Ron Paul Supporter Detained By TSA For Carrying Cash?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Cops are trying to do their jobs too. Sure there are corrupt cops, but that is an exception, and not the rule. Just because there are corrupt cops doesn't give you the right not to respect all cops, and to think they are all crooks, because that is not true.

Normally when a person believes all cops are crooks, or all people are crooks, it is because that person happens to be a crook. You think what you are.



[edit on 3-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

American Citizens are trying to do their jobs(or be citizens). Sure there are drug dealers, but that is an exception, and not the rule. Just because there are drug dealers doesnt give you the right to not to respect all citizens, and to think they are all crooks, because that is not true. Normally when a person believes all citizens are drug dealers (or criminals), it is because that person happens to be a crook. You think what you are.

Alright. By the way people DO have the right to not respect cops. That amazing thing called the Constitution, the First Amendment in particular. Except the First Amendment isn't the only thing at issue here. The man DID NOT commit a crime. He was not violating the law PERIOD. Why was he being detained?

I don't believe Anarchy is being pushed here either, for we should all know that true Anarchy cannot actually exist for the same issue addressed here. People can't mind their own damn business.

The fact that they even knew he had a "large sum" of cash is a little scary. What probable cause did they have to look in this man's wallet?

Please tell me, according to the Constitution of the United States of America, and the documented words of our founding fathers, WHO? is it that has the power in this country? Well, Read the Preamble and the first 7 words will tell you. (the first 3 should be all that is needed to get the point across though) It is not TSA or the Government. Our government has specifically been set up to be ruled by the citizens thereof and NOT by a select few people(which is the Government) who feel they are entitled to such a position of power.

If we citizens on this thread who are concerned about the repeated, and clear violation of our civil liberties by the Government are Anarchists( and according to Homeland Security, Terrorists) then so was Thomas Jefferson and just about every other man who's name is signed on the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. Do Not scrutinize me for fighting for my civil Liberties.(and for other posts) Do Not claim I am self-centered, spoiled or what have you, because I am not fighting only for myself, I fight for this country. The very ideals laid forth in this country are what I fight for, and to fight for those ideals and freedoms, I must at least protect those of my own and my fellow man.

reply to post by Styki


That is exactly the problem. Profiling is WRONG. If they detained a Middle-Eastern (looking) man, because they thought he was a terrorist, I bet you anything this would throw red flags all over the MSM. But when they ask TSA, they just quote you. "He fit the profile."

Also, its against the "norm" to carry lots of cash. Again, the problem. Conformity. The oppressors have time and time again over the history of man kind have used the philosophy that, "because they are different they must be in the wrong." It is very clear that a breeding ground for oppression has developed in this country. The worst part is, (Obama said it quite well too)(also paraphrasing here) the problems we face today are not at the fault of a few individuals. It is collectively the fault of all of us. We the People, the ones who have (or at least had) the power, have allowed this trash to go on. Now's a better time than ever to take our power back and fix our mistakes. We are taking action now, and trust me Seeing that action being a posted thread of a controversial topic on some website is much better than what will be required when this goes unchecked. Nobody wants violent revolution, (at least not those whom I really agree with) but that action will be taken if it is what is necessary. Point is, fix the problems peaceably now, before its too late. This man in this TSA incident is doing just that by making a point. He is valuing his rights and showing that he is willing to stand up for them when he needs to.

This conformity issue and "against the norm" issue is a topic for another post, perhaps when I get an ounce more free time I'll start up that thread.

Originally posted by Dienekes

American Citizens are trying to do their jobs(or be citizens). Sure there are drug dealers, but that is an exception, and not the rule. Just because there are drug dealers doesnt give you the right to not to respect all citizens, and to think they are all crooks, because that is not true. Normally when a person believes all citizens are drug dealers (or criminals), it is because that person happens to be a crook. You think what you are.

First of all, are cops not citizens too? Second of all, the police did try to be respectful with this man, but he acted like a fool, he wanted to see how far he could take it.

Third of all, where in the world did i say all citizens are crooks?.... Are you out of your mind?

However, if people don't want to respond to questions a police officer is asking, it could be because the person is hiding something. This is a matter of fact, and that's what I said..

Originally posted by Dienekes

Alright. By the way people DO have the right to not respect cops. That amazing thing called the Constitution, the First Amendment in particular. Except the First Amendment isn't the only thing at issue here. The man DID NOT commit a crime. He was not violating the law PERIOD. Why was he being detained?

