Green Room

TSA detains passenger because she showed ‘bad attitude’

posted at 2:16 pm on September 8, 2012 by

You have to admire the ingenuity of the Transportation Security Administration. Who else could have dreamed up this brilliant two-part strategy? First, you test the patience of air travelers by forcing them to jump through hoops at airport security. Then when they become vexed over all the pointless and unnecessary red tape, you ground them on the basis that their attitude needs adjustment (h/t Infowars).

Such was the experience of an unnamed traveler who was prevented from boarding her flight in late August following a dust-up with a TSA officer. The woman, who captured the altercation on video, posted it to YouTube along with the following account:

This was inside the terminal at the Houston airport. I was not allowed to board a plane (even though I had already been through airport security) because I drank my water instead of letting the TSA ‘test’ it. The TSA agent finally admitted that it wasn’t because they thought I was a security risk—it was because the TSA agent, Louis Godeaux, was mad at me!

In the video, the woman can be heard plainly saying to Godeaus, “Let me get this straight. This is retaliatory for my attitude. Yhis is not making the airways safer. It’s retaliatory.”

The officer can be heard just as plainly replying, “It pretty much definitely is.”

The rule that the woman initially violated is one that was added to the TSA’s passenger torture list in July. Under the policy, agents are permitted to inspect beverages at the gate (just in case a passenger sneaks a Styrofoam cup of liquid explosive through security).

It is worth noting that the TSA is not alone in the crusade to discourage air travel. The video here chronicles the ordeal of a woman detained by airport security for 10 hours after her flight in February. Her crime? Painting her fingernails mid-flight.

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can also reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com.

 

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 11:49 AM

She should never have been checked out in the first place. What part of the 4th Amendment do you not understand?

Dante on September 9, 2012 at 2:21 PM

She should never have been checked out in the first place. What part of the 4th Amendment do you not understand?

Dante on September 9, 2012 at 2:21 PM

The part where his paycheck comes from.

astonerii on September 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM

…the fact remains that there are people out there who are very interested in blowing up airplanes, and as long as that is the case we will have to try to stop and/or deter them.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 1:34 AM

And, the TSA has yet to stop any of them.

… as long as they comply with the screening that they have given implied consent to …

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 1:34 AM

Consent isn’t really implied so much as forced upon them. This is the real problem – a “captive audience” that has no choice but to comply. Except, of course, by choosing other transportation methods – which is why the TSA feels it must expand there, as well.

It is well documented that they will use the young and elderly, the infirm, women, the mentally challenged, for suicide attacks. They did it many times when I was in Iraq.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Totally different situation, Kevin. These folks weren’t getting on a cross-country flight. They were walking down the street, or into a checkpoint – things that don’t require much nerve when you’re waiting and sweating what’s going to happen.

…What I do know personally is that a large number of test runs have been caught coming through our system, virtually none of them publicized.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Sorry, but the TSA has missed hundreds of “test runs”. At least, the ones that are official test runs – by white hat guys testing the system.

ALL incidences where someone has gotten past security with an IED (Reid, Abdul Mutallab) have come from *outside* the USA, through foreign security systems.

KevinB on September 9, 2012 at 1:48 AM

That doesn’t mean the TSA is successful. Let’s see, how many truck bombs have been set off in the US vs overseas? That’s not TSA’s success, either. But, hey, it might be a good reason to have the TSA start setting up internal checkpoints on US roads……

GWB on September 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Personally, I agree with you – once the passenger has drunk their liquid I am no longer worried about it. We however have an SOP that dictates certain procedures that we have to follow regardless of our personal opinions, and follow it we will. Welcome to government life.

You have procedures in your SOP that says you must continue to harass any passenger that does not respond as ordered? Seems that TSA is forgetting who they work for and who is ultimately their boss. Now, I am NOT saying that TSA should allow themselves to be intimidated by unruly passengers, but once that woman drank the water and there was no longer any threat to security, TSA’s mission to provide safe transportation to the public is accomplished.

It is NOT the mission of TSA to punish people, that is the role of the courts. If TSA badgered here and she became animated AFTER drinking the water, then I will side with her. A lot would depend on how the situation unfolded. But the way TSA has treated a lot of people, the public now has something of a chip on their shoulders concerning TSA and they should be sensitive to that.

