MKEbound

OP back again to answer questions and some updates.

First of all, to kuerious in post #259 welcome to Flyertalk! Your first post was very informative and I can tell it took some time to write. I hope you visit and post regularly

To nathanmcginty in post #255 welcome to Flyertalk! While you might disagree with what I did yesterday, but clearly you have a love of flying, so I hope you post here often

To vikala in post #246 welcome to Flyertalk! I can appreciate your view point in your first post. I hope you continue to be part of the Flyertalk community.

I have been working at customer locations all day and away from my computer, so there have been several questions raised in the past several hours.

For those who asked if an swab was taken from my baggie to test for explosives, there wasn't - however, as I pointed out in my original post, my roller bag was swabbed and tested.

For the many people who suggested that my form or protest was improper and/or there were other and better ways to log my complaints and thoughts, I would like to go on the record that I have personally written both my Senators and my Congressman as well as the TSA to complain about and suggest improvements to the process of airport security screening. I personally have never received a response from any of these people other than boilerplate type responses - and one of my Senators is Russ Feingold, who has been outspoke in some cases against the Patriot Act and some of the dangers to our rights there.

As I stated earlier, my biggest concern is that the people in charge simply don't even listen to us (the people who pay for this with their taxes and fees) or even to common sense!

Back in post #157 I posted a copy of the complaint I submitted to TSA.gov yesterday after the incident. I still haven't heard back from them other than an automated response.

I have been contacted by a few reporters and the ACLU, but have not responded to any of them yet, as I plan on giving the TSA some time to respond to my complaint.

GUWonder

Want to go off topic? Did I say that the TSA should look only for bombs? No, and the TSA clearly doesn't limit itself to looking just for bombs.

To get back on topic:

Are you suggesting that the government read anything and everything in a passenger's possession to see if they are carrying material that doesn't advance the Party Line? I didn't know that being a member of The Party was required to fly with one's legally-permitted belongings in the US. North Korea, China, Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia hassle people for having different political opinions. Do you want the US government to hassle people for having a different constitutionally-protected political opinion than yours? Or should we just be surrender monkeys when it comes to airports?

jsharkey

Question: What's the percentage of humps vs sensible people at the checkpoints? I felt like a kindergartner last night coming through security at Kennedy with my "comfortably packed" quart sized container of toiletries. The screener complimented me on my neatness, and like a jerk I felt proud for a second. Next time I'm sticking a half a peanut butter sandwich in there and see what happens.
These guys are sucking wind, as you all know.
AND CAN NO ONE EXPLAIN TO ME ABOUT THE KY JELLY? What in God's name is the rationale behind that?
I got a beaut coming up about a doctor and a gift bottle of wine that almost got him thrown into jail.
Joe Sharkey
www.joesharkey.com (sympathetic blog, arbitrary but not capricious)

exerda

This line of reasoning is specious and doesn't apply. Because planes fly high in the air has nothing to do with what someone says.


Or, more probably, we will destroy the economy. You first, comrade.

Two problems with this... first, this is NOT in any way, shape, or form like "shouting fire in a crowded theater" (and besides, why does that tired old cannard keep being dragged up?) The bag could have just as well said, "George Bush is an idiot," or "Zombies are cool," and it would still have nothing whatsoever to do with the screening process or security of the flight. Nowhere will you ever be able to demonstrate how saying "Kip Hawley is an idiot" causes the threat to safety that the "fire in a theater" case implies.

Second, how is it a "fairly outrageous thing" to say? I think we have seen repeatedly through his statements and actions that Kip Hawley IS an idiot.


Let's not get sidetracked here. Whether or not Ma and Pa Kettle choose to carry on the kitchen sink has NOTHING to do with how the OP was treated. And, given the inconvenience of having to stand in line to check the bag and to wait for it upon arrival (the combination of which can add up to 2-3 hours to a trip through common airports; for day trips, it's impossible, and for frequent travel, it's more than a "mere" inconvenience), we're not talking an extra 10-15 minutes.


