PhoenixRev

Of course.

Bob and the TSA are working diligently to get their "Certified Propogandists" credentials.

pmocek

Thanks, Bob.

IslandBased

Perhaps if the TSOs had just been dealing with one issue, the lack of ID, things would have gone well for them, and Phil might have passed through the CP after he had undergone the alternative processing. Add a second layer, the camera, and suddenly they had more (two simultaneous processes) than their training could handle. Throw in a third layer, that Phil remained calm but stood up for his rights, and suddenly the LEO community was necessary. Multi-layered civil disobedience is effective. ^ What would have gone down if there had been 20 layers of civil disobedience?

pmocek

Just to be clear: the only people I disobeyed were Mr. Breedon, the security guard, and Mr. Romero, his shift manager. I followed the rules (best I can tell, given that TSA refuses to publish them), obeyed the law, and did everything the police ordered me to do (with the exception of showing them documentation of my identity, which was impossible).

Boggie Dog

A TSM was on scene. If a person of that level in TSA does not know the rules or is incapable of reacting to an unusual situation then TSA needs to go back to square one on every aspect of TSA training and promotion qualifications.

MikeMpls

He's still lying by implication:

Phil was not asked to step aside, nor was any evidence presented that he was interfering with the screening any way.

The TSO falsely told Phil that he was not allowed to film at the check point. Period. End of story.

Caradoc

If Bloghdad Bob actually told the truth - the whole truth - in any new post, I think maybe a third of the regular readers of PV would simply die of shock.

IslandBased

I understand, and I think that civil disobedience is a positive way of expressing a viewpoint. I admire what you accomplished. My comment was more about the TSA training and lack of ability to deal with more than one facet of an issue at a time.

n4zhg

With friends like Blogdad Bob, who needs enemas?

No, I would inquire if his login was hacked.

If you're expecting WalMart greeter rejects to walk and chew gum at the same time, your expectations are way too high.

jkhuggins

In my humble yet uninformed opinion ... I think there's a simpler explanation.
(Obligatory disclaimer: these are my uninformed opinions only; your mileage may vary.)

I've been reading the TSA Blog almost since its inception. I can remember a time when Bob made postings directly in response to users within items. Granted, Bob has always offered the official TSA position on issues, but at least he answered questions. At times, he admitted where TSA's policies were weak. Heck, he solicited questions from time to time.

As my memory serves, that all changed when Kip Hawley left TSA with the arrival of the Obama administration in January 2009. At that point, others took over the leadership of TSA. Gale Rossides held Hawley's position until Pistole was finally confirmed. I'm sure there were other changes in the leadership of TSA along the way as well.

I noted a gradual change in the tone of the TSA Blog after that point. Bob became less responsive to inline questions, often not responding at all. Lead postings seemed to read much more like TSA press releases, after they'd been edited by many editors, concerned more with repeating official position statements than providing responses to public questions.

I wonder if the post-Hawley TSA decided to reign in Bob's ability to speak freely on the blog. That would explain much. (Of course, there's no way to prove or disprove such speculations; TSA would deny it did any such thing, whether or not it actually did so.)

pmocek

TSM = airport security shift manager. In this case, it was Gerald Romero, who becomes visible at 0:32 into the video. He's the man in plain clothes who scowled at me, reached for me and/or my camera, refused to tell me his name when I asked him to do so, and repeatedly asked, then ordered, me to put my camera down. He had no authority to compel me to do so, and I did not do so.

Despite Officer Dilley requesting a statement from TSA staff who were involved, and specifically asking for one from Mr. Romero (in one of the police radio recordings, Dilley is heard saying, "Can you get statements from all the TSA people? We need written statements from them. Ask them to be detailed please, especially Gerald.") there was no statement from Mr. Romero in the public records I received from the City of Albuquerque. The state planned to call him as a witness, and we interviewed him, but after the DA saw my video (we voluntarily provided it when I was down there last month), the state's witness list was reduced from eight to two.

I know people have heard me harp about this for years, but until we can read the rules, there is no way to know whether or not anyone is following them.

ND Sol

As pointed out above about the updated blog:

I find this to be quite chilling. That I am recording an interaction with the TSA with no impediment to the TSO doing his job can be grounds for stopping the procedure is unconscionable.

Then again, the fact that Phil's video was erased while in the custody of the government is no less chilling.

doober

Can someone explain the first sentence of the update to me:

Where did Bob refer to recent media coverage in the initial thread? This sentence means nothing - the only thing I see that it does is to finally acknowledge in writing on the blog that Phil was acquitted.

Perhaps Bob was flustered as a result of hearing today from the OIG?

jkhuggins

The first line of Bob's original posting makes a non-specific reference to the media:

Boggie Dog

Phil, in your video it really looks like TSM Romero made contact with you or possibly your camera. Did he touch you in any way?

I completely agree with you on TSA's secret rules and not being able to comply with them all while TSA is requiring compliance with significant fines or even getting law enforcement involved for not knowing what rules must be complied with.

It is truly a ridiculous situation and certainly not one which any person who respects our Constitution would be party to.