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
Sep 26, 2006, 9:31 pm
#106
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 Bart
It was meant to be offensive. I took it to the extreme on purpose to illustrate that even if it is something protected by the Constitution, anyone who goes into a synogogue with that type of symbol can be assumed to be deliberately looking to provoke someone. Writing the Kip Hawley statement is nothing more than an attempt to provoke TSOs. It is an idiotic thing to do. It's childish. But, it is protected by the Constitution as free speech, and there is nothing threatening or menacing by it. The TSOs shouldn't have reacted the way they did; the supervisor should have been the calm voice of reason but also fell into the trap of taking offense and used a weak argument to justify his actions against the OP. And the LEO, as the third party, should have also been the voice of reason when the STSO failed to do so. Chalk one up for the OP who successfully managed to bait everyone with his childish little prank.
You don't like my point because you are forced to look at this little incident in its entirety. If I prompted people to think, then the lesson has been learned. If not, then it will never be learned.
I'm frustrated with these measures but am thankful that there's at least some degree of compromise. I will continue to use my "tie goes to the runner" approach and will do my best not to allow someone to bait me like the OP did today with this little stunt. But my challenge to you is why provoke it to begin with? What's going to be accomplished by these sort of stunts?
Answer that if you can.
You don't like my point because you are forced to look at this little incident in its entirety. If I prompted people to think, then the lesson has been learned. If not, then it will never be learned.
I'm frustrated with these measures but am thankful that there's at least some degree of compromise. I will continue to use my "tie goes to the runner" approach and will do my best not to allow someone to bait me like the OP did today with this little stunt. But my challenge to you is why provoke it to begin with? What's going to be accomplished by these sort of stunts?
Answer that if you can.
Sep 26, 2006, 9:33 pm
#107
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
Now that we're to get back on topic, what other kind of things printed on a plastic baggie at MKE will cause me momentary entertainment? 
"The TSA is infallible".
"The TSA is infallible".
Sep 26, 2006, 9:40 pm
#108
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Deleted
Last edited by Bart; Jan 5, 2008 at 9:18 am
Sep 26, 2006, 9:44 pm
#109
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by Bart
Is there any disagreement with what I posted?
While I agree that it wasn an overreaction, I think this one has much more far-reaching consequences if it's just left go.
Sep 26, 2006, 9:45 pm
#110
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Originally Posted by Bart
I'll let you off the hook.
Stop thinking about yourself for once and stay on topic.
Sep 26, 2006, 9:48 pm
#111
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: CO PLT, HH DIA
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by ColKurtz
I think what you did is ridiculous and stupid. I think detaining you for about 25 minutes is about what you deserve. Maybe a little too short. I would have preferred they annoy you for a good 45 minutes or so - hopefully making you miss your flight.
First, you obviously were looking for a confrontation. Either the screeners will not notice what you wrote, or not care - what's the point in that case -- or they will notice and confront you. And the point of your desired confrontation is... to express your opinion that their boss is an idiot? What does that accomplish? Are you just an attention whore, or do you think you're planting some kind of seed of discontent that will spread and lead to Hawley's resignation.
Second, and more serious, your sophomoric little stunt distracted the people who are responsible for our security. If someone bent on harming travellers was behind you in line that day, their odds of getting through security were probably much higher than normal -- for the simple fact that you were consuming the attention of several security and police officers.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Grow up.
First, you obviously were looking for a confrontation. Either the screeners will not notice what you wrote, or not care - what's the point in that case -- or they will notice and confront you. And the point of your desired confrontation is... to express your opinion that their boss is an idiot? What does that accomplish? Are you just an attention whore, or do you think you're planting some kind of seed of discontent that will spread and lead to Hawley's resignation.
Second, and more serious, your sophomoric little stunt distracted the people who are responsible for our security. If someone bent on harming travellers was behind you in line that day, their odds of getting through security were probably much higher than normal -- for the simple fact that you were consuming the attention of several security and police officers.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Grow up.
--PP
Sep 26, 2006, 9:52 pm
#112
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 Bart
You are still dodging.
