TSA Screeners Win Immunity From Abuse Claims, Court Rules (reuters.com) 317
Mr.Intel writes from a report via Reuters: "Fliers may have a tough time recovering damages for invasive screenings at U.S. airport security checkpoints, after a federal appeals court on Wednesday said screeners are immune from claims under a federal law governing assaults, false arrests and other abuses," reports Reuters. In a 2-1 vote, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners are shielded from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) because they do not function as "investigative or law enforcement officers."
The decision, the first on the issue by a federal appeals court, was a defeat for Nadine Pellegrino, a business consultant from Boca Raton, Florida. "She and her husband had sued for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution over a July 2006 altercation at Philadelphia International Airport," reports Reuters. According to court papers, Pellegrino had been randomly selected for additional screening at the Philadelphia airport before boarding a U.S. Airways flight to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Pellegrino, then 57, objected to the invasiveness of the search, but conditions deteriorated and she was later jailed for about 18 hours, the papers show. Criminal charges were filed, and Pellegrino was acquitted at a March 2008 trial.
The decision, the first on the issue by a federal appeals court, was a defeat for Nadine Pellegrino, a business consultant from Boca Raton, Florida. "She and her husband had sued for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution over a July 2006 altercation at Philadelphia International Airport," reports Reuters. According to court papers, Pellegrino had been randomly selected for additional screening at the Philadelphia airport before boarding a U.S. Airways flight to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Pellegrino, then 57, objected to the invasiveness of the search, but conditions deteriorated and she was later jailed for about 18 hours, the papers show. Criminal charges were filed, and Pellegrino was acquitted at a March 2008 trial.
Pedophiles R US! (Score:5, Insightful)
i guess pretty soon every kiddy fiddler and other person who is into indecent assault will be working for the TSA, paid for by the US government. Great work.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The President doesn't need to work for TSA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pedophiles R US! (Score:4)
They have basically played with an interpretation of law. It would seem if they are immune from civil suite under that act as they are not covered by it, then they are screwed individually and the organisation itself. You sued by that act and then you likely would also not be protected by other provisions ie you can not abandon one, without abandoning the other and you can use the judgement itself to directly sue the TSA as a private employer and the TSA agents themselves. So it would seem like in their rush to win the case, they tossed the TSA itself and it's employees under the bus. Got to be real careful when you start playing corrupt arsehole with the law, attempting to push distortions of interpretation, you get them to stick and sometimes they can turn around and bite you on the ass. Can't be sued under tort claims act, then you have pretty much publicly abandoned your protection under federal law and they can use this very case as precedent. I'll bet the government will settle now because whoops.
Re: (Score:2)
This day in slashdot history: Women Arrested For Refusing TSA Search of Children [slashdot.org]
Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly what that restaurant owner did when she told Mr. Trump's propaganda woman to leave her restaurant.
There should be consequences for bad behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know if you can hire woodchucks?
Re:Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is not exactly the same thing.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders was was hounded out of a restaurant because people didn't want her there. I wouldn't either. But if she was in a car wreck and in danger of dying, I for one wouldn't hesitate a split-second about saving her, no matter what I think of her politics or relationship with the truth.
Humanity first. Then politics.
Re: (Score:2)
But if she was in a car wreck and in danger of dying, I for one wouldn't hesitate a split-second about saving her, no matter what I think of her politics or relationship with the truth.
This is consistent. The GP said to help other people first. Prioritse the humans. If I see Sarah Sanders in an car wreck with a tree I would save her in a second. If I see her in a car wreck with a serial rapist who punched his own grandma then I would probably take a minute or two to assess the situation.
Re: Humanity (Score:3, Funny)
If Trump and Sanders were both stuck in a burning Mazda Miata, with Mike Pence, Paul Ryan and the Pope standing nearby, I would do everything I could to force Pence into the car. I have faith that the Pope could handle getting Paul Ryan in.
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of a spine on Paul Ryan would help matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:2)
The concept is good, though you need to match circumstance. Match political motive with opposite political motive.
If Hillary Clinton showed up and was hounded out of the restraunt.
Which she has been. Though she generally avoids those areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Please cite the incident. I can't find it with a Google search.
Re: Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:2)
There's a big difference, in that h-s is disliked because of choices she made, whereas Muslim/black/gay people were born that way.
It's not right but I understand (Score:2, Interesting)
That's still a pretty nasty attitude.
Yes it is though you can make an argument that they are simply reaping what they've sown. This administration has been, ahem... less than tolerant of others, so it's somewhat ironic that they would get upset when it happens back at them. I'm not saying the behavior was right or should be condoned but I do admit to a bit of schadenfreude [wikipedia.org] when I heard about it. To paraphrase Chris Rock, I'm not saying it's right but I understand...