You contradicted yourself here again, are U.S. cops not American citizens also?.... Are you claiming that because they are cops you have the right not to respect them? This is wrong, and you should know that, if you don't know that, good luck to you, because you will have more problems if you are disrespectful and uncooperative towards cops.

Originally posted by Dienekes
I don't believe Anarchy is being pushed here either, for we should all know that true Anarchy cannot actually exist for the same issue addressed here. People can't mind their own damn business.

Really?.. We had a member state that all traffic tickets, which to him must mean all traffic laws are unconstitutional, alongside his other remarks, and that is the makings of Anarchy.

Originally posted by Dienekes
The fact that they even knew he had a "large sum" of cash is a little scary. What probable cause did they have to look in this man's wallet?

Some other member said he had the money in a box, which the TSA will check.

Originally posted by Dienekes
Please tell me, according to the Constitution of the United States of America, and the documented words of our founding fathers, WHO? is it that has the power in this country? Well, Read the Preamble and the first 7 words will tell you. (the first 3 should be all that is needed to get the point across though) It is not TSA or the Government. Our government has specifically been set up to be ruled by the citizens thereof and NOT by a select few people(which is the Government) who feel they are entitled to such a position of power.

The people, but do tell me, did the forefathers say that criminals should do whatever they want also? Or that there shouldn't be any laws made by the states?....

This really has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is not a problem of the rights of this man, but rather that he decided to be uncooperative with the law.

Originally posted by Dienekes
If we citizens on this thread who are concerned about the repeated, and clear violation of our civil liberties by the Government are Anarchists( and according to Homeland Security, Terrorists) then so was Thomas Jefferson and just about every other man who's name is signed on the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. Do Not scrutinize me for fighting for my civil Liberties.(and for other posts) Do Not claim I am self-centered, spoiled or what have you, because I am not fighting only for myself, I fight for this country. The very ideals laid forth in this country are what I fight for, and to fight for those ideals and freedoms, I must at least protect those of my own and my fellow man.

Oh boy, again, just to make sure it gets in your head, this really has nothing to do with the Constitution, and by what I keep seeing you doing, talking about the Constitution in this ssue as if it says there shouldn't be police officers, or they shouldn't try to prevent crime, I can tell that I know more about the U.S. Constitution than you do.

The Constitution also says that the states, and the government should protect the people against crime, and violence, which is what the police does, or tries to do.

BTW, I am not saying that the government should be a nanny state either, but countries do need laws, and need cops too.

This has nothing to do with this man's politic beliefs, or your own, reign your horses there, and clear your head a little.




[edit on 3-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Electric,

Why do you have a problem with a private citizen wishing to remain private? It's no one's business as to how much money someone possesses. He wasn't committing a crime thus he shouldn't have been detained. Its just that simple.

The man didn't "act a fool", he simply asked whether he was required by law to answer. He wasn't, and thus he didn't. Whats wrong with that?

What if instead of cash, they started detaining people for wearing Rolex's. Say a big-time executive is wearing a $10k+ watch, so they pull him out of line... Seriously, how is it any different? Just because someone possesses wealth and carries it with them does not mean they must answer how they came about it.

If someone commits a crime then punish them for it. If someone commits no crime then leave them ALONE. Simple, effective, Constitutional.


***edited for spelling***

[edit on 4/3/2009 by Autonomous]

Originally posted by Autonomous
Electric,

Why do you have a problem with a private citizen wishing to remain private? It's no one's business as to how much money someone possesses. He wasn't committing a crime thus he shouldn't have been detained. Its just that simple.

The man didn't "act a fool", he simply asked whether he was required by law to answer. He wasn't, and thus he didn't. Whats wrong with that?

What if instead of cash, they started detaining people for wearing Rolex's. Say a big-time executive is wearing a $10k+ watch, so they pull him out of line... Seriously, how is it any different? Just because someone possesses wealth and carries it with them does not mean they must answer how they came about it.

If someone commits a crime then punish them for it. If someone commits no crime then leave them ALONE. Simple, effective, Constitutional.


***edited for spelling***

I am not against a law abidding citizen wanting to keep his privacy, but this has nothing to do with that. There are other more concerning things the government is doing which we should fight any legal way possible.

