TSA FOIA Request: How To, PLUS Pics/Name/Address/Ph# of Abusive TSM

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Affection, Sep 19, 2011.

  1. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    What, and actually do something useful in his post-military life? The TSA would probably fire him for that.
     
    mikemey likes this.
  2. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

    BINGO! :D
     
  3. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    Crosses your line, maybe, but not mine.

    Where/when do we stop? Before a law is broken. However, the law isn't what you or the TSA say it is, the law is what is written in the books and interpreted by the courts. I'm not about to endanger any of us by way of unlawful action but anything legally-permissible to hurt TSA, is fine by me. I take a lot of cues from other people here on what's legal and what's not, as I'm not well-versed in matters of law, but you're about the last source I'd ever trust on what's against the law.

    Oh, and spare me the military bravado. I'm neither impressed nor intimidated by your trotting out of military idioms in conversation here. So you were an Army Ranger. I have a friend who was in the Navy. Another friend is a biologist. Some of my family members work in local government, the insurance business, and in hospitals. I'm a sysadmin. It's a job, big deal. As far as I'm concerned, any worthwhile contributions you ever made in the Army are rendered null and void by your current TSA affiliation. You undid all those years of service by taking a job as a punch-clock molester. Quit the TSA and maybe I'll consider your military past worth a bit of respect. As it is now, though, you can express all the military Amerrogance you want and I won't be upset by it, I won't be annoyed by it, I won't be cowed by it...I'll just ignore it.

    Affection, keep up the good work. I think you did the right thing, for what that's worth.

    Nachtnebel, in terms of how to get them to behave decently and honestly at checkpoints, the first thing would be to get Rep. Paul's ATDA passed. It's perhaps the one and only thing that would really scare TSA down to individual TSOs by stripping away their veil of immunity and opening them up to personal liability for their actions.

    Barring that, though, photos and video of TSOs, including clear facial shots and audible full names, are our best bet. Name & shame, get them treated as pariahs outside the airport. Maybe when one of them has a heart attack at home and neighbors think twice about driving a child-molesting thug to the hospital to have its life saved, the others will start to get the hint.
     
    Doober and Caradoc like this.
  4. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    There was a successful lawsuit brought against an anti-abortion web site years ago that advocated extreme measures against abortion doctors and published this type of info. No, I'm not going to google it. so there is some potential liability, although the key difference here is that nobody here is advocating personal violence on this website, although I must tell you, when I read about the cavity search performed on an innocent mother of two in Detroit (hebshi) in the face of decades old prohibitions of this, peaceful and lawful remedies are not exactly what come to mind first....

    I agree with Celtic on the importance of Paul's bill getting passed. But I've given up on ever seeing snowballs last very long in H-ll.
     
  5. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    This, I think, is what it comes down to. It's legal to publish the information and illegal to commit acts of violence against the TSM at home.* I'm concerned with making sure we remain on the correct side of that boundary so that we remain free to fight TSA through political and media action without having to worry about injunctions, members getting arrested, or other such impediments.

    *And at the airport. However, there's the issue of self-defense against groping and how a court would rule on it, which is still up in the air with the Miyamae case, but a TSM wouldn't be doing the groping, but would be in charge of the gropers, but maybe wouldn't know about a rogue groper, but... I specify "at home" here simply because it's a more cut-and-dried scenario.
     
  6. rockon

    rockon Original Member

    TSA can take my name and information just because I asked for a comment card or just because I'm unable to use a scanner. In any future interaction with TSA, a check will show that TSA has filed a report on me. It won't matter what the substance of the report was - I am automatically labelled a trouble-maker, aka 'domestic extremist' and I am sure to face even more problems. I can be put on a watch list or NFL by TSA without being allowed to face my accuser, know the accusations against me, or appeal to get my name removed.

    In short, TSA can easily ruin my life and I have no recourse.

    TSA defined the playing field and made up the rules.

    So it is hard for me to feel too much sympathy for a TSA employee whose personal information is posted.

    Contrary to what some TSO's seem to suggest, I don't think there's an army of dedicated rabid TSA-haters who are going to track down and attack someone from the TSA. In fact, the only two instances of assaults on TSO's that come to mind are assaults perpetrated by other TSA employees (Rolando Negrin, the manager who is accused of murdering another TSO).
     
  7. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Since the felony charges were dropped, the only thing remaining "up in the air" for Yukari Miyamae (and the rest of us) appears to be just how much the TSA wants to throw at her and see if anything sticks, so they won't have any more uppity passengers trying to defend themselves from assault by the blue-shirted thugs.
     
  8. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Me also thinks that Bart is living in the past, bringing up his military service every opportunity he gets. Get over it, Bart. Lots of people served and are serving. You are the only one on the many sites I frequent that keeps bringing up your past military service. As you desperate for people to applaud you for that service?
     
