ACLU Sues DHS Over Unlawful Searches and Detention 460
gavron writes "The ACLU has filed suit against DHS to stop the TSA from conducting illegal searches and detention. In the case at hand, TSA detained a Ron Paul staffer who was carrying $4,300 in cash in a metal box. The suit seeks to focus TSA searches on things having to do with increasing security on aircraft, instead of their current practice of 4th-amendment-violating searches, such as those of laptops, iPods, etc."
What took them so long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah, you gotta hate those guys who spend their time trying to stop the government from trampling on people's rights.
Re:Why, oh why. - Indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally, why didn't he just convert the cash to a money order or cashiers check?
Unless you have an account with a bank, they won't do it.
Two, that's NOT for you to say. I agree carrying that much cash isn't the wisest thing to do, but unfortunately, the way the banks are, cash gets an IMMEDIATE credit to your account whereas a check, regardless of who issues it, means at least a ten day hold on the funds. Also, maybe this guy wanted to make a political statement and actually have grounds to sue the TSA. He actually put his ass on the line and is doing something about it; which more than I can say about your typical Slashdot pontificating whiner.
Three, I hate the ACLU with a passion.
Why?!? Did they defend a certain segment of the population that you hate? Like a black person? Or a homosexual? Or is it because they fought a town for putting up a nativity scene? Or is it because of their stance on gun rights? Even then, to hate them over that?!
You listen to AM radio, don't you.
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
It also doesn't hurt that he was traveling in connection with a political campaign. That helps raise other issues directly to the court, such as 1. interfering with a business (so the densest conservative can understand it) 2. creating a chilling effect for those who wish to work on a political campaign (so the densest liberals can understand it) and 3. it was someone who can clearly prove where the money came from and where it was going (so the densest independent can understand it).
Based on the recent Supreme Court ruling concerning DNA, it seems you really have to get all the pieces together so that a judge with a particular political axe to grind won't just ignore their duties and pull the case in a wrongheaded direction.
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:4, Insightful)
How can a "American Civil Liberties Union" that is really interested in protecting said liberties take a "neutral" stance on one of my liberties ... and more often than not, an anti-liberty stance, in that case?
If you are supposed to fighting for my liberties, I hope you don't take a "neutral" stance on whether or not I should receive said liberties.
The problem is, the ACLU isn't just about liberties. They have a political position, and certain things rub their political position the wrong way. They are all for liberty and freedom, to a fault IMO, with some aspects (e.g., abortion). Totally not in some other cases (e.g., homeschooling/gun laws).
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:4, Insightful)
How can a "American Civil Liberties Union" that is really interested in protecting said liberties take a "neutral" stance on one of my liberties ... and more often than not, an anti-liberty stance, in that case?
Well, they do have to pick their battles. Also, nothing is stopping you from being a member (or just supporting) both the ACLU and the NRA (other than the perhaps strange looks you would get from people in both groups).
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, if ONLY there was a well funded, powerful organization that defended second amendment rights. Oh woe are me an my fellow militia men!
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:2, Insightful)
The second ammendment has more than enough supporters and lobbyists, to a fault, to need the ACLU's help. Let them concentrate on the issues that don't happen to have a group consisting of over four million people (which the 2nd ammendement most certainly does in the form of the NRA) playing watchdog over them.
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you would rather the ACLU divide their resources so they can spend even less time on all the 1st amendment cases to fight for the right to bear arms when there is already several organizations that devote time and money to 2nd amendment challenges?
Personally I think if you believe that's a good idea you're a fool. If you want to devote your money to second amendment challenges then send your money into one of the dozen or more organizations solely devoted to the 2nd amendment, like the NRA. It would be foolish for the ACLU to divide their limited resources to action on the 2nd when there are so many more challenges to the 1st, 4th,, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th that they need to devote money to and there are so many other organizations whose sole focus is the 2nd. There are very few organizations that spend as much effort on 1st let alone even care about the others. Only a fool would hate the ACLU for being pragmatic about distribution of their limited funds to challenges where they are the only organization working on them.
Your statement about the ACLU working on 2nd amendment challenges is as silly as someone asking the NRA to work on 1st amendment issues.
