I don't know. How much did Ogged sell his for?
Pranks that screw with folks who don't make policy are lame.
Security officials who harrass critics of their department's policies instead of doing their actual jobs are considerably lamer.
Spelling "harass" wrong is lame too, but still not as lame as the TSA.
He was asking for it much more than the woman walking home drunk in a miniskirt. Not as much as the guy who (claimed that he) told the customs officer that his bag of powered milk was actually cocaine. Sympathy level is zero - he got on his plane, and he has a story about how the man is keeping him down - what more could he possibly have wanted?
I asked how this was even remotely like shouting "Fire" in a crowd, and his answer was "Perhaps your comments made them feel threatened."
Only the best and the brightest watch over America tonight.
I don't have sympathy for him either, Jake, but I don't think he's looking for sympathy. I still think it's idiotic that it happened.
OH MY GOD!!! HE CALLED MY BOSS'S BOSS'S BOSS'S BOSS AN IDIOT!!! GET THE POLICE!!!
He wasn't "asking for it" That's retarded. His action in no way whatsoever should have prompted that sort of reaction from officials. Commands like "give me your ID" and "where do you live?" give me the creeps. I'm afraid I'd be arrested in those situations, b/c I don't know if I could make myself comply.
Short ribs, from the belly side, have more fat on them and are therefore a much richer cut of meat. See also: burnt ends, the delicious nubbins of smoky meat cut from the ends of your ribs and sold to someone else as a sandwich.
On the next edition of Ask the Kansas Citian, we'll be covering topics like "Why is the K such a beautiful stadium?" and "Clover-shaped airport--wha?"
Most "back ribs" are pork, as in "baby back ribs".
Most "short ribs" are beef, as in "short ribs with a red wine reduction".
Beef is more expensive than pork.
Though I"m beginning to think you are asking something else.
what more could he possibly have wanted?
He could have wanted not to have been detained for 25 minutes for writing something non-threatening on a bag? Maybe?
See also: burnt ends, the delicious nubbins of smoky meat cut from the ends of your ribs and sold to someone else as a sandwich.
Jesus. Do they at least leave with in a bathtub full of ice with a "call 911" note?
5: Well, yes, he was trying to get a rise out of them. And he did. The joke is still on the security guys who fell for a cheap provocation.
He also highlighted a troubling phenomenon: dissenting from government policy is now equated with threatening terrorism. Even on this blog, people associate expression of dissent with claiming to carry cocaine.
Maybe if this were viral it would be interesting.
Also: airport security, overreacting to things like this: dog bites man. Hardly Brave New World. The stories of dudes with Bad Last Names being harassed are light-years more worrisome, and make me fear for our country. Not this.
But NL, airport security who think it's fine to harass people because of their signs saying bad things about other officials are far more likely to think it's ok to harass other (or the same) people because of their last name or appearance.
Also, I think the Daily Show writers could do good work with this story.
15: True. I'm obviously having a hard time articulating why this person annoys me.
16: This person's stunt provided a small example of the ways in which the bizarre environment currently prevailing in the US enables the banal evils of officious little twits like the airport security described. He's a long way shy of having been abruptly whisked off to Syria like some other, rather less provocative air travellers we could name, but he's a good example of an average American doing something (however small) to highlight and confront an absurd, debilitating paranoia that's eating away the political soul of his country.
Maybe he just shouldn't be annoying.
You know, it's all right to think he's annoying -- that's a stunt that only an annoying person would pull. But it's still scary and awful that we now live in a country where being a very mild smartass where a law enforcement office knows about it is something that will cause trouble. That's part of what a police state is -- a country where law-abiding citizens are afraid of antagonizing the police.
15: I'll be annoyed with you, NL. This fucker has demonstrated nothing. You see a guy who clearly wants to make an explicitly anti-government political point. This distinguishes him from the vast majority of other passengers, and might reasonably be thought to make him marginally more likely to do something bad than the sheep that surround him. The TSAer then looks at his own general sense of where worrisome bias might come into play--not racism here, given that it's WI, probably not even political distinction here--sees that there's no real reason to worry that he's pulling the guy for some unconscious bad reason, and pulls the guy. Whatever.
You see a guy who clearly wants to make an explicitly anti-government political point. This distinguishes him from the vast majority of other passengers, and might reasonably be thought to make him marginally more likely to do something bad than the sheep that surround him.
No. Wrong. Bad. Stop.
Saying that 'He expressed an anti-government thought, so it's reasonable to treat him as dangerous' is the wrongest thing a law enforcement person can do in this context. It's tempting, and seems reasonable, but it's evil. That way lies blacklists, and loyalty oaths, and political prisoners.
There are two possible problems with SCMT's comment, one empirical and one normative (but not moral). The first is the empirical claim that it is reasonable to believe that people making anti-government statements especially those intended to only be seen by themselves and one or two other people are marginally more likely to do something bad. People who want to do something bad probably also want to get a chance to do that bad thing, and therefore insofar as they call attention to themself they'll do so in ways they can't control, not this way.
The other is the normative claim that it would be fine, if it were a true claim that people making anti-government were marginally more likely to do something bad, that it would be ok to respond to that with government coercive power.
Saying that 'He expressed an anti-government thought, so it's reasonable to treat him as dangerous'
Depends on the thought and the expression. I don't really have a problem with the FBI investigating white separatist groups in Idaho. I don't have a problem with those groups being initially identified by their anti-government speech.
Striking the word "possible" from the first setence of w/d's 21 would improve it immeasurably, and allow me to say that 21 gets it exactly right.
Seriously, you guys. This prankster may be a tool, but if you're focusing on that, you're missing the point.
Also, "anti-government political point"? How is "Kip Hawley is an idiot" an anti-government statement? And even if it was, being pulled out of line and detained for making an anti-government statement is not the way it's supposed to work in the United States of America.
Gah, I can't believe I just had to type that. This is ridiculous.
I don't really have a problem with the FBI investigating white separatist groups in Idaho.
Because they threaten violence.
I don't have a problem with those groups being initially identified by their anti-government speech.
You should. The Unfogged commentariat is a group that could be initially identified by its anti-government speech. Do you want the FBI calling your boss about your commenting habits?
NL, SomeCallMeTim, seriously: what the fuck? This is pretty goddamn black and white. We have very broad first amendment protections in this country, and those protections include the right to write political opinions on your carry-on luggage. When government agents decide that it's their job to intimidate people who express political opinions they don't like, that is seriously fucked up. Maybe you think this guy shouldn't have written anything on his bag, maybe you think it makes him an irritating person or a trouble-maker or whatever, but it doesn't detract from the fact that his rights were violated by petty, authoritarian bullies. It's not as if political harassment is new territory to the TSA, either.
Dude, if I'm detained, stras is so detained.
White separatist groups aren't really an analagous situation. They have an established history in this country of actually hording illegal weapons and carrying out attacks on govt. buildings and officials. Maybe the initial reason for inestigation is the talk, but there's really a bunch of other factors in play.
In other words, "Kip Hawley is an idiot" from random dude ain't the same as "Kip Hawley is an idiot" from the guy who did time after being caught in Kip's backyard with a scoped rifle.
e have very broad first amendment protections in this country, and those protections include the right to write political opinions on your carry-on luggage. When government agents decide that it's their job to intimidate people who express political opinions they don't like, that is seriously fucked up
I skimmed the story, so maybe I missed it all. I thought they cost him twenty-five minutes of his life, and not much else. IIRC, they didn't arrest him, stop him from getting on the plane, or even keep the bag.
20 makes me heart Lizardbreath
I'm really sympathetic to the free speech angle, but aren't y'all willing to cut the authorities a little slack at the airport? If they screw up, the results could be catastrophic; world-alteringly so. And given that most people deliberately try not to stand out at the airport, anyone who does is going to get extra attention. Where they went inarguably wrong is in being so heavy-handed. I can live with the guy being pulled out of line, even though it makes me a little quesy, but he shouldn't be hassled once they've sized him up.
but it doesn't detract from the fact that his rights were violated by petty, authoritarian bullies.
He went out of his way to call attention to himself in an airplane line. So they checked his id, asked him about it, then let him go.
He's in a fucking airplane line. He doesn't want to show id and answer a couple questions he's free to leave.
Imagine instead that he wore a T-shirt saying, "Everyone on this airplane is guilty for what's happenning in Iraq and deserves to die." Political point, no threat of violence. It's wrong of the TSA to even question him on that basis?
So they checked his id, asked him about it, then let him go.
Again, maybe I missed it, but (IIRC) it's not even clear that he had to show his ID to TSA or suffer some harm. He did it, stopped and asked why it was required, and continued to do it.
Though I go by my middle name, my first name is Robert, so that's what goes on documents like airplane tickets, etc. My wife's first name is Roberta. It turns out there's somebody on the terrorist no-fly list named Robert [my wife's last name]. Let me tell you how much fun it is to go through airport security these days.
The thing about airport security is that inevitably the rules about this specific kind of thing (obviously provocative statements) are stupid. When Mr. B. and PK flew out here, we had to coach PK *not* to say anything about terrorists, bombs, whatever, at the airport, which we thought he might because he's not unaware of the news and was asking *us* whether or not there would be a bomb on the plane, etc. Now, it's dumb that if a five-year old says something about a bomb on a plane the authorities are going to pull him and his dad aside; but obviously, if they didn't have a policy about investigating those kind of casual utterances, that would be equally dumb, albeit for a different reason.
Of course, they got pulled aside anyway, b/c Mr. B. was crossing a border by himself with PK (possible parental abduction?) and, get this, b/c PK has long hair so (1) they weren't sure he really *was* a boy; and (2) they thought it bizarre that if he is a boy, he should have such long hair. Guess long hair on boy = possible attempt to disguise child for international kidnapping, or something.
But re. the situation in the post, what's most annoying is that the rules are currently set to such a high level of idiotic that adolescent twits like the guy in the story can predictably do annoying things that are dwarfed by the annoyingness of the governmental response.
31, 32: It's not the end of the world -- he wasn't thrown in jail or waterboarded or anything. But there's no rational connection between having something in your bag saying 'Kip Hawley is an idiot' and being dangerous, and if government agents are allowed to treat the expression of an innocuous political opinion as a sign of danger, that's wrong. It's the top of a slope; not all slopes are slippery, this could simply be a fuckup. But it's at the very least a fuckup. It's not okay.
but he shouldn't be hassled once they've sized him up.
He really wan't even hassled much. They asked him about it, checked his id, then horror of horrors, filed a report.
He decided to make a political statement during the carry on baggage check. Real genius. Probably delayed the entire line. The other passengers should have kicked his ass for being an idiot.
Imagine instead that he wore a T-shirt saying, "Everyone on this airplane is guilty for what's happenning in Iraq and deserves to die." Political point, no threat of violence.
Not really no threat of violence, there -- you have your thumb on the scales.
Yeah, Tim, but the thing is, his bag wasn't kept and his rights weren't violated *only* because he knew what they are and set out to made a stink. Most people would have given out their address, given up the bag, and generally tried to be super cooperative; in the process giving up rights that nowadays people aren't even sure they still have while travelling by air.
