Yikes...

But Bush has this annoying habit of defining these "enemy combatants" as two contradictory classes of defendants at once, thus circumventing any and all regulations.

Hmm . . . Quantum law. What a concept.

You are correct, 49 CFR 1544.203 DOES specifically address screening of baggage; however, you should read that citation. It deals specifically with explosives and incendiaries, and places the responsibility upon the carrier to ensure that explosives and incendiaries are not loaded and transported. It does NOT indicate anywhere that TSA has the authority to damage and pilfer my baggage when I am travelling, nor does it excuse TSA or the airline from probably cause or due process restrictions. I did, once, ask a TSA agent why they wanted to search my bag physically; they refused to tell me and said for security reasons, they cannot tell my why my baggage garnered suspicion after X-ray. I am not educated? I make snap judgements? No, I think not. Just because a regulation is titled "screening and acceptance of baggage" that does not mean that it does what they say it does. You have to actually READ the text of the CFR.

Just another for-instance: I was elected treasurer of a 501-c(3) organization. When the accounts were to be amended to have me as primary signatory, the bank person told me they would need to have my social security number on the account. I told her "no, that is not my personal account, you will not be reporting any of the interest to my taxpayer ID number, so no, you may not have my SSN. You may identify me with my passport." She argued with me, and eventually told me that it was required by the Patriot Act. I researched it, and the Patriot Act (a very long and boring document) actually said nothing of the sort. I asked for a printout of the specific text, they "couldn't find it." I requested that their attorney find the information for me. He never returned any of my 7 calls. This whole process took about 3 weeks, during which time I was not able to get much of my work done. When I went back in and demanded to speak to the bank manager about it, the customer service person told me that on second thought, it was not law, but just the common bank policy, and she could amend the account without the SSN. I'm still having battles with Virginia DMV regarding use of my SSN in getting a drivers license. SSN is NOT to be used for identification purposes. It no longer says that on the card, but it is still part of the Privacy Act. I just don't want to be in any of the national databases, nor do I just blindly follow like a sheep, and take "their" word for it.

By definition they have the right open your baggage to inspect it for explosives and incendiaries, if that is what you are concerned about when you talk about “pilfering�. There is no least intrusive means requirement. Normal wear and tear in the handling of baggage has always been excused. Anything beyond normal wear and tear is compensable, but in reality is tough to recover.

Those regulations would never deal with due process concerns. That is left to the courts, and in fact they have weighed in on the subject both directly and indirectly. There are three lines of reasoning permitting them.
1) Implied Consent – A person can consent to a search and by doing so waives her Fourth Amendment protection that might otherwise require the person performing the search to prove that probable cause existed to warrant the particular search. Courts often refer to the implied consent doctrine in upholding airport searches as constitutional when the persons searched had the option to either resist the search and forgo the opportunity to enter the restricted area, or to undergo the search and proceed in the boarding process. See United States v. Miner, 484 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1973).
2) Administrative Search – This approach was carried over to searches in the airport context by the court in United States v. Davis. This approach allows security officers to search passengers without a warrant provided that the following three requirements are met. First, the search must be “conducted as a part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose� (here, preventing weapons from being taken on planes). Second, the passenger must have consented in that she voluntarily advanced through the security checkpoint. Third, the search must meet the general Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement. Davis, 482 F.2d at 893. (Please remember that probable cause is only required for searches requiring warrants. Warrants are required to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. Airport screenings are considered reasonable under the circumstances, and as such do not require warrants and therefore do not need probable cause.)
3) Critical Zone – This test, found in the Moreno and Skipwith line of cases, allows searches in airport boarding areas by analogizing these searches to the warrantless searches permitted at the nation’s borders on the theory that both are “critical zones.� United States v. Moreno, 475 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir. 1973).

I'm glad you did that. IMO people people shouldn't just take their word for it. If you find a certain requirement objectionable, make them prove it!

Virginia DMV has not required a SSN for an operator's license for several years.

The number on my license was changed to a DMV # at my request a long time ago. It's the I.D. number I put on my bank checks now and any other document that asks for my SSN for identification. I get some flack every once in a while but it's worth the extra time spent educating officious clerks and managers when they insist on my SSN.

