dd992emo

I can't take credit for inventing "Spokeshole" -- somebody else here on FT deserves the credit. But, I will take credit for first describing the boardins pass checker at the metal detector as a "moat dragon(ess)"

Good to know one's life hasn't been a complete waste and there will be something to put on the headstone...

Flaflyer

I politely disagree. "TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said Bird was free to express his opinion and there is no prohibition on writing on bags."

OP DID play by the rules, according to Clark.

"I don't know his family situation at all". Family may not make much difference. Don't know about Hawley, but Chertoffs mother was an El Al FA. Guess she never told him any flying stories.

crhptic

Your exact words were:
If you are agreeing that there aren't plenty of stupid terrorists passing through airports, then it seems there is no justification for the TSA assuming people passing through their checkpoints are stupid terrorists and treating them as such.

It is simple logic really:
1. No smart terrorist would write a "bomb on board" note
2. No stupid terrorists are passing through airport checkpoints (or they'd have been caught)
3. Ergo, if one finds a note stating "bomb on board", it's a safe bet that note was not written by a terrorist

Also, as I said earlier, if the hordes of stupid terrorists* are out there in the world somewhere other than US airport checkpoints, why don't we have the military, FBI, and CIA out there chasing them? Why do we have the TSA manning airport security checkpoints looking for them? It reminds me of the old joke about the drunk guy looking for his keys on the sidewalk.

*I don't know if they exist or not, but for the sake of this discussion it's irrelevant.

Superguy

I bet this one makes Talk Mail.

iCorpRoadie

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/28/idi...gie/index.html

exerda

If the bag had said, even as a joke, "Bomb components" or "Explosives inside" or something like that, what you say might make some small modicum of sense. However, a political opinion--here, "Kip Hawley is an idiot," is 100% protected speech, and detaining someone because of it or otherwise attempting to thwart the expression thereof is a complete infringement of what this country was founded upon. It disgusts me that the OP was detained for ANY length of time.

Even had the TSA screener simply seen the bag and said, "I disagree, he's not an idiot," IMHO that would be inappropriate in the situation. It is not the screener's job to respond to political opinions. If the pax had a bag that said, "Clinton is responsible for terrorism," and the screener stopped the pax to comment, "No, it's obviously Bush and Iraq that's causing our problems," that, too, would be inappopriate. They are simply not paid to engage in debates with the passengers on matters such as these.


I would have hoped/thought/prayed that the recent 5-year anniversary of the September 11th attacks would remind us of how hard-won our freedoms were, and perhaps make us less delighted to hand them away for the illusion of security-blanket "safety."


Hmm, let's apply some basic common sense here. It does not take anyone with an IQ over 45 to realize that "Kip Hawley is an idiot" cannot be construed in any way, shape, or form as some kind of "cryptic suicide note" or anything else you describe. You cannot honestly, for even one instant, claim that the screener reacted out of concern for a potential security threat. Even I give the front-line screeners more credit for their intelligenve than that. The screener took offense and made a power play out of it, plain and simple. There is no other valid interpretation.


Ah, yes, that same tired old cannard about "yelling 'fire' in a theater." Please, if you cannot see the difference between that and what the OP wrote, I suggest you re-examine the situation again. He didn't even say, "Kip Hawley should die," which at least could be construed as some sort of threat against the TSA's leadership. Nope, he simply called Comrade Kip an idiot.


You cannot honestly be saying that writing "Kip Hawley is an idiot" on a bag is a legitimate cause for concern. We do not live in the world of 1984, not yet, anyway.


This again?! I don't think a single one of us would EVER call this a "warning sign," and ask how the TSA "missed it" had the OP been a suicide bomber who successfully carried out a bombing. I don't get why people keep making this "point"; the only ones who would be criticising the TSA should such a fantasy scenario play out would be those making this same statement.

Superguy

Probably the best written article yet.

Still glosses over the first amendment violation though.

exerda

Pulling a fire alarm as a prank IS like shouting "Fire!" in a theater. Writing "Kip Hawley is an idiot" is NOT. The distinction should not be that hard to see.

UALOneKPlus

You are BOTH WRONG and you know it.

In Saddam's Iraq, people were tortured for disagreeing with Saddam. Secret police spied on the people and made sure any trouble makers (ie those who disagreed with Saddam or spoke out about his policies or even that he is an idiot) were promptly thrown into prison and executed.

You guys are going down a slippery slope, where now non-threatening disagreement with the TSA figures / public officials require detainment??

You guys have no idea what it means to be repressed. It is sheep like you that will eventually give the government more power to repress its people.

Boo to your posts...

FreidaK

A couple points about this topic:

First, 25 minutes, realistically speaking, is not that long of a time to be detained. Regardless of how stupid it was to detain you over writing something on a bag, it could have been a lot worse...

BUT, that being said, where did freedom of speech go? All of a sudden, we're fighting "terrorists" because they "hate us because we're free", but we can't even speak our minds anymore? There are protective laws for journalists, even, but you can't write something on your own property without someone likening it to a bomb threat? What is that nonsense?!

Apparently Kip Hawley's ego is either so big, or his esteem so fragile that he can't handle someone calling him names. So, he hires people to protect him from slander written on a toiletries bag? This is very sad.

Furthermore, since when is it a detainable offense that someone write out their feelings on their own property? Is that to say that if someone who were angry or sad or depressed kept a journal and took said journal on an airplane, and said journal just happened to open up while said person's carry-ons were being searched, and it opened to a page where the person had written "my boss is such a jerk" - that would be grounds for detaining this person and questioning them about their dislike for their boss?

Since when are airports little Vatican Cities where citizens don't have the same rights within the walls as they do outside of them? I can still listen to Bob Dylan's Masters of War inside the airport. You can still buy a nudey magazine, and, if you're brave enough, read it while waiting for your plane. If they're going to make new rules, to include who it is okay to dislike and talk about it - maybe they should be posted on your way in.

And finally, I guess I can see why the Secret Service would investigate vocal dislike of, say, the president or the pope, but the head of the TSA? I don't remember electing this person, or praying about his promotion to "head" of an organization. Since when is calling him an idiot a big deal?

It makes him look like a bigger idiot when his minions pull this kind of crap.

doober

Welcome to FT, Wendy.

May I ask if you are the woman who was required to take her slacks off to prove to the TSA that she wore a prosthetic?

My hat is off to you for taking a firm stand. ^ ^ ^

MKEbound

Thank you for your story. Earlier in this thread a member of the ACLU who has a record of standing up for fliers rights listed his contact information. I hope you contact him.

themicah

Since 1992, when the Supreme Court ruled that airports were not public forums and Hare Krishnas could therefore be restricted from soliciting donations.

That said, the TSA is still out of control. Welcome to Flyertalk.

Superguy

But they did call him a citizen, Citizen.

bloggerchick

You people are unbelievable. You complain that the president didn't do enough to prevent the 9/11 attack and now you are complaining about airport security measures because they are inconvenient to you. The security measures are there for your own protection. Honestly, it is getting to the point where some of you don't deserve any of your constitutionally protected rights because you are abusing them. Yes, you have free speech but the officer was correct. At the airport, your individual rights don't mean anything; unless of course, you think you are more important than every other person getting on that plane. That officer was doing his job. He was just making sure that everything was safe. You should know by now that anything that could be even close to threatening has to be investigated. Stop whining. Make yourself useful. If the security measures at airports are a problem for you then don't fly.