But it's at the very least a fuckup. It's not okay.
Like I say, I'm very sympathetic to this, but I would ask, and not rhetorically, but genuinely, how would you handle someone like this is you were working in airport security?
But there's no rational connection between having something in your bag saying 'Kip Hawley is an idiot' and being dangerous, and if government agents are allowed to treat the expression of an innocuous political opinion
It's actually not too hard to see "Kip Hawley is an idiot" written on something in his carry on as "I'm taking something on the plane I shouldn't, and you idiots aren't even going to notice." Not necessarily dangerous, but enough at least ask the dude what he's up to.
All things being equal, I assume incompetence over malignance. I doubt that these airline security guards are often, or ever, briefed on the ramifications and dimensions of the First Amendment as it is expressed at the airport. I imagine here they were reacting with hostility to being provoked—thuggish, maybe, but here again I'll guess that someone who's so cross as to make a sign about your boss wouldn't hesitate to be really smarmy about it, either. Again, the response was thuggish, but I don't see the response as being informed by policy at all.
It seems like the guy's reporting it straight when he says that the TSA supervisor said, "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, there are limits to your rights." And of course, he's right about that, even if he's wrong about the application in this instance. But I'm reading him as actually saying, "I don't know what your damn problem is, but disruption in my workplace puts people's lives in danger—potentially, anyway, so that's the way we're going to treat weird happenings every time." The hope is that when the case is reviewed, supervisor's supervisor tells him he needs to chill out, or better, crafts a memo describing a consistent policy w/r/t free speech at the airport.
In this story I side with the passengers who each, in turn, kicked Mr. Free Speech in the shins as they passed him in the plane aisle.
I thought they cost him twenty-five minutes of his life, and not much else.
Have you never been harassed by an authority figure over something petty, or seen someone else get harassed? The point isn't what they could actually do to him. The point is the intimidation, which is meant to provoke exactly the responses we're seeing from Tim and others here ("Why did he do it in the first place? Can't people just shut up and be quiet?"). It's not a punishment, it's a deterrent.
The fact that this guy's message is so innocuous and so specific - he was mocking their boss, for fuck's sake - makes this all the more alarming. The picture that emerges is that of an authority that is actively hostile to any overt expressions of opinion beyond an accepted norm, which is antithetical to any liberal democracy.
Probably delayed the entire line. The other passengers should have kicked his ass for being an idiot.
No no no. He was super annoying, yeah. But we don't count on crowds and massed social disapproval to help enforce petty and wrong bureaucratic bullying.
horror of horrors, filed a report.
I wouldn't want such a report filed on me right now.
All things being equal, I assume incompetence over malignance. I doubt that these airline security guards are often, or ever, briefed on the ramifications and dimensions of the First Amendment as it is expressed at the airport.
You have no idea. I know someone who was hired on as one of these checkers. Not a bad guy, but borderline retarded.
It's actually not too hard to see "Kip Hawley is an idiot" written on something in his carry on as "I'm taking something on the plane I shouldn't, and you idiots aren't even going to notice."
This is a massive stretch.
Ogged: Like I say, I'm very sympathetic to this, but I would ask, and not rhetorically, but genuinely, how would you handle someone like this is you were working in airport security?
gswift: It's actually not too hard to see "Kip Hawley is an idiot" written on something in his carry on as "I'm taking something on the plane I shouldn't, and you idiots aren't even going to notice."
You know, they're already examining his stuff. That's why they saw the note. So maybe look at it a little more carefully, maybe. Nothing more than that. It simply makes no sense at all as an indication of actual malign intent.
Like I say, I'm very sympathetic to this, but I would ask, and not rhetorically, but genuinely, how would you handle someone like this is you were working in airport security?
Mutter "jackass" under my breath, and wave him through.
40: You ask the guy why he's written that, gauge his response, maybe do a pat-down or a bag search, and let him go. And you do it in as neutrally bureaucratic a tone as you can muster.
Like I say, I'm very sympathetic to this, but I would ask, and not rhetorically, but genuinely, how would you handle someone like this is you were working in airport security?
I'd chuckle and inspect his bag like any other, given that I, too, think Kip Hawley is an idiot.
He was super annoying, yeah. But we don't count on crowds and massed social disapproval to help enforce petty and wrong bureaucratic bullying.
Airline travel is downright painful these days. Anyone intenionally disrupting that line should expect the wrath of his fellow passengers.
Again, the response was thuggish, but I don't see the response as being informed by policy at all.
When the supervisor comes over, and doesn't apologize and send him on his way, that's policy, or at the least a screwup indicating that the supervisor misconceives policy. The screener being a thug? Fine, no way to keep all the thugs out of anything. The screener being backed up in his thuggishness? Problem.
50 would be my response, but I think several people here think that's going too far.
how would you handle someone like this is you were working in airport security?
They could ask him his intentions for writing stupid shit on the bag. Watch for shifty eyes, assess whether he is someone who might be genuinely making a free speech argument, check the rest of his baggage especially thoroughly. Trust their risk assessment and take away his ability to cause harm.
I get balky at airline security, because it annoys the fuck out of me, and they escalate REALLY FAST. I'm a bureaucrat myself, but those people are humorless (appropriately) and enjoying their power.
Imagine instead that he wore a T-shirt saying, "Everyone on this airplane is guilty for what's happenning in Iraq and deserves to die."
Pointedly, he didn't. He wrote them on plastic bags, and the messages appeared through an X-ray scanner. That scanner probably sees thousands of pieces of luggage every day and not a single message seemingly directed at him. It doesn't even matter what the content of the message is—it seems that some security didn't even know who Kip Hawley was—the point is, it's a weird place for a message, and the scanner's job is to look for things out of the ordinary. Of course he's going to be pulled out of line!
messages appeared through an X-ray scanner.
Lead paint? I thought he'd just written in marker on the bag.
I'm fine with 50, too, and share ogged's assumption about what others think.
38: There's no explicit threat of violence, though my reading is the same as yours. Why that is, I couldn't quite say. More to the point, we could negotiate a phrase that was on that line for each of us. So now we're talking about interpretation done by front-line TSAers. Not expecting much, myself.
assess whether he is someone who might be genuinely making a free speech argument
I don't think this is part of job training...
I agree that the point is intimidation, so you'll do what's asked in the future even if you don't have to. I went through security last year when you didn't have to remove your shoes, although everyone did. I decided not to because I didn't feel like it- and surprise, I was pulled aside for the 10 minute extra pat down and questioning. So in the future I'll remove my shoes even if the sign says, "You don't have to remove your shoes, but it is suggested." You could argue that using air transport at all is a privilege, and you have to keep your mouth shut if you want to exercise that privilege, but I don't think that's how we want to live.
On the x-ray scanner conveyer belt, right. Point being, it seems from this guy's testimony that no one was responding to the content of his speech but rather the medium, and I'm a little bit sympathetic to that, because these guys are supposed to be on the lookout for the next asymmetric innovation in blowing up a plane. That means looking for bombs and, yeah, weirdos, too. I'm only a little sympathetic, because it should not have taken much in the way of investigation to recognize this guy as a tool.
I could be wrong, and the scanner might have responded to the message—but it doesn't strike me as likely and isn't indicated in the account.
54, 58: I don't think that the people who are more annoyed by the story think that 50 goes too far. I think they're annoyed by (1) the non-bureaucratic, non-neutral tone in which the interaction (reportedly) took place; (2) the implication (again, reportedly) that the guy was a threat rather than merely being investigated as a matter of routine because what he wrote stood out; (3) the reactions of some that seem to focus either on the guy's culpability or on excusing (1) and (2).
Others?
54: Any security job is going to require some flexibility here and there, and some times when you linger over some objects, even innocuous ones, that happen to stick out or catch your eye. That's not a problem. The problem is when you're going out of your way to make a show of dressing down someone who poses no threat just because of an expressed political opinion.
Again, it's not like this is an isolated incident of TSA thuggishness. The no-fly list is remarkably thick with elderly antiwar protesters who pose a threat to aviation safety.
"Kip"? What's that short for? Kipling?
58: You're being silly. "Deserves to die" is an obvious implicit threat. "Is guilty" is less clear, but 'guilt' implies punishment. "X is an idiot" is nowhere near any sort of line like that.
50 would strike me as an overreaction, but not a terribly offensive one. If we're trusting scanners to pull people aside for a pat-down based on a gut feeling, which there isn't much alternative to, I suppose this qualifies as a basis for such a gut feeling. But telling him that he's not allowed to make an innocuous statement of opposition to government policy is wrong.
This is a massive stretch.
No it's not. Besides the fact that there's always jackasses around trying to get away with shit just to see if they can, we've had news teams actively writing stories about stuff they managed to sneak past airport security.
So maybe look at it a little more carefully, maybe. Nothing more than that. It simply makes no sense at all as an indication of actual malign intent.
When you verbally ask someone about something, it's not just for kicks. How they answer is important. Consistency of the answer, body language, tone, etc. can tell you a lot. Law enforcement does it, and I do it all the time in fraud investigations. Asking the same question multiple times during the process is one of these techniques. They're not idiots, they're seeing if you're response is the same each time. It's a way of assessing someone.
Ok, it seems we're more or less agreed that a little extra scrutiny, minus the thuggishness, would be ok.
You're being silly. "Deserves to die" is an obvious implicit threat. "Is guilty" is less clear, but 'guilt' implies punishment. "X is an idiot" is nowhere near any sort of line like that.
Are you really claiming that we couldn't find a phrase we would both agree was on the line, but rather that all phrases are easily categorizable as either "threatening" or "non-threatening"? Because we just disagree about that, then.
Christopher. At least, I don't know that that's Hawley's name, but Kip is a standard nickname for Christopher.
70: And you tried to claim not to have any sense of ethnic identity. How else would one know that?
69: How many hairs must a man have before he isn't bald? How many grains of sand in a heap?
The line is fuzzy, sure. That doesn't mean that I can't reasonably say that this guy wasn't near any line by which his words could be reasonably construed as threatening.
The shoe thing drives me nuts. My own petty rebellion for a while was also to not take mine off unless specifically asked, but the eventual 100% seizure rate and resulting delay broke me from even trying anymore.
Last week I got in a nasty snarl because of a baggie filled with BBs. Metal spheres, BAD! Fuckers should have let me keep them, but I deserved to be taken out of line.
50 seems perfectly fine to me for such an out-of-the-ordinary thing like a free-speech protest in the airport security line...
70: No, I was out there affirming my honkitude. I celebrate Jello salads.
I really don't understand the shoe thing. If 'put your shoes through the X-ray' is going to be a rule, make it a rule, don't say it's optional and then harass people for not doing it. I don't think this is oppressive, it's just stupid.
You're not just any old honky, LB; you're a New England WASP, as is anyone who goes by "Kip" as an adult.
I fucking hate the shoe rule, and I fucking hate the way that everyone in line glares at me when I'm wearing boots. Tough shit, fuckers; if it's cold outside, I'm not going to wear flip flops to the airport.
The line is fuzzy, sure. That doesn't mean that I can't reasonably say that this guy wasn't near any line by which his words could be reasonably construed as threatening.