Sorry, Pecker, but VA DMV DOES require SSN for operator's license. They give you the option to display an alternate number on the face of the license, but before issuing, the DO require that you give them your full SSN with documentation. Check the VA DMV website... A state ID does not require the SSN. The proposed "REAL ID" national ID database legislation, if passed, will require states that do not now require the SSN to begin collecting that. Various types of federal funding to the state will be withheld if the state does not comply. I don't have the reference handy, but I believe so far the only state flatly refusing to participate is Montana. I'm sure this will eventually lead to "smart" license cards, with readable chips - like the SmartCard I use to ride the bus or subway here. I chose not to register my card. It was just on the news yesterday that the Transit Authority here is building databases. When you use your SmartCard (a proximity-read card) it records where and when you go. If you add money to the card using a credit card, they do collect your CC info, and keep it on file. I only add to mine with cash. Funny thing is, Transit Authority is only just now having meetings to develop a Privacy and Security Policy to dictate how they deal with the information they are collecting.

I'm glad you did that. IMO people people shouldn't just take their word for it. If you find a certain requirement objectionable, make them prove it!
[/b][/quote]

This silly woman could not understand my concerns, nor why I would not just take her word for it. The analogy I tried to use for her was "If I tell you I am authorized by law to search your house, will you ask me for proof, or will you just step aside and let me search your house? If you can't show me the law, it does not exist." She just kept saying, "but we are REQUIRED by law, everything changed with the Patriot Act." But could not show me any bank policy, nor any law. I would think that any laws by which a financial institution is bound would be 1) used in employee training, and 2) readily available.

carolinacurious: Sorry if everyones already read this one, I thought it would go along with this discussion. It appears that SC may already have a "smart liscense"; it's definitely scannable. The link at the end goes to an editorial where the guy talks about how the upshot of a lot of this mess is that we're just making things harder on Mexicans but easier on the Saudi's. I know that makes me feel safer.

This silly woman could not understand my concerns, nor why I would not just take her word for it. The analogy I tried to use for her was "If I tell you I am authorized by law to search your house, will you ask me for proof, or will you just step aside and let me search your house? If you can't show me the law, it does not exist." She just kept saying, "but we are REQUIRED by law, everything changed with the Patriot Act." But could not show me any bank policy, nor any law. I would think that any laws by which a financial institution is bound would be 1) used in employee training, and 2) readily available.
[/b][/quote]



Keep on singin' it, my friend.... Your posts are so educated and thoughtful and well-written. And sure, to an extent, they're your opinions, and other people have different opinions. But the fact of the matter is, the Constitution and what it stands for is more and more being put somewhat aside in the name of "national protection." And - I'm just not sure that the constructors of the document would ever accept that. Sigh.

Mattboy and carolinacurious, thank you so much. Carolina, I think most states have, for some time, used the magnetic strips of which you speak. But please don't confuse this with the smartcard, which uses an embedded chip. The magnetic strips, as I understand it, do contain some information, but must be pulled through a reader, and generally are used "read-only." The chips, on the other hand, can store and receive and transmit amazing amounts of information, and are "proximity" cards - simply passing within an inch or two of the receiver to make transactions. The implications are staggering. Parking ticket in NYC? Denied boarding in Dallas. Recent shotgun purchase at Wal-Mart? Real problems if you get pulled over for speeding. This is not just wild paranoia, all these agencies want a server-client relationship to these various databases.

Mattboy, don't just sit back and enjoy the singin... please put up at least a little resistance... when your rights are being minimalized.

And don't get me wrong, I don't support his views... but Jose Padilla IS a US citizen. Terrorist or not, regardless of any executive order or the patriot act - he is a citizen, and it is illegal to incarcerate him without charges, it is illegal to hold him without counsel, it is illegal to decide his fate in secret meetings and seal the results. I just happen to think the constitution trumps executive order, not the other way around.

If Jose Padilla were guilty of a crime, they'd charge him with one. *snicker*

Whoever is not in power when the next attack happens.

SG

Agreed absolutely. Padilla may well be guilty of plotting violent crimes but the Bush administration needs to shit or get off the pot with this guy. He's a US citizen and is entitled to at least a speedy trial. Bring charges against him and try him or or let him go. I'd like to know why his incarceration hasn't been challenged in court.

You can bet that if Padilla was some anti-tax, anti-government, UN hating, aryan gun nut being held incommunicado for suspected terrorism by Janet Reno the right would be going apeshit over it.

Oh my gosh... don't worry - I'm very LOUD about my disgust with the direction in which the United States is going... to anyone who'll listen - and those who won't. :)