You won't find anyone who wants to preserve the Constitution, of these United States, and the Republic they are supposed to represent, alongside with the other living documents which are the foundation of this nation. But this really has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that there shouldn't be police officers, or that laws shouldn't exist that try to fight against crime.

You also have to know by now that there are drug dealers, and other criminals who also fly. All this man had to do was to be cooperative, and not confrontational with the TSA, or the police.

What he should have done, is just tell them he doesn't like to pay in credit cards, and to respond the questions with respect, and the TSA/police will respect you.

If this man had awnsered the questions politely, and if then he was arrested he would have had a point, and it would have been illegal for the police to arrest the man for just carrying money.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

***

That is your signature, please read it thoroughly.

This man who was detained wanted his liberty. He sought the animated contest of freedom instead of the tranquility of servitude.

He didn't bow down to some authority figure who asked questions he had no right to ask. The man did no wrong. They had no crime at hand, yet they would detain him because they judge him.

You say drug dealers carry large sums of cash, so let us apply the drug dealer to this instance. A drug dealer carrying only cash with no drugs could have done the same thing as this man. Thus what was the point of detaining him? Innocent until proven guilty. Possession of wealth is not illegal.

You can't say a man who possesses wealth is very likely to be a criminal and thus we should detain all those possessing wealth. Who sets the standard? How much wealth should be designated as"drug-dealer-on-a-commercial-flight" level of wealth? Without presence of a crime what is the point?

This man was being detained for no good reason. His personal finance is just that: Personal. Private.

--

How about another for instance: This is entirely true. I have a friend at work who is from Nigeria. He is an educated man, a good man, and he travels home once a year to see his extended family from his home-village, whom he misses deeply. When he goes home he takes with him $2000+ he has saved, and usually another $2000+ that other families in his neighborhood have saved to give to their families in Nigeria. He takes cash because there isn't a bank in his village. He says to withdraw that much money from a city in Nigeria and then travel with it would tip off criminals who have friends in the banks. Then they would pull him off his 2 hour bus ride and shoot him in the head and take the money. If he were to declare excess wealth at the airport when he arrived he would have the same thing happen.

How does this pertain to the discussion? A good man is carrying money which some deem as excessive. It is his personal finance, and not the territory of any other curious party. Its not their right to know. He is committing no crime and should be left alone.

Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness. They impeded his liberty, disrupted his life, and most certainly eroded his happiness.

Originally posted by Autonomous

That is your signature, please read it thoroughly.

Oh, i have...

I have also read passages in the Constitution such as the following...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

www.usconstitution.net...

Originally posted by Autonomous

This man who was detained wanted his liberty. He sought the animated contest of freedom instead of the tranquility of servitude.

That man did not want to cooperate. There are times for cooperation with the law, and there are times, and issues to question governments and their laws if they are Unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Autonomous
How about another for instance: This is entirely true. I have a friend at work who is from Nigeria. He is an educated man, a good man, and he travels home once a year to see his extended family from his home-village, whom he misses deeply. When he goes home he takes with him $2000+ he has saved, and usually another $2000+ that other families in his neighborhood have saved to give to their families in Nigeria. He takes cash because there isn't a bank in his village. He says to withdraw that much money from a city in Nigeria and then travel with it would tip off criminals who have friends in the banks. Then they would pull him off his 2 hour bus ride and shoot him in the head and take the money. If he were to declare excess wealth at the airport when he arrived he would have the same thing happen.

I also have friends, and family who do this, and when they declare the money to the authorities when they fly, they have to state how they got it and what it is for, and they awnser these questions and they are allowed to go with their money. This is not new, and has been happening for a very long time.

Originally posted by Autonomous
Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness. They impeded his liberty, disrupted his life, and most certainly eroded his happiness.

Which does not say, you can be disrespectful towards police officers, or be a law breaker...

The forefathers also had laws, and they founded this country by laws, and with laws, and stated that laws should be added by each state, however, if a law is truly Unconstitutional, then that law should be scrapped, but in this case, this is not UnConstitutional.


[edit on 3-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Uh... I'm not sure because I always just assumed our laws were commonsense enough that I I knew the difference between right and wrong, but I would of thought I could carry my own belongings without being questioned about them... hmm. I may try this one because its "bs" and I love starting arguements over pointless restrictions. That's kind of a monopoly because they force you to use banks.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

"First of all, are cops not citizens too? Second of all, the police did try to be respectful with this man, but he acted like a fool, he wanted to see how far he could take it.

