Do you not question the veracity of her story at this point?

Already covered in this thread:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=704175

I wonder how the other passengers feel that they are being broadcast on the Internet?

Does the TSA post a warning that CCTV footage is theirs and that they can do whatever they want with it?

Eminent Domain, Citizen.

Personal privacy is not your concern, Comrade.

New York Post Publishes Photo Of The Checkpoint
 

Note: the following is meant as satire. If you are not interested in a satirical or light-hearted view of this event, please do not click on the following link: http://www.nypost.com/seven/06162007...s/news007b.jpg

Consider it done.

----------
essxjay
TS/S mod

That's SSI, Citizen. We don't want the terrists to know exactly how we will divest them of their sippy cups.

Didn't she pull the "don't you know who I am" speech and start raising a stink? That would attract the additional LEOs.

I'm not a fan of TSA or the liquids rule, but I'm less of a fan of parents who believe they are above rules in support of their children's welfare (even if they are bad rules). I'm glad she missed her flight and that TSA posted the videos.

Amazing that despite all of th PFCs on every one of my tickets, DCA has no janitors. At least (as you see at the end) TSA staff is good at getting paper towels to dry the floors...

Anyone wonder why it took the TSA 3 days to write the one pgh Incident Report (written on 6/14 for a 6/11 incident).

The report also only directly quotes the passenger, never quoting what the TSA or LEO said to provoke her. The whole incident is ridiculous.

emphasis mine: it' simple-the media got wind of it (and rightly so) so now the tsa spokesholes have to do d/c. now, i dunno but i don't think there is enough damage control which can save the sinking ship ss. tsa. at some point it will become "enough is enough"-maybe it will be when the victim happens to be some congresscritter's neice, nephew or staffer but it will happen and i can't wait.

Citizen? Oh well, at least you didn't say Komrade.:D

deleted

:td: When the rule is as a asinine as not allowing one's child to keep his (empty) sippy cup, then some serious legislative check is in order.

There are obviously many here who do not mind kow towing low for anyone in authority.

The present climate of utter unquestioningly, blind obedience, subservience and obsequiously submissive demeanor DEMANDED of ALL citizens by anyone holding "authority" has abusively sunk to the level approaching that by which most livestock are commonly treated by their owners.

There need not be ANY actual law, rule or regulation broken for a citizen to be targeted and attacked or arrested for simply failing to adequately(to the authorities estimation) acknowledge, demonstrate and display their unconditional submission to, and acceptance of whatever pleased that "authority". Just give them a "defiant look" and you are in for it. They don't make any effort to hide their contempt for the public and our rights, but you better damn well hide your contempt for them.

According to the circuit court decision I read, the Lanham Act, which includes the trademark laws, does not apply to the federal goverment. Eminent Domain, or the aquisition or use of another's property under the Takings Clause, would thus not apply. Under this reasoning, to the extent that a trademark is a property right, it is legally defined not to include rights against the federal goverment.