On Christmas Day, this looney-toon tried to blow up an airliner on an international flight from the Netherlands that was landing at Detroit.
The Transportation Security Agency very quickly deployed a set of rules and procedures allegedly designed to counter this new perceived threat. These rules and procedures were distributed to thousands of people, both in government and in the private sector.
Two guys who blog about travel issues pick up on these new rules and procedures, get copies of same, analyze them, and decide that the TSA is over-reacting. They publish the new rules and procedures on their website, along with commentary.
The TSA decides to subpoena Elliot and Frischling (the travel bloggers), and wants to confiscate their computers. Frischling gives up his computer, Elliot declines to do so.
This action hits the news, and instant “stuff”-storm erupts.
Now, the TSA is backing off, saying ‘ because the investigation into the leak of the security directive was “nearing a successful conclusion.” ‘, and also offered to buy Frischling a new computer, because they had managed to corrupt the one they confiscated.
See the Fox News story HERE.
I have several questions and comments.
1. A subpoena is defined by Dictionary.com as: “the usual writ for the summoning of witnesses or the submission of evidence, as records or documents, before a court or other deliberative body.”
The TSA is neither a court or a “deliberative body”. Who in hades gave those clowns the power of subpoena?
2. Did not these idiots speak to legal counsel who would surely have advised them that under the 1st Amendment (Freedom of speech, and maybe press) these guys were covered, and also under the 4th (Search and Seizure) and 5th Amendments (Due Process).
3. And would not the legal counsel ask “Has anyone outside the government seen these rules and procedures?”
4. And the TSA’s “successful conclusion” of their investigation?
Earlier in this little commentary I referred to the TSA as being staffed by “Idiots”.
After careful review, especially considering the TSA spokesman’s comment about a “successful conclusion”, I see no reason to withdraw the word.