If there is someone in a restaurant that you don't like, take a deep breath, suppress your penchant for political belligerence, and mind your own business.
That is the appropriate and civil behavior. It would be nice if our current
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the difference: You can choose your political affiliation. I happen to vote Democrat, but if I wanted to I could decide tomorrow that I'd only vote straight ticket Republican, Independent, or pick some random party to vote for. My support or opposition to policies that the Trump administration puts in place are my choice just like it's Sarah's choice to work for Trump.
A Gay couple, black person, or transgender person has no choice in who they are. A black person can't just decide to become white and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I see the right doing the exact same thing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure and the right never does that. Tell you what, go ahead and tell a conservative christian that you are gay and that jesus is a lie and see what happens to you.
Conservative/libertarian and (by some definitions) Christian here, and the worst that I will do, depending on how well I know you, is to offer you historical evidence of His existence, as well as that of formerly "gay" people whom He had delivered from this and all of the rest of their sin, even though some of them weren't living accordingly at
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure and the right never does that. Tell you what, go ahead and tell a conservative christian that you are gay and that jesus is a lie and see what happens to you.
You get blessed and a promise of prayer for your eternal soul? Oh the horror. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Being in the Trump administration is a choice. They could easily decide tomorrow to resign and go work somewhere else. Someone who is LGBTQ can't choose to change who they are. They can't decide tomorrow to be straight any more than a black man can decide that he's really white and have his skin tone change.
Treating people worse because of WHO they are is discrimination. Treating people badly because of what they CHOOSE to do is consequences for their actions.
Re: Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:5, Insightful)
So decency and civility are restricted to specific laws? Really?
Fat people are not protected by civil rights legislation, so we can hound them out of a restaurant 'for their own good', or whatever stupid opinion one may have.
People under 5'10" are not protected, so kick those short bass turds out on their arse! I'm 6'3", so I can say that. Hopefully the preceding reads as patently absurd.
The purpose of reductio ad absurdum in a subjective argument is show that there needs to be a line _somewhere_.
Granted, people in the public eye have a reduced expectation of civility, but do we really want to make it OK to start hounding people out of establishments we all need to frequent? I vote no, and am doing so in part by this post.
Re:Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a private establishment. So they should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.
Well...
Whether it's because they don't feel like serving women,
No
or mexicans
No
or 2 fags wanting a cake.
Alas, I'll give you that, given the recent SCOTUS ruling. Sexual orientation is not yet a protected status, but perhaps someday it will be.
Sometimes life just isn't fair.
"Sometimes?" More like often. But let us endeavour to continue to expand the boundaries of fairness.
Re: Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:2)
Life is perfectly fair. The laws of physics care nothing for you status, colour, race or gender.
People aren't fair, but that's because people are stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
or 2 fags wanting a cake.
Alas, I'll give you that, given the recent SCOTUS ruling. Sexual orientation is not yet a protected status, but perhaps someday it will be.
That isn't what the Supreme Court decided. The ruling was in favor of the baker because the state commission that heard his case were jerks that were openly hostile to his religious beliefs. If the commission had acted professionally and then decided that his religious beliefs did not override equal protection, the Supreme Court decision might have been different.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor are they immune from personal revenge. One of those fuckers does me or my family wrong and I'll burn down their fucking house in the middle of the night.
Re: (Score:3)
Nor are they immune from personal revenge. One of those fuckers does me or my family wrong and I'll burn down their fucking house in the middle of the night.
Bad Idea. Here's a better plan:
- call the TSA
- call the FBI
- call your congresscritter
- call your senator
- call the media
- call your lawyer
Not necessarily in that order, but the point is, don't resort to vigilantism.
Re:Not immune from public ostracism... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh puh-leeze.
I have little sympathy for TSA rent-a-cops who abuse their authority, but come on. Compare touching your junk to burning in a car wreck. Your humanity demands that you help someone who is in danger of dying. And I have no doubt the TSA employees would do the very same in the reversed situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Your humanity says you have to help them. You don't have to help them FIRST -- help the other person in the car wreck first, then help them if you have the time. By being junk-touching, privacy-invading garbage, their life just got de-prioritized.
