I told you so.

[river_boater]

Not because I'm a genius. Or because I know something you do not. I just knew this would happen, and I told you so. Years ago.

We will never again be able to use the phrase, "hey, it's a free country." again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/us/ts ... =rss&_r=4&

[LarryFlew]

Do they have the SS ensignia too?

[xd ED]

Do they have the SS ensignia too?

You might check around the Lake St lrt stop; they- the tsa, have been known to protect that spot as well.

[DoxaPar]

Must be the sequester.

[Heffay]

VIPR?? Holy ****, do these people think they are super heroes living in comic-book land??

[photogpat]

I saw these guys at Target Field last summer. I went up and asked them about their operational jurisdiction and was told to "move along".

After three phone calls to the local TSA office I was told that they were allowed to patrol areas "sensitive to the light rail line since it runs under the International Airport, and through federal property at Fort Snelling and the VA Hospital".

I'm certain my inquiry, and this post, have put me on numerous watch lists. *waves at NSA*

[Evad]

VIPR?? Holy ****, do these people think they are super heroes living in comic-book land??

Not comic-book land. These heros walk amongst us. We don't recognize them until they don their crime fighting outfits. Until that point, it could be either of the guys licking the walk button at the cosswalk.

[Heffay]

I saw these guys at Target Field last summer. I went up and asked them about their operational jurisdiction and was told to "move along".

Operational jurisdiction? You should have asked for a free courtesy rub-down like they give you at the airport! Heck, give each of them a chance to practice to their ball-fondling skills don't get rusty!

[MasonK]

T.S.A. officials respond that the random searches are “special needs” or “administrative searches” that are exempt from probable cause because they further the government’s need to prevent terrorist attacks.

This is a very, very scary statement.

[darkwolf45]

Well, they make the rules and have sole authority to interpret the rules, so of course it is all perfectly justified!!

[Uffdaphil]

"T.S.A. officials respond that the random searches are “special needs” or “administrative searches” that are exempt from probable cause because they further the government’s need to prevent terrorist attacks."

The quoted rationale literally states that random searches increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Appropriate unintended irony.

[Jeff Bergquist]

T.S.A. officials respond that the random searches are “special needs” or “administrative searches” that are exempt from probable cause because they further the government’s need to prevent terrorist attacks.

This is a very, very scary statement.

Basically it says that our rights only matter when the government says they do, corroboration of something we've been learning over the years.

[Mn01r6]

I wonder how that will play in Minnesota in light of the Ascher decision.

The real issue in this case is not, as some might phrase it, whether the police conduct in question is reasonable in some abstract sense, nor is it whether the police procedure is in some sense effective. Rather, the issue is whether the state has met its burden of articulating a persuasive reason for departure from the general requirement of individualized suspicion — as by showing, for example, (a) that it is impractical to require the police to develop individualized suspicion and that a departure from the individualized suspicion requirement will significantly help police achieve a higher arrest rate than they can achieve using more conventional means of apprehending alcohol-impaired drivers and (b) that this outweighs the interests of ordinary citizens in not having their privacy or their freedom of movement interfered with by police investigators who do not have any reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.

[fjrdc]

papers?? travel documents????! What next, digital retinal scanning to access public transportation ? For the good of the many?

[river_boater]

I wonder how that will play in Minnesota in light of the Ascher decision.

The real issue in this case is not, as some might phrase it, whether the police conduct in question is reasonable in some abstract sense, nor is it whether the police procedure is in some sense effective. Rather, the issue is whether the state has met its burden of articulating a persuasive reason for departure from the general requirement of individualized suspicion — as by showing, for example, (a) that it is impractical to require the police to develop individualized suspicion and that a departure from the individualized suspicion requirement will significantly help police achieve a higher arrest rate than they can achieve using more conventional means of apprehending alcohol-impaired drivers and (b) that this outweighs the interests of ordinary citizens in not having their privacy or their freedom of movement interfered with by police investigators who do not have any reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.

Interesting. Since DHS is a federal agency I'm not sure it would matter.