[N/A] Idiot Comment gets PAX detained by TSA

[inav8r]

From CNN.com "Idiot barb gets passenger detained"

Apparently this guy wrote "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on his clear plastic bag that some of his possesions were in and the TSA viewed it as a threat - you know, the same as someone joking about having a bomb!

P.S. Not sure why I labeled this as N/A... Oops.

 

[AdamZ]

What an incredible waste of money and resources. The apparence of security is dangerous.

 

[ScottM]

What an incredible waste of money and resources. The apparence of security is dangerous.

So is the erosion of civil liberties. Just think this guy basically did a non-violent protest where he criticized the government, a stupid protest IMHO but that is besides the point. For that he was detained by security forces of the US and then had to be under, albeit, short investigation of the police. Scary world we are making for ourselves if you ask me.

Calling the head of the TSA an idiot is hardly like threatening a bombing or making bomb humor at the check point. Calling the head of the TSA an idiot is what most Americans who fly more than once commercially due as a cathartic sport.

 

[vontresc]

Well having used the Milwaukee Airport numerous times, I can attest to the fact that the screeners there have always been a bit overly zealous. Even if I empty all my pockets, my belt bucle (a normal belt, not some rodeo award the size of rhode island) will set off the metal detector most of the time. This was true even before 9/11.

Pete

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Foolish use of ones freedom of speech.
It would be OK to write 'death to America" too, but one could expect some serious inquiries at an airport and almost anywhere else in the USA at this point, and with justifiably good reason.

 

[Greebo]

"Death to America" could POSSIBLY constitute a threat.

Calling the head of TSA an idiot is just an insult.

TSA is by no means authorized to act as "thought police" - maybe the person flying was feeling combatitve, but that doesn't mitigate the overstepping of bounds by the TSA agents.

 

[gismo]

Foolish use of ones freedom of speech.
It would be OK to write 'death to America" too, but one could expect some serious inquiries at an airport and almost anywhere else in the USA at this point, and with justifiably good reason.

Sorry, I can't see that at all. If the TSA thinks their mission includes censoring non-threatening opinions of travellers, something is seriously wrong.

 

[Ghery]

He's got a thread on FlyerTalk about his stunt, too.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=606142

TSA, what a bunch of maroons.

 

[SCCutler]

This may not be good judgment, but I cannot imagine the level of contorted thinking one would have to do, to call it a "threat."

Puh-thetic.

 

[wsuffa]

That all started with the posting on Flyertalk, which was picked up by the media (and made it onto Fark, too, I believe). The poster is a longtime regular on FT.

This incident officially makes us an oppressed nation. Oppression includes detaining people who make derogatory comments about folks in power. That is clearly the case here. There was no profanity, no threat, no incitement - just a simple opinion about someone in power. Detention (and we don't yet know if it will end him up on the no-fly list) is unwarranted and prima fascia evidence of oppression.

/slight thread shift/
I've spent some time in Washington lately trolling for a network contacts and a new job. To a person, everyone I talk to that even starts to interface with the government says "DHS and TSA are a total mess internally". That includes a lot of folks who don't know what they're doing. Someone told me yesterday that folks in DHS spend so much time talking about political posturing and making themselves look good to the folks in power (Hawley) that less than half their day is spent doing actual work. A business, then, would fire half the workers as redundant.

It is well known throughout Washinton that DHS is a mess, but no one is able to do anything about it (one comment made to me was "out of fear of the administration").

Again, and to be clear, I am relaying comments made to me by others, I have no direct knowledge. However, based on these comments and outward appearances, it sure looks to me like a lot of CYA... as well as political posturing before the election.

Opinion: given these incidents, we are defeating ourselves as a Nation internally. I fear for the republic.

/now back to the original topic, lest I have to move my comments to SZ/

 

[bbchien]

Sheesh......

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Sorry, I can't see that at all. If the TSA thinks their mission includes censoring non-threatening opinions of travellers, something is seriously wrong.

