Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

I was detained at the TSA checkpoint for about 25 minutes today

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
View Poll Results: Do you agree or disagree with the action undertaken by MKEbound?
Agree
766
75.92%
Disagree
144
14.27%
Neither agree nor disagree
75
7.43%
Not sure
24
2.38%
Voters: 1009. You may not vote on this poll

I was detained at the TSA checkpoint for about 25 minutes today

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 2, 2006, 8:15 pm
  #1576  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 420
From the FWIW dept: I conducted a rather un-scientific straw poll of about 10 TSA screeners and supervisors at a New England airport today. When asked what he/she would do upon seeing a "freedom baggie" (no I did not use that term) inscribed with the statement in question, no one said they would "detain", report, or otherwise hassle the passnger. Two said they would laugh or snicker. One would want to shake the passenger's hand with gusto (but would not actually do it). Others would not do or say anything. Three of the TSA people surveyed had seen this story in the paper or online.

All thought that calling the LEO was uncalled for.
Dont call me Shirley is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 8:17 pm
  #1577  
In memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Near Jacksonville FL
Posts: 3,987
Originally Posted by GUWonder
When a lawyer lawyers based on their personal biases on a public matter, I take their claims with a grain of salt. That's why I usually recommend hiring attorneys who are on the other side of the political fence.

It's clear that the position you advocate mirrors the "legal position" you present. It's certainly incomplete.



Airprot security as currently conducted by the TSA is more dog and pony show than a serious business. Any publicly-listed business that operated like the TSA would have declared bankruptcy a long time ago or come under scrutiny from the regulators and would be held accountable, including in public ways.

And the "adverse consequence" was time that cannot be recovered and being sent through a government fishing expedition's net. And that's the very beginning of the "adverse consequences" that we know about so far.
You - or anyone else - is free to hire a lawyer of his or her choice. Just make sure when you hire a lawyer that that lawyer isn't trying to make his or her career or reputation on your dime and inconvenience. I've been in jail before - only a short time (contempt of court) - and I can assure you it is absolutely zero fun. OTOH - perhaps it is your cup of tea.

The competence of the TSA has nothing to do with this. Because at night - the TSA people will go and have a few beers - and go home - and sleep in their own beds. Most potential legal clients are people who'd like to do the same. My primary point here is that people who try to do what the OP did can't necessarily expect that the worst that will happen to them is they'll get to write a rant on FT. Robyn
robyng is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 8:18 pm
  #1578  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Dont call me Shirley
From FWIW dept: I conducted a rather un-scientific straw poll of about 10 TSA screeners and supervisors at a New England airport today. When asked what he/she would do upon seeing a "freedom baggie" (no I did not use that term) inscribed with the statment question no one said they would "detain", report, or otherwise hassle the passnger. Two said they would laugh or snicker. One would lwant to shake the passenger's hand with gusto (but would not actually do it). Others would not do or say anything. Three of the TSA people surveyed had seen this story in the paper or online.

All thought that calling the LEO was uncalled for.
That's responsible behavior by TSA employees. I'm glad to see that common sense still exists.

It's not the TSA employees that are idiots (although there are certainly bad apples, bad apples that don't get weeded out fast enough because the TSA is largely unresponsive, unaccountable and poorly-led); it's the leadership that can't show themselves to be sensible.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 8:21 pm
  #1579  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by robyng
You - or anyone else - is free to hire a lawyer of his or her choice. Just make sure when you hire a lawyer that that lawyer isn't trying to make his or her career or reputation on your dime and inconvenience. I've been in jail before - only a short time (contempt of court) - and I can assure you it is absolutely zero fun. OTOH - perhaps it is your cup of tea.
Not a concern for me. If having a plastic bag with the words "Kip Hawley is an idiot" is all that it takes to land someone in jail, something is broken in America. That is, it'll take government misbehavior for someone to end up in jail in circumstances akin to the OP.