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should he have to pay a fee to transmute the money from one form to another? He was as a fund raising event where he was making a lot of small, cash transactions (selling t-shirts, etc.) He wasn't doing anything illegal and the money was obtained via lawful activities. This whole, "Assumed guilty until you pay a lawyer to prove otherwise" way of doing business in this country is a complete load of shit. I'm glad that the Ron Paul staffer stood up for his rights and I'm glad that the ACLU is championing his cause. The TSA is there to make sure that the planes are safe, and that the people boarding the planes aren't going to try to bring them down. Other than that, they need to GTFO with their wanna be law enforcement procedures.
To my knowledge, the only time you have to declare currency is on international flights and on amounts over $10,000.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because the ACLU is only about taking on cases of important people. Even though I don't agree with all of their positions, they are a very effective organization and have helped take down many unjust laws.
(and thank you again, Slashdot, for the five minute wait between posts).
The ACLU is horribly ideological.
Ever see them helping support 2nd Amendment rights?
For the ACLU, some rights are more equal than others.
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:3, Insightful)
The NRA and others already fight for those issues.
It doesn't require the ACLU to push for these things when you have Charleton Heston et al.
Hating the ACLU because they're not pushing for gun rights is kinda pointless.
Cheers
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they ARE the problem and they are looking to create more problems. They are the solution to nothing...
Re:Is it still $10,000? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't put a stop to official abuse unless you stand up to it. And, much as I disagree with Ron Paul and his supporters on just about every policy issue, that seems to be something that he and they understand and prioritize more than most people.
Yes, it sometimes involves personal inconvenience. That people are too interested in avoiding any inconvenience to stand on their rights is exactly what people who would whittle away at those rights rely on.
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know far more people with a center or left leaning political persuasion that 'bear arms' than right wingers. They refuse to support the NRA because of its political leanings and they don't support the ACLU because it does them no good. Think of how badly the NRA's support base would be undermined if a politically neutral organization was available for second amendment support. The only NRA members left would be the right wing-nuts.
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the ACLU's position was strictly, "We feel there already is a capable organisation defending this right, please see the NRA" then I'm sure the OP wouldn't have an objection. It's when they actively post a non-liberty response [aclu.org] to the amendment that the OP is complaining about. They've chose a very restrictive view of this liberty ("restrictive" == "opposite of liberty"), and that's what the OP is complaining about.
Further, they even post that, "in [their] view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue." The OP contends that this actually is a civil liberties issue, so takes offense that the ACLU would narrowly define civil liberties to just the ones they like - which seems to be exactly the opposite of what they purport to defend. It's the American Civil Liberties Union, damnit, not the American Civil Liberties That We Like Union.
At least, that's what I think the OP meant.
Re:Whoa... (Score:3, Insightful)
a lot of people like goldschlager. that has real gold in it.
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate the ACLU with a passion
Then you hate liberty and freedom. The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.
Finally, why didn't he just convert the cash to a money order or cashiers check?
Google "Ron Paul".
Re:Is it still $10,000? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also wise from a practical standpoint to either give up your rights and cooperate with the agents asking questions you have a right to not answer, or plan your itinerary such that you can miss your flight.
No, the wise thing to do is stand up and defend your rights, because if you don't, the government will continue to trample them.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What took them so long? (Score:1, Insightful)
Or, you could drive, rather than demand that my rights get trampled on.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather my plane not blow up or get hi-jacked. If that means someone needs to get searched then so be it. Planes are private property - if you don't like it don't fly on it. You can always drive to your destination, or take a boat ride.
Yes...they are private property. So WTF is the federal government doing getting their noses involved?
Re:What took them so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather not be treated like a criminal when flying, and allow the government to violate my rights. Planes are private property - if you don't like it don't fly on it. You can always drive to your destination, or take a boat ride.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:1, Insightful)
Ya, because gays dont have their own advocacy groups already do they?
Re:TSA people are not legally informed (Score:4, Insightful)
TSA screeners are not law enforcement.
No, but they do watch television programs like Law and Order and CSI where unconstitutional searches of the "bad guys" and roughing up suspects in interrogation are common story elements. Unfortunately, these TSA knuckle draggers are unable to distinguish reality from fantasy when the arrive back at work the next day and so proceed to "interrogate" a suspect like the crew on Law and Order or CSI might instead of actually doing what would otherwise be a boring rent-a-cop security job.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole situation could have been fixed if one or other of the assholes had just answered "yes" or "no".