Not really, as it's indicative of aberant behavoir in this particular situation with its known surroundings and known personnel. Out on the street, no problem. In an airline terminal, we have a POTENTIAL problem (nut case) to be investigated. One size does not fit all.

Of course he broke no law and so was not arrested, but certainly he needed to be checked over.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

"Death to America" could POSSIBLY constitute a threat.

Calling the head of TSA an idiot is just an insult.

TSA is by no means authorized to act as "thought police" - maybe the person flying was feeling combatitve, but that doesn't mitigate the overstepping of bounds by the TSA agents.

Of course he broke no law and so was not arrested, but certainly he needed to be checked over.

 

[Greebo]

Of course he broke no law and so was not arrested, but certainly he needed to be checked over.

On what grounds? He doesn't like the TSA?

Is that like saying bikers who have buttons and jackets that say "Pigs Suck" should get harassed by police?

No - absolutely not. The TSA doesn't get to harass people just because those people don't like them.

 

[gismo]

Of course he broke no law and so was not arrested, but certainly he needed to be checked over.

So you'd be OK if a screener detained you until the sheriff arrived because you were wearing orange socks and that made him suspect you were a terrorist (and he didn't like orange socks)?

Or you were wearing a sweatshirt putting down his favorite football team? There are specific limitation to our freedom of speech which don't allow you to falsely yell fire in a crowded room or (stretching this a tiny bit) make it OK to joke about bombs in an airline terminal, but none of those limitations were ever intended to repress the non-violent expression of any disapproval of our government. If that's what we've come to in response to 9/11, our founding fathers will be rolling in their graves.

 

[RogerT]

Of course he broke no law and so was not arrested, but certainly he needed to be checked over.

ARE YOU FRICKING SERIOUS?????? Unbelievable. For expressing an
opinon?? As a life long Republican, this administration has so trashed our rights, it's going to be real hard for me to justify staying on that train. Every day it's something new. I'm betting Bush declares martial law, sets
aside the next election and stays in power if he doesn't like the
results of it.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

ARE YOU FRICKING SERIOUS?????? Unbelievable. For expressing an
opinon?? As a life long Republican, this administration has so trashed our rights, it's going to be real hard for me to justify staying on that train. Every day it's something new. I'm betting Bush declares martial law, sets
aside the next election and stays in power if he doesn't like the
results of it.

Not only yes but, f . yes.

Absolutely none of that fool's rights were infringed upon.
He can be detained for random questioning at any airline security checkpoint with no cause whatsoever and, he can also be detained (wisely) for questioning, simply for falling under and widely advertising his profile of a particularly unstable idiot, particularly distressed with the system around him.

Flip the coin: If he had tried something violent afterwards, people'd be all over the TSA drones for not checking out a possible threat that had advertised itself.

 

[ScottM]

Not only yes but, f . yes.

Absolutely none of that fool's rights were infringed upon.
He can be detained for random questioning at any airline security checkpoint with no cause whatsoever and, he can also be detained (wisely) for questioning, simply for falling under and widely advertising his profile of a particularly unstable idiot, particularly distressed with the system around him.

Flip the coin: If he had tried something violent afterwards, people'd be all over the TSA drones for not checking out a possible threat that had advertised itself.

Maybe we should have tortured him until he let us know what his plan could have been. In fact the police should be able to stop anyone on the street who looks like the may be a trouble maker and investigate them and lock them up to while they are figuring out what to do without even charging them.

**SIGH!!**

What the heck is happening to America that we would embrace these heavy handed actions of governement law enforncement agents???

** DOUBLE SIGH!!**

 

[ScottM]

ARE YOU FRICKING SERIOUS?????? Unbelievable. For expressing an
opinon?? As a life long Republican, this administration has so trashed our rights, it's going to be real hard for me to justify staying on that train. Every day it's something new. I'm betting Bush declares martial law, sets
aside the next election and stays in power if he doesn't like the
results of it.