I didn't say anything about animal sacrifice. I didn't say anything about government ownership. I didn't say anything about religious places not being privately owned. What I said is that if a building is open to the public (and most places of worship are designed to invite the public inside), it is reasonable to assume that anyone can come in. There has to be a sign posted that limits or restricts entrance (such as a closed ceremony or sign that identifies the denomination, but even then, most religions open their doors to outsiders as a way of helping them find their way to the Truth).
You have a way of dodging an argument by going off on a tangent, and you've done that quite well in this case. All I've said is that someone who would wear a swastika to a synogogue (and to make this easier for you to comprehend, I'll elaborate by saying that this person hasn't dragged in a dead chicken, goat or duck to be burned at the altar; all this person is doing is participating in the ceremony, observing all the practices just like everyone else but is wearing a swastika) is offered the same protections by the Constitution of free speech...in theory. You and I both know that such a person would be asked to leave. But if you want to argue the principles of free expression, then I maintain that the person has not violated any law.
I'll let you off the hook.
I didn't say anything about animal sacrifice. I didn't say anything about government ownership. I didn't say anything about religious places not being privately owned. What I said is that if a building is open to the public (and most places of worship are designed to invite the public inside), it is reasonable to assume that anyone can come in. There has to be a sign posted that limits or restricts entrance (such as a closed ceremony or sign that identifies the denomination, but even then, most religions open their doors to outsiders as a way of helping them find their way to the Truth).
You have a way of dodging an argument by going off on a tangent, and you've done that quite well in this case. All I've said is that someone who would wear a swastika to a synogogue (and to make this easier for you to comprehend, I'll elaborate by saying that this person hasn't dragged in a dead chicken, goat or duck to be burned at the altar; all this person is doing is participating in the ceremony, observing all the practices just like everyone else but is wearing a swastika) is offered the same protections by the Constitution of free speech...in theory. You and I both know that such a person would be asked to leave. But if you want to argue the principles of free expression, then I maintain that the person has not violated any law.
I'll let you off the hook.
I was hoping the distinction would be rather obvious that religious institutions do own property and do have private property rights. And by exercising those private property rights they make their facilities public in any conditional way they wish under the legal exercise of their own private property rights (including who can and cannot use it). Government/quasi-government facilities -- unlike non-governmental US persons/entities -- operate under further restrictions and don't have the free exercise of property rights that a US person, including US entities like a religious institution, have. That is, the government cannot implement a political expression litmus test on who can and cannot use facilities (i.e., facilities open to the general public) without additional harassment. And that kind of litmus test is exactly what happened here, unwitting as it may be.
Last edited by GUWonder; Sep 26, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Sep 26, 2006, 9:53 pm
#113
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Deleted
Last edited by Bart; Jan 5, 2008 at 9:17 am
Sep 26, 2006, 9:58 pm
#114
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Deleted
Last edited by Bart; Jan 5, 2008 at 9:17 am
Sep 26, 2006, 9:59 pm
#115
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Originally Posted by Bart
This is like showing up to a synagogue with a swastika on an armband. You haven't threatened anyone, but you've certainly inflamed them even if you're within the limits of your First Amendment rights.
Insulting the Director of the TSA, an undersecretary of the DHS, in writing, as the OP did, does not come anywhere close to your example of a swastika armband at a synagogue. The swastika's purpose is to terrorize the Jewish audience at the temple, while the OP's epiteth was intended as a political protest.
The OP did not intend to place any screeners in fear for their lives, while the swastika armband is intended to do just that. Any screeners who honestly feared for their lives as a result of the OP's writings on their baggie need immediate and extensive mental health observation and counseling.
A more apt analogy to yours would be a hypothetical traveler who placed numerous copies of photos of the Murrah Federal Building in their carryon. That would be analogous to wearing the armband at temple. A hypothetical traveler who did THAT would warrant the attention lavished on the OP. But "Kip Hawley is an idiot"? Sorry, pilgrim.
Originally Posted by Bart
Ultimately, the checkpoint supervisor and police officer overreacted and should have shown more professionalism.
