Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:47:23 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4960568@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.218.52; envelope-from=mwsletten@gmail.com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id
         :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer
         :content-language:thread-index;
        b=lDzJRr+4GLJnb4FvXE4ah2+lhS1yjLuDr6pldmW0OR/ec6K0p6o73NjVvz1WRElTaV
         cKFbzu19vKHmEUAFqnBE1HZea/eO6aXksNCe9DuQeT++Kuf+uPOd2MOAKnnrhQcxIxsW
         kR0kO7az7wPArOwMTClZfbS2VwjKj7agQrknA=
From: "Mark Sletten" <mwsletten@gmail.com>
References: <redirect-4959519@logan.com> 
In-Reply-To: 
Subject: RE: beware, you may be searched!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AcwFAhbzROdvNeCGSL61iT2rqf+jnwAoBFjQAAQDAlA=

Here's an article that's well worth reading on this subject:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/the-civil-liberties-prim
ary-what-issues-matter-most/237920/


-- Mark


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Sletten [mailto:mwsletten@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 9:21 AM
To: 'lml@lancaironline.net'
Cc: 'Bob Rickard'
Subject: RE: beware, you may be searched!

Bob,

To me, this is the to-be-expected outcome of increased "cooperation" between
the security and law enforcement agencies of government, and the resulting
confluence and confusion of their differing priorities and duties.

Homeland Security is responsible for providing border and transportation
security, but it doesn't really have enough people to do all the leg work.
If it did we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem of the magnitude
we do. So, in this new era of interagency "cooperation," DHS enlists the aid
of law enforcement. It appears, at least in the case of the incidents we're
concerned with, the DHS neglects to tell the local officers involved
precisely who or what it is they are looking for, so officers on the scene
follow their usual modus operandi, which means rather than sticking to
simply determining if the people ("suspects" in the eyes of law enforcement)
pose a security risk, they also take the opportunity to look for contraband
to bolster possible future criminal court proceedings. Why waste valuable
law enforcement time if you don't at least look for evidence of a crime?

This troubling mix and match of missions and priorities between agencies is
coloring many different areas of citizen/government interaction, but mostly
in the transportation arena. The TSA loves to trumpet how TSA/Law
Enforcement cooperation results in nabbing criminals, even though the TSA is
not a law enforcement agency. Indeed, the newest plan is joint
Customs/TSA/Law Enforcement task forces. You can watch a local news cast
from Tampa about one set up there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIL4shjagjI&feature=player_embedded

This assumption of responsibility beyond authority seems to be getting more
and more common as our national "War on Terror" drags on. It became
infuriatingly apparent in an incident (again in Saint Louis... hmmmmm) that
occurred on March 29, 2009. According to the ACLU, Steven Bierfeldt was
detained in a small room at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and
interrogated by TSA officials for nearly half an hour after screening agents
discovered a metal box containing some $6,000 in cash among his carry-on
belongings. Bierfeldt had attended a political event in Saint Louis, and was
carrying the cash in connection with his duties as the Director of
Development for Congressman Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. The law does
not require travelers to declare cash amounts below $10,000, so when the
agents questioned Bierfeldt about the source and purpose of the money, he
quite correctly pointed out it was really none of TSA's business --
especially given a box of cash poses no immediate security risk or other
danger to traveling passengers. Apparently, the agents disagreed. Bierfeldt
was able to surreptitiously record the incident using his phone, and you can
listen to what happened here:

http://www.aclu.org/files/multimedia/bierfeldt.mp3

Given we are really only a small segment of the population, and given our
relative affluence one not generally in favor at present, it's unlikely
stories detailing how the government is treating GA pilots and their
passengers will make any headway with the mainstream media. (That may change
now that President Obama has released his long-form birth certificate, what
else have they got to talk about now?) While it's clear to me that our
nation's security does not rest on constant suspicion, search and
supervision of a tiny segment of the population, it's also just as clear the
government -- for whatever reason -- has determined our outrage and
inconvenience is an acceptable tradeoff.

