exerda

Not at all. Proof that our system "does work" would have been if the OP's comments went ignored, or at least unresponded-to, by the TSA. Our system would have even "worked" had the TSA official just commented about it, agreeing or disagreeing (although I maintain that that is outside their job purvue and as such unprofessional to engage in).

Instead, the TSA officials attempted to prevent the OP from expressing his opinion, saying things like "you can't do that" and "your rights exist out there, but not in here" (forgive the paraphrasing). Several lawyers have indicated this is a "chilling effect" that is in itself an infringement of the OP's rights, as it discourages the exercise of that right from a position of authority.

The public and media reaction, though quite pleasing in that it shows some people do still care about these issues, is also not proof that the system "works." It's wonderful that such attention has been paid and people are being made aware of the problems, but the fact remains that the system attempted to prevent the OP from exercising his rights to begin with. Now, given the attention this incident has received, the system is likely to "work" in the future, and THAT is the biggest benefit of the incident IMHO.


I disagree that a 25 minute delay is "nothing" but otherwise agree with that. The incident surely has brought the issue to the TSA's administration, and HOPEFULLY they will do something about it (other than dumping the OP onto a watch list, of course )

Superguy

He has. He posted the letter the ACLU sent to TSA earlier in this thread.

I know, it's buried, but it was within the last 2 days.

exerda

I completely disagree with you on this one. I would expect that if the TSA is doing its job, they will NOT hassle someone expressing an opinion that in no way can be construed as a threat of any kind. I don't see how that is such a hard concept to grasp.

Likewise, to assume the OP "wanted the attention" is really reading a lot into the OP's mind and motives. Expressing an opinion IMHO does not equate to desiring attention.

Cholula

The letter from the ACLU to TSA can be found here.

sonofzeus

I hope OP is preparing a FOIA request. This could get VERY INTERESTING.

Superguy

Do you honestly think TSA's account would be any less biased?

TSA didn't deny the incident. They downplayed it and said MKEBound was "a little combative." The combativeness is in dispute as the LEO said there was no indication that he was.

This tells me that:

1. The incident DID happen, more or less as MKEBound described
2. TSA didn't see what happened as an issue
3. Tried to discredit the OP by saying he was combative
4. TSA's account conflicts with the LEO's account.

I would think that if anything, the LEO would be the most neutral of all the accounts as he really didn't have a stake in it either way. He was there to determine if there was a problem. He didn't see one, so MKEBound was free to go.

And given my and many other's experience here with TSA, I'm not inclined to give TSA the benefit of the doubt, especially given their reaction.

Super

sonofzeus

Asked/Answered/Acknowledged within the last 90 min.

exerda

Oh, yes... although I know somewhere far upstream in this thread I posted that the OP probably will never have to fear being on the no-fly or any watch lists after all the media attention, even if there's some suspected terrorist with the exact same name out there, because if he starts getting SSSS every trip, there's going to be cause for quite a legal ruckus.

Superguy

Aye. This thread is updated so quickly that I have a hard time keeping up. Especially when I just tune in for the first time today.

ND Sol

I expected to board "armed with this" without incident on Friday and did so. It should be the exception, not the rule.

(BTW, I think the use of the word "armed" tends towards sensationalism when we are talking about security checkpoints.)

MKEbound

You asked, so I took the time to answer. Please read with an open mind, but in the end if you disagree, that's okay. These are just my humble opinions.

"I get why you did what you did. If you could answer for me just what exact TSA rules you think are idiotic? If you were given the power to make the rules for travel what would you keep, get rid of, add and why?"

Eliminate printing SSSS on a boarding pass. How stupid can they be? Everyone knows what it means. If they are going to do random secondary screenings, they need to be unexpected. (see point 2)

Eliminate random secondary screenings. Once a person has cleared the X-ray and WTMD they should be free to go. I have no problem with the TSA taking time to resolve why an alarm sounded, but harassing people for no reason other than wanting to board a plane should stop.

Eliminate the ID check. Thousands of ID are acceptable to use and many are easy to fake. A matching fake boarding pass would be even easier considering that OLCI (on-line check in) + photo shop could create a fake boarding pass in seconds. In the end checking ID only protects the airline from people from flying on another person's ticket, and for the TSA to do it using tax payer money is a waste of my tax dollars.

Eliminate pat downs except as a last resort (when an alarm from the WTMD and then the handheld cannot be resolved). Once that last resort is reached, only a LEO should be allowed to do a pat down. There is no reason people should be treated in such an undignified way, much less be groped by poorly trained TSA screeners.

