Superguy

MKEBound, let me say this. I respect you a lot for what you did.

Like the others, I think this is too pressing to let TSA have a chance to respond. Let the ACLU represent you and let their lawyers get them to respond. Talk to the news (with their counsel) so that this can get the attention it deserves.

The others are right. TSA will probably let this go in its stack of complaints and hope it dies down. Public interest will wane as time goes on and the point will be lost. And we'll still have the same nonsense and harassment that's going on today.

You have a unique opportunity to affect change right now. Please don't let it go.

Super

cme2c

No you are missing the point. If you are a LEO one of the biggest clues you have is when someone does things that don't make sense and acts irrationally, that's what criminals do. Things like that may be the only clue you have. This didn't make sense to the TSA officer and it set off a red flag. It's not that he disagreed with the opinion, it's that it seemed like an irrational thing to do and made him suspicious, what is wrong with that? The OP would not have done it if he didn't think it would arouse suspicion, he has admitted as such.

GUWonder

Oh, but it's a determination that can be made by those not there. That's exactly what juries and judges do.... quite routinely.

"It could mean a lot of things" is a factual assertion.

Superguy

Are you sure about that? I think the anger he was addressed pretty much thru rationality out on the TSA's part. And I think it's quite obvious that supervisor disagreed with the opinion.

Sure, Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus and refusing to move appeared to be suspiscious and caused a red flag. It also sparked much needed change. And back then, people would have said that her moving to the back of the bus wasn't a big deal and she was just a troublemaker.

Oh how we repeat history if we refuse to learn from it.

cme2c

How did they know it was a non-issue? For all they knew the OP was carrying explosives and showing off by doing that. Richard Reid (the shoe-bomber) was questioned and they were concerned before he even boarded the plane. If I recall correctly he missed his first flight because of it. Their main suspicion was that he was traveling without luggage. Sometimes it's the little things that seem like "nonissues" that lead to more.

GUWonder

You missed my questions, in that you haven't responded, so here they are again:

Do you agree that government retaliation for expressing a constitutionally-protected political opinion is a violation of First Amendment rights?

Do you agree that hostile, discriminatory treatment on the basis of constitutionally-protected written expression is a violation of First Amendment rights?

If this was the IRS conducting increased audits of members of "the opposition political party" and there was no finding of non-compliance with the law, would you have the ACLU sit that fight out too?

The TSA personnel are not LEOs; and clearly if the TSA personnel (or LEOs) think that forms of political expression protected by the Constitution constitute a threat or reasonable suspicion in and of itself, they should not be a LEO or should face a citizen review board and be released from working with the general public.

The way you pack your bags could be considered "irrational" too, but that classification of your bag as being packed in an irrational way is not sufficient grounds for TSA personnel or LEOs to single you out for harassment. Also, it's clear that the "trigger" to this matter was the text that was written on the bag and not merely that something was written on the bag. And what was written on the bag is constitutionally-protected expression/speech.

cme2c

But, judges and juries at least hear from all parties involved, not just the melodramatic complainant.

"It could mean a lot of things" in that context was argumentative and most likely is what led to his trouble, not the baggie itself.

Superguy

Swab the bag, which didn't happen. If it doesn't alarm, send him on his way.

Kinda like this incident, huh?

GUWonder

"If there is no real threat here, make up one or bring up one from elsewhere to scare the people to follow."

GUWonder

Regarding "melodramatic complainant", ascribing (derogatory) characterizations to define "the (disliked) other" (or other inconvenient incidents) is meant to do what?

Fact: "it could mean a lot of things" is a factual assertion. If "it could mean a lot of things" was considered argumentative, it's considered such by those who are susceptible (or wish) to perceive it as such.

cme2c

Absolutely, but I do not call QUESTIONING someone who is behaving in an atypical manner, retaliation.

Yes, I agree. Again, in this setting, it was perceived as a threat, so that doesn't apply here.


No I agree that is inappropriate. Again, that is totally different than this scenario. That is singling someone out for their political party, not for activity which is perceived as suspicious.


The TSA personnel are not LEO's but they do need to use similar skills to evaluate for criminal activity. Absolutely what was written on the bag is protected speech. That does not mean that they cannot question him about it. Questioning in this situation is not "retaliation" or suppression of his right.

cme2c

They swabbed the rollaway which had previously been in contact with the bag. I agree that's what they should have done, but my guess is that his attitude got in the way of that.

cme2c

Just like you are susceptible to perceive that this was a suppression of his right to free speech. Everyone has their own biases, for TSA officers they are supposed to suspect that everyone is a terrorist. If you aren't looking for it , you aren't going to find it.

Edited to add: Note how his "it could mean a lot of things" comment was conveniently left out of his written complaint to the TSA.

Superguy

The constitutional debate aside, that is also a VERY big problem. Bruised egos and d--- waving should not get in the way of what needs to be done.

VFF1000000