Third of all, where in the world did i say all citizens are crooks?.... Are you out of your mind?

However, if people don't want to respond to questions a police officer is asking, it could be because the person is hiding something. This is a matter of fact, and that's what I said..."

Yes cops are citizens too. The police were asking questions which he was not legally required to answer, and detained him with hardly any probable cause. The man was respectful back to the officers. Respect DOES NOT always = conformity. Yes he took it far, that is the point. He is putting in check, whether our civil liberties are being granted, (or respected.)

You didn't say all citizens were crooks. I simply replaced the words cops with citizens and corrupt cops with drug dealers within your own statement to show your own contradiction. You said assuming all cops were corrupt because of a select few was wrong, so isn't assuming a man with approximately $4,700 in cash is a drug dealer because of a select few wrong?
Of course he's hiding something, because it is none of their business why he has that cash. If he is a drug dealer, then they should catch him dealing drugs to convict him of so. If he had drugs, or if he acted like he was under the influence of drugs, then perhaps this situation would be completely different.

"You contradicted yourself here again, are U.S. cops not American citizens also?.... Are you claiming that because they are cops you have the right not to respect them? This is wrong, and you should know that, if you don't know that, good luck to you, because you will have more problems if you are disrespectful and uncooperative towards cops."

They are. You have the right to not respect other citizens as well. You have the right to display your opinion (First Amendment). You aren't incriminating their rights by showing disrespect to them. You are just hurting their feelings.
More problems if I'm disrespectful and uncooperative. Oh I show respect even though I'm not legally required to. I'm usually cooperative. I also don't plan on being in a situation where I'm dealing with law enforcement on this level. Good luck to you when you have your assets seized and are detained on grounds that is hardly considered probable cause.

Really?.. We had a member state that all traffic tickets, which to him must mean all traffic laws are unconstitutional, alongside his other remarks, and that is the makings of Anarchy.

Yes he did. That is not the general idea of the thread. Even so, eliminating traffic regulations is not complete Anarchy. Anarchy on the road maybe, but not Anarchy in the U.S.

Some other member said he had the money in a box, which the TSA will check.

I didn't see that, thanks for clarifying.

The people, but do tell me, did the forefathers say that criminals should do whatever they want also? Or that there shouldn't be any laws made by the states?....

This really has nothing to do with the Constitution. It is not a problem of the rights of this man, but rather that he decided to be uncooperative with the law.

No they didn't. But this has nothing to do with the thread. The man IS NOT a criminal. Laws should be made, but withing check as outlined by the Constitution.
Nothing to do with the constitution. You are saying he shouldn't have exercised his 1st, 4th,5th,6th amendment rights because he looked suspicious. What law is it for them to detain him for carrying U.S. Currency? Am I missing something?

Edit:Fix typos and such. And where in the world did I say the constitution called for no cops or laws? Are you out out of your mind? Cheers!

[edit on 3-4-2009 by Dienekes]

Electric and I will just have to agree that we disagree on the matter.

I have several family members in Law Enforcement, and I have the greatest respect for what they do and how professional they are. They wouldn't treat this man the way that those security guards treated him. They believe in personal freedom. When there is no crime there is no reason to treat someone like a criminal.

YOU don't have to answer questions that are not required to be answered. Its just that simple.

reply to post by Styki


No, it is perfectly normal to carry cash with you, whether you trust the banks or not. And who doesnt trust banks? Lets see, economists.


And in this video here at the bottom we have a law school professor and a former police officer telling people why they should NEVER EVER TALK TO THE POLICE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE INNOCENT!

Talking to the police can NEVER help you, it serves no purpose for you and only allows the police a chance to incriminate you, even if you are innocent. Innocent people should never be detained by police in the first place, and hence have no reason why they should be forced to PROVE THEMSELVES NOT GUILTY. That is not the way the system works.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


No, if you cause an accident then there is a victim and you have committed a crime. Avoiding committing crime is all the impetus we need to prevent accidents.

If there is no victim, there is no crime.

As long as ive made sure there is no oncoming traffic, sometimes i run the stop sign. And at red lights, i come to a stop and make sure there is no traffic (or cops) and then i continue on my way.

Who is the victim?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


"Which does not say, you can be disrespectful towards police officers, or be a law breaker... "

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have read in quite some time.
First of all, the man didn't break any laws.