Re:What took them so long? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't believe that cash or political pamphlets are useful in blowing up or hijacking planes.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you daft? The point is they had no business pulling him aside to begin with just because he had a stack of cash on him.
I'm so sick of mentalities such as yours. "He's just being an asshole!" No, he's exercising his god damn rights. Again, the whole point is TSA has been stomping all over people's rights searching them and detaining them and we can't let them do that.
It's bad enough when real law enforcement think they can get away with anything they like. But these guys are just fake cops...god damn.
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:3, Insightful)
More specifically, they interpret as a collective right, which puts its outside of their mission and therefore not something that they will take action on as an organization.
While certainly one can disagree with this (and certainly, the most recent US Supreme Court decision does), the ACLU openly is about defending individual liberties as it understands them, not enforcing the current status quo declared by the Supreme Court, or defending the idea that anything anyone can imagine is in fact an individual freedom.
If one believes that things that are not within the scope of what the ACLU considers individual liberties are, in fact, individual liberties, that is a good reason to support organizations that are dedicated to protecting those things as individual liberties, but I don't see why it is a reason to oppose the ACLU. OTOH, if one opposes the things that the ACLU does consider individual liberties, that would be a reason to oppose the ACLU.
Re:It's a sign (Score:2, Insightful)
>> and Os^Hbama doesn't make change
I saw what you did there. I bet you feel so proud and clever.
It's not like, you know, I've ever seen that before.
-dZ.
Re:Good thing it wasn't O'hare (Score:5, Insightful)
It probably IS a felony in a lot more places than just Illinois. And, it will soon be a felony in yet more places. That doesn't change the fact that the law is a worthless turd floating in the toilet of oppressive laws. Law enforcement should be subject to recording, anytime, and anyplace. The public pays for law enforcement, the public is entitled to know what law enforcement is doing. Remember, they work for us, not the other way around.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that means someone needs to get searched then so be it.
I despise gutless people. People who would unthinkingly hand over all their civil rights because they're pussies. Cash in a box is not going to threaten the safety of an aircraft and was out of bounds for TSA. They could have called the airport cops and said hey that guy's got a box of money. Unless it can be used as a weapon, it's none of their concern.
Unless you think he was going to go from seat to seat bribing people to help storm the flight deck.
This country was not founded by spineless people but we certainly allowed them to multiply and dilute the gene pool.
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:3, Insightful)
Support of an individual right to keep and bear arms is (as is, incidentally, support for every individual liberty the ACLU supports) a political position. You can't be a "politically neutral" organization and be an organization dedicated to defending or advancing a particular political position or set of political positions. What you propose is incoherent, akin to the idea of "triangle in Euclidean 2-space with interior angles summing to 240 degrees" it is a series of words which make sense individually and fit together grammatically, but which is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:1, Insightful)
"I think the ACLU emphasizes the "CL" part, and not the "A" (simply being from America). Gun ownership is unfortunately not a universally recognized liberty."
Well, that's a new excuse. The ACLU doesn't think the right to bear arms is a universal right because others don't recognize it?
OK, that's fine. Then they need to shut the fuck up about freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Why? Because the US is one of the few nations where those freedoms are enshrined in the root document of their government. The UK does NOT have explicit freedom of speech. Neither does Germany. Don't think France does either.
Wait, what's that? 1st amendment rights are *different*? Well, in a sense you are right: without guns, you wouldn't HAVE the right to spout inconsistent drivel.
Re:It was for a seminar (Score:4, Insightful)
But I'm also aware that cash *never* gains value, it only loses purchasing power.
Slver, on the other hand, both increases and decreases in value over time, but on average over the last 10 years, has steadily increased:
http://66.38.218.33/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx
Does this mean that Silver will continue to do so? No, obviously. Silver will continue to fluctuate, and can go down as easily as it goes up. It's up to the individual investor to decide when it is time to buy or sell their metal, just as with stocks, real estate, or other investment vehicles.
As a previous commenter mentioned, precious metals are a good option to park wealth, not spending money. Historically, precious metals have never been worth $0.
