With the usual proviso that a voluntary poll is not a reliable indicator of anything, I'm surprised the approval rating was that low.

I'd always believed that the numbers who bought the administration's security stance was somewhere in the 90% range, only special interest venues such as FT etc. containing any real criticism. If 1/3 of Americans really are now prepared to side against the TSA, I find that most encouraging. ^

I'm not saying they should have let her thru nor should she be exempt. I'm saying that TSA shouldn't have made as big a deal out of it as they did. TSA started the escalation, and she took it further, and it blew up.

I DID say that I think it's stupid that an LEO can pack a gun on a plane but can't bring a bottle of water thru a checkpoint.

There are no innocent parties in this. None.

I don't think sitting and taking it is the answer either. File a complaint everytime. Voice your opinion peacefully while at the checkpoint to let them know that not everyone supports this.

It's why I wear my KHIAI t-shirt when I go thru security. Some may it's childish (won't mention any names), but it gets the point across that I don't like the screening. If I'm asked, I can say why I think he's an idiot. Pax and even airline staff often ask who he is and why I think he's an idiot.

Super

Agreed. W didn't slip into the 20% approval range overnight, so we can't expect a mass disapproval of TSA either.

Here is my concern: TSA clearly has unlimited access to these video recordings. And they have total control over them. I, on the other hand, am forbidden from taking still or video pictures or recordings at TSA screening areas. Thus TSA is free to publish and distribute any video recordings of me whenever it makes their case, but it would take a FOIA and probably more than that for me to get a hold of that video. And in this case they published it as part of a PR effort, not a law enforcement or legal effort.

That bothers me. A LOT. It should be investigated. And why in the HELL were the random people's faces who happened to exit the secure area not redacted in the video shown on the TSA website?

It is bothersome and should be investigated by Congress. And I have made that opinion known to my own representatives.

No problem with this. But to equate showing a video of someone's actions in direct response to their public testimony is not tantamount to "destroying" them.

Else COPS would have destroyed untold thousands. Not to mention Real Stories of the Highway Patrol.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly am NOT defending TSA. I thought TSA and the LEO both were bullying the mother. The behavior, body language and mannerisms of the TSA employees left a lot to be desired. They were very nonchalant and unprofessional in appearance. I just can't get behind the woman. She obviously thought they should make an exception for her.

At BEST the use of that video in TSA's PR effort was an abuse of power. At BEST. And if it was not illegal then it should be.

I suspect it WAS used to try to have a chilling effect on complaints. Which makes me even angrier. But at least now everyone is on notice, both pax AND TSA screeners: big brother is watching. Get your story straight.

And to show an unredacted face Cops has to get consent. Particularly of people who happen to be standing around.

COPS often blurs out the alleged felon's face in most cases (probably unless a waiver was signed) and also states "All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

TSA's idea of justice is a civil fine that means "you're guilty unless proven innocent in a coast guard kangaroo court."

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Emmerson's hands are clean in this either. In this lose-lose, it's who has the "biggest" guns. >.>

I'm not a lawyer but my take would be the person signs the waiver from the business. Its CYA for them. Stuff is out on YouTube every day, but no blurs.

Also remember TSA is an administrative agency, not a LE one, so some Bill or Rights protections do not attach.

I'm curious what the proper TSA response should have been considering I have now seen the same people first bashing the TSA folks for being heavy handed and second bashing the TSA for publishing the video (which to my untrained eye appears to be the raw footage) which shows Emmerson's actions were contradictory to her story.

The TSA, IMHO, did not start this "pissing match" but since they had relatively easy access to the video chose to pretty much put an end to it.

How (in explicit details for my simple mind) should the TSA have handled this situation? The validity of the liquid ban is not in question here because most of us already find that absurd. But given the liquid ban fact what should the TSA have done differently?

Bureaucracy does not an excuse make for trampling on someone's constitutional rights. It's still a government actor and the Constitution STILL applies, despite TSA's assertion to the contrary.

They might as well just wipe their a$$es with it at this rate.

Let her drink it if she volunteered. Not take the cup from the kid. Swab it for explosives. If it passes, let it go. Juices, etc, are permissible under 3oz. I don't see how the container really matters.

Deleted. Was a rerun of a 2 year old story.

Without audio, it's impossible to say who started the confrontation. Could be a) mother with attitude, b) screener with attitude or c) all of the above.