Good post, if we still had reputation I would be sending some your way.

 

[ScottM]

Chuck: Might be time to move this to spin??

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

So you'd be OK if a screener detained you until the sheriff arrived because you were wearing orange socks and that made him suspect you were a terrorist (and he didn't like orange socks)?

Or you were wearing a sweatshirt putting down his favorite football team? There are specific limitation to our freedom of speech which don't allow you to falsely yell fire in a crowded room or (stretching this a tiny bit) make it OK to joke about bombs in an airline terminal, but none of those limitations were ever intended to repress the non-violent expression of any disapproval of our government. If that's what we've come to in response to 9/11, our founding fathers will be rolling in their graves.

He wasn't repressed, just legally questioned for advertising vehement discontent with the TSA's head of the system in which he was travelling through. No legal problem whatsoever, just a problem with him, created by him, of wasting everybody's time and more importantly, a far cry from putting down orange socks or a football team.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Maybe we should have tortured him until he let us know what his plan could have been.

No, that would be wrong. And, it's about six orders of magnitude away from the issue under discussion.

In fact the police should be able to stop anyone on the street who looks like the may be a trouble maker

I think they can when warranted and that's good.

and investigate them and lock them up to while they are figuring out what to do without even charging them.

**SIGH!!**

I don't think that took place in this incident, or did I miss it?

What the heck is happening to America that we would embrace these heavy handed actions of governement law enforncement agents???

** DOUBLE SIGH!!**

I don't think too many Americans "embrace" these actions (certainly not I) by TSA drones, it's just one of those things close to the line demarcating liberty v. the illusion of security issues that slows us all down and costs us all money.

 

[NC Pilot]

I was returning home from Maine yesterday and waiting in line to go through security. It struck me as ironic to see everybody getting checked by the TSA folks standing there with their ID's, boarding passed, liquids in clear Zip Lock baggies (is this 1.5 ounces of shampoo or more?) and how easily we have fallen into this mode. It seems a small step to being stopped on the streets to show ID and answer questions as to where we are going and why.

We are on a slippery slope, our rights are being trampled and few seem to even care. Frankly, I am scared to death right now. Not of terrorists, but our own government.

 

[Everskyward]

It struck me as ironic to see everybody getting checked by the TSA folks standing there with their ID's, boarding passed, liquids in clear Zip Lock baggies (is this 1.5 ounces of shampoo or more?) and how easily we have fallen into this mode.

Unfortunately it's easier to shut up and do what they want if your goal is to get to your destination in a timely manner.

 

[gismo]

He wasn't repressed, just legally questioned for advertising vehement discontent with the TSA's head of the system in which he was travelling through. No legal problem whatsoever, just a problem with him, created by him, of wasting everybody's time and more importantly, a far cry from putting down orange socks or a football team.

Well it's obvious we're pretty far apart on this, and that's OK by me. I think I'll just leave it that way.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

He wasn't repressed, just legally questioned for advertising vehement discontent with the TSA's head of the system in which he was travelling through. No legal problem whatsoever, just a problem with him, created by him, of wasting everybody's time and more importantly, a far cry from putting down orange socks or a football team.

I don't see any difference from a freedom of speech point of view between his marking a plastic bag with his thoughts while going through an airport and posting the same thoughts to a travel-related website. He was way under the line that should have called attention to the screeners. Calling someone an idiot is about as benign an insult as they come (pretty much rated "G"). The fact that TSA took this bait tells you how far down the slippery slope we've already fallen.

If Americans cannot express themselves in simple acts of "civil disobedience" such as this, we will not be recognized as a pillar of freedom and liberty within a decade. The people of the world "yearning to breathe free" will have no one to look up to anymore. This is not the America I was raised to love.

Jeff

 

[bbchien]

Unfortunately it's easier to shut up and do what they want if your goal is to get to your destination in a timely manner.

No, it's easier to climb into your XC GA bird and go.

