I don't understand how that video makes any difference. TSA admits what Emmerson says about the initial screen and the refusal to allow a full sippy cup in. The dispute centers on what happened in the exit area.

That's nice to know, but the government wins anyway under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

It wasn't empty until she dumped the contents all over the floor.

But the federal government waives its sovereign immunity in certain types of cases and provides a remedy, so it's important to distinguish between a situation where there was a taking and where there was never a legal claim in the first place, regardless of sovereign immunity.

Not just a post or two -- the original blogger who broke this story now doubts some of its accuracy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061501986.html


Adler, who watched the video yesterday afternoon, said he wasn't sure it proved anything.

"I get the impression that some of what she has said and wrote may not be completely what happened," Adler said. "She may have gotten some of the details wrong. . . . But I think the only person who can narrate this is Monica."

Let's not drop the context of the essentials in this incident.

Coming through an airport c/p with a sippy cup of water is not a threat to aviation security. @:-) Even letting her dump the harmless contents and _keep_ the child's cup would mitigate some of the idiocy of the all-out liquids ban. Copacetic?

I'm not debating that.

BUT, people deal with this issue constantly, and they aren't dumping water and throwing tantrums.

NO, they don't have to deal with this constantly. And no shouldn't they have to deal with idiot rules -- and like it! That's the point.

Right, and this is where Emmerson really blew it. TSA's approach to liquids is very questionable. But because Emmerson acted with less maturity than her toddler, she ends up making both TSA and the cop look very reasonable. Her tantrum ends up being the focus, not the questionable policy.

EXACTLY!

One more goodie from Emmerson. An interviewer asked her why she dumped the water at the exit. "I was traumatized!" said the former Secret Service Agent.

OK, the TSA has demonstrated how easy it is for them to make checkpoint video available. Time for lots of FOIA requests.

The girls gone wild videos are very popular and successful; how about someone put together a TSA'ers gone wild video?

Couple of issues:

The TSA policy doesn't allow much flexibility when it comes to certain fluids. The TSOs were following correct procedure. I also noticed that it was clearly explained to Emmerson that she could leave the checkpoint, empty the cup, and then return to the checkpoint, be re-screened and keep the cup. This is all pretty standard.

If she's a former Secret Service Agent, then I have to wonder what it was that she showed to the TSO and LEO. When I retired, my credentials were altered with the word "RETIRED" punched through across the face of both cards. And my original badge was replaced with one that has the word "RETIRED" on it. Retired Special Agents are the only ones who have these badges; anyone who leaves the service before retirement must surrender their badges and credentials. So if she had a badge and set of credentials that identified her as being on active federal service, then either she's still an active federal agent or there's a serious flaw in Secret Service policy. I would think there's a much tighter control on badges and credentials that would prevent a former Secret Service Agent from possessing one after leaving the service.

Have to question her professionalism and ethics. When I was a card-carrying spook, we had very strict rules about presenting our B's & C's and were subject to disciplinary action if we ever used our B's & C's while NOT on official duty or used them to obtain special privileges, access or other personal gain. I understand that my service had the strictest policies regarding our boxtops; however, I have to assume that other agencies had similar policies and that the common ground would frown on the way Miss Emmerson flashed her creds at the checkpoint.

Final point, her arrogance is not unique. Many unarmed LEOs and other credentialed officials feel they are entitled to special privileges or above the law, much like many frequent fliers believe they should be exempt from security screening because of all the money they've invested in terms of tickets, special club memberships or other programs.

Emmerson is subject to the exact same screening policies as everyone else, and TSA didn't cave in to her attempts to bully them into allowing her to skip by when she flashed her boxtops.

And spilling liquids on the floor is a safety hazard, especially at a checkpoint exit. That the LEO made her clean it up is perhaps legitimately questionable as a tactic. However, I don't see it as a huge human rights abuse. Some of you folks really lead sheltered lives if you think this was really wrong. At any rate, elderly travelers are especially susceptible to slipping and falling; and Emmersons' temper tantrum clearly posed a safety hazard for such travelers who may slip on a puddle of liquid.

Sorry, no sympathy from me for Emmerson.

Right and wrong don't depend upon the amount of experience you have. That sort of moral relativism puts civil society at the mercy of anyone who's been unfortunate enough to be desensitized. We saw what that did to the military a while ago No need to repeat the mistake.

Allow me to rephrase:

Having Emmerson clean up her own spill perhaps wasn't the brightest move in the world. Having someone else in the same situation might be the exact right thing to do. Don't forget, Emmerson deliberately spilled the liquid on the floor in a temper tantrum. Clearly a wrong and very stupid move. So don't let her off the hook so easily just because you disagree with the police officer's tactics. But I do tend to agree with you that the police officer could have handled it much better and still make the point.