In this case, once she drank the water there was no longer any security threat. The agency is the Transportation Security Agency, not the Transportation Discipline Agency.

crosspatch on September 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

GWB –

No real IED attacks have been attempted through US-covered security since 9/11. Every single attempt has originated on foreign soil – outside of TSA’s scope. Saying the TSA hasn’t stopped any of those is like saying the Brazilian Army failed to stop Saddam’s invasion of Iraq in 1990… Sort of a silly argument.

You give implied consent when you check in at the airlines and walk past all of those nifty signs in the security queue that tell you that you and your property are subject to search beyond that point. If you want to fly then you must pass security, and if you want to do that then you must consent one way or another. Walking past the signs informing you that you are subject to screening satisfies that requirement. You can withdraw any time you want but that will draw scrutiny from LEOs, though it will not be grounds for arrest in and of itself. If no crime is committed then you can walk away, but if you do not consent to being searched then you WILL NOT be granted access to any airplane.

The test runs I was talking about were *real* test runs by the bad guys, not the test runs we run on ourselves. We have caught many more than the public is aware of. My point is that the bad guys are still interested in attacking airplanes and are probing us, and we catch enough of their probes that they are deterred. Again, not a single attack has been launched through TSA’s system, all have been launched from foreign soil. YOU may think it’s ineffective, but the enemy clearly doesn’t, and frankly their opinion matters more than yours does.

After this post I am going to avoid comment on anything but the specific case in question. I am not here to describe our procedures, nor am I here to wade into a TSA-hatefest to defend the agency. I simply want to set the record straight on this particular incident, because I know the people involved and their side is not being told.

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 12:36 AM

You give implied consent when you check in at the airlines and walk past all of those nifty signs in the security queue that tell you that you and your property are subject to search beyond that point.

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 12:36 AM

I do no such thing. I don’t give consent at all, implied or otherwise. You’re just a little brownshit.

Dante on September 10, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Well the courts have ruled otherwise, Dante. If you proceed past the signs telling you that you are subject to screening beyond that point, then you HAVE given implied consent. If you do not give consent, then you will not be screened, and you most certainly will not be flying anywhere.

Try it next time you fly and see how far you get.

Of course judging from the juvenile personal attack I suspect that is a concept you will fail to grasp.

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 12:36 AM

The courts can be wrong you jack booted thug. The thing is, this is an infringement upon liberty and doesn’t make the American person who decides to fly on an airplane any safer, now, does it?

long_cat on September 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM

An infringement upon liberty? You mean that you actually have a right to walk on to an airplane – someone else’s property – without being screened, and we just don’t see it?

You are delusional if you think that you have that right.

You can debate whether the federal government should be doing the screening – and I personally would say “no”, they should not – but the fact that screening is a necessity – and a prerogative of the owners of the property you are trying to board – is undeniable.

As a personal aside, I am always amused at the inability to refrain from throwing around the personal insults in TSA-bashing threads. It’s like any discussion of TSA brings out the 8-year old in everyone…

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM

It is painfully obvious that the TSA is just an another attempt at the leviathan that is our central planning government to control yet another aspect of our lives. This type of behavior is just another example of an unchecked, uncontrolled, imposing and overbearing authoritarian style government at work. Liberals scoff at the Constitution because it actually solidifies our rights passed down from our creator including the guard against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is equally alarming that the same leviathan that insists on examining it’s own citizens water bottles will turn a blind eye to those persons entering the country illegally through one of its porous borders. Liberals like yourself think that the government is here to solve all your problems and when citizenry react you turn up the heat a little higher. I loathe to call you a “liberal” because liberty has no merit in your thoughts.

long_cat on September 10, 2012 at 12:28 PM

LOL! So I’m a liberal now? Well, that is news to me. :)

Let’s see… Gun toting NRA member? Check. Card carying Republican who donates $$ to candidates and party? Check. Votes straight ticket “R” every time? Check. Regular church goer? Check. Reads the Bible and the Constitution every day on his phone? Check. Attended Tea Parties (when they were still rallying) and stays in touch with the organizations? Check. Former military / war vet? Check.

