this document seems ridiculously relevant to the debate
True in many layers. The document/interpretation is likely as ridiculous as the "torture memo" and it most certainly is relevant to any discussion about cyber legislation. Sometimes I just have to wonder about lawyers -- when given a task to prove black equals white they tend not to say "are you nuts?" but "when do you need this?" (and it isn't even about the billable hours!)
If this money is completely unrelated to criminal activity, the government has just stolen money from one of its citizens.
Who cares if it related or unrelated to criminal activity? The TSA (and the airport police) have *no* probable cause for considering it related to criminal activity.
Note that for cash it has "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private", whereas a check (or other means of money transfer) doesn't; there is no reason for anyone to gainsay why a person is carrying cash: all debts public and private means the reason can be private.
Look at the issues with the liability of airlines following the 11SEP2001 "events". Until the government absolved them, they were on the hook for being sued (negligence contributing to the disaster(s) at the least). At that time security screening was paid for by the airlines; letting the government take it over lets them off the hook if bad guys get through again.
All the security theater has done for me is reduce my willingness to go on airplanes, not because of the airplanes and cattle-car like amenities, but just the pain and hassle of getting through airports. I have better uses for my time.
She kept refusing, then got into a shoving match. Many cops would have fired their tasers much sooner.
What I heard is her say that if the cop touched her she would sue his ass. What happens then is out of camera frame, but she gets tazed. That's not a shoving match. That's bringing a cannon to a pillow fight.
So, I'm wondering what you think she should have done?
She is a US Citizen, driving in the US. She is stopped at a security checkpoint (and I already hear echos of "papers please"...). They tell her to pull over and then just have her sit there (while they surreptitiously are calling for a drug dog).
She has a right to go about her (legal) business without interference. Security checkpoint, somewhat OK (I have other problems with that, but the courts seem to think they are OK so long as they stop EVERYONE). Unless they have probable cause to detain her they should have let her go on her way immediately.
She knew her rights. She objected. They tazed her. She had the foresight to record the encounter; it didn't seem "in their face" to me -- and THEY are the professionals. They are supposed to know the law, and how to apply it. They f*cked up, and you are blaming the victim.
Last year, Mr Pickles was forced to deny reports his department had spent an extra £10,000 a year on biscuits, blaming an "administrative error" for the big increase in hospitality spending
Which doesn't look like $110,000, although there was also:
"The sum related to the amount of hospitality we offer... is 17% of the sum the last Labour government spent on hospitality."
With no indication what that 17% represents... I presume there are other articles detailing the issue in better depth. Or did you confuse the "£" with an extra "1"?
I can't expect anyone would have spent more than 10 minutes replying to what were their dragon or zombie contingencies: "No records available responsive to your request" would actually seem appropriate -- the "you idiot" being implied.
I certainly feel they should have hit him with the harshest penalties available -- fully expecting him to then get a pardon before they are applied. At least then the hypocrisy would be acknowledged and no precedent in law for wrist-slap vs wrist-cutoff would have been set.
People who work at the highest levels of Government get special treatment; it is not right, but it is what happens, at least until the revolution comes :-).
I think the distinction is between people speaking as employees of Boston vs speaking as individuals.
This restricts the Boston Police Commissioner from saying that hosting the Olympics would be a disaster, but William B. Evans (who happens to be the current commissioner) could express that opinion; I guess it would depend on HOW he expressed his opinion.
I think a Boston Olympics would be a disaster; I don't work for Boston or the state, but I just live in the area. There is no way to do it "on the cheap" and it will leave behind so many white elephants that Boston will be saddled with (or should that be howdah'd with...) that it will ruin the city's financials for the long term.