Uncle John's Band

As noted below, Attorney General John Ashcroft is getting tough on crime.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal's Vin Suprynowicz looks at how Uncle John's favorite piece of legislation, The PATRIOT Act, is being used in ways that it wasn't supposed to be.

One highlight/lowlight Suprynowicz writes about:

David Socha, a 17-year-old on his way to Hawaii, was arrested in July at Logan Airport in Boston and charged with a felony for having a note in his gym bag which read: "(Expletive) you. Stay the (expletive) out of my bag you (expletive) sucker. Have you found a (expletive) bomb yet? No, just clothes. Am I right? Yea, so (expletive) you."

No, the young man's outrage over the suspension of his Fourth Amendment rights was not particularly prudent -- though I'm glad to see some of the spirit of John and Samuel Adams survives.

But should he really have been arrested and charged with "making a terrorist threat"? What threat? And what has happened to our First Amendment rights? Young Mr. Socha's protected political statement was zipped inside his own luggage.

Comments

[Thorley Winston]

I agree, David Socha crossed the line and hopefully they?ll throw the book at him. There was nothing brave or noble in what he did and he ranks right up there with that other jerk who made a joke about smuggling a bomb on board a plane and was arrested for it.

Why some libertarians insist on making this their poster child for supposed civil liberties violations is perplexing. Perhaps it is because for all of the hew and cry over the EVIL PATRIOT ACT (which apparently has nothing to do with the case), this is the best that they could come up with.

[Andrew Lynch]

...hopefully they?ll throw the book at him.

Funny how you can smell an uptight, normative conservative even across the web.

[Rob]

"at least the kid's got balls"

Plenty of teenaged boys think they have balls. But it turns out they're just dumb.

Having balls involves understanding the consequences of your actions, and then charging ahead.

This kid is now receiving an education. If he ever does something like this again, then I'll agree that he has balls.

[mark]

The note didn't say have you found THE bomb, it said have you found A bomb?

This is just a bunch of Barney Fifes making a federal case out of nothing. What tragedy would have occured if they just ignored the note? This is probably the same group of einsteins that felt the need to confiscate my 1" mustache scissors but let me board the plane with an 18" x 24" sheet of plate glass.

Stop wasting resources on stuff that's clearly petty BS. It's all show and nobody feels any safer for all their expensive and time consuming empty gestures. I wouldn't trust these asshats to watch my cat for a weekend.

[thoreau]

OK, I can't stand airport security either. And I don't think he should be charged with a felony. But I do understand the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy. If this were a misdemeanor and the kid had to pay a small fine, I wouldn't get worked up over it. But a felony prosecution seems like overkill to me.

[Warren]

The notion that using the B-word is sufficient justification for security to get Third-Reich on your ass is just bullshit! There isn't anything the least bit threatening in this note, it's just offensive. This guy was just exorcising his first amendment rights.

What if instead of this note he was carrying books written in Arabic, and English supporting radical Islam and also 'how to build a bomb' stuff. Then there would be a legitimate reason to believe this guy was dangerous, perhaps even enough to keep him off the plane. BUT he still shouldn't be arrested, as it is all constitutionally protected press.

[Anonymous]

Probably didn't make sense to arrest and charge the kid, but this case does illustrate the crying need for more Vigilante Justice in this nation - if some wannabe gangster adolescent jerk delays *my* flight, I'd like to take the opportunity to pummel his ass. Airport security should have turned him over to the other passengers on his flight, who would've administered a righteous and proper punishment.

[Anonymous]

Gee, the kid didn't delay your flight, the TSA (Tyrants Stealing from Americans; Taking Scissors Away) delayed it.

Its a piece of paper. It didn't threaten anything but the baggage searcher's self esteem.

And if you think you understand the "fire in the crowded theatre" rule, you probably don't. The shouted words would have to be untrue, and reasonably expected to cause a clear and present danger, such as exiting patrons trampling one another. Here the note was true, not shouted, and not reasonably expected to cause any rush for the exits trampling anyone.

The only trampling done was our rights, by the TSA.

[dhex]

if that kid plays his cards right he might be able to build a college fund off of this.

prudent or not, i fail to see the threat, unless being insulted is a threat.

[Kevin Carson]

Nick,

In the spirit of your title, I think the Libertarian movement's response to Ashcroft should be "Our walls are filled with cannonballs, our motto is, 'Don't tread on me.'"

[Phil]

The terrorist threat charge is indeed a stupid one, but "Young Mr. Socha" is an asshole. Airlines certainly have a legitimate interest and need to know what people are bringing on their airplanes. Somebody should have returned his gym bag to him rectally.

[chthus]

The airlines may indeed have an interest in knowing what people are bringing onboard, but as far as I can tell, this young man did nothing to try and impede them from doing that duty. Did he berate them in a written note in his bag? Yes. Is there an airline rule against this? Not that I'm aware, apparently they should think of starting one. Is the kid an asshole? Quite arguably, yes, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The only important thing is whether or not a threat was made. It does not appear so. If a judge looks at this and doesn't toss it, he's an idiot. Should it go to trial, a linguist is probably the only outside witness needed to clarify that there is no threat contained in the note. I'm sure Chomsky would be eager to help.