Re: (Score:2)
They can not detain you.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ORD: Chicago Department of Aviation
ATL: Atlanta Department of Aviation
LAX: Los Angeles World Airports
DFW: DFW Airport Board
DEN: City and County of Denver Department of Aviation
JFK: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
SFO: San Francisco Airport Commission
LAS: Clark County Department of Aviation
SEA:
1990s (Score:5, Informative)
Re:1990s (Score:5, Funny)
Terrorists won (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But if you also told people that in a bunch of states you could actually buy weed over the counter before getting your naked body scanned in 3d at the airport they also wouldn't believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
No, lots of security consultants in the 90's were urging this because Europe and Israel had tight security due to all the hijackings and other terrorism against airlines in the 80s and 90s
Re: (Score:2)
Total Recall showed a live X-ray of a walking skeleton with a gun, not some exotic particle scan with false color imaging of your ball sack.
Re: (Score:2)
Hush. 1984 and Brave New World were movies about future societal improvements, not books about dystopias.
Re:1990s (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd learn quickly that whining leads to more suffering, and you would quit your bleating.
One aspect of the brutalisation that is bootcamp is to break down a normal person and to rebuild them into an effective soldier. That includes obedience to orders.
While I respect the sacrifice that involves, to suggest that it is anything other than an ugly necessity or that it has application in a broader context suggests a kind of fetishisation of the military that is disturbing.
Obeying a bad law is not a virtue.
It is a necessary evil after douche bags like the shoe bomber did what they did
The aim of terorism is not the direct damage, but the disruption of everyday life for people who might otherwise be able to ignore the conflict. To that end, the degree to which the US has increased surveillance and curtailled the freedom of its citizens is an incredible success for terrorism and part of why it keeps being used against the US.
Your acceptance of the security theater is a 'win' for terrorism. Your chances of dying due to a terrorist attack before and after these measures is statistically unchanged.
That your only comparison to the TSA search is a prison strip search should give you pause. Whether it's better or not the very fact that you choose boot camp and prison admission is an admission that this is something that should not be happening as a matter of course to non-criminal, non-military people.
Please stop being an apologist.
Re: (Score:3)
I still do not agree with TSA search/scans even if much milder. We are using fear to control the population, and wasting treasure (money). Our 'leaders' loving having that fear to wield as a cudgel, and the real terrorists are laughing as our society turns in on itself in fear and waste.
So now they're like cops... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So now they're like cops... (Score:5, Informative)
They have immunity if they follow the law. If they break the law they can be arrested and charged; if they follow the law they cannot be personally sued when someone gets upset
Re:So now they're like cops... (Score:4, Insightful)
Gah! Why are things just all around getting worse dammit!?!?
Regarding "things" in the US, it's very simple. The US government has become far too large and powerful to the point it no longer fears the people.
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty, when the people fear their government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Strat
Don't fly (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I no longer fly. When the government treats you as a criminal, even though you've done nothing wrong, and you have no recourse, we've reach an Orwellian state.
The best thing people can do is not fly and let the airlines fall apart.
But they won't. As we see every day, people are too stupid to say no to injustices such as this. They'll gladly endure every imaginable humiliation because their government says it's for their protection.
Re:Don't fly (Score:5, Insightful)
That's great if you don't have family and friends thousands of miles away or across oceans. It's not stupidity that makes many people fly: it's the desire to see their families.
Re:Don't fly (Score:5, Insightful)
That's great if you don't have family and friends thousands of miles away or across oceans. It's not stupidity that makes many people fly: it's the desire to see their families.
As I told my family members who moved away - I'm not important enough to live near, so you're not important enough to visit. If I show up, I do, but I'm under no obligation. But I won't fly unless it's a private flight chartered by me.
Regardless, you are going to have to decide how much shit you want to put up with. That's how much shit you're going to take. That might include getting your children felt up. Go to Ebaum's world and look up what the TSA is allowed to do. I'd put the link here, but it looks like KP. I'm certainly going to scour my computer tonight.
But you need to see your family. So it's okay.
Re: (Score:2)
n2ch
Re: (Score:2)
If they ban all private charter flights the rich, the powerful, & the politicians have to experience the same treatment as The Unwashed Masses, there will be changes.
Meanwhile, This will be another employment opportunity for some really skeevy types.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, you are SUCH a badass. But lets say your kid goes to a university on the other side of the country and is in a nasty accident, and your employer will only let you take three days off next to a weekend. You really gonna tell Junior to go fuck himself & he's on his own, or are you going to put down the big man act for a couple
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are SUCH a badass. But lets say your kid goes to a university on the other side of the country and is in a nasty accident, and your employer will only let you take three days off next to a weekend. You really gonna tell Junior to go fuck himself & he's on his own, or are you going to put down the big man act for a couple of days and fly Southwest?