I think you're overrating the personnel at the airport, and underrating the pressure they may feel not to miss something that looks stupid down the line. This looks a lot like CYA behavior (which I would think, is not so dissimilar to behavior that you, as a lawyer, have advised clients to practice in the past).
At my school there's a guy named Paul who goes by Kip. His middle name doesn't sound anything like "Kip" either.
76: Nah. I pass as one, but I'm fairly recent Ireland-Irish on my mom's side, and German/Welsh/19thC-immigrant-English on my Dad's. I don't know for sure, but I doubt I've got a pre-Civil-War American ancestor.
But my father passes as a New England WASP type -- tall, pale, and politely repressed.
I'm not okay with 50, btw. 49 is the only appropriate response.
Also, most of the time I travel, I wear my akido-style adidas shoes, which have 10-milimeter thick soles. If some asshat wants me to take those off, I guess I'll do so, but it would be stupid.
If 'put your shoes through the X-ray' is going to be a rule, make it a rule, don't say it's optional and then harass people for not doing it.
I think they're trying to be reasonable, in that if you're wearing, say, flip-flops, they recognize that it would be stupid to make you take your shoes off. Ultimately, it's a judgment call about the thickness of the soles, I think. In practice that pretty much means everything but flip flops should go through the scanner.
Kip's name is Edmund S. Hawley, so lord only knows whence it came. I can't find any link that says what the S stands for.
85: Rifling through your back pocket, you mean?
should go through the scanner
"should" in the sense of "to avoid hassle," not in the sense of "is necessarily a security risk."
83: They always say it's about whether or not the shoe has a metal last.
83: They always say it's about whether or not the shoe has a metal last.
You're right, I think they've even told me that. But I think they also look at the thickness of the soles.
I think you're overrating the personnel at the airport, and underrating the pressure they may feel not to miss something that looks stupid down the line.
Well put.
My one criticism of the prankster is that he was too superior and snickering while pulling off the stunt. His point would be better made if he were unflappably polite and full of I-know-you-are-just-doing-your-job,-sir's
The ACLU has a lovely video about how to assert your rights to law enforcement officials. Politeness is emphasized.
You're right, I think they've even told me that. But I think they also look at the thickness of the soles.
Your swarthy ass is getting searched regardless.
It's a fuckup, rather than the end of the world. But the supervisor, at least, should be trained to know that it's not his job, and it's very much not okay, to intimidate someone for expressing a political opinion.
90, 91- That wasn't it in my case, I was wearing Merrell mocs, all rubber and fabric. I didn't set off the metal detector, but I was still flagged- in fact, I was flagged before the metal detector, they saw I was still wearing my shoes and put a big red mark on my ticket when I showed it to them.
Most "back ribs" are pork, as in "baby back ribs".
The back ribs I got were beef, and delicious.
I say it's intimidation and overreaction, and I say the hell with it.
Basketball fans may remember this from a few years back: a woman I used to work with got ejected from a Blazers game along with her boyfriend's kid because she held up a sign reading "Fire Whitsitt" [Bob Whitsitt, the reviled former manager of the team]. When the U.S. government starts to resemble the Blazers, I mourn the republic.
I'd have more sympathy for the guy if in his carry-on had been an essay on terrorism and they harassed him rather than 'Help, help, see how they oppress me and I will prove it.' Or a guy who had been wearing a T-shirt. A guy who goes out of his way to prove that he's oppressed by The Man, not so much. The guy's account is reads like he set out to bait the TSA, it worked, and then he bitched about it.
Like a kid's game. I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you, I'm an inch away!
I think TSA shouldn't have hassled him as much as they did once it was clear that it was just a note, and it seems that could have been accomplished with a more thorough bag search. But not so much on the side of the guy baiting the minimum wage employees.
Your swarthy ass is getting searched regardless.
As I never tire of telling people, I never get pulled out of line, and I've flown at least twenty times since 9/11.
66: Gswift, your argument was that the phrase "Kip Hawley is an idiot" could be reasonably and quickly construed to mean "I'm taking something on the plane I shouldn't, and you idiots aren't even going to notice." By that logic, a Secret Service agent seeing me stroll down Constitution Avenue in a t-shirt reading "Henry Paulson is a Moron" would be justified in concluding that I am not only the mastermind of a large-scale counterfeiting operation, but that I'm daring him to beat me in a deadly game of wits.
Terrorists don't act like that. Investigative reporters don't act like that. The fucking Riddler acts like that. So, yes. A bit of a stretch.
100: The Capri pants make him look unthreatening.
98: Given the antics of the Jailblazers' organization, I'm surprised they even noticed the woman.
As I never tire of telling people, I never get pulled out of line, and I've flown at least twenty times since 9/11.
I, on the other hand, get searched without fail, despite my nigh-sickly pallor and relatively light hair.
In practice that pretty much means everything but flip flops should go through the scanner.
It's pretty much anything thicker than half an inch. Running shoes, boots, sandals with a heel, sandals without a heel, etc.
100: The Capri pants make him look unthreatening.
You really don't like being weiner-pwned, do you?
The fucking Riddler acts like that.
Yeah, well don't go crying to Batman when the Riddler brings down your plane.
It seems that this thread has been unconsciously manipulated by Bush.
No, really. Those basically defending the airport security tools are making the assumption that a clear plastic bag could possibly indicate danger. But, remember, since 9/11 there has been no incident. Every reported "thwarted" incident has turned out to be crap. The shoe-bomber, the guys in florida, the guys in britain, all of them. All bullshit. The bottom line is that it's probably impossible to blow up a plane these days, especially with the contents of a small, clear plastic bag.
I, on the other hand, get searched without fail, despite my nigh-sickly pallor and relatively light hair.
I get searched on about half of my flights. I figure I'm the token white chick they can point to if someone complains about profiling: 'no, no, we harass petite blonde women, too, sir.'
90, 91: It also depends so much on the airport. For a while, I got away with my typical shoes (adidas sambas and other indoor soccer-style shoes) at the O'Hare airport without removing them. Now they demand everything to be taken off, including Chuck Taylors and thin-soled Pumas.
The really annoying thing is that you should always wear your biggest, heaviest shoes for the trip onto the plane. Why the hell pack your boots when you could pack the glorified slippers instead?
I'm completely fine with what this guy did, but that's also because I think airport security is a pretty stupid idea overall.
The shoe-bomber
I recall that was a legit bomb attempt, albeit by an incompetent bomber.
A guy who goes out of his way to prove that he's oppressed by The Man, not so much.
The guy does seem like a douchebag, but, you know, "First they came for the douchebags, and I did not speak out because I was not a douchebag."
The fucking Riddler acts like that.
Which is to say, like a crazy person? I don't think the criminally insane such as Riddler get to be on planes in general.
Once someone deduces that the person isn't insane, and that their fishy out-of-the-ordinary behavior AT THE AIRPORT is just a civilized free-speech-protest, then he obviously should be free to go. It looks like this happened that way, too, although he got more attitude than is right, although 93 suggests why that might have been the case.
112. Hmm, I gotta run, so we either need an official ruling or I'll look it up later. I recall the verdict, (eventually) was "couldn't have worked."
113 is so awesome. Should be a bumper sticker.
Now they demand everything to be taken off
Every time I've tried to get naked at the security gate, I've been thrown out of the airport.
that their fishy out-of-the-ordinary behavior AT THE AIRPORT is just a civilized free-speech-protest, then he obviously should be free to go.
How was this "fishy"? How long should it take to figure out that it's just a civilized thing—are the proper units seconds or milliseconds?
Re: the Riddler point, we should keep in mind that security isn't just guarding against Islamonazifascistsnugglebunny terrorism, but against all security threats, and sometimes assholes do disrupt flights.
And, really, people wear statements on buttons, t-shirts, bumper stickers, patches..everywhere, really. This guy went to 10 seconds extra effort, but I don't see what's surprising about it that everyone thinks it's just awful. You're all conformist reactionaries.
113: Nah, I think TSA overreacted: all they needed to do was look through the clear bag physically, and they could have done that without saying anything.
A guy who goes out of his way to prove that he's oppressed by The Man, not so much. The guy's account is reads like he set out to bait the TSA, it worked, and then he bitched about it.
Okay, I know the two situations are non-analogous in a host of ways, and I in no way mean to equate the importance of the two, but isn't this the complaint that right-wingers used to level at Rosa Parks - that her complaint wasn't "authentic" because she set out to prove a point, and that she could've just shut up and gone to the back of the bus if she wanted to? If the point of the "Kip Hawley is an idiot" experiment was to see if there was a problem with TSA screeners, and lo and behold there was, then the point was proven, regardless of whether the incident happened "naturally" or not.
119: Like I said, it's not that I don't think there wasn't any reason to give his stuff an extra going-over. But if his description is accurate, he was pulled aside and bullied long past the point where it would be reasonable to think he was more dangerous than the average flier.
Okay, I know the two situations are non-analogous in a host of ways, and I in no way mean to equate the importance of the two, but isn't this the complaint that right-wingers used to level at Rosa Parks - that her complaint wasn't "authentic" because she set out to prove a point, and that she could've just shut up and gone to the back of the bus if she wanted to?
Are you just trying to be as offensive as humanly possible? Isn't what happened to him a little bit like being gassed by the Nazis?
The bottom line is that it's probably impossible to blow up a plane these days, especially with the contents of a small, clear plastic bag.
A quart sized bag of nitroglycerin near the wing of the plane would do it easily.
How was this "fishy"?
It's a message written on a baggie cleverly aimed at the screeners themselves...?
How long should it take to figure out that it's just a civilized thing—are the proper units seconds or milliseconds?
If I were a security screener I'd want to verify that the person didn't give off Kacyznskiesque flight-disrupting vibes. Sloganeering in inappropriate places is a mark of loonybinism. This could take, oh, a minute or so? But IANA psychologist or a 'trained' airport cop.
Are you just trying to be as offensive as humanly possible?
Maybe I should've thrown another six or seven extra disclaimers in there. Seriously, though, I have no idea what "but he planned it all along!" has to do with the fact that he got pulled aside and harassed for making fun of the head of a government agency. You do see that that's bad, right?
Stras has a point, Tim; the "naturalness" of the way the situation arose has nothing to do with it. Perhaps a less offensive way to put it is this: it was an experiment; he approached the TSA in order to be instructed by it not like a pupil, but like an appointed judge who compels witnesses to answer the questions he puts to them.
122: Only if security was responding to this guy's claim that Kip Hawley was an idiot. The analogy doesn't scan if he'd written, say, "Message to TSA Screeners" instead and they had pulled him out of line for that (and I think they would have). The point the guy hoped to make was that security won't tolerate dissent, but I think he's misreading their response.
Maybe instead of air marshalls, TSA should start putting members of the Justice League on every flight. That'll keep the Riddler from pulling any shenanigans.
sometimes assholes do disrupt flights.
Like these incidents from before 9/11. The last one in the bullet list is the best.