Still waiting for that professionalism, Comrade Daschle. A professional would have simply ignored it. If today's events happened the way the OP said they did, then the OP encountered more thugs than professionals. And that's not the America I helped defend.
Sep 26, 2006, 10:06 pm
#116
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: CO PLT, HH DIA
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Superguy
Even if the OP was looking to make a statement (and possibly a confrontation), that still does NOT give the TSA ANY reason to say that the Constitution is not in effect at a checkpoint. You may have a valid argument at immigration as you haven't been admitted to the US, though there is government doctrine that says the protections from the government the Constitution grants are in force on a US person even outside the nation (ie the CIA can't tail me in the England simply because I'm not on US soil.)
As a federal employee, you (collectively) take the same oath POTUS does to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." I took that oath when I was a fed, and I'd be willing to bet you did too. While it may be a stretch to say that this supervisor was an enemy of the constitution, he most certainly trampled on it and that violates the oath.
That supervisor should be placed on LWOP pending an investigation and terminated if found guilty.
It was unconstitutional and you and I both know that.
As a federal employee, you (collectively) take the same oath POTUS does to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." I took that oath when I was a fed, and I'd be willing to bet you did too. While it may be a stretch to say that this supervisor was an enemy of the constitution, he most certainly trampled on it and that violates the oath.
That supervisor should be placed on LWOP pending an investigation and terminated if found guilty.
It was unconstitutional and you and I both know that.
Bart confirmed what many of us knew, that the TSO and the rest of the TSA crew overreacted to a NON PROBLEM, were poor managers, acted unprofessionally and tha the whole thing was blown WAY the hell out of proportion. And to those who feel it was a dumb thing to do, you're entirely missing the point: Dumb, smart or otherwise, it's NOT THEIR DECISION TO MAKE. He could have worn a T-shirt that says "I PICK MY NOSE AND SO DOES THE TSA" and it's NOT their place to decide that this is offensive or that the US Constitution has been abrogated to their whimsy.
As for the wisdon of writing such a thing on a baggie that he knew the TSA would see, while his timing may have been less than great (I'm still chucking over the entire incident as the comedy value is very high) it's entirely HIS RIGHT TO DO SO. The constitution doesn't get suspended because the TSA says it does, because Comrade Hawley says it does, or because Kommissar Chertoff says it does, or because the TSA replaced an asinine screening procedure with adifferent but equally asinine screening procedure. That cop should have told the TSA to either prove a threat to aviation or go back to editing someone's shampoo for content and to fit your TV screen or whatever it is they do.
There may be no good reason for me to go outside in the rain shirtless in a shopping mall parking lot singing "clang, clang, clang went the trolley" but that doesn't mean it's not entirely my right to do so. This counrty was founded on the principle that people are free to act as they choose within limits, and writing "Kip Hawley is an idiot" is not a threat or inciting anything except the overinflated egos of some TSA critters who clearly need to be retrained if not canned altogether. They are civil servsants and need to start acting like they are working for us, because THEY ARE.
To the OP, I am a member of the broadcast media and if you want the help, I will help you get in contact with news editors who would be interested in telling this story. This is yet another humiliating episode where the TSA needs to be publoicly shamed and the nature of too many of their employees needs to be plastered on the wall for all to see. This $6 billion federal jobs program is broken, there aren't enough Barts around to fix it, and it stopped being about security when they started hiring people who couldn't get jobs elsewhere.
--PP
Sep 26, 2006, 10:07 pm
#117
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Originally Posted by Bart
However, I challenge you to explain how writing Kip Hawley is an idiot shouldn't prompt some sort of response or wasn't meant to do nothing more than provoke TSA employees. If you want to cling to the First Amendment argument, then let's debate it openly.
Stop thinking about yourself for once and stay on topic.
Stop thinking about yourself for once and stay on topic.
What I posted was a simple request to stay on topic. Fer chrissakes, look at the count of people who have cllicked on this thread....nearly 10,000.
I suggested staying on topic because this is a great way to get exposure of the plight both to the frequent flier and the TSAers who loathe carrying out this stupid procedure.