I’m so liberal I’m probably on a DHS watch list somewhere myself…

I will admit, though, if you are trying to wound my pride that being called a libweral hurts much more than jack-booted thug…

As an aside, most of you would probably be quite shocked at how many conservatives are working for TSA (and the federal govt more at large). There are *alot* of vets in federal service and in TSA, around a third of the workforce, and most of us are fairly conservative to one degree or another. But I know, it doesn’t fit the mold, so let’s just ignore it… we’re all just jack-booted liberal thugs.

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Well the courts have ruled otherwise, Dante. I

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM

LOL. “The courts have ruled otherwise.”

You mean the same government that infringes upon our liberties and ignores the Constitution has said it’s ok for it to do so? I’m shocked!

LMFAO!

Dante on September 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

An infringement upon liberty? You mean that you actually have a right to walk on to an airplane – someone else’s property – without being screened, and we just don’t see it?

You are delusional if you think that you have that right.

You can debate whether the federal government should be doing the screening – and I personally would say “no”, they should not – but the fact that screening is a necessity – and a prerogative of the owners of the property you are trying to board – is undeniable.

As a personal aside, I am always amused at the inability to refrain from throwing around the personal insults in TSA-bashing threads. It’s like any discussion of TSA brings out the 8-year old in everyone…

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Look at the little brownshirt mocking you, long_cat, for correctly knowing and stating your Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Don’t forget, earlier he admitted that he isn’t trained to think:

“One of the many problems with TSA is that it is run overwhelmingly by ex-military (I am one of those, too) who believe in the totality of following orders without question or thought”

You are a pathetic tool of tyranny. A thoughtless drone just following orders.

Dante on September 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM

LOL! So I’m a liberal now? Well, that is news to me.

Let’s see… Gun toting NRA member? Check. Card carying Republican who donates $$ to candidates and party? Check. Votes straight ticket “R” every time? Check. Regular church goer? Check. Reads the Bible and the Constitution every day on his phone? Check. Attended Tea Parties (when they were still rallying) and stays in touch with the organizations? Check. Former military / war vet? Check.

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Card carrying Republican who donates money and votes straight ticket?

Well, let’s see:

the Republicans have increased taxes, increased the debt, increased the deficit, increased the number of workers on the government payroll, given us the DHS, the TSA, the Patriot Act, raised the debt ceiling, TARP, expanded entitlements, granted amnesty, given us Roberts/Obamacare, Souter/Kelo, Scalia/Sitz, infringed upon our liberties, wages unconstitutional war, ignored the Constituiton, have made no effort to reduce government, eliminate departments, or lower taxes.

and you laugh at being called a liberal? and you proudly vote straight ticket? Further proof you are nothing but an automaton incapable of independent thought.

Dante on September 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

LOL, more name calling. What is it they say about that? When you’ve lost the argument, all that’s left…

At any rate, please point out to me where in the Constitution it says anything about your guaranteed right to set foot on someone else’s property without being screened? I mean, I’ve read the 4th Amendment and all, and I am just not seeing that part in there. So, a little help for this thoughtless drone, please?

I mean, c’mon, I am constantly hearing this stuff spewed about that we are violating someone’s Constitutional rights, but I can’t seem to find anywhere in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to walk on to an airplane without being screened. Please enlighten me.

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Dante on September 10, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Then he goes on to state (in an earlier post) about how the TSA’s methods, while uncomfortable for us, are actually working and finding incidents.

Ok, so then what? What if these processes weren’t working and this tyranny was allowed to continue unchecked? What then, randomly selecting children to be screened privately? Going through our wallets, purses, strip searches?

Oh wait, they’re already doing a lot of this now.

long_cat on September 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Ah, so there are no conservative Republicans anymore, is that it? And by voting for them I am endorsing every single act that they take?

Dude, did you forget to take your meds today, or what?

Elections are always a choice of the lesser of two evil, and I judge the Republican party to be by far the lesser of those evils. I’d vote Libertarian but I don’t vote for Democrats, and any vote for a Libertarian – no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel – subtracts a vote from the more conservative of that parties that actually has a chance of winning. It is a vote for the Dem party by addition through subtraction.

Simple concepts seem to elude you. Why?

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

long_cat,

Like most people, you fail to understand what the purpose of TSA is. We are not here to “find incidents” or “catch terrorists”, we are here to deter them from even attempting to attack. They have not attacked through our system in over a decade now. What can you infer from this?