A 32-year old Algerian with an expired visa boarded a DC-10 from Detroit to Frankfurt, Germany, and about four hours from arrival attacked a flight attendant by choking her and screaming "to Africa." She escaped and he then attacked a female passenger yelling "whore" repeatedly. He had concealed his dinner knife in a blanket and was extremely intoxicated after consuming another passenger’s bottle of duty-free liquor. The subject was subdued by military police and passengers who grappled with him for several hours after getting restraints on him. The meal service was canceled in the back of the aircraft due to the passengers’ excrement, which contaminated the aft food service area. Several crew members sustained minor injuries and their military police’s uniforms were ruined.
I came across that while looking for my favorite air travel story:
A few years ago on a United Airlines flight from Buenos Aires to New York, Gerard B. Finneran, an investment banker, went totally bonkers. Newspaper accounts said that after becoming intoxicated, Finneran demanded more alcohol from the flight attendants. When they refused, he began helping himself to the liquor supply. After being cut off a second time, he became visibly angry. He pushed one flight attendant (federal offense No. 1), verbally threatened another (federal offense No. 2), interfered with a third who was assisting a sick passenger (federal offense No. 3), then walked up to the first-class cabin, dropped his pants and defecated on a service cart in plain view of the passengers and crew. Then he stepped in his own feces and tracked it through the main cabin (federal offense Nos. 4, 5 and possibly 6).
More fun stories at the link. How drunk do you have to get before you revert to monkey behavior and crap on a service cart? I've been really, really drunk and never even gotten close to that.
Maybe if we let the gulags fill with douchebags and people who wear turbans, there won't be any room left for the rest of us?
123, I agree that it was excessive. IMO 93 is probably a good explanation why he got harsher treatment. Cops be cops.
131: Oh, assholes on a flight happen all the time. My mother was a flight attendant until she got laid off not too long after 9-11, but she had to deal with a passenger physically acting out probably at least once a year (She's big and mean, so was usually the enforcer.) They always had handcuffs if necessary to keep a passenger under control.
The non-analogous points are important, though, because kinda it makes it not an analogy. The TSA dudes have to check everyone through security, and they probably have to look at anomalous things carefully.
A note aimed at the baggage screeners isn't usual. I think the ordinariness or unordinariness is important here. If he had decided to carry a book -- John Updike's Terrorist or wear a T-shirt maybe, or do something permitted & ordinary as a test, it would have made a better test and made him seems a little less like the Littlest Tool Pinning His Little Tool Flag to the Barricade.
It would be more like if Rosa Parks got on the bus, refused to pay the fare, decided to stand on the seat, and then when the driver asked her to sit down, exclaimed that it was due to racism. But that's a stretch 'cause the situations aren't analogous.
Rosa Parks got on the bus, refused to pay the fare, decided to stand on the seat, and then when the driver asked her to sit down, exclaimed that it was due to racism.
You are such a racist, Cala.
135 - But what he did was entirely permitted. He still had his liquids in a 1 quart clear bag, just like the TSA asks.
I don't think a message written on a bag that will get searched is any more toolish than wearing a deliberately edgy t-shirt.
131- That's impressive, if only because I don't think I could produce on command- you have to be prepared to commit such an act. I would like to know which specific items are offenses 4, 5, and 6, and would love to see the text of those laws. (It is hereby illegal to step in your own feces with the purpose of tracking it across different levels of airline service.)
We're down to an argument about what the screeners were thinking.
If their reaction was based purely on "Anything written on a toiletries bag and apparently addressed at the screeners is unusual enough to trigger a reaction of this type", that strikes me as weird and ill-supported, but not all that much of a problem.
I think it's more likely that the content of the message, expressing disrespect for the TSA, triggered the reaction, and that I think is a real problem. But there's no real way to tell whether that is the case at this point.
135: But the point is really one of proportionate response. Seeing a message written on a plastic baggie might not be all that ordinary, and it might warrant some additional searching and even some questioning, but how does it warrant the kind of bullying this guy got, which wasn't just directed at the fact that he wrote a message on a bag, but the fact that he wrote that message ("You can't write things like this"). It certainly doesn't justify the harassment the guy got, which is clearly not concerned with determining whether or not he's a threat, but with dressing him down in response to questioning their authority.
And once again, I have no idea what naturalness versus plannedness has to do with this.
We're down to an argument about what the screeners were thinking.
Really? I thought we were agreed that anything out of the ordinary will get you some extra scrutiny, and we can live with that if it's done respectfully and expeditiously. (Except for SJ, who wants armed insurrection anyway.)
"Sloganeering in inappropriate places is a mark of loonybinism."
Do we really want the government deciding what is "inappropiate"? I mean, it's one thing to have the argument in court where you can present reasons in your favor, but vesting beauracratic officials with the power to decide what counts as inappropriate strikes me as dangerous as best.
137: Also said ordinary. Also said that I thought the screeners were too harsh at least twice in this thread. Also think 139 is right.
But since I'm already being lumped in with the Klan, I'm just going to drop this.
Well, I'll agree that a screener might be reasonable in giving the bag a double-take, and I'll stretch it to say that if the rules provide for the screener's having the discretion to pat-down anyone they get a weird vibe from, I suppose that if they want to consider this weird-vibe-worthy, fine. But no more than that.
I am understanding people to say that nothing exceptionable happened at all, and I think that's wrong. From the way the story was told, it seems apparent to me that the screeners and supervisor believed they were justified in giving this man a hard time because of the content of the non-threatening political opinions he expressed. That's wrong.
I think there are some seriously unrealistic expectations of the screeners. Next up, outrage when the dude manning the Wendy's drive thru isn't familiar with the 1st Amendment.
Part of the problem here is one of policy and enforcement vs. legal rights. If he were arrested, any court would have thrown out the charges. But there's plenty of room for thuggishness and harassment, even as official policy, that will never be addressed legally. They would have had to physically harm him for him to have some legal recourse- there's an ambiguous gap between what rights we have and how to enforce those rights. It goes, of course, to the lawlessness of this administration in general- the attitude in approaching any law is always, "And if I do, what are you going to do about it?"
Yeah, part of what's irking me is that the guy has a problem with the policy and takes it out on the guy making minimum wage in a very boring job. That and the fact that I never said that the TSA didn't do anything exceptionable.
I am understanding people to say that nothing exceptionable happened at all, and I think that's wrong. From the way the story was told, it seems apparent to me that the screeners and supervisor believed they were justified in giving this man a hard time because of the content of the non-threatening political opinions he expressed.
I'm reading it differently than you are, and with more skepticism of the narrator.
146: Oh, come on. It's not that we're expecting them to have a firm grasp of what the Constitution forbids them from doing, it's that we're expecting them to be trained in what they're looking for -- weapons, not opinions. And that the supervisor, or the deputy, someone in the incident, should have been able to figure that out, apologize, and send the guy on his way.
It sounded more to me that they were giving him a hard time because he was being smug & superior & they weren't sure what to make of his note and that he took it as vindication that he was fighting the good fight.
I thought we were agreed that anything out of the ordinary will get you some extra scrutiny, and we can live with that if it's done respectfully and expeditiously.
I usually get extra scrutiny because I tend to have to carry a variety of weird objects with me when I travel, and so most of my stuff gets a going-over. It never takes more than five minutes, which honestly surprises me, since some of those objects are metal and vaguely pointy. While none of this stuff is actually dangerous, it is, I would think, more genuinely suspicious to the casual passer-by than a clear baggie with a snarky message concerning a government bureaucrat scrawled on one side.
They're not just looking for weapons, though; I'm sure they're also keeping an eye out for crazies.
146 - Dude, how hard can it be to identify someone deliberately exercising their First Amendment rights? White, ponytail, shrill, ACLU card in his wallet.
Next up, outrage when the dude manning the Wendy's drive thru isn't familiar with the 1st Amendment.
Wait, Wendy's is now an arm of the federal government? That definitely explains the recent drop in quality of the spicy chicken sandwich.
I usually get extra scrutiny because I tend to have to carry a variety of weird objects...some of those objects are metal and vaguely pointy.
Door to door dildo sales: Not all glamour after all.
God, people, I take a phone call and I lose the thread.
I think there's two things being conflated here: (1) what airport security can and should reasonably be expected to do as a matter of security; and (2) what is and isn't actually illegal. Airport security can make you take off your shoes; but it isn't legal for me to tell someone to take off their shoes just for the hell of it. Likewise, airport security can (and probably should) be able to reasonably ask to search someone's bag, ask them a few questions, etc., if that someone does something that stands out, e.g., one-man political stunt in the security line.
That doesn't mean that the specifics of the stunt are in any way illegal or should constitute actual suspicion. All they constitute, in the context of airport security, is "unusual behavior." Of course writing on a plastic bag is covered as a free speech act. On the other hand, of course certain perfectly valid and constitutional acts are reasons to pay a little extra attention to someone in an airport.
they were giving him a hard time because he was being smug & superior
See, this is still wrong. I don't want to live in a country where it is normal to think 'Of course government agents intimidated and harassed him, he gave them attitude'. If it is normal and acceptable for agents of the government to harass someone for being 'smug' (not threatening, not personally insulting to the individual), then that's wrong. It's inevitable that that sort of thing wil happen sometimes, but it is not a necessary nor an acceptable relationship between an individual and a civil servant.
I don't want to live in a country where it is normal to think 'Of course government agents intimidated and harassed him, he gave them attitude'.
You've always lived in this country, sad to say.
Agreed with 149 and 151.
the screeners and supervisor believed they were justified in giving this man a hard time because of the content of the non-threatening political opinions he expressed
I don't think that's supported by the text. There's not even a suggestion that the TSA guys were saying that Kip Hawley is teh hero, and the narrator would have recorded an instance of a TSA guy arguing with him over the Skipper.
131 is really, really disgusting. That goes without saying, of course, but still.
I think there are some seriously unrealistic expectations of the screeners
Disagreed. Especially given the latitude we give airports *because* of security issues, we gotta expect the people doing the screening to have a good general grasp of the distinction between what rights a passenger does and doesn't actually have.
'Of course government agents intimidated and harassed him, he gave them attitude'.
It might be easier if you think about it as, "Of course the low-paid line worker fucked with him; he gave them attitude."
I find it mildly amusing that so many people think it's self-evident that the message wasn't worrisome and required no further investigation at the same time as our political folk are off arguing that the initial set of e-mails from Foley clearly required further investigation.
He went strait to the TSA Supervisor on duty and boy did he come marching over to the checkpoint with fire in his eyes!
He grabbed the baggie as it came out of the X-ray and asked if it was mine. After responding yes, he pointed at my comment and demanded to know "What is this supposed to mean?" "It could me a lot of things, it happens to be an opinion on mine." "You can't write things like this"
I think "You can't write things like this" does suggest that the content of the speech was at issue.
They're not just looking for weapons, though; I'm sure they're also keeping an eye out for crazies.
Even on that level I think you're all missing the point. Of all the available objects of obsession within the American security apparatus, what genuine lunatic is going to focus on Kip fucking Hawley? Anyone working for the TSA who even knows who Hawley is will recognize him as their boss - and if they react negatively, it's far more likely that's because they see an insult to Hawley as an insult to their agency and an affront to their authority (notice that the screener's response is to tell the guy his First Amendment rights end where the screener's own personal fiefdom begins). This has nothing to do with looking for weapons or crazies, and everything to do with stepping on someone that was pissing them off.
