I want to be clear here -- I agree that Bierfeldt did absolutely nothing wrong. IT WAS NOT WRONG FOR HIM TO REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. My questioning (and I am of mixed feelings, so I am somewhat playing the devil's advocate) is whether it was wrong for the TSA employee to then escalate the situation based on the refusal to answer.

TSA screening is perhaps not going to stop terrorists from again sucessfully hijacking a plane. But it gives the traveling public the perception that the feds are making it safe to fly. Airlines lost a lot of money immediately post 9-11 because of the public perception that flying was a risky activitity. So they drove more, which in absolute terms was a far riskier activity. But it was perceived generally as being safer, thus illustrating that the general public has a very poor ability to judge relative risks accurately. (And, as it turned out, so did bond rating firms.) So maybe Bierfeldt should have viewed what he was involved in as Kabuki theatre.

And the characterization of where he was questioned as being as "small, windowless room" seems unnecessarily dramatic. Form follows function. What need would the TSA have for doing questioning in a spacious, airy, light-filled room? Would Bierfeldt have preferred that the questioning be done at the inspection checkpoint where everyone looking at him would have assumed that they were looking at a Perp? Wasn't it more dignified for him to be questioned in private?