No airline tix for me since 1992.

 

[Everskyward]

No, it's easier to climb into your XC GA bird and go.

For those who can justify it, yes. For the majority of people in this country, no. Besides, realistically you would have to have a pretty capable GA airplane to beat the airlines on a regular basis, especially if you're travelling a long distance. That's why I'm looking forward to getting my personal BE-20.

 

[wsuffa]

I was returning home from Maine yesterday and waiting in line to go through security. It struck me as ironic to see everybody getting checked by the TSA folks standing there with their ID's, boarding passed, liquids in clear Zip Lock baggies (is this 1.5 ounces of shampoo or more?) and how easily we have fallen into this mode. It seems a small step to being stopped on the streets to show ID and answer questions as to where we are going and why.

We are on a slippery slope, our rights are being trampled and few seem to even care. Frankly, I am scared to death right now. Not of terrorists, but our own government.

Mark, you are absolutely right.

I read an article in the Washington Post today about the Russian government forcibly committing to mental instututions people who disagree with the political view of people in power. They are drugged and held. I thought to my self: "up to a few years ago, I thought that could never, ever happen here. But I'm now starting to have my doubts - to the point of 'when might it happen'".

I truly wonder what would happen if I went through airline security with a piece of paper (or a plastic 'liquids' bag) emblazoned with the famous motto of the State of New Hampshire (it's on all their license plates). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire Think I'd be detained, maybe arrested? I think so, especially after the MKE incident.

I witnessed another "form over substance" event at the DCA TSA screening station today... story to follow later.

 

[mdreger]

The TSA doesn't get to harass people just because those people don't like them.

Apparently they do.

I also agree that there are many things that I no longer think "could never happen here". We are losing a great country to fear and "security".

 

[wsuffa]

Had a chat with a Flight Attendant that was working both of my flights today... she said that they find a number of the TSA folks to be on a power trip... even to the crews.

 

[silver-eagle]

Think "Politically Correct". Most businesses take a dim view of off color jokes. Correctness is in the eyes/ears of the beholder. If the TSA thinks it's a threat, then it is.
The terrorists have won.
"Papers. Let me see your papers."

 

[Henning]

He wasn't repressed, just legally questioned for advertising vehement discontent with the TSA's head of the system in which he was travelling through. No legal problem whatsoever, just a problem with him, created by him, of wasting everybody's time and more importantly, a far cry from putting down orange socks or a football team.

"Kip Hawley should be killed" would classify as vehement discontent, calling him an idiot is just a statement of opinion, which I'm sure there are many who share (myself included). As to my favorite TSA moment, I was boarding a flight with a nice pipe style lighter a freinf had given me. He also gave me a large can of high quality butane to go with it since the cheap stuff doesn't work well. They wouldn't allow me on with the lighter because it was considered to be a torch because the flame went out about 2". They did however let me onboard with the can of butane and a Bic lighter...morons, take away my "torch" and leave me with a flame thrower. I feel extremely safe thanks to the TSA.

 

[wsuffa]

I flew in the back of the bus out of DCA this morning.

I dealt with the gauntlet of clearing security (and DCA seems to have a lot of ESL TSA folks... and one very nice one that pointed out that my collar was messed up).

As I was putting my shoes on, one TSA agent was ransacking ("BAG CHECK") the purse of a woman who came through the other line. She found three very small containers of makeup, loose, in the bag. She asked the woman if she had a ziploc, initially the woman said no (at which point she was told she could go check her purse), but then looked in her bag and found a pint-sized ziploc that had pictures in it. She was allowed to put the makeup in the ziploc, but in an astounding show of stupidity, the TSO made her go back and get in line again to have herself and the plastic bag (alone) rescreened through the X-Ray. That's right, even after the items had been x-rayed, and hand inspected, she had to go back through the WTMD and X-ray to have the baggie rescreened. And - get this - she was permitted to leave her purse and other bag with her husband. That was truly a display of form over substance, and shows the real stupidity of this process. (I looked at the husband and said "they have complaint forms, please ask for one as what they've done is stupid". I am certain he didn't do that as they were on my flight).