It is wholly wrong for the Government to PRESUME you have broken laws because you happen to have money.
And all of this is aside from the fact that they were able to pinpoint the man in the first place, as the money was in a carry-on. I would call this an invasion of privacy in the first place.

Hey, you are well within your rights to accept the fact that the Government can snoop into your personal belongings all they want. Just don't be surprised when A LOT of people disagree with you.

And lets call a spade a spade here, huh? These goons aren't police officers.

Your entire statement is erroneous and your reasoning is entirely flawed, imo.

Many people carry large amounts of cash when traveling by air. It is far more common than you may think. If it is 10k or more you are supposed to declare it, but that is only truly required for international travel. In domestic travel, it is not required. When you take out 10K or more in Cash from your bank, they declare it.

My favorite part is where they threatened to call in the DEA or to take him to the DEA office downtown. It is a nice new federal building behind the train station. I would have loved that. I have met some of the agents in the St Louis Division, and they would have torn the TSA guys a new one for that kind of stupidity. That is why the FBI intervened and told them to back off and let the guy go.

Never offer more information than you are required to. The guy did the right thing and the TSA ended up looking like fools. I fly all the time and have never had any problems with the TSA. I am always cordial with them, but if I was ever detained for any reason by anybody, I would keep my mouth shut.

*If there are any DEA agents on ATS reading this, Enrique Camerena will never be forgotten.

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Uh... I'm not sure because I always just assumed our laws were commonsense enough that I I knew the difference between right and wrong, but I would of thought I could carry my own belongings without being questioned about them... hmm. I may try this one because its "bs" and I love starting arguements over pointless restrictions. That's kind of a monopoly because they force you to use banks.

Sadly a lot of our laws have nothing to do with common sense. Some of them in fact are patently absurd, counter productive and harmful to society and the fabric of the nation.

People should be aware though that in regards to the police, you have the right to remain silent, anything you do or say may be used against you in a court of law.

In fact you are not even required to identify yourself to police. They have a right to detain you for 72 hours to try to figure out who you are and press any charges that they might wish too.

The more you converse with the police, the more likely it is that they will be able to find something in your own words to miscontrue to charge you with if they do really want to hold you.

That's why as a general rule of thumb even if you are completely innocent of never even swatting a fly from the day you are born, you are better off keeping your mouth shut and saying NOTHING until you are given the opportunity to consult with an attorney privately.

Why would someone completely innocent have something to fear by speaking the truth...two words incompetence and politics...I did not kill that man...ends up looking like this when an incompetent officer takes the statement...I did kill that man...

Police 'make' cases for political reasons too...especially Sheriffs who have to run for office, and police officials wanting to run for other offices.

Electric Universe is wrong, and took the glossy full colored brochures and pamphlets he read about the United States before moving here wrong...he believed them...personally I think we all have a great case for false advertising and breach of contract against the government.

True story...as a 19 year old I was an assistant manager at a Pizza Parlor/Arcade in West Hollywood CA, our clientel included prostitutes, hustlers, drug dealers, and of course the West Hollywood Sheriff's Deputies...I would always offer the Deputies a free soda and a free slice of Pizza when they would pop in, because after all...who really want's to pay speeding tickets? Naturally the way to a man's heart is his stomach so the Deputies were pretty friendly with me.

One day one of them who was a notorious hard ass was sitting at my table eyeing the street, when suddenly he exclaimed look at that I don't believe it. I turned around to see a young woman pushing a hooded baby carraige past along the sidewalk. The Deputy exclaimed wow a normal person in this neighborhood, I can't believe my eyes. Having developed sadistic tendencies at an early age I chuckled and said...you are getting soft, I bet that Baby Carraige has a couple kilos of Cocaine in it and she just pushed it right past your nose...I knew what would happen...

Three seconds later the Deputy said "Hey I have to go", left his pizza and coke unfinished and hustled out the doorway...I stood there in the enterance watching him double time it on foot to catch up with the woman to look over her shoulder and into the baby carraige...cops, they are too predictable. He actually stopped her and struck up a conversation about the baby, poking inside the carraige in a feigned show of affection at the infant's cuteness until satisfying his curiosity. He came back sat back down to finish his pizza and said "I checked it out, nothing there...that I could tell, hey you should think about becoming a cop, you have a great mind for the job"

The police often take the law onto themselves, and pursue their own personal and sometimes criminal agendas...it's foolish to ever trust them.