Disagreed. Especially given the latitude we give airports *because* of security issues, we gotta expect the people doing the screening to have a good general grasp of the distinction between what rights a passenger does and doesn't actually have.
In theory yes. But when there's more money to be made schlepping coffee at Starbucks, ain't gonna happen.
Good fucking God.
It's inevitable that that sort of thing wil happen sometimes, but it is not a necessary nor an acceptable relationship between an individual and a civil servant.
Not what I'm claiming. Nor am I claiming that the guy deserved harassment for being 'smug.' I think the jury's still out on whether I spit on Rosa Parks before or after gassing the passenger, though.
I just don't think he's a reliable narrator and that what he's taking as governmental anger at his brave little toaster speech act is probably annoyance at having to deal with a rude and condescending customer.
165: So, the point that was proven was, if you try to piss someone off, and they get pissed off, you win?
Or that airport screening in its current state is a den of screwed-up civil-rights savagery that must be stopped, stopped, stopped, before it slips down the slope? This is a possibly valid point, but the execution of the civil disobedience seems clumsy and dangerous and more to do with the perp's ego than any higher calling. As Cala said, he's not a reliable narrator.
I mentioned the twelve disclaimers I meant to attach to the Rosa Parks thing, right? The ones that said "this does not mean I am equating you with enemies of the civil rights movement in Jim Crow-era Alabama, I am only making the point about authenticity"?
166: I think it's valid to be outraged about that.
OK, first, I am not a customer of the TSA. I employ them. They work to keep me safe and I have granted them some agency because I assume they know better than me how to screen security risks. But as my civil servant (just as I am a civil servant to the people of California), they have an extra duty to be polite to assholes that even minimum wage workers don't.
Have also balked at airline security, I think that they were coming down hard on this guy because they don't know exactly what they are doing and how far their authority extends, and they would rather intimidate someone into backing down so they can avoid both those issues. They use the flyer's limited time and the angry will of the crowd to back them up.
So, the point that was proven was, if you try to piss someone off, and they get pissed off, you win?
No. The point is that government agents aren't allowed to make decisions based on whether or not they're pissed at you, especially when that decision is the decision to violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
the angry will of the crowd to back them up.
Preach it. I have seen some mean, mean crowds lately. "It's your fucking wristwatch, you dumb shit!"
OK, first, I am not a customer of the TSA. I employ them. They work to keep me safe and I have granted them some agency because I assume they know better than me how to screen security risks. But as my civil servant (just as I am a civil servant to the people of California), they have an extra duty to be polite to assholes that even minimum wage workers don't.
Absolutely.
The point is that government agents aren't allowed to make decisions based on whether or not they're pissed at you, especially when that decision is the decision to violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
And this.
Look, this guy wasn't waterboarded, and screwups happen, but this is just wrong. He wasn't threatening or insulting, he had a political opinion and an 'attitude'. In a free country, government officials are not allowed to harass you for having a bad attitude toward them.
A perfectly reasonable reaction would be "Yeah, it's no big deal, their training should be better." But that doesn't mean they weren't absolutely in the wrong.
173 proves nothing except that yeah, people under pressure will turn on each other. I could make some overheated claim about how totalitarian states work, but I won't.
It's like if I went to the post office and paying for my shipping purchase in pennies, and making the woman count them out, because it's legal tender and I have a right! to pay in pennies if I want to, and she got her supervisor who asked me if everything was okay, grumbled, and went slow -- I could tell she was going slow because I just know -- and then I went home and wrote a post on the internet about how the post office wasn't respecting the legal tender of the American penny.
I've proven something, but I don't think I'm proving anything about their attitudes toward the penny.
No. The point is that government agents aren't allowed to make decisions based on whether or not they're pissed at you, especially when that decision is the decision to violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, this is obviously right, and I won't disagree. Clearly it's a judgment call on the part of the screener as to which messages scrawled on bags require further attention because they could be correlated with a Threat or Letting a Crazy On A Plane, and which do not. I think all this thread boils down to whether or not this message required further attention; I obviously think it did, and it probably didn't help matters that the bearer of the message pissed them off, which is human-interaction issue and can't be wished away.
Like Bitch said, it's okay to be outraged that we all secretly chuckle at the phrase 'government agents' as applied to the TSA people, who by and large are low-paid and ill-trained.
176: 173 was not intended as evidence, just an anecdote...
177: You could do that, but respect for the value of the penny doesn't play quite the same role in a liberal democracy that free speech does.
So, we basically need less fiefdom ego among the screener-managers, more 1st-amendment awareness on the part of same, and less snotty free-speech activists. Saright?
179: Yeah, I was just picking on the most recent comment along the lines of "the guy was a jerk who probably pissed other passengers off" to make the point that pissed off people will often turn on the nearest non-compliant non-authority figure. And that this is not evidence that the authorities aren't the root of the problem.
Yeah, we laugh at the idea that they are government agents, except that if you give them any sort of resistance at all, including my polite protests over taking off my shoes, the first thing they bring down on you is their authority as representatives of the federal government and their ability to give you a huge-ass hassle. They may be contract workers who aren't even getting the sweet state and federal benefits, but they are more than willing to put the federal smackdown on anyone who isn't entirely compliant. If they're going to wield that authority, they take on the duty to be polite and respectful to people who write dumb stuff on their bags. (Whom I also think invited himself a little extra respectful and professional scrutiny.)
less fiefdom ego among the screener-managers
Yep.
more 1st-amendment awareness on the part of same
Sure thing.
less snotty free-speech activists.
Why? Once we've got the first two points, the free-speech activists aren't causing any trouble.
I think all this thread boils down to whether or not this message required further attention
But it's not just that. It's a matter of how much attention, and what kind of attention. From the account given, it looks an awful lot like the message was scrutinized not because it was a message on a plastic bag, but a message on a bag that made fun of the TSA. Even if the presence of a message, in and of itself, warranted extra attention, how would it justify half an hour's attention? How long does it take to figure out this is just some guy with an opinion trying to make a point? It sounds like the first screener figured this out pretty quickly - he just got really pissed at the traveler once he realized the traveler had an attitude about it and was trying to make a point. Again, this incident seems to have had very little to do with security, and a great deal to do with assertions of authority.
Customs guys are worse, especially U.S. CIS. They don't hassle me too much, but sometimes I just want to point out that I'm an American citizen and that they're going to have to let me in or deport me to where I'm going, so they could stop the me-tough-federal-agent act. The Canadian side never seems to worry.
I just want to exclude this guy, because he's snotty and annoying. So I guess, less by one.
113 might haunt me, though.
Heh. I'll agree that he's probably annoying -- this sort of thing just sets off the libertarian-affiliated chunk of my brainstem. Which I think highly of, I just don't let it get silly about economic issues.
Again, this incident seems to have had very little to do with security, and a great deal to do with assertions of authority.
Assertions in both directions, including snotty college kid (I'm guessing) dicking with low-paid govt. worker. This sort of situation is always tough to call for anyone who wants to be the authentic face of the left: civil liberties or class status.
185: I think we're agreed that the harassment was unnecessary and the manager/screener was ignorant. All I'm standing for is that pulling him out of line for a brief interview to establish non-craziness was warranted. It sucks that he got an angry guy with an axe to grind that day (or a normal guy who got pissed off by his attitude), but the basic principle of watching out for weird shit, and checking it out, seems reasonable.
187: Jesus, the world would go straight to hell without snotty and annoying people. When shit goes seriously wrong, the nice-n-tidy superpolite mustn't-make-a-fuss caucus is utterly useless until it's way too fucking late; it's the snotty and annoying people who lead the resistance nine times out of ten.
(I don't count myself among these auspicious circles; I am merely mildly obnoxious.)
No. Assuming that the incident was reasonably as reported, and that any attitude the guy had was expressed in eye-rolling or posture, rather than in saying anything insulting or abusive, 'classism' in no way justifies the screener in harassing the guy for being an irritating rich kid.
192: You're so not the authentic face of the left, LB.
This is news? I'm a tobacco lawyer. In any decent society I'd be burned at the stake.
snotty college kid (I'm guessing) dicking with low-paid govt. worker
Exhibit A
"You mean my First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't apply here?" "Out there (pointing pass the id checkers) not while in here (pointing down) was his response."At this point I chuckled, just looking at him wondering if he just realized how foolish that comment was
Preferably on a nice bed of fine tobacco leaves.
186: US customs seems to have a way of attracting and cultivating asshats. I don't know why, but I have seen better behaved and more efficient customs people in essentially every other country I've dealt with customs.
Some few of these guys really are quite laughable (but they *do* get pissed if you laugh at them!). A combination of ineptness and bravado that truly is a wonder to behold....
Also, it's worth pointing out that 'detained for 25 minutes' means 'stood to the side while the TSA employees scanned his bag, swapped his bag, and telephoned to figure out what to do on the first day that new regulations concerning liquids in suitcases were in place.'
Exhibit B
I would have left at this point, but he had my quart bag with my toothpaste and hair gel.
You see, Captain Freedom was on the verge of making a break for it to spread the news of oppression at the airport. But then, he realized that would mean leaving behind his hair gel.
Gswift, would that last quote be less classist if it just read "At this point I chuckled, just looking at him wondering if he just realized how fascist that comment was"?
I like how we've spent at least half this thread talking about what a prick this guy is, instead of talking about whether or not Americans get to keep First Amendment rights while they're at the airport. Self-loathing, self-defeating, self-paralyzing: don't kid yourselves, people, we are the authentic face of the left!
You know, I've not found that US customs people are any worse than anyone else. I think y'all are just hating on America.
snotty college kid (I'm guessing)
Link: Ryan Bird is a middle-aged guy from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He's a frequent flyer, racking-up over 125,000 miles a year traveling on behalf of his company.
'stood to the side while the TSA employees scanned his bag, swapped his bag, and telephoned to figure out what to do on the first day that new regulations concerning liquids in suitcases were in place.'
And took his ID and checked for any outstanding warrants. He's not complaining about bureaucratic inefficiency, here, he was being detained.
I like how we've spent at least half this thread talking about what a prick this guy is, instead of talking about whether or not Americans get to keep First Amendment rights while they're at the airport.
Because there's comity that the harassment was excessive and that he was kept at least 23 minutes too long, and we're dicking about the finer points.
He's also apparently a not-untypically self-satisfied smart person whose lingering high school angst causes him to frame political issues in adolescent language and hang out too much on the internet.
You see, Captain Freedom was on the verge of making a break for it to spread the news of oppression at the airport. But then, he realized that would mean leaving behind his hair gel.
What do you think they would have done if he had decided to walk off without his hair gel?
I didn't have any real guesses about his age. I quote him to establish his douchery more than anything. A solid case, if I say so myself.
Because there's comity that the harassment was excessive and that he was kept at least 23 minutes too long
I disn't see a consensus being reached. I just saw a subject being changed.
"He's also apparently a not-untypically self-satisfied smart person whose lingering high school angst causes him to frame political issues in adolescent language and hang out too much on the internet."