This is what we have. Form over substance.

 

[bbchien]

Bill, that's everywhere in our society. "The stuff may be junk, but it's ISO 9002!"

 

[Henning]

Quote:
In fact the police should be able to stop anyone on the street who looks like the may be a trouble maker
I think they can when warranted and that's good.

You and I have VERY different concepts of what constitutes "Probable Cause" then. The Bill of Rights addresses directly the ability of being able to stop people for identification and interrogation. Protected Free Spech does not fall into the realm of "cause". Wait for the complete national CCTV coverage with accompanying identity chip detectors.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

You and I have VERY different concepts of what constitutes "Probable Cause" then. The Bill of Rights addresses directly the ability of being able to stop people for identification and interrogation. Protected Free Spech does not fall into the realm of "cause". Wait for the complete national CCTV coverage with accompanying identity chip detectors.

This does not fall under that well conceived umbrella of public protection. Inside the airport security check line is not out on the street. Last I knew, they don't need ANY reason to search you there, much less someone who has self-labeled themselves as a possible loose cannon with an axe to grind. Besides, all they did was question the fool that did the writing.

Has anybody here ever seen a picture of a soldier writing a message on a bomb? It is no stretch whatever that a psycho would write something on a package containing plastik or anthrax when entering the system of their discontent. Or if more lucent in their ill intent, might not do anything to identify themselves -potentially much more dangerous.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Has anybody here ever seen a picture of a soldier writing a message on a bomb?

You're comparing this practice to someone mildly expressing discontent with the leadership of our supposedly-free country? Not to mention you're implying that the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who do this are potentially psychotic?? I think there are a pretty large number of vets and active military who would take serious exception to this analogy. It seems pretty clear to me that you have decided that you don't want liberty, and are willing to give it up for government practices that don't offer security either.

Jeff

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

You're comparing this practice to someone mildly expressing discontent with the leadership of our supposedly-free country? Not to mention you're implying that the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who do this are potentially psychotic?? I think there are a pretty large number of vets and active military who would take serious exception to this analogy. It seems pretty clear to me that you have decided that you don't want liberty, and are willing to give it up for government practices that don't offer security either.

Jeff

Anybody is POTENTIALLY psychotic when it comes right down to it, no implication there, it is a fact of human nature. I've never said any of the things now being practiced by the TSA actually make us more secure, in fact, I know all too well it is far from it. They do however, have the authority to do what they did in this case. Any citizens that care enough against it, should go through proper channels to change it.

The TSA drones doing the screening did not have the advantage of hindsight enjoyed by us in this discussion as to whether this guy was mildly discontented or otherwise. After their appropriate questioning, they thought they did know enough to let him proceed under the guise of security that passes at the present time in our system. Rather simple.

Also rather simple to understand is my military illustration that people will often write things about the intended recipient of their bombs. Whether they are judged psychotic or not usually depends on who's doing the psychoanalysis, as well as the situation at hand.

Regarding your erroroneous and presumptuous conclusion on liberty, I'd reiterate that this individual's liberty was not violated. He made his statement where he wanted to make it, and had to defend it, which he did successfully, then he was allowed to move on. Sounds like classic liberty and the work to mantain it.

 

[Henning]

This does not fall under that well conceived umbrella of public protection. Inside the airport security check line is not out on the street.

I was responding to this comment of yours:

Originally Posted by Dave Krall CFII
Quote:
In fact the police should be able to stop anyone on the street who looks like the may be a trouble maker.

I just can't agree with that one Iota. A quick trip to Lagos or Port au Prince will explain why. That is power which no government should have, and America has fought against that kind of oppression since conception. We have gone on foreign soil to help others, yet you espouse to allow such here for the illusion of safety. I can't buy into it myself.