Originally Posted by robyng
The competence of the TSA has nothing to do with this. Because at night - the TSA people will go and have a few beers - and go home - and sleep in their own beds. Most potential legal clients are people who'd like to do the same. My primary point here is that people who try to do what the OP did can't necessarily expect that the worst that will happen to them is they'll get to write a rant on FT. Robyn
The competence of the TSA has everything to do with why "Kip Hawley is an idiot" resonates with so many here. A lot of Americans who fly through US airports weekly or more realize that there is a lot of security stupidity in place. The plastic bag + 3 oz. rule is just one of the better examples of idiocy.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 8:29 pm
  #1580  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ZRH
Posts: 659
Thumbs up

Bravo to the OP for expressing an opinion with which I'm sure the vast majority of FTers agree.
goheelswks is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 9:03 pm
  #1581  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: DFW
Programs: AA EXP/4MM, QF PLT, Marriott PLT
Posts: 1,425
Originally Posted by nsx
Did the Revolutionary War need to be fought? Perhaps not. Canada and Australia didn't fight England, and they are independent today. But nobody knows for sure how things would have turned out with different decisions.
But then we'd have to play cricket and that's a high price to pay!
bollar is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 9:08 pm
  #1582  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,761
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
Oh please don't give me the "I was questioned so i must have been penalized" argument. Pure example of the pussification of America. Hassles are not penalties no matter how you spin it.
So if you post "I hate the IRS" on FlyerTalk, you'd be OK with the feds showing up at the door to hassle you? How about arrest you? Getting booked isn't a penalty, isn't it? Where does the government's right to hassle dissenters end? Jail?

My time is valuable. Having a half hour wasted because I dared dissent against the government is a penalty, any way you look at it.

Read the First Amendment. Read the whole Bill of Rights. Being questioned and detained for dissent was precisely what the Framers and the states who wouldn't ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights were concerned about.

This isn't being "chicken little." I know my history: and it's full of examples of governments and rulers clamping down on dissent for their own gain. Well this one is supposed to be different.
Doppy is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 9:16 pm
  #1583  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: أمريكا
Posts: 26,761
Originally Posted by robyng
By the way - what happened to the hare krishnas? Haven't seen them anywhere in *any* part of an airport in years. Or any similar group for that matter. Could be that post 9/11 rules did away with them. Robyn
I got solicited last year at LAX. Not by the HKs, it was some other organization. But the point is that it still goes on there.
Doppy is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 9:18 pm
  #1584  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: midwest
Programs: aa-plat, nw-gold, ua, sw, marriot-plat, hh-silver, hz-presidents circle, amtrak-who knows
Posts: 136
So if flyering is ok, then maybe after my next flight i should spend time handing out flyers regarding the the real problems with airport security that the tsa should be addressing instead of shaking us down for 3.25oz bottles of toothpaste.

_m
michaelcoyote is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 9:21 pm
  #1585  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW Fla. - VPS, PNS
Programs: DL, NW, HH
Posts: 333
Originally Posted by robyng
And the next time I see a hare krishna at the gate...
What is it with you and Hare Krishnas? You seem a bit obsessed with them.

BTW, regarding your recommendation to retain counsel before I exercise my First Amendment rights, not gonna happen. I'm not driven by fear and feel quite comfortable taking the chance that the law is on my side.

Time and money are not everything. Some patriots make sacrifices so that others may be free.
breny is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 9:23 pm
  #1586  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by Doppy
So if you post "I hate the IRS" on FlyerTalk, you'd be OK with the feds showing up at the door to hassle you?
....
My time is valuable. Having a half hour wasted because I dared dissent against the government is a penalty, any way you look at it.
....
This isn't being "chicken little." I know my history: and it's full of examples of governments and rulers clamping down on dissent for their own gain. Well this one is supposed to be different.
I couldn't care less if the IRS showed up at my door to hassle me. If I posted something like that it's because I was making a statement and looking for a confrontation, trust me, the IRS has shown up at my door without even posting that.

In a previous post, i made the argument that writing something "controversial" (it's in quotes because it's in the eye of the beholder) may very well render a controversial effect. Knowing that, how can you be surprised when you are detained (in the loosest sense of the word)?

History. I don't know you or your background so I can't argue with you on who knows more. You seem to be quite confident that you are well versed in history even to suggest that you know more about it than I. I just would caution that there is a huge difference in the "examples" I think you are alluding to and some stupid TSA agent and his boss getting worked up over a prank.
Travellin' Fool is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 9:34 pm
  #1587  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
I couldn't care less if the IRS showed up at my door to hassle me. If I posted something like that it's because I was making a statement and looking for a confrontation, trust me, the IRS has shown up at my door without even posting that.

