4 hour delays at Boston/Logan caused by new TSA screening.

[Anti Federalist]

Let's make it 8 hours.

Back it up, fuck it up, shut it down!!!

Exercise your rights, refuse to answer and remain silent, as is your right when being questioned by a federal officer.




New Security Program Causes Major Logan Jam

TSA Says It Is Trying New 'Chat Down' Procedures
POSTED: 7:37 am EDT September 16, 2011
UPDATED: 7:54 am EDT September 16, 2011

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/29203248/detail.html#ixzz1YR1Z9pLH

BOSTON -- New security procedures being tested at Logan International Airport caused significant backups at security checkpoints Thursday, according to airlines.

Backups lasted for about four hours after the Transportation Security Administration began testing a procedure that requires more human interaction between security agents and passengers.

The process takes about 30 seconds, but it caused many passengers to be delayed. TSA agents engaged in "chat downs" while checking their IDs and boarding passes.

The pilot program began last month in Logan's Terminal A. It's designed to analyze passenger behavior. The risk-based approach requires passengers to answer simple questions as they go through security.

[jmdrake]

Isn't this that "Israeli style screening" that idiots on talk radio have been hyping as supposedly better than the Obama "grope" screening that was actually started by Bush? I guess simply realizing that the underwear bomber should never have been let on the plane without a passport and after his dad said he was a terrorist is too much huh?

[Anti Federalist]

Isn't this that "Israeli style screening" that idiots on talk radio have been hyping as supposedly better than the Obama "grope" screening that was actually started by Bush? I guess simply realizing that the underwear bomber should never have been let on the plane without a passport and after his dad said he was a terrorist is too much huh?

Silence, conspiracy monger!

LoL - yes, this is the SPOT program, designed to punch you with random questions and see if you sweat over them.

If you do, well, off for further interrogation with you, Mundane.

The first time I was subjected to this, I flummoxed the TSA agent.

Second time I exercised my 5th Amendment rights and refused to answer.

[Philhelm]

WTF? The TSA has never caught a single terrorist in its entire ten year existence to my knowledge. How do so many people overlook that? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[virgil47]

Isn't this that "Israeli style screening" that idiots on talk radio have been hyping as supposedly better than the Obama "grope" screening that was actually started by Bush? I guess simply realizing that the underwear bomber should never have been let on the plane without a passport and after his dad said he was a terrorist is too much huh?

Do you prefer groping? I most certainly do not. Answering inane questions is better than being forced to allow physical contact.

[Anti Federalist]

Do you prefer groping? I most certainly do not. Answering inane questions is better than being forced to allow physical contact.

Neither is acceptable.

You are answering question asked in an official capacity by a federal officer.

A slip up of date, time or place, an incorrect answer, even given innocently, leaves you liable to a felony charge of giving false statements to an officer.

[_b_]

Neither is acceptable.

You are answering question asked in an official capacity by a federal officer.

A slip up of date, time or place, an incorrect answer, even given innocently, leaves you liable to a felony charge of giving false statements to an officer.
And of course the agent can say not a truthful word and not be held accountable for it either. Everything the government says is true, false statements only apply to Mundanes.

[pacelli]

A buddy of mine in military school taught me a valuable phrase to say when you must provide an answer to a question and you are not permitted to lie.

"I'd rather not say".

It is a different way to say "No comment".

Frankly I'm done with it all. The TSA, on their own internal tests, are miserable failures at detecting explosives, weapons, and other items that their own undercover agents have brought right through their screenings.

Its simply too dangerous to fly with the TSA in control of security. The airlines need to take that power back to protect their most valuable asset--- their customers!

[donnay]

Remember folks, Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to a federal agent!

How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents

By Solomon L. Wisenberg

Solomon L. Wisenberg is a partner and co-chair of the white collar criminal defense practice group of Barnes & Thornburg LLP .

