I understand he’s mad, but the airline has the right to use TSA to do their security, correct?
If they wish to use TSA to provide their security before you get on their airline, so be it, correct? Its their property, and you are subject to their rules if you want to board their property, correct?
I was under the impression that international air ports were fed owned, and most regional airports were also. If that is indeed the case then they really have no choice in the matter. It is truly sad state of affairs.
Cheers,
andy
Even if they are owned by the feds, didn’t the airlines ask for TSA to provide security?
I mean, wouldn’t you want your security to be subsidized?
EDIT:
I was wrong…the issue here is that Mr. Tyner is facing a 10,000 fine for not completing the pat down. Once started, they say it has to be finished.
Anyone who believes in freedom would say, bullsh*t…you don’t have to let me get on that plane, but you can’t force me to stay here or steal from me for refusing the intrusive pat down, groping.
Airport security agents do not own the airport anymore than anyone else. There is a difference between policy and law. Port security is agency policy. I’d like to know what charges they believed could be make against the author. I’d like to see what statute says that you must complete a pat-down once started.
I would ask whether he is (a) abducting me or (b) I can send him a bill for $10/minute.
Caley McKibbin:
Ha! The looks on their faces would be priceless.
Unfortunately, I have little faith in the courts on this on. Especially in CA. “Someone” may pressure the court to make an example of him. I believe airports are considered federal property, at least some parts of many of them are. So arguing this case may prove to be more difficult.
I still don’t understand why the TSA has a monopoly on airport security. Why can’t airports hire private security firms to do screenings, or even provide onboard security. Sure, the cost of flights would go up, but you’d at least have a choice in what carrier you fly with, who they use for security, and to the extent of “safety” they provide.
Cheers
Owning your house does not entitle you to confine people in it. The US federal government is a corporation, the owners of which are US citizens. I.e., you don’t need permission from TSA to use US airports. They may somehow be acting lawfully by removing you from an airport, but if they forcibly confine you without lawful excuse, they are guilty of an indictable/summary offense. Have fun in the slammer Mr. Security.
Probably because nobody needs permission to travel anywhere. The state has to set up a security grid along travel routes to control entry. Otherwise anyone could just walk past customs and take up residence.
Well, that would explain the need for a customs check point, which is usually at your destination. I’m still not clear why a only TSA checkpoints are used preflight, and why airlines don’t just take the matters into their own hands, and provide security. Oh, yea.. Subsidies. Still, couldn’t an airline provide the same service, and probably for cheaper and better? Then off set the cost to the customer? Why is it the TSA’s sole responsibility, and why hasn’t an air carrier even tried to do a better job? (the last part of that question if rhetorical 
Cheers,
It isn’t enough to have a customs checkpoint because you don’t have to stop at it. If they detain you it’s forcible confinement again. You have to be intimidated into compliance at every turn by the threatening presence of state agents. Nobody is afraid of private security.
Best Answer yet! It makes too much sense not to be true. So, by that I can gather that the true purpose of the TSA is to make us and everyone else fearful. It would also explain their current tactics.
Cheers,
Correct. But they aren’t being used to protect the airlines. They’re being used to protect the “nation” and we’re paying for it.
brb i have to go pay someone else to grope me
I thought all airports/airlines have been required by law to “use” TSA. In other words, I didn’t think they have a choice.
“I thought all airports/airlines have been required by law to “use” TSA. In other words, I didn’t think they have a choice.”
I thought they asked the government to provide it.
Which of course, why not have the government pay for something for you.
Of course, they might soon come to realize that making that choice could lead to less and less business for the airlines as people decide to drive or find alternatives to commercial airline travel. It might be more wise and profitable in the long run to pay for security themselves, which would lead to security that meets the demands and needs of the consumers.
Right, I believe they (i.e. their management and/or lobbyists) did lobby the government to take it over, for exactly that reason. My point was that airlines and/or airports cannot opt out due to the law that federalized airport and airline security.
There seem to be a few possible outcomes in that case:
Unfortunately, I consider #3 to be the most likely outcome. Should that come to pass, the airlines might even be nationalized – something that some people in the government might be jonesing for.
"There seem to be a few possible outcomes in that case:
How about #4.