Authentic face of unfogged!
I quote him to establish his douchery more than anything. A solid case, if I say so myself.
I guess we can tack on "except for douches" to the end of the Bill of Rights.
I suspect that might be part of procedure when they don't know what to do. ("probably nothing, get his name, get his ID, run a name hit, we'll cover our asses.")
Now, that's bad (and I've said so in this very thread, while polishing my swastika, even!), but again, doesn't seem to have anything to do with his verbal sparring with the minimum wage official over 'fire in a crowded theater.'
I guess we can tack on "except for douches" to the end of the Bill of Rights.
He got asked a couple extra questions and had to show his id again. Quick call the ACLU.
Separate issues, SJ. The guy has the right to be kinda smugly toolish. (1) He made a valid point, and should not have been harassed; (2) he comes across as kind of a smug dork.
Point of pedantry: I'm pretty sure there aren't any government workers (that is, someone who will have passed a civil service exam) who don't earn considerably more than minimum wage. Yes, yes, I know it's an expression, but still.
Because there's comity that the harassment was excessive
Is there? Evidence against:
163: I find it mildly amusing that so many people think it's self-evident that the message wasn't worrisome and required no further investigation at the same time as our political folk are off arguing that the initial set of e-mails from Foley clearly required further investigation.
199: Also, it's worth pointing out that 'detained for 25 minutes' means 'stood to the side while the TSA employees scanned his bag, swapped his bag, and telephoned to figure out what to do on the first day that new regulations concerning liquids in suitcases were in place.'
200: You see, Captain Freedom was on the verge of making a break for it to spread the news of oppression at the airport. But then, he realized that would mean leaving behind his hair gel.
Those arguing strenously that this guy is at fault: what do you have to lose by admitting that the TSA was in the wrong? I don't get the vehemence on the other side.
216: What special relevance does his toolishness have here, especially given that gswift's implied position seems to be "the guy's a dick, so I don't care"?
He should not have been harassed for 25 minutes. Being spoken with for a couple minutes to establish that he was 'just' a free-speech point-maker and not a mid-flight freakout just seems reasonable to me.
The authority-assertion parts should not have even come into it. In a better world, the screenermanager had a broad understanding of A1 and was mild-tempered to boot. That's something TSA should work on. The free-speech point-maker should realize his job is to make the point, not agitate the enforcer (unless he has a good lawyer and that's the specific plan, which I guess some people advocate).
I concur entirely with SJ. The emphasis on his alleged toolishness seems precisely the type of "yes, but" subject change that would get blasted if it were made in other contexts, espeically by conservatives. Why is his douchehood a factor?
Comity to 220, and agreement with 222.
I'm even fine with keeping him to the side while they check for warrants. He did an unusual thing. The odds are low that he is dangerous, but the penalty of being wrong is incredibly high. But I'm strongly of the opinion that it is the duty of the screener to be respectful and polite, not an authoritarian bully who has to bluster because he doesn't really know the limits of his power. I also think that smart-ass free speech person is arguably a type that airport security people should recognize (maybe with the aid of some additional conversation with him or her).
Unfogged: Comity of Errors.
Those arguing strenously that this guy is at fault: what do you have to lose by admitting that the TSA was in the wrong?
Already admitted TSA was in the wrong. Twice. In 99 and in 121. Not in the one you quoted of course, but it's here, in English, in this very thread.
I'm just objecting to the deification of the guy. It's not clear, except from his description where he is clearly the Hero, that being detained had anything to do with the content of the note, regardless of the comments he got out of a low-level ill-trained worker. If their guideline is 'check out stuff that seems odd' and 'if you're not sure, check the ID', that may be a bad guideline. But it isn't a free speech issue.
This is a news account of the incident (and it says the guy is 31, not middle-aged).
222: this might be digressing from this particular situation, but: because there's a human dimension to the interaction that (when one is a tool) changes it from a (ideally) simple expression of one's rights to a nasty web of class and personality differences between the enforcer and the activist, who really should be on the same side. Being a tool makes the situation more complicated than it should be, and makes it easier for the bad guys to dismiss the free-speech argument afterwards.
Oo, Megan, clever! But now, jeez, I gots to change my handle.
227: Well, I certainly agree that this guy is not a deity, and I apologize for mischaracterizing your position.
216: What special relevance does his toolishness have here, especially given that gswift's implied position seems to be "the guy's a dick, so I don't care"?
Because it offers an alternate explanation for the harassment. We only care if he was being harassed because of his speech--that is, in attempt to punish him in some way for the content of what he said. I don't buy that. I think they harassed him (assuming they did) because he came off as a jackass.
202: I don't think so. Particularly I've been across the US Canada border enough times in both directions at many different crossings to have a pretty good sample. The two services are notably different in my experience. I have less reliable sense of european variants, but still note less attitude.
I wonder if gender/(counter)culture plays into it? I (particularly used to, not so much now) get bullshit `tough guy' responses a lot of places, not just customs. Perhaps you don't run into this as much.....
I'm really amazed that anyone's defending TSA on this. The civil liberties crank is a basic American type. That's a good thing. They perform the valuable service of reminding the government that it's not supposed to fuck with people. Most of us are willing to accept some level of BS because it's easier to ignore it and move on. It's good that some folks are willing to be jerks about this stuff.
And I'm really, really astonished that people are going through all kinds of intellectual contortions to pretend that there's room for legitimate concern over "Kip Hawley is an idiot" written on a plastic bag. That's classic civil liberties crank behavior. People who are dangerous are not the ones acting up at the checkpoint. They're the ones trying to get through the checkpoint as inconspicuously as possible. Fucking with the civil liberties cranks isn't just a First Amendment problem, it's an indication of a system that's more interested in vindicating its own authority than in detecting actual threats.
But it isn't a free speech issue.
I'm not sure how the TSA is in the wrong if it's not a free speech issue. You say they're overreacting, but what are they overreacting to if not a message about the head of the TSA? Do you honestly think they'd have the exact same reaction if the guy had written "Ben w-lfs-n is a Boogerhead" or "Ogged hearts FL"? I seriously, seriously doubt it, because the screener would have absolutely no idea what those names mean, and would most likely write them off as a curiosity, and inspect the bag more or less like any other.
229 - Were you on the dl? I'm sorry. I didn't realize.
re:227
It seems to me that he doesn't need to be Teh Hero!, nor is he being treated as such. He made his point. If he manages to be a suave motherfucker while making his point, than that's gravy, but either way it's mostly tangential to why we regard his story as interesting.
I think they harassed him (assuming they did) because he came off as a jackass.
But, as per 172, that's not a valid excuse either. Just as the government can't fuck around with you for what you're saying, it also can't fuck around with you for the manner in which you say it.
gswift's implied position seems to be "the guy's a dick, so I don't care"?
A lot of people keep talking about this like the security line at the airport is the same as a sidewalk or a public park. It isn't. The rules are different. Shit that wouldn't (or shouldn't) get a second look in those venues will get you questioned if it's done at the airport. Were the TSA guys bigger dicks about it than they needed it to be? Possibly. But my guess from reading his account is that his extra harrassment was from being a jackass and/or some confusion as to proper procedure rather than any campaign to quash to right to malign their boss.
219: I disagree with 231. I think the relevance of his toolishness is merely that there's no other post here to really comment on, and we have a collective habit of impugning the toolishness of random people we find links to on the internet.
231 is nonsense. How was the guy being a jackass? By expressing his opinion of the screeners' boss, which they--no doubt correctly--construed as an insult to their agency. There would have been no problem if the guy hadn't (1) expressed his opinion, and (2) defended his right to do so. That's not the kind of thing we want government agents suppressing. Yes, many TSA screeners are dregs who couldn't get any other federal law enforcement job, but they're still federal law enforcement agents and need to be trained to act accordingly.
There's a difference between detaining someone for saying a mean thing about the head of the TSA, and detaining someone because bothering to write that the head of the TSA is an idiot seems a little bit weird and it makes you worried that they're up to something. (Ogged hearts FL wouldn't trigger either.)
If it's the former, that's a problem. If it's the latter, while they were impolite, then they should manually check the bag and send him on his way.
Just as the government can't fuck around with you for what you're saying, it also can't fuck around with you for the manner in which you say it.
You're seeing it as "the government," I'm seeing it as "Bill and Earl."
Because "harassed for no reason" is much more objectionable than "harassed for a perfectly understandable reason".
237: Read the linked post. He's fighting against Stalinists, man.
I heart SJ for 238.
IMO, the incriminating part here is that he brought in his supervisor and it still wasn't resolved immediatly. This isn't just a lone security dude losing his temper at jackassery. As soon as the supervisor became involves, the *system* is implicated.
I disagree with 231.
I can't tell if you're disagreeing (a) that he comes off as a tool, (b) that I could reasonably think he came off as a tool, or (c) that whether or not he was a tool had no bearing on how they treated him--that is, it's not reasonable to see this as them fucking with him because he was irritating. And I'm suggesting that he came off as a tool independent of his message on his bag.
233: Okay, this gets back to what I think I said initially, which is that realistically, it is not the person who makes a joke about a bomb at the airport who is likely to be carrying one--but on the other hand, I accept it as reasonable that yes, if someone makes a joke about a bomb, the authorities do have to actually check it out. I see this Kip Hawley thing as in the same arena (no, I'm not saying it constitutes a threat): something that is surely a cranky act of free speech, but that nonetheless stands out as unusual, and is therefore validly worth pulling the guy aside to ask a couple questions and maybe search his bag.
But I'm open to a clear explanation of why that's just internalized oppression on my part.
You're seeing it as "the government," I'm seeing it as "Bill and Earl."
When Bill and Earl are acting as government agents, it doesn't make a difference to your rights, and the whole point is prevent our rights from getting whittled down any further than they've already been.
243: But when Bill and Earl go to work for the feds, they ain't allowed to whup folks upside the haid for sassing them no more.
247: I say that it is very wrong that law enforcement officials are allowed to fuck with someone because they don't like them. Even if you might not like them either. Empowering petty tyrants is not what government power is for, and it should be objected to and stopped where it's happening.
249, 250, 251: Unfogged mind-meld.
You're seeing it as "the government," I'm seeing it as "Bill and Earl."
Bill and Earl are wearing an (admiitedly polyester) badge.
Er, to why the guy's toolishness is a factor.
The guy is an idiot. He was trying to get a rise out of the TSA guy, who then retaliated by abusing the discretion that must be given to him if there is to be any hope of security to give the guy a hard time. I'm sure that the author of that posting is much, much happier that he got the response that he did rather than just an eye-roll and a "move along".
248: Bombs go boom on airplanes. Idiots don't. While it gets pretty silly at the margins, I don't have a problem with a strict rule about not joking about weapons at checkpoints. But this guy didn't do that. All he did was insult the TSA.
247: My quibble was with the phrasing "alternate explanation." I think that whether his obvious attempt to make *some* kind of political point triggered the reaction, or whether his toolishness did, are both essentially saying the same thing, and that in either case the reaction went a bit too far. I see the toolishness thing as merely we, the internetoriat, making an aesthetic comment on how the guy comes across.