Here's a graph of gold prices since 1995: http://66.38.218.33/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx [66.38.218.33]
Have your investments done as well, as safely?
Re:What took them so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the ACLU is supposed to be for *all* rights, and for *all* people. The NAACP doesn't mean that the ACLU doesn't take a position on the issue of discrimination, why should the NRA stop them from taking a position on Gun Rights?
Granted, the ACLU can and should do whatever the hell they want, they aren't accountable to me (or anyone else who isn't a member), and they certainly are intended to be an ideological organization, it just seems odd to me that they claim that the driving ideal is individual rights and freedoms and then neglect such a major one. Then again, the American Civil Liberties That Aren't Self Defense Union (ACLTASDU) would be much less catchy.
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you hate liberty and freedom. The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.
Reread his post. He specifically states that one of the reasons he hates the ACLU is because, not only do they frequently choose not to pursue 2nd amendment liberties, but they have even opposed 2nd amendment liberties.
The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.
Not necessarily. Their entire purpose is to further their political agenda, which frequently -- but not always -- coincides with OUR liberties. However, as OP stated, they sometimes have taken positions on issues that violated our liberties because it did not mesh with their political ideologies.
Don't get me wrong. While I sometimes (maybe even "often") disagree with the ACLU, I think the ACLU is probably a net good. But I would say that it is dangerous to assume that they -- or any other political action group -- is always entirely benevolent.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:3, Insightful)
"That one small subset of your rights is already vehemently defended by one large national organization, the ACLU doesn't need to waste its time redundently doubling the NRA's effort."
So then why is the ACLU bothering to get involved with religious rights, gay rights, freedom of the press, abortion rights, etc.?
The ACLU has already issued a statement regarding the second amendment; their stance is that it is not an individual right but a corporate one. Of course, when one asks if any of the OTHER amendments only recognize corporate rights, the answer is a resounding "Of course they don't!"
The ACLU will go to the most extreme lengths to defend ANY encroachment on ANY amendment. Except the second. The resources argument is bullshit.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me, you're looking at it from the wrong side. Why should he have to answer a question they have no right asking, just to make his flight and save hassle? If they didn't know whether or not he had to legally answer, they either should have called someone who did, or backed off. As it is, that's blatant intimidation. "We will get the DEA, FBI, and all those." "answer us or we will get you in a world of shit." They chose the intimidation tactic instead of answering his damned question about whether he had to answer or not.
Master and Margarita (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just a simple case of some little dick trying to be a big dick and then cry about it when he got called.
Story time! You are on your way to Toronto to attend your cousin's wedding. But as you get into the airport, you realize you have no cash and haven't bought a wedding present yet! So you're not sure if the ATMs in Canada work for your bank and you approach an ATM. You're in a hurry to catch your flight which puts you in Toronto just to catch the wedding and in your haste, you accidentally hit an extra zero after punching in $500 and then hit enter. You're now holding $5,000 in nonconsecutive hundreds (this actually happened to my friend once).
Ok, you're not putting these in your luggage or jacket so you put them on your person and they make a noticeable bulge in the front pocket of your shirt but you don't want to lose them.
Guard notices the bulge as you walk through and asks you what's in your front shirt pocket. You look nervous and start to tell him a contrived story about being in a rush and having $5,000 on you--which is, of course, a hilarious mistake. TSA agent doesn't buy it and wants to know what it's really for. Guy wants to know who you work for. Sad thing is you were just laid off by Best Buy and the severance package of $7,000 is the only way that transaction to your checking account went through. So you tell him you're an unemployed guy going to Toronto with $5,000.
The TSA agent informs you they just arrested a guy with a bunch of cocaine on him in the airport and he's pretty sure you were his contact to make the deal and bring it over to Canada. You don't have any police record and were cleared to fly when you got your ticket but that doesn't matter. After missing the wedding and a night in jail, they can't make it stick and let you go.
You're a victim of better safe than sorry. When--guess what--it's not illegal for you to walk around with $5,000 cash on you.
Nice story, huh? Be a shame if it happened to you. But I'm sure I just have an overactive imagination and we all have nothing to worry about.
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What took them so long? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course they are ideological! They are an organization that fights for civil liberty, if they didn't have an ideology then why else would they exist?