I'm not the guy you are taking to task, but ... behavior changes on the margins.
TSA excesses (and the lack of redress capability) make flying that much more "expensive".
Sure, if it's worth it, we'll do it. Like any decision, there are multiple factors that we weigh, whether we do it consciously or not.
But the overall effect will be - or should be - less flying.
So when Junior's not in the hospital - which would be, uh, most of the time, for most people - he may have to wait until I can drive it to see me
Re:Don't fly (Score:5, Insightful)
That's great if you don't have family and friends thousands of miles away or across oceans. It's not stupidity that makes many people fly: it's the desire to see their families.
As I told my family members who moved away - I'm not important enough to live near, so you're not important enough to visit. If I show up, I do, but I'm under no obligation. But I won't fly unless it's a private flight chartered by me.
Regardless, you are going to have to decide how much shit you want to put up with. That's how much shit you're going to take. That might include getting your children felt up. Go to Ebaum's world and look up what the TSA is allowed to do. I'd put the link here, but it looks like KP. I'm certainly going to scour my computer tonight.
When I was moving to the UK from Oz, my mother tried the old guilt trip of "But I hardly see you now..." at which point I had to say "I've lived an hour away for a decade and now you're worried about seeing me".
My point is, once you get out of the US air travel is a lot nicer. Airports are run by businesses that understand that customers want their customers to move quickly from A to B, A being whatever godforsaken mode of transport took them to the airport and B being a metal tube full of meat cargo. London Heathrow, Singapore Changi and Amsterdam Schipol are great airports that are relatively fast to get through for their size. Honestly I think I could turn up at LHR with 90 mins before wheels up and have plenty of time (and at lest 30 of that 90 mins will be walking, Heathrow is fucking massive), you couldn't hope to do that at LAX in a month of sundays. Asian airlines actually seem to care about customer service and comfort (European airlines are still crap though), standard economy on Singapore Airlines is called premium economy on others and when you're flying for 14 hours, an extra inch of leg and arse space is a godsend.
BTW, charted and private planes are subject to TSA screening... So unless you're flying GA from and to a non TSA field, you're still up for an enhanced pat down.
Re: (Score:2)
But you need to see your family. So it's okay.
Given that 'seeing family' is one of the central part of 'being fucking human' I struggle to understand how you think that sort of comment will win you any followers.
The rest of us have to get on with our lives, and attempt to actually change the problems rather than just passively accepting them / avoiding them like you have done. Let me help you: boycotting will do nothing to change things unless you can persuade a big group of people to join the boycott. And if your opening argument is "you don't need hu
Re:Don't fly (Score:5, Funny)
No wonder your family has moved away. You sound like a bit of a cunt.
Negative. I am a first class asshole though. Alway know yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. All those Irish and German people who formed the bulk of the US population in the mid 20th century flew from Europe. Then, there were the Chinese who flew from China to help build the railroads. Oh, and I should not forget the people who were brought over in slave planes from Africa. </sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was simply replying to your incorrect post.
I know better than most what it is like to move thousands of miles away from family, and yes, planes are important.
Re: (Score:2)
Chicken and egg. People didn't often move thousands of miles away from their families until we had airlines to bring them closer.
Not really, the chicken exists, it's here. People have mixed and travelled and flight is a normal (required) part of existence now.
Re: (Score:2)
to consider when using other methods of transport all around the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't flown since summer of 1993. I wished we had t(ele/rans)porters. :(
Re: (Score:2)
The best thing people can do is not fly and let the airlines fall apart.
Why? It's not the airlines groping me. Flying is a perfectly fine experience in most of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
I live just across the border from Vancouver International Airport. I'll fly out of there.
They don't funcation as (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh that is right, they work for the government so none of them are criminals, pervs or thieves! Besides why should ordinary people have any recourse.
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They don't funcation as (Score:5, Insightful)
Which side of the political spectrum has reined in the TSA? Did Bush? Did Obama? Has Trump?
So who should the Americans vote for?
This was a 3 Judge panel (Score:3)
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
a sub set of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. So I think (not a lawyer) that an appeal can be made to the entire 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. So this may not be the final outcome. Time will tell.
Tidbit from the article not mentioned in the summary.
Pellegrino, who represented herself, said she was reviewing the decision.
My working hypothesis is that 99,9% of people who represent themselves in court are idiots, so I'm not reading anything the courts decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Pellegrino, who represented herself, said she was reviewing the decision.
My working hypothesis is that 99,9% of people who represent themselves in court are idiots, so I'm not reading anything the courts decision.
Often phrased as: A lawyer who represents themself in court has a fool for a client.
