Originally Posted by
amanuensis
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.
It depends on what you mean by "wrong." TSA's brief is, evidently, whatever TSA chooses. However, the Constitution precludes compelled answers under these circumstances and, as I've said a number of times, TSOs have no right of detention or arrest, nor do they have the right to seize non-contraband (and I'm not even sure they have the right to seize contraband).
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.
That's correct -- it is all a dog-and-pony show that does little or nothing to keep commercial aviation safe.
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.
It was, indeed, security theater. I used to be a professional actor and I'm a member of SAG, AFTRA and Equity. If TSA wants me to be part of the performance they can call my agent and pay me my rate. Otherwise, I have no interest in sacrificing my constitutionally-secured rights on the altar of airline profits.
And the characterization of where he was questioned as being as "small, windowless room" seems unnecessarily dramatic.
Why? Presumably the room was small and lacked windows. Again, TSA has no powers of detention or arrest.
Form follows function. What need would the TSA have for doing questioning in a spacious, airy, light-filled room?
Given that TSA has no power of arrest or detention, they have no need of a room at all.
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?
I suspect that Bierfeldt would have preferred that no questioning be done at all. Bierfeldt was, unfortunately, unaware of his rights. I am not. If TSA ever pulled a stunt like this with me, there would be arrests, and I would be the complaining witness, not the arrestee.