STL Showdown: TSA 0, Bierfeldt 1

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by KrazyKat, Dec 19, 2011.

  1. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Great commentary beginning with the story of Ron Paul campaign manager Steve Bierfeldt detained by TSA over $4,700 in cash from a campaign event.
    In defense of the freedom to travel, read the whole piece.
     
  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    The Bierfeldt episode (happen in my least favor TSA hellhole of STL) is several years old now. The ACLU sued on his behalf. TSA entered into a consent decree that they have ignored ever since.

    The law -- and their word -- mean nothing to a rogue agency like the TSA.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  3. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    Nonetheless good to see that the drumbeat for TSA reform or preferably replacement continues to mount.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  4. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Perhaps this thread should be re-titled to the point of the truly outstanding Reason commentary by Andrew Napolitano, concluding
    He walks through case law on the right to travel unimpeded. In fact, maybe the piece should be linked in the Cases section. I encourage everyone to read it when they have a couple of minutes.
     
    lkkinetic likes this.
  5. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    There was no consent decree. That's why TSA is free to ignore it. ACLU withdrew the lawsuit as moot after TSA supposedly changed their policy. Had there actually been a consent decree with a judge retaining jurisdiction to enforce it, we could roast Pistole's nuts over an open fire.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  6. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    From Napolitano's column (and what a shame that he shares a last name with that she-dimwit):
     
    KrazyKat and nachtnebel like this.
  7. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    again, you have to ask why the ACLU seems so toothless on this issue. I think they object for show purposes only.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  8. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    It does appear that way at times. That's why I support the Institute For Justice.
     
    KrazyKat and lkkinetic like this.
  9. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    I said this to them when they came calling for a renewal of my membership. I said forget it, I'd give to my local chapter only, not the national hq.

    Though as we've discussed before, I think it has to do with their confidence in whether they can win a case. Which is another reason why I'm not very sanguine about this whole mess getting better in my lifetime.
     
  10. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    That's the excuse. That doesn't explain their ineffectiveness, not taking it to a consent decree when given the opportunity. It shows they were bought off, willing to sell-out the public with some empty unenforcible promises. That's worse than making some early estimate of not being able to win a (different) case, that's tantamount to collaboration. That's what we expect from corrupt government and corrupt unions--and also the ACLU it seems. Only the apologists for the corruption use the "can't win" argument.

    From the beautifully written article:
     

Share This Page