Confused about the ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Sovereign immunity confuses the heck out of me. The idea that law enforcement is immune to prosecution is preposterous. The very concept seems to violate the 5th amendment to the constitution. Someone needs to hold them accountable.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It seems quite obvious to me that someone having the power to hold someone for 18 hours arbitrarily is not someone you want immune from prosecution. I get that the government doesn't want every criminal suing the police because they can, but the current situation seems ripe for abuse. A TSA screener should not hold that kind of power. Maybe we need to permit liability in the event that the person is acquitted or charges dropped, like what happened here?
Re: (Score:2)
Sovereign immunity, as I understand it, is supposed to mean that a state's government cannot be sued in a different state's court unless it has consented to it. So, for example, you can't sue the US government in a Canadian court unless the US government has consented to it (say, via a treaty or a contract).
Obviously the same cannot be said for individuals, which is why we can try leaders or perpetrators for war crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
The 5th only means government isn't supposed to deprive people of those rights (without due process of law). It doesn't that law enforcement must be held personally liable for claims.
Rather, I see a stronger argument found in the 1st amendment:
Re: (Score:2)
A full court warrant to look in any bag, their lawyer, the right to say no to any search.
US courts have considered all that over many decades of attempts to change the results of what was found during a search.
Given the numbers of people to search, the time per search and the location of an airport US courts have sided with allowing searches and the search results are legal.
The idea that a flight could b
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the constitution didn't apply within 100miles of an airport or border.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To start with though, no, they are not immune to prosecution. Neither is law enforcement, for that matter. This case does not deal with that at all. It deals with TORT, which is a civil case, not a criminal case, and is not a "prosecution" procedure. When you sue, you're pursuing a civil case, for civil damages typically, and the civil tort is usually aimed at a specific person and not just the whole
Re: (Score:2)
It is because TSA are not law enforcement they are immune to prosecution.
No, this case declared TSA are immune from TORT, which is a civil case ("suing"). They are not immune from criminal charges ("prosecution").
Mostly Gave Up Flying Because of TSA Nonsense (Score:2)
Yep. I drive. Upcoming events in California in November may make me make an exception, but maybe just won't go. Dunno. Having 4th Amendment rights violated repeatedly (Judge Napolitano, the Fox News legal consultant, says its absolutely a violation of the 4th Amendment for the gov't to be doing this - the airlines could do it, but gov't hired officials can't legally do it) rubs me the wrong way, plus when I do travel, I usually have along a piece of electronics that is 1) essential to the reason I fl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I road rally with the Sports Car Club of America. The best computer on the planet is the Timewise 798A.
http://www.timewise.us/product... [timewise.us]
Its about $2K when the guy has any for sale. I understand that a missing component has been acquired, the case, and a few more are available, but I think there's a few of them left with 10 - 15 year old circuit boards assembled into them. If I lose mine, and there's one available, then... fine. If there's not one available, I get to find a new hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
On 2nd thought... the boards being used to build the latest ones are probably not 10 -15 years old, but maybe 5. Sorry about that... just want to be as accurate as possible.
the tsa are rent a cops with gov jobs / unions (Score:2)
the tsa are rent a cops with gov jobs / unions. When the tsa took over the took on a on the old rent a cops that used to the same job.
Appeal (Score:2)
So much for... (Score:2)
"No one is above the law"
What fucking bullshit, America, you are a liar of a nation....
With great power comes ... (Score:2)
... no accountability.
Shouldn't this make them more vulnerable? (Score:2)
Not law enforcement? (Score:2)
they do not function as "investigative or law enforcement officers."
So they're not enforcing any laws by "screening" people and detailing + questioning suspicious individuals: what?
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume, as they are not investigative or law enforcement officials, then they have no power to detain, arrest, require information, etc?
Nice to know..
Re:what? (Score:5, Funny)
Then what is their function?
Security theater.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've always assumed it was just a welfare program to keep otherwise useless and incompetent citizens off the streets. I mean, what would they do otherwise? The world only needs so many telephone sanitizers.
Re: (Score:2)
What the ruling means is that they're an unaccountable extrajudicial agency with similar powers and resources to investigative and law enforcement officers (and they can and are being used to harass and interfere with journalists and lawyers working on human rights cases in the public interest).
In true "poetic justice irony," what US citizens tolerate being done to foreigners eventually comes back home to affect US citizens (Remember the extraordinary rendition "black site" run by the Chicago police?). The
Re: (Score:2)
Not at the border,
Not CBP. TSA. They operate at every commercial airport. And to a lesser degree, anywhere within the US transportation system.