I say that it is very wrong that law enforcement officials are allowed to fuck with someone because they don't like them. Even if you might not like them either. Empowering petty tyrants is not what government power is for, and it should be objected to and stopped where it's happening.
All of which may be true, but is anyone surprised when the cop who stops you for a broken tail light is more of a pain in the ass if you say, "Just give me a ticket, asshole, I'm on my way to sleep with your wife." Way of the world.
There's a difference between detaining someone for saying a mean thing about the head of the TSA, and detaining someone because bothering to write that the head of the TSA is an idiot seems a little bit weird and it makes you worried that they're up to something.
But the only reason why "mean thing about the head of the TSA" might look like "indicator of worrisome threat" is if you, as an agent of the TSA, equate open criticism of your agency with seditious threats.
Though experiment: what if he had written `TSA is wasting time and money on worthless gestures. Homeland security is pretty much a joke" on the bag? This is a somewhat defensible position at least, no?
Damn, since my 253 came after the mind-meld, I'll accept my "pwned."
"pulling the guy aside to ask a couple questions and maybe search his bag."
I don't think anyone disputes that. But,
He grabbed the baggie as it came out of the X-ray and asked if it was mine. After responding yes, he pointed at my comment and demanded to know "What is this supposed to mean?" "It could me a lot of things, it happens to be an opinion on mine." "You can't write things like this" he said, "You mean my First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't apply here?" "Out there (pointing pass the id checkers) not while in here (pointing down) was his response."
isn't simply applying extra scrutiny. Which is, I imagine, the point of the guy who wrote that post.
If he'd written that, you think he would have been pulled aside? I doubt it.
258, 253: Also clearly part of the hivemind.
All of which may be true, but is anyone surprised when the cop who stops you for a broken tail light is more of a pain in the ass if you say, "Just give me a ticket, asshole, I'm on my way to sleep with your wife." Way of the world.
In our next episode, Captain Freedom writes "I heart the DMV for exclusively hiring anti-social retards" on his driver's license renewal form, and then blogs about the heart breaking rudeness that ensues.
256 continued: that is, inasmuch as SJ was objecting to his sense that the tool discussion constituted an excuse for the agents' reaction, I think that if 231 is correct, it *does*--the tool talk has a condemnatory tone. So if it is being offered as an explanation for the agent's behavior, then it's being offered in a way that SJ is (imho) validly offended by.
If, on the other hand, the tool discussion is just a separate aesthetic judgment, as in my 240, then I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
255: Sure, I thought of that too. But the thing is, it *does* stand out as deliberately provocative. And it seems to me reasonable, given the stakes, to allow airport security folks to search/question people who are being deliberately provocative. No?
But the only reason why "mean thing about the head of the TSA" might look like "indicator of worrisome threat" is if you, as an agent of the TSA, equate open criticism of your agency with seditious threats.
Sedition? How about 'gee, this guy seems to be obsessed with the head of the TSA, whom 99% of Americans couldn't name, little odd.'
We've come so close to comity, so many times...
Wow, gswift has totally convinved me with his ridiculous strawman!
Does anyone dispute that
1. The TSA people were inappropriately thuggish
2. Extra screening for this guy was appropriate
?
262: Sure, and I said that in my first comments.
257/266: Okay, now I'm on SJ's side. The fact that something is predictable doesn't make it okay, and merely shrugging and mocking the person who provokes a predictable but objectionable reaction is complacent. I can see the point of saying, once, that X is predictable and therefore not very interesting; saying it repeatedly in different ways does seem like a form of excusing it.
But the thing is, it *does* stand out as deliberately provocative. And it seems to me reasonable, given the stakes, to allow airport security folks to search/question people who are being deliberately provocative. No?
No, not when the deliberate provocation is so clearly political speech. There's certainly a gray area, but this guy wasn't in it.
272: I dispute (2). The appropriate response was screen the bags, roll your eyes, and move on. Being baited into doing something improper by a playground insult is the kind of thing that even poorly-paid, poorly-trained TSA screeners need to be immune to.
Wow, gswift has totally convinved me with his ridiculous strawman!
Except it's not a strawman. Person behaves badly to government agent, government agent sends him round and round the "other line" circuit. Same diff.
272.2: Eh, 'appropriate'? Within the realm of excusable judgment calls, but I would think silly.
How about 'gee, this guy seems to be obsessed with the head of the TSA, whom 99% of Americans couldn't name, little odd.'
But "X is an idiot" does not indicate "I am obsessed with X," much less "I am a violent radical devoted to overthrowing everything X stands for." I don't think anyone reasonable would make that connection, and I don't think that screener did, either. I think he saw an insult to his agency and got offended.
275: It's clear to you. I don't think it's clear to TSA people, and not because they're low-paid or whatever. Letting that bag go by without even saying "hi sir, are you very upset? are you going to flip out on the plane?" would be irresponsible. See 268.
I dispute (2).
Well, can we admit that it takes all kinds? I'm glad for the Ryan Birds and DaveLs of the world, but I don't want them running airport security. I want my airport security folks to err on the side of restriction. And like gswift says upthread, I want that only at the airport, not elswhere.
277: The "bad behavior" was something written on a bag. That's not hard to ignore.
I think he saw an insult to his agency and got offended.
This is also true. And this is what resulted in the harassment that everyone is decrying. Am I wrong in thinking that the flip-out was not the same person as the initial stopper?
But "X is an idiot" does not indicate "I am obsessed with X," much less "I am a violent radical devoted to overthrowing everything X stands for."
I don't need to infer that he is a violent radical to think that I should inspect his bag more closely or wonder if he's going to flip out on the plane.
277: The "bad behavior" was something written on a bag. That's not hard to ignore.
There are two parts to this. I'm OK with them patting him down, extra checking of his bag--whatever B's formulation was. You, I think, are not. I'm assuming the extra twenty minutes was not for what was written on his bag, but for the toolishness he exhibited during the interaction. That, I'm just getting from nothing he described particularly, but rather his authorial voice...he sounds like the sort. There we may just be disagreeing about whether he comes off as a tool.
282: a tiny child saying "bomb bomb bomb barrarasdrfafsdf bomb" is also not hard to ignore. But it's not ignored.
Sorry about the changing handle. I'm a dork.
280: I saw 268. I just don't agree with it.
281: "Err on the side of restriction" is a really stupid security rule for lots of reasons, one of which is that it lets screeners expend too much of their limited mental resources on looking for threats to their own authority. "Err on the side of caution" is probably what you're looking for. I strongly dispute that there's any case at all to be made for the idea that hassling a guy for insulting your agency is a defensible form of caution.
I don't need to infer that he is a violent radical to think that I should inspect his bag more closely or wonder if he's going to flip out on the plane.
The screener's first reaction, though, wasn't to check the bag more closely. It was to ask him why he'd written that, and then to tell him that he couldn't. In that context, the guy's detention, extra questions, etc. don't appear to be routine security in the least. They look like retribution.
I almost got busted AGAIN in the airport in Australia. When I have something I want to blog or email someone about and my computer isn't turned on, I'll frequently write a note on a piece of paper and put it between the screen and keyboard of my closed laptop so that I remember to write it next time I use my computer. I wanted to write this post so that's what I did -- I wrote "Don't fuck with the Australian Customs office" on a piece of paper and stuck it in my laptop. I forgot about it until I took my laptop out of my bag to go through the airport x-ray. I'm really glad they didn't notice the note because that would have been fun to explain.
Oh, and bonus! The paper was torn from my Allah Akbar notebook.
I want my airport security folks to err on the side of restriction.
Why does Ogged hate freedom?
284: I think you're really stretching. There's a perfectly obvious, understandable human motivation for doing what the screener's did. See insult, stomp insulting person. I'm really having a hard time understanding the desire to skip past that explanation and try to figure out how there could have been a more legitimate reaction lurking behind it.
Have any of you defending the TSA ever looked around FlyerTalk before this post? There's a lot of frequent flyers there talking all the time about their frustrations with TSA. I don't have any trouble understanding why stuff that most of us take as a minor hassle when we fly a few times a year becomes a very big deal when you're flying several times a month. And hassling people for expressing frustration with a screwed up system just isn't OK. Any time that TSA spends fighting with the public for being frustrated with it is time that isn't spent on security.
285: Tim, you keep harping on this toolishness business. It doesn't matter if the guy came off as a tool. It doesn't matter if he seemed like the most obnoxious man those screeners had ever met. Even people you don't like are protected by the First Amendment. It doesn't just protect what you say, it protects the manner in which you say it.
The screener's first reaction, though, wasn't to check the bag more closely. It was to ask him why he'd written that, and then to tell him that he couldn't. In that context, the guy's detention, extra questions, etc. don't appear to be routine security in the least. They look like retribution.
This may all be a case of how much you trust the narrator.
288: obviously there was nothing to check about the BAG more closely. Maybe some hair gel. The message screams "check this PERSON more closely." Whether that's what set off the first person, or whether it was blind rage at the insult, I honestly don't know. I think it was a little of both.
And we've established that the detention for 25 minutes was unnecessary and harassing. A few brief questions to clear shit up should be all that's necessary.
This may all be a case of how much you trust the narrator.
You've said this a couple of times, but what do you mean? If you mean that the guy was probably just the sort of person you want to smack because of the expression on his face, it's possible, but it's no excuse. If you mean that you think he was verbally insulting or abusive to the screener, it's possible and would explain the interaction (as in your speeding ticket or gswift's DMV hypo), but I don't see any particular reason to think it's the case, any more than entertaining the possibility that the whole incident was really because he had a knife.
This may all be a case of how much you trust the narrator.
I'd be happy to hear your version of events, Tim.
It doesn't just protect what you say, it protects the manner in which you say it.
I have no idea why this is so hard to understand: I am assuming his toolishness came across not in his message but rather in the way he behaved as they responded to his message. If he said that after they pulled his bag, he unzipped his pants and peed on the agents, would you acknowledge that he was being a dick in a way unrelated to his political message?
See, I don't think it's necessarily hassling him for insulting the head of the TSA. If it were, then obviously that's wrong. I think that, as Cala said, it's just a weirdly political thing that stands out in context, and therefore warrants a little extra scrutiny. Saying something's clearly political speech (275) doesn't mean that, in some contexts, some pointed forms of political speech might be a little odd. A tshirt that says "Bush sucks" = normal enough; writing criticisms of the NSA on plastic baggies = probably nothing, but unusual enough to check on. IMHO.
Ok, trying once again, don't we all, even DaveL and SCMT agree that he was treated inappropriately and that his toolishness had something to do with that?
If he said that after they pulled his bag, he unzipped his pants and peed on the agents, would you acknowledge that he was being a dick in a way unrelated to his political message?
Tim, are you aware of a hidden, second account - A Gospel of The Kip According to St. Timothy, maybe - in which he pees on the TSA people? Because if you aren't, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
"Err on the side of restriction" is a really stupid security rule for lots of reasons, one of which is that it lets screeners expend too much of their limited mental resources on looking for threats to their own authority. "Err on the side of caution" is probably what you're looking for.
If you can tell me how the more cautious approach to airport security wouldn't be the more restrictive approach, I'll be happy to concede the point.
his toolishness had something to do with that?