What do Martha Stewart and enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri have in common? They were both indicted, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, for lying to federal government agents. Ms. Stewart now stands convicted of intentionally misleading SEC and FBI officials who questioned her about insider trading. Mr. Al-Marri was one of several hundred immigrants who voluntarily submitted to FBI interviews in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. He was later charged with lying, during his interview, about the timing of a previous trip to the United States. Here are two criminal defendants from widely divergent backgrounds. Yet both were ensnared by Section 1001, a perennial favorite of federal prosecutors.

Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is "within the jurisdiction" of a government agency. United States v. Yermian , 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable.

Even in our age of ever expanding federal power, the breadth of this statute (and the discretion it lodges in prosecutors) is awesome. Congress has regulated so many areas of our lives and federalized so many functions that the reach of Section 1001 is virtually boundless. This is what caused many federal courts to create an "exculpatory no" doctrine, holding that falsely answering "no" to an inquiry from a federal agent was, standing alone, not a crime under Section 1001. In 1998, however, the United States Supreme Court rejected this doctrine (as being inconsistent with legislative intent) in Brogan v. United States , 522 U.S. 398, 805 (1998). Thus, the only avenue for reform with respect to Section 1001 is in Congress, where politicians seldom get brownie points for narrowing the reach of federal criminal statutes.

But why, you may ask, should law-abiding citizens be alarmed about this statute? Don't the feds only pick on big-league liars? Don't we trust the federal government and its law enforcement officers and assume that they are responsibly trying to ferret out crime? Besides, if we meet an FBI agent that we do not trust, can't we always decline to speak to him?

It may be true that most federal agents and prosecutors are decent people who would not intentionally abuse Section 1001. Moreover, it is very important from a law enforcement perspective for federal agents to be able to informally question witnesses during the initial stages of an investigation. And certainly citizens are under no obligation to speak to a law enforcement agent in the first place, although, as shown below, it is essential to learn how to decline to speak to government officers. But power corrupts, and the potential for abuse of this statute is great, especially during periods of public outcry over corporate and other white-collar crimes. When we reflect upon how many petty rules and regulations get broken and how many white lies are told during the course of an average American business day, it is apparent that Section 1001 can easily be applied and misapplied to normally upstanding folk.

Continued... (http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html)

[Danke]

Silly mundanes.

[Anti Federalist]

So, unless you can keep half a legal textbook in your head and analyze, in a split second, whether you are in compliance with Section 1001 or not, you have only one, much better, option:

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Exercise your right to remain silent!

For the benefit of the newer members who may not have seen The Video.

The following is required watching. (And for the record, "police" means ANY government functionary with the power of arrest or prosecution. Seems every fourth or fifth person you run across any more is some sort of government "officer" of some sort or another.)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc



Remember folks, Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to a federal agent!

How to Avoid Going to Jail under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 for Lying to Government Agents

By Solomon L. Wisenberg

Solomon L. Wisenberg is a partner and co-chair of the white collar criminal defense practice group of Barnes & Thornburg LLP .

What do Martha Stewart and enemy combatant Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri have in common? They were both indicted, under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, for lying to federal government agents. Ms. Stewart now stands convicted of intentionally misleading SEC and FBI officials who questioned her about insider trading. Mr. Al-Marri was one of several hundred immigrants who voluntarily submitted to FBI interviews in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. He was later charged with lying, during his interview, about the timing of a previous trip to the United States. Here are two criminal defendants from widely divergent backgrounds. Yet both were ensnared by Section 1001, a perennial favorite of federal prosecutors.

Did you know that it is a crime to tell a lie to the federal government? Even if your lie is oral and not under oath? Even if you have received no warnings of any kind? Even if you are not trying to cheat the government out of money? Even if the government is not actually misled by your falsehood? Well it is.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not necessary to show that your particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Although you must know that your statement is false at the time you make it in order to be guilty of this crime, you do not have to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter you are lying about is "within the jurisdiction" of a government agency. United States v. Yermian , 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). For example, if you lie to your employer on your time and attendance records and, unbeknownst to you, he submits your records, along with those of other employees, to the federal government pursuant to some regulatory duty, you could be criminally liable.

