Dec
30

Hey, Homeland Security: Fuck Off!

The security police have been busy this holiday season. Why just yesterday, Special Agent Robert Flaherty turned up on the doorstep of a blogger with what purported to be a subpoena and threatened the blogger with arrest if he did not reveal the source of information posted on the blogger's web site. What kind of knuckle-dragging Nazism is this? A rap at the door, waving a piece of paper, a threat of arrest? All this for publication of information?

Apparently yet another federal security directive was issued immediately after the failed Christmas Day airline attack in Detroit. The directive issued new standards on who to search and how to search them. Apparently two travel bloggers, Steven Frischling and Christopher Elliot, ran stories about the new directive. Neither had big brother's permission to do so.

Elliot, who runs a site called eliot.org posted the directive online. So did Frischling, who writes Flying with the Fish. Within days, the feds came knocking and demanding answers.

The directive instructs airlines and commercial carriers to disseminate the new security rules to "senior management personnel, ground security coordinators, and supervisory security personnel." Other airline security types are to be briefed on the new pat-down procedures, physical inspections and other security measures. But, the memo warns, dissemination to others requires the "prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of ... the information ... is prohibited 49 CFR 1520."

I looked up the regulations to see what authority a federal agent with subpoena envy had to wander around threatening to arrest people. Here's the sanction for violation of the administrative regulation: "§ 1520.17 Consequences of unauthorized disclosure of SSI. Violation of this part is grounds for a civil penalty and other enforcement or corrective action by DHS, and appropriate personnel actions for Federal employees. Corrective action may include issuance of an order requiring retrieval of SSI to remedy unauthorized disclosure or an order to cease future unauthorized disclosure."

Translated into plain English: there is no such authority.

This is a deeply troubling case. Special Agent Flaherty may or may not have had a subpoena. If he did, the recipient of the subpoena had a right to move to quash it, or, at a minimum, to be counseled on his legal remedies and responsibilities. Telling the recipient to either bend and spread or be arrested is a form of terror near and dear to totalitarian countries.

I'm told by a caller this evening with personal knowledge that one of the two bloggers gave the feds his computer in response to a knock on the door. The computer has since been returned, damaged. The other blogger may fight the feds on this one. I'm rooting for the fighter.

No, I don't want to get blown to smithereens on an airplane by some suicidal goofball on a mission. But I dread that about as much as being summoned by two-bit thugs earning government paychecks. The ends don't justify the means. Not if the rule of law means anything.
Comments (1)
Posted on December 30, 2009 at 5:23 pm by William Doriss
The 'rule of law' in Amerika is a farce. It means ...
The 'rule of law' in Amerika is a farce. It means nothing. First of all, there are so many 'laws on the books',...anyone can be charged with any crime, anywhere, any time--without true oversight or accountability--and they [the so-called officials]--can get away with it in Real Time. It is called 'selective enforcement'.

Someone, or some group or entity, determines that someone they do no like (for whatever reason) should be taken out, well...go to the shelf and find a statute which enables you to do this. This is how the criminal 'justice' system works. Don't kid yourself!?! Pay attention?!? Wake up, people. This is not how it was supposed to be.
For Display:
What is the day of the week?
Confidential:
(Won't be displayed with comment)

Link must be approved, then will show on this page.

x

About Norm Pattis

Norm Pattis is a Connecticut based trial lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials, many resulting in acquittals for people charged with serious crimes, multi-million dollar civil rights and discrimination verdicts, and scores of cases favorably settled.

Personal Website

www.normpattis.com
www.normpattis.com

Law Firm Website

www.pattislawfirm.com
www.pattislawfirm.com

I believe that the state is a necessary fiction and that failing to combat it is the first step toward tyranny.
– Norm Pattis

Disclaimer:

Nothing in this blog should be considered legal advice about your case. You need a lawyer who understands the context of your life and situation. What are offered here are merely suggested lines of inquiry you may explore with your lawyer.

Pattis Video