Possibly, but it's not okay. Law enforcement officials do not get to use the power of the state to harass you because they don't like you. SCMT and gswift both brought up hypos (speeding ticket, DMV) in which the speaker directly attacked the person he was addressing -- that sort of thing might reasonably elicit an angry response. Just 'being a tool' really, really, really shouldn't.
298: Does airport security frustrate you? It does me, and because of that I've spent some time thinking about and expressing frustration with some of the stupidities, reading stuff that others (including people who actually know what they're talking about) have written about security, etc. Maybe that's putting this episode in a little different context for me than it's coming across to you, but I just don't see anything very odd about it. It looks to me more like TSA vs. pissed-off frequent flyer/civil liberties crank, Take 8,748.
Tim, are you aware of a hidden, second account - A Gospel of The Kip According to St. Timothy, maybe - in which he pees on the TSA people? Because if you aren't, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
I'm aware that people are often inaccurate in their perceptions and descriptions of their own behavior. Comes with age.
Possibly, but it's not okay
Of course it's not, but I think everyone concedes that he was treated inappropriately. Or don't they?
"What do you mean by this?" Fair enough question, no one's pretending the note isn't what triggered the search.
The guy's answer?
a) "I think these new regulations are really pointless and won't help security and was blowing off steam since I fly several times a week. "
Nope.
b) "Just my opinion. Fly a lot, long lines. [smile]"
Nope.
c) "It could mean a lot of things, it just happens to be an opinion of mine."
I'm imagining being the TSA agent at this point, and I'm getting annoyed with him being coy and it doesn't have anything to do with the insult to the agency. Okay, he's going to be coy, I'm going to call my supervisor and he can deal with it, because I am not paid enough to deal with this today.
re: 306
"You can't write things like this" he said, "You mean my First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't apply here?" "Out there (pointing pass the id checkers) not while in here (pointing down) was his response."
Of course it was inappropriate. Unless he looks like Ted Kacyznski and peed on the TSA guy during his (not initially inappropriate) Q&A period.
agree that he was treated inappropriately and that his toolishness had something to do with that?
I think the flyer was definitely more annoying than he needed to be (the chuckling), but that excuses nothing on the part of the TSA. At the most, they were justified in going over his stuff some more and asking him a few questions. This "he was asking for it, so he deserved it" business is positively creepy coming from nominal liberals.
305: I think the argument is between 'it was inappropriate. Full stop.' and 'An overreaction, maybe, but what does he expect for being a tool."
307: That's after the guy's evasion. Now, the supervisor should have just looked through the bag or done whatever they need and sent him along in about two minutes (fourth time), but the guy that figures 'christ, this guy is bringing up first amendment stuff, going to get my boss.' seems to be about doing what you do when dealing with an annoying patron -- kick it up the food chain.
At the most, they were justified in going over his stuff some more and asking him a few questions.
Which I think is what I (certainly) am saying.
This "he was asking for it, so he deserved it" business is positively creepy coming from nominal liberals.
Sigh.
299, yes, with the proviso that the fact that his toolishness was part of the problem is itself part of the problem.
301: Restrictive, to me, just means "you can't do that here," for many values of "that." When "that" is insulting the TSA, spending security resources on restricting it means that those security resources aren't being spent on actual threats.
The bigger issue, to me, is that trying to create security by restricting what stuff people can take on an airplane has gone way past where it's doing anything meaningfully positive. When we get down to weapons at the level of pocketknives (or boxcutters, for that matter), the threat isn't the weapon but the person who's using it. A person who can create havoc on a plane with a pocketknife can also create havoc with a broken bottle or all kinds of other improvised weapons. There's no way we're going to keep all potentially dangerous stuff off of planes, so we have to focus on keeping dangerous people off.
To keep dangerous people off, screeners have to have discretion. But for that to work, you have to stomp hard on them when they use discretion in inappropriate ways. Screeners who are using their positions to go on penny-ante power trips over ordinary people who aren't deferential enough are spending their time policing deference rather than looking for dangerous people. That's bad. They need to be trained better. Instead, TSA seems to want to hire monkeys and then focus their attention on making sure that certain objects don't get past them. To make it a little more bearable, they also get to hassle passengers who mess with them.
So yes, I'm pissed off at the civil liberties aspect of this, but mostly because it's so pointless. I don't object, in principle, to airport security being more intrusive than we'd accept from cops on the street. I do expect the intrusions to be justified by actual improvements in security. I think that a lot of what TSA does doesn't pass that test.
his toolishness had something to do with that?
Depends. I'm really just sticking on the message itself, and whether it warranted a raised eyebrow and some ensuing questions. If by "toolishness," you mean "the act of writing something that's designed to get a reaction on a baggie," then yes. If you mean "shitty attitude," then I would say, if so, that's a problem.
I thought that TSA security was to look mostly for dangerous objects, on the grounds that dangerous people sans objects just mean you ground the flight.
I'm a little confused about the liquids band, and in fifty years when we find out what really sparked it, I'll be intrigued to find it out.
315: Re the liquids ban, I'm plenty cynical enough at this point to see the midterm elections as a very plausible candidate for "what really sparked it."
Yeah. All I know was that it was really fun trying to get through security behind a guy who was arguing that his shampoo really wasn't a liquid.
Sorry, it's baseball time...attention span...sucked...
282: a tiny child saying "bomb bomb bomb barrarasdrfafsdf bomb" is also not hard to ignore. But it's not ignored.
Actually, I'd say that's the smartest thing to investigate. If an adult talks about a bomb, they don't have one. They're joking around or talking about an obviously topical thing.
Kids, on the other hand, will repeat stuff at the most blatently inappropriate times, like the airport security line. I almost pity the poor terrorist who tries to take their 5-year-old on board only to have them ask partway through the security checkpoint "So daddy, how does the cellphone make the bomb blow up?".
Luckily my smartass nephew waited until a couple hundred yards past the Canadian border and until the windows were rolled up to yell "help, help, these weird people are kidnapping me."
Comes with age
Yes, Foley, for instance, seems like someone who has really figured himself out.
The TSA mostly serves no purpose. Once they've secured the pilot's cabin (did that) and armed the pilots, and the pilots AND the passengers are aware that something really bad will happen if they comply with highjackers, things like nails clippers and whatnot don't matter anymore.
All a terrorist could do at that point would be to take down a plane. That's harder than it appears. The dude with the shoes probably wouldn't have succeeded, unless he managed (hard to do) to blow a hole in just the right place in the plane he was on.
You need a significant quantity of explosives to destroy a plane. Ergo, if airport security is looking for something, they should be looking for bombs and guns. They aren't looking for bombs and guns, they're looking for 'suspicious people'. If they were doing their job properly, all sorts of suspicious people could get on a plane and it wouldn't matter because they would know that the suspicious people didn't have bombs.
There's no point to that, except to give people like Ogged a false sense of security, although there's a small factor of discouraging terrorists involved as well. Of course, actual terrorists would pick softer targets, of which there are an enourmous number, most of which are unprotected.
But planes flew into buildings on TV, so we gotta guard against that, even if that means a terrorist would succeed at blowing up something else entirely different.
The screens should not be looking for phrases written on plastic bags and if they see something like and it makes them concerned, the first question should be: 'Where's the bomb, asshole?'
They weren't asking about bombs really or anything else, they were just playing intimidation games because they can.
We're supposed to go along with this, because in the 'real world' of SCMT a properly-run government will only investigate political groups SCMT doesn't like and will never investigate, say, hippie pacifist vegetarians, and that's good because the purpose of government is to intimidate and threaten individuals and/or political groups SCMT doesn't like if they engage in free speech.
:>
max
['There is no Party of the Constitution.']
I'm a little confused about the liquids band, and in fifty years when we find out what really sparked it, I'll be intrigued to find it out.
For all that talk about improbabe shit like binary liquids and such, what I heard (can't remember where now) was that the plot uncovered involved smuggling liquid nitro onto the plane.
Pure nitroglycerin is a clear oily liquid. It's a bit touchy, but if you keep it cool, or froze it in advance, that would reduce the shock sensitivity.
And now I have a question for anybody who might possibly be left in the thread. This guy who Cheney had handcuffed: dick or tool?
Or at least undeserving of a shackling.
Shacklings sound like a kind of Girl Scout cookie. Coconut shacklings are better than peanut butter shacklings.
This guy who Cheney had handcuffed: dick or tool?
Random question, or are you suggesting this is analogous to what we've been discussing in this thread?
I would think the latter, and I would think that it is. Doesn't making a hostile comment to Cheney's face about his policies suggest that he's 'obsessed' and possibly dangerous as much as writing 'Kip Hawley is an idiot' on a plastic bag does? Isn't being in close proximity to the VIce President the same sort of special circumstance requiring additional security as being in an airport? Wasn't the guy being kind of a tool about the whole thing?
I don't see a justification for hassling 'Kip Hawley' guy that couldn't be applied to this.
Without taking sides in the overall debate, which I didn't follow, the Kip Hawley thing required planning and this didn't.
These two scenarios are pretty different, and if you guys really see them as the same, I can't imagine there's much point in trying to explain it.
Operating under the assumption that in an airport security line, anything unusual should be investigated, yes, the note that hadn't yet been investigated is different from speaking to the VP given that to get that close to Cheney, he's already made it through several layers of security. At that point, it's just speech.
There's also a difference between 'ten minutes later the man is approached by security' and 'the man is immediately asked to step aside while his bag is searched.' It's clear in the first case that the man wasn't a threat; if he had been a threat, the Secret Service would have tackled him. So that's just harassment well after the fact.
So there's your justification.
Off the top of my head:
1. There's a difference between being detained for 25 minutes at the airport and being handcuffed and taken to jail, with the Secret Service pressuring the DA to issue a summons.
2. I assume that the Secret Service has better training than the TSA agents.
3. There's a greater expectation that people will protest in the vicinity of the VP than at the airport security line.
4. Nobody thinks the harassment of the airport guy was justified by what he wrote.
SCMT, I assume you are not raising point (4) as a distinction between the two cases, which would imply that some here think the harassment of the Cheney-critic was justified by what he said.
335: Your assumption is correct. "Justified" is the wrong word, in any case.
321 was me, by the way, Tim. And by my estimation, all the most sensible people here are 28.
I am on the right side of the bell curve. Wrong side to be on.
No, text. No. Soon you shall be very sensible. And then you will lose your sensibleness again, trying to recapture your lost youth. There is only one among us who has escaped this trap. Learn from him.
As we're all 47, I think ac means none of us are very sensible.
I cannot reveal all, text. I can only guide. (But the thing is, I'm perfectly serious.)
Ac speaks of the Hidden Commenter, whose emergence will release us from our cycle of suffering.
AC's obviously talking about the Idealist.
Perhaps you can get there by process of elimination.
Coconut shacklings are better than peanut butter shacklings.
Why choose?
On the substantive issue, the security system of an airport is not generally speaking a situation where political speech is expected. A public appearance by the vice president is inherently a form of political speech, and as such, invites political speech by others.
that's to be addressed when I turn 28.