Even in our age of ever expanding federal power, the breadth of this statute (and the discretion it lodges in prosecutors) is awesome. Congress has regulated so many areas of our lives and federalized so many functions that the reach of Section 1001 is virtually boundless. This is what caused many federal courts to create an "exculpatory no" doctrine, holding that falsely answering "no" to an inquiry from a federal agent was, standing alone, not a crime under Section 1001. In 1998, however, the United States Supreme Court rejected this doctrine (as being inconsistent with legislative intent) in Brogan v. United States , 522 U.S. 398, 805 (1998). Thus, the only avenue for reform with respect to Section 1001 is in Congress, where politicians seldom get brownie points for narrowing the reach of federal criminal statutes.

But why, you may ask, should law-abiding citizens be alarmed about this statute? Don't the feds only pick on big-league liars? Don't we trust the federal government and its law enforcement officers and assume that they are responsibly trying to ferret out crime? Besides, if we meet an FBI agent that we do not trust, can't we always decline to speak to him?

It may be true that most federal agents and prosecutors are decent people who would not intentionally abuse Section 1001. Moreover, it is very important from a law enforcement perspective for federal agents to be able to informally question witnesses during the initial stages of an investigation. And certainly citizens are under no obligation to speak to a law enforcement agent in the first place, although, as shown below, it is essential to learn how to decline to speak to government officers. But power corrupts, and the potential for abuse of this statute is great, especially during periods of public outcry over corporate and other white-collar crimes. When we reflect upon how many petty rules and regulations get broken and how many white lies are told during the course of an average American business day, it is apparent that Section 1001 can easily be applied and misapplied to normally upstanding folk.

Continued... (http://library.findlaw.com/2004/May/11/147945.html)

[flightlesskiwi]

So, unless you can keep half a legal textbook in your head and analyze, in a split second, whether you are in compliance with Section 1001 or not, you have only one, much better, option:

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Exercise your right to remain silent!

For the benefit of the newer members who may not have seen The Video.

The following is required watching. (And for the record, "police" means ANY government functionary with the power of arrest or prosecution. Seems every fourth or fifth person you run across any more is some sort of government "officer" of some sort or another.)



just heard a story from a friend. <--a friend of his was neighbors with a gun enthusiast. new family moves to the neighborhood. gun enthusiast neighbor goes over to new guy's house to welcome him to the neighborhood. gets to chatting, invites him over to his house to show him his cache.

turns out, new neighbor is an ATF agent. gun enthusiast has some "illegal" weapons (whatever the eff that means). gun enthusiast neighbor arrested by ATF agent and currently doing time in prison.

moral of the story: get to know your neighbors, sure. but shut the freak up.

and don't show people your "illegal" cache.

apologies if i added any paranoia.

[Anti Federalist]

Valuable, if painful, lesson learned.

MYOB.

If it's not a cop, then it could just as well be some hanky wringing Millie, who will turn you in to the cops.


just heard a story from a friend. <--a friend of his was neighbors with a gun enthusiast. new family moves to the neighborhood. gun enthusiast neighbor goes over to new guy's house to welcome him to the neighborhood. gets to chatting, invites him over to his house to show him his cache.

turns out, new neighbor is an ATF agent. gun enthusiast has some "illegal" weapons (whatever the eff that means). gun enthusiast neighbor arrested by ATF agent and currently doing time in prison.

moral of the story: get to know your neighbors, sure. but shut the freak up.

and don't show people your "illegal" cache.

apologies if i added any paranoia.

[MegD4Freedom]

I fly out of Boston Logan frequently and it has been, surprisingly, one of the easier airports to get through. I'm not looking forward to my trip in October...I don't want to answer questions, but if I don't I will be labeled suspicious? I think this is just another way to racially profile people without being overly conspicuous.

[Mani]

The govt has already spent ONE BILLION dollars on SPOT: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/airport-security-the-tsa-tries-chatdowns-09082011.html

I doubt this chat down is going away anytime soon.