Writing on a toiletry bag results in detention

The guy called TSA Director Kip Hawley an "idiot", written on the plastic bag containing his toiletries, and was detained by the TSA. He's even said that a TSA supervisor told him he doesn't have the right to express his opinions "in here."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/28/idiot.baggie/index.html

When it comes to situations like that, it kind of looks like unexplored territory America is venturing into while depending on untrained TSA employees to explore it for us.

I long ago ceased being surprised at the stupidity, incompetence, and arrogance of bureaucrats, particularly the low-level variety.

The screener was probably worried about something happening & getting fired over it. This seems to be the trend these days. Got a problem with an employee howerver slight; fire him. There are plenty more where he came from.

Exactly what did this passenger expect? He was obviously looking for a reaction, and he got one. Maybe not the one he wanted, but a reaction nonetheless.

Did he have a right to express his opinion? Absolutely. Did the TSA rep and supervisor have the right to detain him? Absolutely as well.

I'm no fan of TSA policies, but I'm even less a fan of people who knowingly cause a disturbance, and then wonder why they're in the jackpot.

While I agree that the passenger is probably a jackass, as long as he did not have any banned items or make any threats he should not have been detained. I can understand why a low-level screener might call his supervisor over for a looksee, but I think it's a bit assinine for the supervisor to then detain the guy and have the police check him out. It turned out to be a tremendous waste of resources that would have been better spent looking for the real deal.

Hmm, I don't think I can agree with that statement either, sorry. They did not have sufficient cause for deliberate detention because no threat was communicated. I believe if the opinionated traveller pursues the issue properly, there will be a likely discplinary act promulgated on the supervisor. I've seen my share of supervisors get sacked too; they are also easily replaceable.

Unless you are judge sitting in a courtroom, I don't believe anyone gets to detain someone just because they don't share the same opinion. In a courtroom, that would be contempt, but that is the exception to the rule. (Well, except for when you mouth off to the DI that is, then you get detained in the forward leaning rest position for a while).

It was bound to happen. Someone, somewhere, finally had to point out the basic truth about the emperor's new clothes.

Ten years ago, there was no thoughtcrime in this country.

This is precisely why I fly as little as possible. I'm a little surprised, though. Heck, I didn't even know Mr. Hawley was the director of the TSA. Kudos to the TSA staff for knowing it when they saw it!

<img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

What he should do is sue for breach of his right to freedom of speech. What that supervisor has said in effect is that the Bill of Rights does not apply there. That should give the Court's a serious conniption fit.
If Mr Hawley wants to take exception to that comment, he can of course sue for libel.

Go on, please................ <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

To sue for libel wouldn't he have to be able to prove that the statement was false?

its seems there are alot of stupid incidents since TSA implement new regulations.

does this mean pasengers will be affected too? what happend if we write this TSA head is stupid, will TSA arrest us ?

De jure and de facto are two widely different worlds. Try putting a sign in the rear window of your car that says "cops are stupid" and see if you don't get "detained".

you're absolutely correct. Abuse of power abounds these days.

No, Citizen, you aren't under arrest. You are just won a trip to a Relaxation and Therapy Facility administered by the Department of Re-education.... What, no, it isn't a school, it's a spa- it won't have any effect on your student debts.

There is no breach of freedom of speech. The TSA is just saying that a person who states negative things about the TSA may want to take things a step further, thus the investigation.

Yes there is. The right to tell someone that you think he is an idiot is a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. TWA are saying, in effect, that any criticism of TWA, it's Director or staff will result in detention.
Wait untill someone gives one of those idiot's a parade ground perfect Nazi salute.

Uh, TSA, not TWA.

Yep, it is a basic rule of the study of criminal justice that "Those who stay in power will eventually abuse that power." Just look at most politicians. The same goes for many jobs, including the TSA employees, apparently.

BTW, just food for thought, try to look at this situation from an entirely security vs. rights viewpoint: (hard, ain't it, if you know the whole story)

I think he was wanting it to happen, judging from reports of his behavior, but look what happened to the foriegn minister of Venezuela just a few days back. Was that a set up by him or abuse by the TSA or deeper? The Habla Espanol press was on call and handy I heard.

I wonder what would happen if the next two or three hundred people going through the security check in that Milwaukee airport had 'Kip Brawley is an idiot' written on their clear plastic bags, their luggage, the front of their t-shirts and the backs of their jackets? <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Sue

See, now that's the sort of inspired reasoning that keeps me coming back here. They'll look mighty worthless detaining 300 people for the same frivilous nonsense, won't they?

I haven't flown since 9/11. I have a problem being patted down just because the equivalent of a burger flipper thinks I should be.

I found a pretty amusing satire on Airline Travel Safety Rules today....

My favorite variation? "Shoes can now be worn through the security gate as long as passengers' feet are placed in a zip-lock bag before boarding."

My second favorite? "Passengers who have consumed liquids or otherwise themselves consist of liquids must now be placed in a three quart zip-lock bag and placed on the conveyor belt. If you cannot fit into a three quart bag, you can check the rest of your bodily fluids as luggage".

We flew last July, first time in years and years. My wife got the full pat-down, they were really concerned about her underwire bra (she is a busty 55 year old). But they completely missed the Cold Steel Mini-Pal she forgot and left on her keychain, which was in her carry-on bag. They ARE idiots!!!

"...supervisors get sacked too; they are also easily replaceable..."

Yup, but GOOD supervisors are hard to find, hence the problem in many areas of our society. There is an old saying..."if you have a problem, promote it"...

If they were well-educated and well-trained across the board, that would be one thing. What we have is something else entirely. <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Just to give you an idea of the intelligence of theTSA system, they still identify potential threats by just a name on a watch list. There is no other information such as age, racial type... nothing more. They also include the names of know dead individuals. They do not, howeve, list the names of the potentially most dangerous "terrorists" because that information is "classified".
Don't you feel a whole lot safer now?

"There is nothing so frightening as ignorance in action.

i just watched the 60 minutes segment about the ridiculously inept no fly list. the interviewer even questioned the lady who's in charge of the information that makes the list and she was literally speechless. there's 11 of the dead 9/11 hijackers on there, names like john roberts (with no birth date or other informantion), and the name of another guy who's been dead for 10 years, etc. etc. man, the level of incompetence is really disturbing.