say, “I will not do anything that is not explicitly stated on recording as mandatory.” He leaves.

Let me pause and clarify the actors’ moods here, because they will soon start to change:

• The Supervisor: Very standoffish. Sticking to policy, no exceptions.
• The TSA Officials: Mainly amused. Not very concerned otherwise.
• The Cops: Impartial observers and consultants. Possibly a bit frustrated that I’m creating the troubles, but being very professional and respectful regardless.
• The Delta Supervisor: Trying to help me see the light. He doesn’t mind the work - he’s here all day anyway, so he’d rather spend it ensuring that his customer is happy.

After another wait, Old Cop returns, and asks me what I want. I tell him, “I want to go home without going through the Backscatter and without having my genitals touched. Those are my only two conditions. I will strip naked here if that is what it takes, but I don’t want to be touched.”

He offers as an alternative, “What if we were to escort you out with us? It would involve a pat-down, but it would be us doing it instead.”

“Would you touch my balls?”

“I don’t want to touch your – genital region, but my hand might brush against it.”

I clarify, “Well, like I said, I’ll do whatever you say is mandatory. If you tell me that you have to touch my balls—“

“—I said no such thing. You’re putting words in my mouth.”

“OK. I apologize. If you say that a pat-down is mandatory, and that as a condition of that pat-down, I may have my genitals brushed against by your hand, even though you don’t want to, I will do that. But only if you say it is mandatory.”

“I’m not going to say that.”

“OK. So am I free to go?”

“You are free to go in that direction.” He points back towards customs. Then he walks away to commune with the others.

My iPhone is running out of battery, so I take out my laptop, sit in a corner, and plug it in. I have some work to do anyway, so I pull up Excel and start chugging away for about 20 minutes.

This is where the turning point happens.

The cops come back and start talking with me. Again, they are asking why I’m doing it, don’t I have a connection to make, etc. They are acting more curious at this point – no longer trying to find a contradiction in my logic.

I eventually ask what would happen if I got up and left, and just walked through security. They shrugged. “We wouldn’t do anything on our own. We are only acting on behalf of the TSA. They are in charge of this area.”

“So if he told you to arrest me, you would? And if he didn’t, you wouldn’t?”

“That’s right,” Young Cop says.

“OK well then I think it is best if we all talk together as a group now. Can you call them over?”

The Supervisor returns, along with the Delta Manager. The Supervisor is quite visibly frustrated.

I explain, “The police have explained to me that it is your call on whether or not I am being detained. If I walked through that metal detector right now, you would have to ask them to arrest me in order for them to do anything.”

He starts to defer responsibility to the officers. They emphasize that no – they have no issue with me and they are only acting on his behalf. It is his jurisdiction. It is policy. They won’t detain me unless he tells them to.

So I emphasize the iPhone again, and ask,” So, if I were to get up, walk through the metal detector, and not have it go off, would you still have them arrest me?”

The Supervisor answers, “I can’t answer that question. That is no longer an option because you were selected for the Backscatter.”

“Well you can answer the question because it is a yes or no question. If I got up and left, would you have them arrest me?”

“I can’t answer that question.”

The moods have changed. The cops are now frustrated with him because he’s pawning off his decision-making responsibility to them. He’s stopping what is clearly a logical solution to the problem. Meanwhile, the Supervisor is just growing more and more furious with me.

In another deferment of responsibility (which he probably thought was an intimidation factor), “Well then I guess I’m just going to have to call the FSD.”

Unphased, I ask, “What’s the FSD?”

“The Federal Security Director.” And he walks away.

I can see him talking on the phone to the FSD – a man apparently named Paul – and I can only catch parts of the conversation:

• “No, he’s been perfectly polite…”
• “We tried that…”
• “All he said was … Constitutional rights”

He walks over to Old Cop and hands him the phone. I can hear similar sound bites. They hang up, deliberate some more, and then wait some more.

Meanwhile, I’m typing away on my computer. Answering emails, working on my Excel model – things that I would have done at home regardless.

The Supervisor walks over and stands uncomfortably close to me. After typing for a bit more, I look up. His voice shakes, “I don’t know if I ever introduced myself.” He pulls out his badge. “My name is XXX XXX. Here is my badge. Now, I’ve shown you my credentials.”

Ah – he’s gotten the Miranda talk. I hide my smile.

