[FedCom] RE: Secret Law

[Arthur-Bryan E. Phelps]

This comes from the "what it is worth" department.  The use of the heading "Secret
Law" or anything closely related only incites a defensive response and is grossly
misleading.  There has been no claim that the initial incidents as reported
were the result of any law or mandate.  The individual's involved in the alleged
incidences were told that the FAA =93asked=94 that a scanner not be used at controlled
airports (my paraphrasing).  The key word is asked.  This, then, snowballed
quickly into a mandate, law and ultimately, secret law.  Airport security personnel
can take any precautionary action, within reason, necessary to protect their
facility.  We have no knowledge regarding what prompted airport police/security
to approach the two individuals referenced in the initial posting.  Were they
innocently standing or sitting in an airport listening to their scanner!  Were
they driving around the perimeter of the facility, periodically stopping to
listen to their scanner! Would not the second scenario spark the curiosity of
anyone trained in security?  Also, what was reported to us was a second or,
perhaps, third hand account of the events. 
Then there is the (tongue in cheek) referenced call to the FAA.  Who called?
 Why hasn=92t anyone else received confirmation that any such rule or specific
mandate exists from any other FAA office?  Have there been additional, more
recent reports of any similar event?  No.  Is it possible that the FAA/TSA gave
general recommendations to all its field offices and airports about any number
of items that might be used by a potential terrorist to =93scope out=94 a facility?
 Yes.  Let=92s move on before the next header becomes =93The FAA Cover-up of its
Secret Law.=94