In a previous post, i made the argument that writing something "controversial" (it's in quotes because it's in the eye of the beholder) may very well render a controversial effect. Knowing that, how can you be surprised when you are detained (in the loosest sense of the word)?
Your argument, as in its conclusion, is invalid vis-a-vis the circumstances applicable to the OP. We've already shown in earlier posts that there need not be an expectation of detention. Several associates have been flying with bags saying "Kip Hawley is an idiot" for the better part of the morning, and there was not a single detention; and the expectation this evening was that there would be not delays due to the bag's writing either. Not one report from any of them saying that there was a detention yet received emails after their scheduled arrivals. I'd be surprised if my carrying a plastic bag with such constitutionally-protected writing results in my detention tomorrow. No one whom I knew to do it today got detained. No one. If on Tuesday one of my associates gets subjected to the kind of TSA nonsense exhibited in the OP for flying with a "freedom bag", I'd be surprised.

Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
History. I don't know you or your background so I can't argue with you on who knows more. You seem to be quite confident that you are well versed in history even to suggest that you know more about it than I. I just would caution that there is a huge difference in the "examples" I think you are alluding to and some stupid TSA agent and his boss getting worked up over a prank.
This isn't a prank for many of us. It's a matter of being able to exercise our rights under the First Amendment without being subject to government reprisal from government employees abusing power to punish opinion they disagree with.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 10:01 pm
  #1588  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Your argument, as in its conclusion, is invalid vis-a-vis the circumstances applicable to the OP. We've already shown in earlier posts that there need not be an expectation of detention. Several associates have been flying with bags saying "Kip Hawley is an idiot" for the better part of the morning, and there was not a single detention;...
ok, i see your point. But would it not be reasonable to suggest, that since the only rendering was on the "freedom bag" and not anywhere else, the target audience was in fact the screener or another TSA person in the area? You and I both agree that the TSA folks acted childish(or whatever word you want). However, given the nature of the words in that environment, a random sampling of said target audience will eventually produce someone who fits the "idiot" description who will go overboard. Just so happens that the OP hit the jackpot on his first pull.

This isn't a prank for many of us. It's a matter of being able to exercise our rights under the First Amendment without being subject to government reprisal from government employees abusing power to punish opinion they disagree with.
Here's where we will just have to agree to disagree.
Travellin' Fool is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 10:23 pm
  #1589  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
ok, i see your point. But would it not be reasonable to suggest, that since the only rendering was on the "freedom bag" and not anywhere else, the target audience was in fact the screener or another TSA person in the area?
(There are situations where that need not be the case.) "Target audience" or not, government employees should not be harassing Americans for exercising their constitutional right and writing down that "Kip Hawley is an idiot".

Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
You and I both agree that the TSA folks acted childish(or whatever word you want). However, given the nature of the words in that environment, a random sampling of said target audience will eventually produce someone who fits the "idiot" description who will go overboard. Just so happens that the OP hit the jackpot on his first pull.
Well, if the TSA is a normally-functioning organization, shouldn't it terminate "someone who fits the 'idiot' description who will go overboard"?


Originally Posted by Travellin' Fool
Originally Posted by GUWonder
This isn't a prank for many of us. It's a matter of being able to exercise our rights under the First Amendment without being subject to government reprisal from government employees abusing power to punish opinion they disagree with.
Here's where we will just have to agree to disagree.
With what exactly are you disagreeing? That some of us don't think this is a prank but is an actual form of constitutionally-protected protest? Or that this is not a matter of being able to exercise our rights under the First Amendment without being subject to government reprisal from government employees abusing power to punish persons who write down constitutionally-protected opinions they disagree with?

How is this not a matter of being able to exercise our rights under the First Amendment without being subject to government reprisal from government employees abusing power to punish those persons who write down constitutionally-protected opinions with which they disagree?

This isn't a prank for me; for me it's much more a matter of curiosity about what kind of country we have become and will be; it's also a matter of reminding myself that every time I am complying with these idiotic rules related to plastic bags and 3 oz cut-offs that I am not buying into it, just going through the motions until the TSA gets some sense in this area.

Last edited by GUWonder; Oct 2, 2006 at 10:34 pm
GUWonder is offline  
Old Oct 2, 2006, 10:32 pm
  #1590  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,015
...just disagree quietly. Idiots are paying attention and you may get in the way, too...

GUWonder, as you well know and have so eloquently expressed so often, there is, alas, ALREADY "...something broken in America." Our O.P. didn't have to sidle very close to the overhang at all to bring down the avalanche of many-headed snakes.
Lumpy is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.