Stop spouting rightwing talking points and think for yourself, and try research shit on your own!
The official ACLU position is that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right rather than an individual one. They don't take an actual position on guns, officially they say that neither gun possession nor gun regulation raise any civil liberties issues. Most ACLU types I've met say they view getting involved in 2nd Amendment issues as a waste of resources, the NRA and other groups have that area well covered.
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:4, Insightful)
Economic Consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
The intrusive security behavior of the TSA has all kinds of negative economic consequences, discouraging people from flying hurts the airlines, it also makes conducting business harder, and it separates families (with secondary but significant financial consequences). I'm very reluctant to take my family anywhere, it's such a great hassle to have your lunch and medications interrogated and seized.
And the difficulties of domestic travel are nothing compared to international. "Free Trade" makes no sense without the free-flow of people. A lot of what makes America economically appealing and strong is its openness and flexibility. I feel the travel clampdowns and growing hostility to foreigners plays a greater roll in the current economic meltdown than it gets credit for.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but I have seen them stand up for a group of Nazi's, to help them be able to march in a demonstration that a local government (wasn't it a small town in IL) tried to prevent... They have a long standing history of working with people they don't like.. you know the whole "I disagree with what your saying, but I'll help you build a soapbox to say it from" kind of philosophy..
Because sadly, if you want the rules to apply when YOU need them to, then you need them to also apply when "THEY" get the shaft from them.
but too help you out, here is their EXACT philosophy on the second amendment.. From their own website [aclu.org]. Note the key sentance: "We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. "
Re:It was for a seminar (Score:3, Insightful)
I have found that the best way to "store wealth" is family and community. By investing money there, wealth accrues in ways that are not affected by inflation or commodity prices.
People who think they are protecting their wealth by buying gold, because some commercial on AM radio said that "gold has never been worth nothing" are making the fundamental mistake of thinking all historical trends always continue. If there's one thing we've learned about history, it's that world-changing events that interrupt (and often reverse) those trends are the rule, not the exception. How often did you hear over the past decade that "real estate was the safest investment you could make"?
Although I initially resisted Nassim Taleb's theory of unexpected events and their impact on the way we should plan our financial lives, reflection on my own life and observation of current events have made me come around to his way of thinking.
Re:Is it still $10,000? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think there is a limit for domestic travel BUT it would be wise to declare it with the airlines at least 24 hours before you boarded.
For the love of everything holy, WHY?!?!?!? If there is no legal requirement to declare the money, then for what reason would it be wise to declare cash with the airlines before boarding a flight? Is the passenger sitting next to you or a flight attendent possibly going to have a reasonable fear that you might bludgeon them with a wad of cash?
It's also wise from a practical standpoint to either give up your rights and cooperate with the agents asking questions you have a right to not answer...
From a practical standpoint, maybe so, but why should we, as law-abiding citizens of what was once one of the freest nations in the world, be forced and willing to hand over those freedoms to a thug just because he wears a uniform?!?!? If I don't have a legal requirement to answer the question, you don't have a legal right to detain me. PERIOD. The sooner we as a nation start getting outraged at abuses of power and start standing up for our RIGHTS the sooner we can live in a country we are proud of again.
Unless you are deliberately out to "test the system" you will just make your life miserable with nothing to show for it.
Maybe. But maybe Bierfeldt just seized an opportunity that presented itself. I admire his courage, and hope that, should I ever be in a similar position, I would do likewise.
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What took them so long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. Lets see where this goes.
"I'd rather not my train blow up..."
"I'd rather not the freeway blow up..."
"I'd rather not the market blow up when I'm shopping..."
"I'd rather not the school..."
Hell, let's just search everyone every time they leave their homes, as invasively as possible!
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting, because because 2001, the last hijacking of a US plain was 14 years ago (1994). That was a FedEx employee hijacking a FedEx cargo plane, so TSA/DHS wouldn't do shit to help that.
Before that, it was another 8 years (1986), and that didn't originate in the US.
So please, stop acting like plane hijackings/bombings are even nearly a threat to everyday people. You should spend your time worrying about how to protect yourself from lightning strikes, you are far more likely to be struck by lightning (on the ground, every day) than have your plane hijacked.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole situation could have been fixed if one or other of the assholes had just answered "yes" or "no".
