This story, which I heard about earlier this week and was covered more extensively by Lew Rockwell and Andrew Napolitano on yesterday's "Freedom Watch," is yet another outrage courtesy of a completely out-of-control "national security" state. Haisong Jiang, Chinese national and doctoral candidate of molecular biology at Rutgers University, was near a TSA "security checkpoint" when he spontaneously (Duh) decided to slip through the security door to give his departing girlfriend a last-second farewell kiss. She then flew to California while he left the airport without laying a finger on anyone.
Jiang was able to "breach" the security checkpoint of the Newark Airport TSA because one of their employees had abandoned his "post," without proper authorization. Once the group of TSA "officers" (Larry, Moe and Curly anyone?) finally realized the "breach" had occurred, they attempted to access their security cameras to find out where the guy had gone. Because their cameras were inoperable -- and had been so for six days -- the TSA wasn't able to see what had happened and instead, ingeniously shut down the entire freakin' airport for 6 hours, causing hundreds of flight delays and stranding thousands of passengers.
To any sane person, the completely incompetent, unprofessional behavior of the Newark TSA should be implicated as responsible for this mess. But to the power-lusting Sen. Frank Lautenberg, the real bad guy is poor Jiang. Already arrested for the "crime" of defiant trespass and ordered to pay an up to $500 fine, Lautenberg wants to "see if there is any course of action" under federal law to punish poor Jiang more than the "slap on the wrist" his misdemeanor conviction and fine represent. Foaming at the mouth in anticipation of using state violence to ruin this poor fellow's life, Lautenberg also calls for Jiang's deportation, saying “He’s really an unwelcome guest....He should be returned to his homeland.”
Folks in the liberty movement are very individualistic to the extent that they rarely all agree on anything. But I think I can speak for for all of us in this instance, saying to Sen. Lautenberg: "Shut up, you creep."
How on earth did incompetence and/or inattention on the part of some government agents become construed as a criminal act on the part of an individual? What is Senator Lautenberg trying to say here? Was a member of CONGRESS HONESTLY stating that a foreign national was LEGALLY responsible for ensuring the proper behvior and function of TSA security????
Well if he says so... But his statement begs the question, "Okay. But if Chinese nationals are responsible for the operation of the Federal Government then what do we need Congress and the Administration for???"
It is like all the Anti-Constitutionals in the government. If the Constitutional limitations on government DON'T mean what they say, and the Constitution DOESN'T mean what it meant to those who voted for it, then why should we believe that the parts of the Constitution which create their jobs and give them authority DO mean what they say, and what those who voted for it thought it meant????
Senator Lautenberg, Congress, Justices of the Supreme Court, President Obama, If the Constitution's meaning cannot be determined from strict contsruction then it also cannot be determined from said construction to give you any authority whatever!!!
First off, the "incompetence and/or inattention" of a government agency was not responsible for the man committing "defiant trespass". All of the stories I have read on this incident say that the man snuck underneath a security cordon after the official abandoned his post. Prior to abandoning his post, the official told the man to move away from the area.
So, although we would like to place the blame for this incident on the TSA, the blame rests with the individual. When the man crossed the security cordon, he was by definition trespassing. Why are we defending him?
Perhaps you don't think the TSA should exist and that private airlines should offer their own security. I am of the same opinion. But, for the timebeing, the airlines have essentially outsourced the need for security to the TSA. It is easy to see why. After all, the TSA receives funding from taxpayers; therefore, it is more cost-effective for the airlines not to have to provide airline security (which is why they opt to have the TSA control it since they are not paying for it).
Basically, the situation boils down to this. The man went past the security cordon despite the warning from the TSA official and he trespassed, which is punishable by New Jersey law as a 'defiant trespass' offense. Even if the TSA official hadn't told him so, there are clearly posted signs that say you are not allowed to pass the security cordon (besides the fact that it is common sense).
Too often, I think people (libertarians in particular) preach about individual responsibilty, but then attempt to shirk it if they believe something is not right from the onset. For example, I was on a DailyPaul forum a while back where someone was battling a credit card company over a bunch of money they owed, and they were saying that the laws and amount of interest and what not were unfair. But, by signing up for that credit card, they agreed to those terms.
You might say, well the TSA is unconstitutional (and I agree), but if it were, there would have been airline officials standing there instead, that would have said, do not cross the security cordon, and when the man crossed it, he would have been trespassing on their property, which would warrant the punishment according to 'defiant trespass'.
If we expect people to take us seriously, we need to be ready to accept responsibility for all of our actions and not just when it benefits our cause.
Joseph- A key tenet of libertarianism is a view that punishment should only apply to aggresion against another man's property rights, and that such punishment should be proportional to the deprivation of rights that occured.