[LauraN]

I have to give this one a "depends". Has Logan installed the baggage screening machines yet? If so and his bag went through it, there was no further need to rifle through his belongings.

This bothers much the same as the process when writing a check. Once it's put through that fine little check carousel ride, the store's funds are guaranteed. No amount of management initials (and associated delay as they wheeze their way to the front) will make it any more solvent. Mind you, I write few checks these days but back when one had to...well, that's my little vent for the day.

Suffice to say - if they have the baggage screening machines, stay the fuck out of my bags. If not, I shall assume my panties have been sniffed, licked and probably even tried on.

[amr]

Any mention of the word "bomb" = Threat.
(Unless you can prove it's not referring to an explosive device as in "bomb calorimeter" or "bomb pop" or "droppin' bombs on your moms.")

[Shady O'Grady]

Chilling

[chthus]

amr, who is making the threat in the following situation?

Me: (seeing some one I don't like walking down the airplane aisle) That guys a bum.

Old Lady next to me: Did you say something about a bomb?

Me: No I said that man was a bum

Old Lady: Oh, sorry, my hearings not what it used to be.

Can it be me, although I never said the word? Is it the old lady (yes, by your logic above)? Or is it no one, given that in the context of the conversation, not threat was made? Granted, this has the makings to get ugly, should this conversation, or snippets, get overheard and wrongly interpreted. But when the context is not spoken, but clearly down on paper, there shouldn't be an issue. Being an asshole is not yet a crime.

[John J. Coupal]

Poor lad was probably pissed off at something. Probably decided to write a pissed-off note and placed it in a bag, subject to search.

Air travelers who are pissed off at having to go thru heightened security in the first place due to pissed-off terrorists, were not in a charitable mood to more delays created by that poor lad.

Poor lad learned that seriously stupid behavior will be punished, when that behavior causes big grief to a lot of other people around him.

[Clement Vallandigham]

Everything in his note is fine and dandy and protected until the "have you found a bomb yet?" line...then he's fair game. You can't even joke about it. If you say or write the word "bomb" it sets off a ripple in the airport security apparatus akin to the famous "fire!" in a crowded theatre...in my view he was appropriately handled by the authorities.

[Madog]

The terrorist threat charge is a bit much, but I think baggage screeners shouldn't be textually

[chthus]

The authorities may have been correct in a better-safe-than-sorry way to haul him off, but to contiue to try to prosecute once some one with a clear head looks at the not is stupid. Was there a question about a bomb? yes, but it is followed up with the answer, a negative, then a confirmation of that answer. Unless the note was torn up in a panic by the baggage rummager and each sentence was sent off separately to different investigators who didn't consult with each other, there no reason this should continue to be pursued.

[chthus]

So Clement, you are advocating the prosecution of the old lady in my scenario above?

[sarah]

Way to see the forest for the trees, idiots. The real point here is this: Logan Airport finally has employees who can read. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood.

[Clement Vallandigham]

Arguing your hypothetical is pointless, because it's up to the security people at the scene, and they are given the authority to act on a case-by-case basis. It would be overzealous to arrest your hypothetical old lady. It was not overzealous to arrest a person who specifically references a potential bomb in his luggage.

[dhex]

problem being that the very next sentence after "have you found a fucking bomb yet?" is "No, just clothes. Am I right?"

just seems like the wrong thing to be dilligent about. at least the kid's got balls.

[chthus]

It may not be worth arguing my hypothetical, but you completely avoided it. I asked what you thought about prosecution by clear-headed prosecutors, not arrest by shit-scared security.

[Glenn C]

What, exactly, does this have to do with the USA PATRIOT Act? The little cretin was arrested by state police and charged with violating a *Massachusetts state* law. Yes, the locals overreacted. So, too, did the commentariat. Nick, you are playing straight into Ponnoru's hands with this kind of commentary.

[Stephen Fetchet]

What he did was a Class 5 Federal Felony. That law has been on the books for 15, maybe 20 years. It has nothing whatsoever to do with PATRIOT. Try it out at your local airport ? you will get the exact same treatment.

Ahh, nevermind. It's more fun to blame it on the AG>

[Russ Lemley]

Couldn't the TSA folks used a little bit more common sense by, I don't know, telling the kid to say what you think but don't joke around about the b-word?

[Eric Pobirs]

OTOH, what better way to cause misdirection than by staging a confrontation? This is second nature to magicians and con artists. I would be wary of those who appear to be doing such a things as this idiot kid set up.

[kevrob]

chthus said thus:

" Me: (seeing some one I don't like walking down the airplane aisle) That guys a bum."

No one saying this should fear the TSA. There are those who will consider your designating someone who may be an Unhoused American by the slur "bum" to be a Hate Crime.

Kevin

[nm156]

The kid's an asshole, alright. My kind of asshole.

[Mark]

Funny, I actually know the kid. Go to school with him. He's a good kid, funny. Regrets doing it but it was a harmless act.

[Paul]

There was NO THREAT and he did nothing wrong. If anything this seems more liberal than conservative to the other commenter, he should have gottan an apology.