But unless they were going to lie, they would have had to answer "no", and the staffer would then have said "Okay, well since I don't have to answer can I be going then?" and they would have had to either let him go or continue to hold him after admitting that they had no legal right to require him to answer the question. And they wanted that question answered, legal or no.
So yeah, that wouldn't really have "fixed" anything from their point of view. They knew what game they were playing same as the staffer did.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's factually incorrect. The ACLU has LONG had a very specific position [aclu.org] on the 2nd amendment.
In short, they don't like the second amendment, and thus refuse to defend it. I can understand people who support them in spite of that position (despite disagreeing with them) on the grounds that the NRA is arguably more powerful than the ACLU, and focuses solely on the 2nd Amendment, but I personally refuse to support a civil rights organization who picks and chooses which rights to defend, especially on the ground that they may, in the future, stop liking some other right and refuse to defend it. And I vote with my wallet.
Re:What took them so long? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's no use arguing with these morons. Everyone's explained time and time again that different organizations do different things, and yet they think it's the topper of all arguments to argue that the ACLU doesn't care about the second amendment. Game over, they win.
No one's every bothered to explain why they should care about the 2nd amendment, because they clearly, repeatly, explicitly, say they don't take a position on that. I mean, you can hardly call them misleading.
The only logic there is that their name says 'civil liberties', and that the second is such a liberty. So I guess they're guilty of being a horrible horrible organization because their name is slightly wrong or something.
Hey, someone remind what what the National Rifle Association is doing talking about handguns and shotguns and all those other non-rifled weapons? And shouldn't the Sierra Club be sticking to the Sierra Nevada mountains, or at least that general area?
The number of 'misnamed' political activism groups far outnumber the ones labeled in any sane manner.
OT: Jury Duty (Score:2, Insightful)
If the lawyers do their jobs and weed out people who can think it will be a short day for you.
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't assume the DHS is working because no attacks have been made unless you have actual evidence that the DHS is stopping the attacks,
True, but you never prove a negative. Even if you caught a bunch of (Insert your terrorist racial stereotype here)'s carrying bombs onto a plane, you still have no proof that they intended to bring down a plane. They could have been simply traveling to a "rock-blasting" convention in NY.
By giving the TSA agents a hard time, all this guy did was hold up other travelers who were trying to get to their destination and make life harder for himself. If the ACLU has their way, then security will removed completely making not only air travel unsafe, but simply being in an area where tumbling plane fragments may pass through fatal.
Now, the flipside of this, and where it relates to this case directly... a box of cash can not bring down a plane and should therefor be none of TSA's business. Their job is the safety of the travelers. Investigating people carrying large sums of cash trough security have nothing to do with airline safety.
Re:Choice of cases? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It was for a seminar (Score:4, Insightful)
But if they had "stored wealth" in their community by actually improving the infrastructure prior to the hurricane then there wouldn't have been a problem, now would there?
Re:Why, oh why. (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time I've noticed them in action the ACLU has been defending SOMEONE's freedoms. Sometimes there is a conflict, and it's true that the ACLU's position on the 2nd amendment doesn't make sense to me. (Even if you assert that the 2nd amendment is a collective right, that doesn't mean that the government is the only entity entitled to engage in authorizing collective action.)
From my reading of history, the framers of the constitution didn't particularly trust governments, and the militias that they were talking about were local organizations that more often than not would NOT have government authorization.
P.S.: I don't believe that the 2nd amendment interpreted literally (as I tend to) would be workable in urban areas. That doesn't mean that I approve of ad hoc transgressions on and re-writing of the constitution. The constitution has defined procedures that are supposed to be followed, and just saying "I don't like this piece, so I'll say it means something else" isn't the way it's supposed to be done. Such actions are not just unconstitutional, they're anti-constitutional.
do you have a proposed replacement? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have any major organizations in mind that do zealously defend all civil liberties, feel free to mention them. I'm only aware of different sorts of piecemeal organizations. I pick and choose the ones that seem to best cover the range of civil liberties I care most about. In my case, the ACLU and EFF seem to most frequently defend the rights I'm most interested in (especially free speech).