Snipped and sent to my Congress Critter, along with a brief letter stating that the above post was made by someone who works at TSA.

It should be interesting to see what a congressman thinks about communication like that from TSA representatives. It would be interesting to see what would happen if statements like eyecue's were to start showing up in testimonies.

By implying that my oath has no meaning, you also imply that yours is just as worthless. It is essentially the same oath, maybe with a bit of different wording. Some people take their oaths seriously, as I do (and by what I read, you seem to take yours seriously as well). Some just think it is another "inprocessing" moment on the way to a steady paycheck. There are folks like that in every position that requires an oath (the military, federal government, state government, various LEO positions, attorneys, etc).

The position I was referring to was the position of TSO.

The legal power to prevent access is still a fairly potent power, and requires that when that power is exercised, that it is done by the SOP. I completely disagree with any unprofessional behavior and any abuse of the power granted to us in our duty position, it is simply inexcusable. Hence the reason I am so hard on folks that prove out to have abused their station, I have no mercy for them (as should HQ and the local chain of command).

It is nice to be referred to as one of the "good ones"! There are many on here that would disagree with you wholeheartedly. I am simply a big supporter of the agency, and want the folks wearing the uniform to do their job and do it right, and to take the position seriously. There are other things I want or may advocate, but most of what I want boils down to something that simple.

It's important to remember that the "interfering with the screening process" threat is not in law. It's in the implementing CFR, which is NOT the law of the land. It's a federal agency's -- TSA in this case -- IMPLEMENTATION of the law as they interpret it. This clause in the CFR is a huge loophole, but one for which the TSA asserts is part of its interpretation of the law which gave them the job of transportation security.

If you take this clause, add in the TSA culture, include a healthy dose of testosterone (eyecue's post), and throw in a myopic TSA view extending as far as their collective noses, I wouldn't expect anyone earning a TSA paycheck to care a rat's eyelash about Constitutional rights. The oath is just a speed bump on their way to a paycheck.

Given all these ingredients, I am almost certain that flipping off the strip search machine operators would lead to harassment on the order of the KHIAI confrontation. They sort-of learned their lesson after this incident, but, it will happen again & again because there is no embarassment to the TSA nor any financial impact. Further, the TSA culture rewards screeners who engage in this type of harassment, so 1st Amendment violations will happen all the time.


MKEBound's KHIAI bag was especially effective in that there wasn't profanity (or an obscene jesture) involved. It would be very easy for the TSA to make the obscenity the issue, rather than protected speech, in the flip-off scenario.

Perhaps one would be better to go through the machine and quietly and politely suggest that its operator is a pervert. Or if a child has gone through ahead of you, ask whether or it that makes its operator a pedophile.

My guess is that as long as one's tone of voice and demeanor is non-threatening, and as long as one isn't saying that the operator is actually a pedophile, one's statements would be protected by the First Amendment.

The biggest question in my mind is exactly how far one could stretch the First Amendment by one's statements and still be protected. It would be interesting if one could say something to push a screener or two over the edge, and get the situation documented. I suppose that with the right attorney such a thing could turn into a rather lucrative settlement from the TSA and perhaps the agents themselves. (It would be better than spilling hot coffee on your lap or falling of a toilet at McDonalds.)

I think the penalty for breaking it should be termination.

The oath is one of the conditions of employment. Anyone who is unwilling to abide by it should not have the job. Simple as that.

FWIW, the text of the oath is very similar to the one taken at Naturalization. I was privileged to do so and I take the obligations it imposes very seriously.

When you think about it, MKEBound caused several screeners and cops to go over the edge without saying a single word!

I've posted before about an incident I had a while back when a screener proceeded to wand my bare legs and feet while I was wearing shorts & sandals. While he was wanding me, I said in a conversational voice, "Did it ever occur to you how absolutely stupid you look wanding bare skin?" His reaction was to ask if I was going to help him find a new job.

In the military, a standard element of psychological warfare doctrine is to attack the opposing force from the top and bottom simultaneously. If effective, the campaign meets in the middle and the bad guy's will is eroded from above and below. For example, while diplomats and nations are strategically sabre-rattling, tactical forces are dropping leaflets on the front lines. Confronting individual screeners at airports is just as important an element as opposing TSA policies at the HQ level and in Congress & the courts

In this situation, the only problem would be the closed hand, it could concievably conceal something that is a threat. The remedy would be additional screening to make certain no threat items are present.

Verbal abuse or provocation is no reason for additional screening, it may be a reason for referring the passenger to an STSO if the language is threatening or vulgar (that would be based entirely on local laws if I am not mistaken). Other than that, I just do the job and send the passenger on their way. If you don't react to verbal jabs or taunts, follow the SOP and inform them their items are clear and they may move along - the TSO is covered.

I guess I am lucky that I can operate most times under the "sticks and stones" philosophy, it just makes my life much easier.

Well a few posts back in the thread I made mention of a suit in progress that if goes the way its looking comments like that could cost a person a great deal when they get dragged to court.

clrankin - please post that response when you get it im interested to see what your congress critter has to say.

Unless you went in with a clenched fist, there is no way a screener could justify saying that the person is concealing something in their hand. That is, unless magic happens in the nude-o-scope and prohibited items can be caused to appear at will.

It would depend entirely on how the passenger personally tells someone they are number 1! I have seen it where it would be easy to discern, and where it would not due to the size of the fist and the clenching of the non saluting fingers.

If I walk in with my hands open, fingers spread, assume the position, then close my hand with the "bird" flying high, there is no way in hell TSA can justify any response to the "closed" hand "hiding" something.

It all depends on how you hold the fingers, most commercial detonators can be concealed under a couple of fingers. Like I said above, it all depends on how big the hand is, and how the fingers are clenched.

PTravel, I'm sure you took ConLaw. I know I took ConLaw. I just don't think we took the same ConLaw. I'd think the government would have a legitimate claim that gratuitous profanity in a public place is not protected speech.

Did you bother to read what I wrote???? I stated entering with my hands OPEN, fingers SPREAD...like this:


If I then close my hand to allow my middle finger to present itself, all the while in the clear view of the TSO manning the entrance to the WBI, there is no way in HELL that TSA can claim that I have managed to hide something in my clenched hand.

Where did I say anything about gratuitous profanity in a public place? What is postulated in this thread is a specific protest to a specific government action. Raising the finger in a nude-o-scope is not gratuitous profanity, but political speech that falls firmly within Cohen v. Superior Court.