“Here’s what we’re going to do. I’m going to escort you out of the terminal to the public area. You are to stay with me at all times. Do you understand?”

“Will I be touched?”

“I can’t guarantee that, but I am going to escort you out.”

“OK. I will do this. But I will restate that I still do not give you permission to touch my genitals or the surrounding area. If you do, I will still consider it assault.”

“I understand.”

And then came the most ridiculous scene of which I’ve ever been a part. I gather my things – jacket, scarf, hat, briefcase, chocolates. We walk over to the staff entrance and he scans his badge to let me through. We walk down the long hallway that led back to the baggage claim area. We skip the escalators and moving walkways. As we walk, there are TSA officials stationed at apparent checkpoints along the route. As we pass them, they form part of the circle that is around me. By the end of the walk, I count 13 TSA officials and 2 uniformed police officers forming a circle around me. We reach the baggage claim area, and everyone stops at the orange line. The Supervisor grunts, “Have a nice day,” and leaves.

In order to enter the USA, I was never touched, I was never “Backscatted,” and I was never metal detected. In the end, it took 2.5 hours, but I proved that it is possible. I’m looking forward to my next flight on Wednesday.

You can email Matt here.

Enough is Enough

H.R. 6416 - The American Traveler Dignity Act

A BILL

To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

Rights? What Rights?

A US DOJ investigation has found that a large number of FBI agents and supervisors in several offices found to have cheated while taking a test about surveillance policies and civil rights.

Well, that pretty much sums it up into a neat little package, doesn't it?

I suppose cheating on the surveillance test ought to win you an accommodation for original thinking?

"You have the right to... ahhhhh... huh huh..."

"Boner! You have a right to a boner! huhuhuh huh! Boooinng!"

"Shut up, Beavis. Yeah, you have the right to shut up, or something."

Sunday Comics: Rights

Court OK's Warrantless Cell Taps

Eh, it's not like you were using that 4th Amendment right of yours anyway. You'll never even notice.

A federal appeals court said the government may obtain cell-site information mobile phone carriers retain on their customers without a probable cause warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

The decision (.pdf) by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, was not an outright Obama administration victory. Lower courts, the three-judge panel wrote, could demand the government show probable cause - the warrant standard - before requiring carriers to release such data to the feds.

The opinion, however, leaves the privacy issue in a legal limbo of sorts. The standard by which the government can access such records - which can be used in criminal prosecutions - is left to the whims of district court judges. Historical cell-site location information, which carriers usually retain for about 18 months, identifies the cell tower to which the customer was connected at the beginning of a call and at the end of the call.

The lower courts across the country have issued conflicting rulings on the topic and will continue to do so without appellate guidance or congressional action. The Philadelphia-based court was the first appeals court to address the issue.

The Obama administration argued a judge could force a carrier to produce cell-site data on a showing that the information was "relevant and material" to an investigation.

But the appeals court, ruling in a narcotics case, said the Stored Communications Act, the law in question, was vague as to what standard was required.

Kevin Bankston, a privacy lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which weighed in on the case with a friend-of-the-court brief, said the decision highlights Congress' need to clarify the law.

"What we need at this point is a clear, nationwide standard wen it comes to government access to this personal information," he said.

At one point, the appeals court said the law gave judges "the option" to require a warrant showing probable cause. But the court also said it was "stymied by the failure of Congress to make its intention clear."

"The considerations for and against such a requirement would be for Congress to balance," the appeals court wrote. "A court is not the appropriate forum for such balancing, and we decline to take a step as to which Congress is silent." ~ By David Kravets - Wired

My 1/2 Cent: I wonder which firm the judge used to work for before he was appointed a judge? Which corporation did he bill out to the most? I'll bet more than a nickel it was a telecom company.

I'm under the impression it isn't a coincidence that The Bill of Rights stands next to Bill of Sale in the encyclopedia.

Soldiers Punished for Not Attending Christian Concert

Being marched off to a 'concert' for Spiritual Fitness is not only infuriating, unfair, it's also Un Constitutional. At what point were the soldiers rights not violated, exactly?

If the event were held off post, and promoted as something to do in downtime - that's one thing. This was not 'voluntary.'

Religious concerts should not be sponsored by the military or any government agency. Having such concerts on post is a form of sponsorship of religion -- and that's exactly what our troops are supposed to be fighting against.

Sounds more like the Salvation Army than the US Army.

Original Article