So how do we change that determination?

I believe it will only change when people begin to see that it's not just GA
that is being targeted. What is happening to us is part of an overall shift
in the way US citizens view their government's capability, responsibility
and limitations in "providing for the common defense." The changes causing
this shift are happening in very small increments, each of which when viewed
in isolation appears imminently reasonable, but when considered in their
totality are alarming in my opinion.

Unless and until the general population becomes incensed enough to demand
fundamental changes, I see only two avenues with any hope of success in
changing the way government is treating GA: 1) top cover from our
legislators in Washington, and 2) the courts. As for the first, I'm
encouraging everyone reading this list to contact your national
representation in DC with your concerns. On the second, perhaps it's time
someone considered contacting the ACLU; this is precisely the kind of case
the ACLU was founded to handle.

-- Mark


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Rickard [mailto:r.rickard@rcginc-us.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:40 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: beware, you may be searched!

Hamid-

As the guy who was searched upon landing, I can assure you that what you
surmise is incorrect.  First of all, if you were at your home airport and
saw a guy that looked like a guy, etc...who would you call - customs and
border patrol?  I think not.  Probably the local police, maybe the FBI if
you were feeling brash. Additionally, why would CBP have any jurisdiction
whatsoever on a flight that started and ended well inside the US border?
Are they tracking families in RV's traveling from Phoenix to St. Louis too?
Thirdly, on the wild assumption that anyone was present, surveilling me, and
convinced enough to assume I was carrying a male fugitive (which was the
accusation from CBP, even though my wife was the only passenger), the local
or federal authorities would certainly have not let me take off or even get
in an airplane.  The fact is there was no local tip.  As it was, the CBP
office contacted the local police 10 minutes prior to my filed landing time
(a 4 hour flight)  and faxed them the bogus info, with no other awareness of
my flight other than my flight plan data.   And CBP certainly does not have
persons who travel inside our own borders searching people out like this on
a whim, else we might have turned into the soviet union.  So the fact
remains that they are totally caught in a lie, and we should try to do
something about it as a community.  I would agree with your point in
principle if there were not mitigating circumstances, but it's pretty clear
in this case.

Bob R


On Apr 26, 2011, at 7:37 PM, Hamid Wasti <hwasti@lm50.com> wrote:

> vtailjeff@aol.com wrote:
>> How would a Federal CBP officer in California know a Lancair pilot taking
off from an airport in Phoenix had a fugitive onboard? Answer -- he didn't--
he just made it up to justify an unlawful search to the local police in St.
Louis.
> While the story being totally made up is quite possible, do not discount
the possibility that the CBP may be acting on a tip and may have initiated
the action.
> 
> One of the down sides of the increased emphasis on recruiting the general
public as the government's eyes and ears and offering rewards is a lot more
false and misleading tips. While many of these are offered in good faith by
people who do not know any better, some are offered on the slim chance of
scoring a reward.
> 
> It often starts out as "That guy I caught a glimpse of 100 yards away may
look like the one they showed on TV last night" followed either by "Better
call it in and let the police make sure" or "Better call it in because in
the remote chance I am right it will get me $$$$$" 
> When the police get involved, their primary objective is self
preservation. The officer that handles the report knows that if it turns out
that a vigilant citizen turned in a wanted person but he is the one who did
not follow it up, his career is over.  He will therefore pass it up the
chain with only minimal investigation and the process will repeat a few
times till the case falls in the lap of the officers that meet the aircraft
after landing.
> 
> At every step that the information gets passed from one person to another,
it gets embellished to justify the escalation, so that what started out as
"Did the guy glimpsed from 100 yards away look like the picture I saw on
23:00 news as I was dozing off?" turns into "Person was positively
identified getting into the aircraft armed with a dozen rifles and 2,000
pounds of drugs"
> 
> But the truth in these specific incident will never be known unless
someone actually get charged with something or someone is willing to file a
civil suit and fight it to the point of getting into the discovery process.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hamid
> 
> --
> For archives and unsub
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html