Do you honestly view deportation as proportional punishment for stepping through a door the wrong way?
As I point out in the story, "incompetence," and "unprofessionalism," were partly responsible for the security "breach," because a TSA guy had ditched has post without any authorization.
"That punishment should only apply to aggresion against another man's property rights, and that such punishment should be proportional to the deprivation of rights that occured." -- the man did agress against someone else's property rights, he trespassed. That is a violation of someone else's property rights. Of course deportation is not an appropriate punishment, I never said it was. But, convicting someone of defiant trespass is certainly reasonable when they are guilty of it.
The thing is, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not the TSA official abandoned his post. There are signs that are clearly posted in airports in those areas that say you are not to enter that area unless if you go through security. So, if you violate those rules, then you are trespassing. It is as simple as that.In addition, the official told him to leave the area because he had not been cleared to enter. The man knew what he was doing and chose to do it anyways.
Yes, the TSA guy shouldn't have left, but the man shouldn't have gone into an area he wasn't approved to be in.
Joseph,
Who owns the Airport? Did the owners press charges for trespassing? Did the City of Newark make the complaint? Did the City of Newark make those security rules?
Or was it the federal government? Specifically, was it the federal government in response to a request from a Senator?
Also, I strangely don't remember the Government making a competetive bid, under its own rules, for "outsourced ... security" in Airports. The way I remember it, Congress seized control of all the nations' airports by legislative fiat, with no reference to any power delegated by the Constitution.
Joseph, are you aware that the federal government does not own airports (excepting Air Force bases)? Did you know that they are locally or privately owned?
Joseph, what do we call it when one group of individuals uses force or the threat of force to gain control of another person, or group of persons' property?
Was the TSA agent acting out the will of the City of Newark? Or was the TSA agent acting according to a Federal regulation?
Newark outsources the airport to the Port Authority. Port Authority actions in other airports they run, and other similar breaches are listed below. Is it reasonable to assume that the normal fee for Defiant Tresspass, a misdemeanor, is $25? or $500?
What accounts for the difference? Could it be illegal use of government position to influence an on-going case? Did they raise the fee last week? Or is it more reasonable to believe that the court was influenced by a Federal Official??
"On Oct. 31, 2007, William Contreras Ramos went for a cigarette while waiting to fly from JFK to Albany, but left his boarding pass and ID in the waiting area. He went back in an exit, then ran past guards who lost him in the crowd. Two terminals were evacuated, and hundreds of passengers re-screened. Ramos made his flight, though, and was arrested in Albany. He pleaded to trespassing and got a year of probation, 50 hours of community service and a $25 fine. Yes, $25. That is not a misprint.
• Gregory Wester scaled a tarmac fence to stowaway on a plane at the Raleigh-Durham, N.C., airport on Dec. 20, 2006. Passengers from planes were removed, re-screened and then sent on other flights. Wester pleaded guilty to trespassing and was sentenced to five years’ probation, and agreed to pay $602 restitution to Delta Airlines. He, too, paid a $25 fine.
• Michael Lasseter went up a down escalator to avoid security because he was late for a flight to the Georgia-Ole Miss football game on Nov. 16, 2001. Yes, 2001, just two months after the terror attacks. The airport was shut for several hours, thousands were taken off planes and re-screened. Lasseter pleaded guilty to trespassing and got five weekends in jail and 250 hours of community service. The judge also barred him from Georgia football games for a season."
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns the airport. It is not clear whether or not the institution is public or private.
Did the owner's press charges for trespassing? If the institution is private and the institution decided not to press charges, there would be no charges. If the institution was private, they probably would have pursued additional charges because his trespassing caused many problems (and thus a loss of profit). This leads me to believe the institution is public, which is why charges were pressed.
The charge he is being pressed with is defiant trespass, which appears to be a state law. Federal officials have already said he did not violate any federal statutes.
Therefore, I don't care what rules the federal government made. They are not the ones pressing charges. I do, however, care about state laws, one of which he violated and needs to be held accountable to.
"Also, I strangely don't remember the Government making a competetive bid, under its own rules, for "outsourced ... security" in Airports. The way I remember it, Congress seized control of all the nations' airports by legislative fiat, with no reference to any power delegated by the Constitution."
You didn't listen to what I said. I acknowledged the power grab was unconstitutional, but this doesn't change the fact that the airports passed on the responsibility of airport security to the federal government. Just because the federal government is in charge of airport security doesn't mean state laws can be violated without punishment. And, like I said, the airlines like having the government in charge of security because they are able to avoid most of the cost associated with having security (the taxpayers are paying for it mostly). The same goes for the Port Authority.
I'll only analyze your first example...