Thanks for trolling. If you want to board a plane so much more quickly, wait until everyone else has already boarded. Since you don't want to carry anything on, the lack of overhead space should not be a problem for you. @:-)

cme2c

Finally had a chance to read the whole thread.

Some see it as "drawing staff into a discussion" others see it as asking for trouble. I don't know about you but if I want to talk to someone, I go up say hi or something. Pursuing this matter with the AP or the ACLU is just another waste of other people's time, just like the baggie. In no way was it going to accomplish anything.

red456

Can you show us where the OP denied responsibility for his actions?

TravellingMan

FlyerTalk' Travel Safety/Security forum has become one interesting place to read about folks open opinions. I am sure at the rate it is going, the MR side of the world could be eclipsed soon.

Soon folks would know FlyerTalk from the discussion on this forum rather than bunch of folks looking for a way to maximize miles (or in some cases troll for mistake fares )

I am sure the airlines and hotels are relieved, FTers have been distracted. No more of the hated FTers free loading....

exerda

I would hope your wife contacted the ACLU and perhaps retained a lawyer of her own, because this smells of a civil rights suit waiting to happen. Even if AZ law requires ID to be carried and produced upon demand, that sort of law really, really stinks--it is a complete, "Papers, please!" rule if so, and deserves every inch of legal challenge it can be hit with.

exerda

Maybe it's going to accomplish drawing attention to a ridiculous abuse of rights and corrective action thereto? @:-)

cme2c

You did not use the word "only". Just as I quoted you said the should be looking for bombs, I'm sorry, but the whole point of security is to look for the subtle things. Was his baggie thing misinterpreted absolutely, but when your job is to provide security, you think of the worst scenario for every possible situation. The 1st amendment comments are absolutely inappropriate. Again, I agree the TSA stuff is garbage, but plain and simple he was looking to pick a fight and he got it, in my opinion that is his own damn fault. He even admitted as much saying he wanted to "draw" them into discussion, come on what did he expect.

red456

Hi, Joe, good to see you here!

In the Women's travel forum, there's a plausible explanation for the KY jelly examption, i.e., individuals with ostomy bags or who need to self-catherterize (sp?) themselves use KY jelly for lubrication of the devices they use.

cme2c

You really think there will be any corrective action? I would be very surprised if anything came of this. Reason one is that they should already have been trained on a person's rights and it didn't do any good. Number 2, we are hearing one side of this story, my guess is the TSA involved have a different side. This will result in a slap on the wrist at most. Again, accomplishing nothing all because he wanted to "draw" someone into a discussion.

GUWonder

Are you saying that the TSA should not be looking for bombs? In any event, bombs and terrorism has little to nothing to do with the OP's situation.

That' paranoia. Anyone working real security knows that thinking of the worst situation for every possiblie situation will lead to analysis-paraylsis.

So here's something that has questions for you:

Two questions for you that relate to the OP's experience:

"Are you suggesting that the government read anything and everything in a passenger's possession to see if they are carrying material that doesn't advance the Party Line?"

"Do you want the US government to hassle people for having a different constitutionally-protected political opinion than yours?"

Scifience

And, unfortunately, I don't think you're likely to get much of a response from them. I think talking with the media and the ALCU would increase the likelihood of getting some sort of a meaningful response out of the TSA.

GUWonder

Often enough "one side of the story" is correct and more complete and honest than some version released by "the government". Of coure, the TSA and LEOs can put their spin on it and speak if they so choose to.

On the contrary, it's accomplished something: for one, it's highlighted that even in America government harassment for having written words that are legally-protected political opinion does happen. And it shouldn't happen. It also shows that there are still a good number of people in America who will stand up for the freedom of expression protected by the Constitution and that such people are not ready to let the US go the way of the Soviet Union.