Eliminate mandatory removal of shoes unless the WTMD alarms due to metal in the shoe. Another TSA window dressing that treats people in an undignified manner without improving security.

Eliminate the lighter ban (in fairness Congress passed this law, not the TSA) I don't smoke, but tell me why can I carry 4 books of matches (not 5, that's illegal too) but I can't carry a lighter? How does this improve security? Oh, wait since my screeners are worried about finding lighters it only serves as a distraction to finding real weapons.

Eliminate at-the-gate-screening. If they don't think screening at the checkpoint is good enough, why not figure out the way to do it right rather than wasting peoples time and money with a second check at the gate.

Eliminate the water ban. Water is harmless, there is no reason why I shouldn't be able to carry it though the checkpoint. Please realize that every expert and chemist interviewed since 8/10 has pointed out how unrealistic the idea of a liquid bomb plot is. A couple of bad guys were sitting around dreaming of ways to attack aircraft and someone suggested liquid explosives. They never built a bomb, never bought a ticket, yet in typical knee-jerk reaction style millions of people around the world have been harassed and had their property seized. The terrorists won that round without ever doing anything!

Building on the statement above, eliminate the new "3oz of toothpaste is okay, but 4oz is not" foolishness. If toothpaste is okay, then it's okay. If toothpaste can be used to blow up a plane than it's not. Just in case anyone isn't sure, let me assure you toothpaste is not a threat. This new rule is being spun as a "compromise between security and convince." Anyone who has common sense will call bull on such a statement, it's TSA window dressing at best.

Eliminate the requirement to leave your bag unlocked. Only a foolish person allows so many other people to access to their belongings with out taking steps to secure it. People are being robbed daily by TSA personal, baggage handlers and whoever else has the chance to peek into your luggage. If the TSA needs to do a hand search of your checked baggage, it should only be done if the owner is present, and thus allows the owner to lock their bag when they are done.

Start screening cargo that is loaded in the belly of passenger planes. If I could make this 100 ft tall and flashing I would! You or I could drive to the airport right now and visit the cargo office of the airline of our choice, hire them to carry a package and it will be loaded into the cargo hold of the next plane to fly to the destination of your choice. Much of this type of cargo is never screened. So you build a bomb, rig a detonator that is triggered once the plane reaches 20k feet and you blow up a plane without ever even visiting the checkpoint.

Start spending money on better x-rays or devices that do a better job of detecting explosives in carry-on luggage.


In the grand scheme of things I would put myself, as head of the TSA, out of a job because I would want to eliminate the TSA and hand back the responsibility of screening PAX back to the airlines. It is in the airlines best interest to provide real security with good customer service. A concept that the TSA has not embraced after 5 years.

Then I must also ask how you would handle the situation if one of your rules caused a situation like your experience? I'm not being sarcastic at all, my only point is that attacking the person wasn't the best possible case for you to create your argument. People tend to disagree with things like this because all too often a bold statement like yours is made with nothing to back the direct claim that he was/is an idiot. His rules may annoy us but why attack his intelligence?

If I was a TSA employee - or anyone's employee - and someone attacked the intelligence of my boss I might ignore it (if I was busy) or ask why they thought he's an idiot. Once again if I had time, and I disagreed, I might talk further or not. I can assure you I would never tell anyone that they have "no right" to say such a thing. As to why attach his intelligence? The fact of the matter is I only had a small space to write, and if I could have written all what I wrote above I would have.

In the end Kip Hawley might not be an Idiot, and it may have been in poor taste to call him a such. But I do think his policies are idiotic.

Gargoyle

Four or more years ago I saw a TV feature on bomb resistant air cargo containers, including demonstrations of the same potency bomb going off in one of those and in a standard container. Yes, they are expensive.... but if the TSA budget were cut $1.5 bn per year, and the money spent on those containers, we'd end up with magnitudes greater air safety for the same dollar amount.

PTravel

Read Cohen v. Superior Court and learn why one is not an adequate substitute for the other.

I afraid that it's you who have made your point, and not the one that you thought you were making.

Our "system" consists of the Constitution. The internet isn't a substitute for Constitutional protections.

The OP was detained for 25 minutes, and his First Amendment rights were violated.

They are -- they deny any violation.

Hopefully, the Constitution will mean something 5, 10 or 50 years from now.

Does that mean you'll think twice the next time you want to engage in offensive, but legal, speech in the presence of the government? If so, then you've already lost your freedom of speech.

sonofzeus

"F* the Draft" t-shirt in the courthouse??

PTravel

It was a jacket, not a t-shirt, but yes -- that's the case. I've discussed it in an earlier post to this thread.