The comment written on the bag was simply a blow to the ego of the TSAer. Add in the mix of a supervisor who wanted to let MKEBound who was boss, and it got toxic real quick. It's classic TSA thuggery, nearly every FFer has experienced it, and it won't be the last until some damn accountability comes into place in the TSA.
Thank you for putting this string back on topic.
Sep 26, 2006, 10:12 pm
#118
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington DC USA
Posts: 2,571
Originally Posted by VideoPaul
it stopped being about security when they started hiring people who couldn't get jobs elsewhere.
Sep 26, 2006, 10:16 pm
#119
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alameda, CA, USA
Posts: 4,906
Originally Posted by MKEbound
I was detained for about 25 minutes today after passing though the TSA checkpoint at MKE terminal E.
At least everyone involved seems to have known who Kip Hawley is.
Is this a screener you're likely to encounter again? I wonder how that will play out.
Sep 26, 2006, 10:18 pm
#120
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dulles, VA
Programs: UA Life Gold, Marriott Life Titanium
Posts: 2,757
No offense to Bart or any TSA people, but guys, equating TSA to any LEO organization is highly invalid. TSA is not a law enforcement agency in any way shape or form. They are not trained to be. They are not lawyers either. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the first screener even knew who Hawley was. They certainly don't know anything more about the Constitution specifically or laws in general except what they vaguely remember from their history and social studies classes in high school.
This is not a bash against TSA, just a statement of fact. TSA's job is to screen passengers to ensure no one carries an illegal dangerous item on a plane. That's it. The reason there are more cops assigned to airports these days - by the way, I'm sure the LEO at Milwaukee was probably pissed more than anybody because he had to waste his time on something he more than likely saw as stupid and unworthy of five seconds of time working - is that, if TSA does discover something, they have to call the cops over to actually make an arrest.
TSA has limited responsibility, in the whole scheme of things. Some TSA people try to assert more authority than they ever will come close to having, but so do a lot of others on the airport patrol these days. I've seen ID checkers yelling at passengers "you want to fly today" and crap like that, and currently the ID checkers are low-paid, contract employees who have absolutely zero authority to do anything other than mark up your boarding pass and attempt to see if the photo on your ID matches your face and the name matches the name on the boarding pass.
And to sum up today's action, yeah, the OP was probably a little too smart in writing what he did on his bag, but it isn't illegal and the appropriate response from TSA should have been to ignore it.
Finally, to those that said it created a security issue by distracting TSA - does that mean if terrorists want to get on a plane, all they need to do is Photoshop a few pics of Chertoff and Hawley 69'ing on a burning US flag and slip that on the xray belt, then sit back and watch the TSA guys get wrapped around the axel on the insult?
This is not a bash against TSA, just a statement of fact. TSA's job is to screen passengers to ensure no one carries an illegal dangerous item on a plane. That's it. The reason there are more cops assigned to airports these days - by the way, I'm sure the LEO at Milwaukee was probably pissed more than anybody because he had to waste his time on something he more than likely saw as stupid and unworthy of five seconds of time working - is that, if TSA does discover something, they have to call the cops over to actually make an arrest.
TSA has limited responsibility, in the whole scheme of things. Some TSA people try to assert more authority than they ever will come close to having, but so do a lot of others on the airport patrol these days. I've seen ID checkers yelling at passengers "you want to fly today" and crap like that, and currently the ID checkers are low-paid, contract employees who have absolutely zero authority to do anything other than mark up your boarding pass and attempt to see if the photo on your ID matches your face and the name matches the name on the boarding pass.
And to sum up today's action, yeah, the OP was probably a little too smart in writing what he did on his bag, but it isn't illegal and the appropriate response from TSA should have been to ignore it.
Finally, to those that said it created a security issue by distracting TSA - does that mean if terrorists want to get on a plane, all they need to do is Photoshop a few pics of Chertoff and Hawley 69'ing on a burning US flag and slip that on the xray belt, then sit back and watch the TSA guys get wrapped around the axel on the insult?