"He pleaded to trespassing and got a year of probation, 50 hours of community service and a $25 fine. Yes, $25. That is not a misprint." OK, $25? But what about 50 hours of community service billed at at least the minimum wage (~$7.50), which amounts to $375. So, $375 and $25 makes $400, which is 80% of $500. This doesn't count the pain of having to go to and from the community service place and all of the hassle associated with that.
After a little research, the institution is actually public, like I said. It is a public-benefit corporation.
And... concerning my first point... why do you guys continue to defend a person who clearly violated a well-known law that protects property rights?
From their website: "the Port Authority has no power to tax and does not receive tax money from any local or state governments. Instead, it operates on the revenues it makes from its rents, tolls, fees, and facilities." I suppose you could make the argument that if they did indeed receive money from the federal government, that the property is essentially owned by everyone so people should be able to go wherever they want to, but this would make airports so much more hectic and no one would be able to go anywhere. Note, I certainly would prefer that they not receive any money from the federal government so such an issue could be avoided (if they do indeed receive money from them).
Joseph,
I see now what you are saying. You make good points. But you are missing the point.
The airport is owned by the City of Newark and operated by the Port Authority. So, the airport is "technically" public. I say, "technically" because it is a lark, a red herring, and item not cogent to the topic of discussion.
The reason the airport's "technical" public ownership is not relevant is because "public" is a general term. Specifically, one entitiy's "public" is another entity's "private". To declare otherwise is to defy the concept of individual sovereignty...ergo to be a statist.
I'll briefly explain: If a voluntary collection of people compact for the ownership of a piece of property, then to members of the compact the property is public. To non-members of the compact the property is private.
Clearly, Congress and the Federal Government as a whole are outside the compact for ownership of Newark Liberty Airport. Yet they have (unjustly) assumed the role of owner for most of the aspects related to the property, particularly, but not limited to security. They assumed those ownership roles as an act of coercion...meaning that if Newark, or individuals in the government thereof had refused the Federal Government Fiat there would have been real physical acts of reprisal against those individuals.
Newark is acting under duress. The only way we can determine the will of Newark regarding the airport is to examine their policy BEFORE the coercion.
And here the record is clear, prior to 9-11 it was common for non-ticket holders to be allowed inside the secure area to farewell departing passengers and to greet arriving passengers. To do so they were required to travel through security, though that too was an act of Federal fiat coercion...on the part of the Dept of Transportation.
So, if you think the original fiat by the Dept of Transportation. was coercive against the City of Newark, then Jiang did absolutely nothing wrong.
If you think that the fiat which created the DHS and the TSA was coercive, but that the previous Dept of Transportation fiat was NOT coercive, then Jiang PROBABLY did nothing wrong. It depends on whether there is evidence that Jiang would have gone through security if allowed - as was the rule before the TSA. There is no evidence he would not have gone through security if not allowed.
If you think NEITHER the TSA fiat NOR the Dept of Transportation fiat was coercive, then Jiang was guilty of Defiant Tresspass and liable, according to the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, for the standard penalty given for similar cases of Defiant Tresspass. According to the similar cases I posted that is a $25 fine and (maybe) 50 hours of community service and not a $500 fine, nor handcuffing, nor long interrogation.
Where did the other $475 come from???? Did you honestly expect me to subscribe to the "minimum wage"... ANOTHER act of Federal FIAT?? Of course I won't! To do that one has to accept the premise that one act of coercion justifies another, the end of which logic is the rule of FORCE (a.k.a. STATISM).
Now here is the real meat of the issue. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has publicly stated they desire to "SEEK OTHER COURSES OF ACTION" with which to PUNISH Jiang!
What would be the basis of further penalties? The other cases I listed incurred no special legal intervention from the Federal Government. So why would they in Jiang's case??
BECAUSE THEY ARE EMBARRASSED!!!!! And was the source of their embarrassment specifically Jiang's action? Or was the source of their embarrassment the fact that Jiang's action PUBLICLY DEMONSTRATED THE INEFFECTUALITY OF THEIR ACTIONS????
Clearly, it is the second. If it were the first, then the Federal Government would have been similarly embarrassed by the other violations I listed, and would have acted then as they have stated they intend to act now.
And finally, if their intentions against Jiang are extra-Constitutional and motivated by embarrassment, as I believe I have shown they are, then for them to pursue those actions constitutes a blatant denial of virtually the entirety of the Constitution! And, as I said, it is impossible to both deny the Constitution and to enjoy authority UNDER the Constitution.
Said another way, if a person rejects their employment contract then they can under no circumstances be said to be employed under the contract which they have rejected. To say otherwise is to imply that the person's authority derives from outside the contract, which implication is very specifically not American, and which is SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED IN THE UNITED STATES. It is, in short, a declaration of aristocracy.