  9. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    However, you will stop short of that here. What you're suggesting requires harassment, which TUG will neither solicit nor encourage. You may identify a perpetrator: Name, city, state, work phone # are ok, no more. Links to personal web pages, Facebook pages, etc. are ok. Links to things such as switchboard.com entries and property tax info is not ok. Other family members are not fair game. Up to now I would have allowed full addresses & phone numbers, but given the nature of your post, I see that might not be wise. As much as I hate to change my mind mid-stream, you really made their case.

    All I want is for future researchers to be able to Google any alleged bad actors and connect the dots, nothing more.

    And please note: "Founding Member" simply refers to those who were with us in week #1. There are 10-12 of them in total. They do not speak for or represent TUG. At some point everyone who was with us in week #2-week #(undecided as yet) will similarly be given the "Original Member" title.
     
    Lisa Simeone and nachtnebel like this.
  10. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    Fair enough, will-do and post edited to reflect the same. Didn't intend to imply harrassment, which I (subconsciously, which is why I didn't make a point of clarifying) classify as illegal since it's clear grounds for a lawsuit.
     
  11. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    We're all pretty offended by the loss of our due process rights. It's amazing how much the Unpatriot Act, DHS and TSA has taken from Americans.

    I don't want to personalize this, but some TSA employees make it personal by taking their already unconstitutional behavior to even more abusive extremes. These thugs are not entitled to anonymity.

    PS: Given the personality type attracted to employment with the TSA, a TSA employee is far more likely to be assaulted by a coworker than a member of the general public. Those who object to the TSA might be a bit more milquetoast than average :oops: sorry fellow TUGgers.
     
  12. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I'm just not down with this folks. I don't think we should stoop to their level. What kind of person fails to render aid, even to a violent criminal? It just isn't done. We may not like what they do, but we should not lose our empathy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9-3RZkzpwM
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  13. Affection

    Affection Original Member

    Guys, choose your words carefully. As others have mentioned, we need to stay above "them." Also, if you don't think DHS is watching this forum, you're out of your mind. I don't think CelticWhisper was trying to express that he intended to take any illegal actions, but we all know the TSA is good at stretching the law. Just look at all the "interference with a checkpoint" charges that arose from nothing. Don't give anyone a reason to think TSA protestors are fringe crazies.

    --Jon
     
  14. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    TSA Clerk: "You saved my life! How can I ever repay you?"

    Lifesaver: "By getting a real job that doesn't depend on lying to the public and violating their rights while referring to thieves, thugs, rapists, child molesters, child porn producers and murderers as 'co-workers.'"
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  15. TravelnMedic

    TravelnMedic Original Member

    Which for most people is one search or subpoena away. Connecting the dots is like playing "six degrees of separation of Kevin Bacon" its not very hard, and sometimes what you find along the way is truly scary.

    As for the comment about taking a smurf to the hospital or doing CPR... Im gonna bite my tongue, but I will leave it at this: a paramedic has the power of god at there hands and no matter the out come can walk away clean and no one would be the wiser.
     
  16. Affection

    Affection Original Member

    It's still wrong. Perhaps I subscribe to a slightly different set of morals, but I would save the smurf.

    --Jon
     
  17. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Not sure that you were around the "other place" at the time, Elizabeth, but there was a long discussion about screeners rendering first aid should a passenger collapse from, say, a cardiac event. IIRC, before they can render aid, they need permission from their supervisor. :eek:
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  18. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    (Disclaimer: Opinions stated below are my own)

    I had a long post ready, and then got called away, and now am really wishing I had Lazarus installed on ffx on this PC.

    Summary is this, to clarify my position on "line-crossing" and taking the fight outside the airports:

    -Above and beyond all else, keep everything legal. I've always been adamant about that because I'm not willing to open myself or TUG (which I must reiterate I want to see succeed at all costs) up to any kind of liability that could hamper my/its/our mission. Keep concepts of ethics and legality distinct in your mind(s) and be able to differentiate between the two: A thing may be morally deplorable but legal, and likewise another thing may be against the law but perfectly ethically acceptable. Violating someone's ethical sensibilities can get one yelled at, fired, and dropped as a friend. Violating the law can get one sued into financial oblivion or sent to jail. (Sing it with me, "One of these things is not like the other...")

    -Regarding harassment, "keep it legal" covers pretty much any relevant question. I would submit that social ostracism does not qualify as harassment because it is characterized by an absence of social interaction whereas harassment is characterized by the presence of negative or unwanted social interaction. IANAL so I may be off on this, but as far as I'm aware there's no law that requires one to pay attention or be socially welcoming to anyone else. If I'm right, I personally would make social pariahs of TSA employees. The Seattle "We don't serve TSA" restaurant is a good example of this - perfectly lawful and gets the message across that a TSO is persona non grata. Regarding ostracizing family members and friends of TSOs, I leave that to the individual to decide. My own code of ethics allows for it; others' may not; I won't ask anyone to violate their own ethical standards for any cause. If I am wrong regarding social casting-out and its status as "not harassment," then "keep it legal" overrides.

    As for whatever else, use personal judgment. TSOs don't have that luxury but we do.
     
  19. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    OK, so that's their excuse. What's mine?
     
  20. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    They most certainly do. It's not like they're indentured (yet.)
     

Share This Page