OK, so the City of Newark owns the airport. The City of Newark taxed its citizens to build the airport, but has Jiang ever paid taxes to the City of Newark? Probably not--he does not live there. Perhaps he stopped at a McDonald's and purchased a cheeseburger, and thus paid some sort of sales tax to the City of Newark? But even then, what amount of taxation imposed by the City of Newark justifies a usage of the public property in Newark? If public property is reserved solely to the individuals who have paid for it, are you willing to forfeit the ability to drive on roads in towns in other states that you have not contributed any tax dollars to construct? Where do we draw the line? How much verification should a local government require before allowing individuals to access public property?
Like I said before, the federal authorities have not charged Jiang with anything, and they have stated that he did not violate any federal statutes. If he did not violate any federal statutes, the federal government cannot charge him with anything. Therefore, the only laws he violated were those that New Jersey had been put in place to provide punishment for trespassing.
Since the TSA did not charge him with defiant trespass, this whole issue really has nothing to do with TSA. It has to do with the manner in which individuals are allowed to access public property.
I'm not asking you to agree with the minimum wage (I don't myself), I was merely providing an example. You cannot simply talk about the fee he has to pay while disregarding the opportunity cost associated with having to perform community service. I merely said the minimum wage is the lowest amount he would be paid since that is the reality of the world we live in.
I agree with the last couple of paragraphs that you wrote, but again, I will mention, I have read multiple articles that are most recent than the one that say federal authorities are pursuing additional charges against Jiang that say that federal prosecuters have discovered he did not violate any federal statues; therefore, they cannot punish him in any other way.
Back to public property though... Your arguments make sense philosophically, but in the real world, they would lead to an extremely large amount of inefficiencies in the already inefficient government. I'm sure we both agree that the airport should be privately owned because of the problems we have both outlined (I outlined some above) that come along with ownership of property by the government. But, since the airport is publically owned and we cannot currently change this, are you willing to sacrifice an insane amount of efficiency and basically ground all flights to allow people to walk around in 'secure' areas?
Do you think the airlines would be comfortable in letting anybody just walk into a 'secure' area and then potentially boarding a plane with a boarding pass alone and no identification (they do not ask for identification when boarding a plane)? Or possibly, since there can be no area disallowed for public use, thus anybody can use it, that someone can walk up and hand someone a bomb in a bag that didn't have to go through screening?
Yes, your arguments work philosophically, and I agree with them for the most part philosophically, but I think you should come back to the real world and see the extremely negative effects your proposed changes would have on the efficiency of airports that are run by local governments. Why would we want the airport to be run more inefficiently (since the government is basically the one running it), which would lead to more squandering of tax dollars?
To your first paragraph I respond:
That is the decision of the owners and, as I am not a resident of Newark, none of my business.
To your Second paragraph I would respond that this is an "Affirmation of the Consequent" fallacy. Because the Federal Government has not charged Jiang bears no influence on the identity of the personnages whose rules he violated.
Your third paragraph is the "Denial of the Antecedant" fallacy. A charge from the TSA is not relevant to determining whether TSA "had anything" to do with the situation. More particularly, the TSA like the police, can apprehend and collect evidence, but only "the people" - meaning the district attorney as the people's representative or the owner of the property can "press charges". TSA could not have pressed charges in any case, but only presented to the local or Federal Attorney General evidence that a crime was committed.
The crux of the issue is this:
Q: What action of Jiangs' was purportedly criminal?
A: Crossing the security barrier to farewell his girlfriend at the gate, a tresspass.
Q: Who defined the location, manner, means, and necessity of the security gate?
A: From November 19, 2002 through present - TSA. From January 5, 1973 through November 18, 2002 - the Federal Aviation Administration.
Whose rule did Jiang offend? The City of Newark's? Or the Federal Government's?
And if those rules were imposed illegally, without authority, then by what means can it be considered a crime to break them?
The problem with Slavery is that it permanently harms individuals' ability to care for themselves.
How, better than the TSA rules, could other entities than the Federal government secure air travel? Well, firstly, the fact that ALL of the post-9-11 attempted terrorists on US Aircraft were foiled by - drumroll- the passengers should be telling you something. ONLY the passengers and the crew can adequately secure the cabin of an aircraft.
And around the gates? In the Airport? Locally-determined security is best because it responds to the local conditions. One-size-fits-all security rarely works. It rarely works because it is cumbersome, static, and therefore produces two opportunities for attackers: A) Static security means that by knowing where the security IS an attacker can also know where the security IS NOT - and so avoid it. B) Being cumbersome means that new security measures are implemented SLOWLY - allowing attackers to defeat the security mechanism faster than new security mechanisms can be deployed.
The best security is security that always changes because it interdicts attacks at the planning stage by preventing attackers from knowing what to plan for.
Post new comment