If these processes weren’t working then we’d likely see successful attacks coming through our system on a fairly consistent basis. The enemy has no shortage of bombs or bombers, nor do they lack the will. What they lack is an easy, reliable route of attack. They will not launch unless they have a high degree of confidence that the attack will succeed. They obviously do not have that confidence, otherwise we would see planes getting blasted out of the air fairly regularly.

As much as you dislike the current system, and for all of its faults, it has worked so far. Your opinion is irrelevant on this matter, the absence of successful attacks over th decade speaks for itself.

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

One more thing: No one is implying that passengers shouldn’t be screened before boarding. We’ve had that process in place for a number of years. But, why is it with you people the choices are always either complete tyranny or utter dystopia? For instance, children and elderly will die in the streets if we don’t pass this massive health care “reform”. Terrorism will increase and planes will crash into buildings if we don’t confiscate water bottles. The fact of the matter is that this process exposes the tyranny behind the intent, and the intent is complete control.

long_cat on September 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

While you may think that what we do is “tyranny”, there is actually a method to the madness. It is often called “security theater”, and that term is actually accurate in one important way that most people who use that term fail to understand: we are indeed putting on a show, but you are not the intended audience – the bad guys are. We WANT them to see us doing all of the things that we do that seem like nonsense to you. To them is is not nonsense. You see us taking away someone’s bottle of water for no reason, they see it and realize that they cannot bring in a liquid explosive that way. We are closing off their options, and we want them to see it.

It is an invconvenience for everyone involved, but there is actually logic behind the seeming illogic of it.

FWIW we are finally rolling out many changes this year that will lessen the burden on those deemed relatively low risk – children, elderly, frequent business fliers, etc. Unfortunately these things mocve slowly, and what should have taken several months has taken a decade.

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM

At any rate, please point out to me where in the Constitution it says anything about your guaranteed right to set foot on someone else’s property without being screened? I mean, I’ve read the 4th Amendment and all, and I am just not seeing that part in there. So, a little help for this thoughtless drone, please?

I mean, c’mon, I am constantly hearing this stuff spewed about that we are violating someone’s Constitutional rights, but I can’t seem to find anywhere in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to walk on to an airplane without being screened. Please enlighten me.

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM

How unsurprising: a straw man argument.

Dante on September 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I don’t think that what you do is tyranny, I know it is tyranny.

Dante on September 10, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Dante, you are entitled to your opinion, and I know that there is no changing such a mind as yours.

Logic beats futilely against the breast of emotion…

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Dante, you are entitled to your opinion, and I know that there is no changing such a mind as yours.

Says the guy who also said:

“One of the many problems with TSA is that it is run overwhelmingly by ex-military (I am one of those, too) who believe in the totality of following orders without question or thought

Dante on September 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Oh please, you seriously have reading comprehension issues. I was saying that I am ex-military, and that TSA is run by ex-military types who expect us to follow orders and SOP like drones.

Perhaps I would have put the “(I am one of those, too)” *at the end of the sentence* were my intention do explain my droniness?

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Dante, do you actually have anything real to discuss here other than juvenile whimpering about how tyrranical it is for us to take someone’s bottle of water?

I am trying to have a logical discussion here and explain the situation, but it’s really hard when the other guy is acting like a butt-hurt four year-old.

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Your own words incriminate you.

Dante on September 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Whatever, dude.

You are why we need an ignore function here. You have not made a single coherent point yet in this thread. You have only personal attacks and insults to sho for your presence here. If you’re going to show up for a debate then you need more than that.

This is why I seldom post on this site. Arguing on the internet…

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Dante is why we should, IMHO, adopt a Reddit-style ‘points’ system. Get downvoted enough and your posts go bye-bye.

MelonCollie on September 10, 2012 at 9:33 PM

The TSA is the reason I do not fly. And that’s fine. They’re not making us any safer, and they flaunt the fourth and fifth amendments, but whatever. “Implied consent,” blah blah blah yaddah yaddah yaddah whatever bullshit whatever.”

So how about the increasing TSA presence at sporting events? Or in under-/aboveground rail terminals? At what point are we going to have to submit to a TSA patdown to get from one end of the city to another? It’ll never happen, you say? Riiiiight…

gryphon202 on September 10, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Personally I’m not too crazy about that expansion either, gryphon202. I believe that where air travel is concerned there is a place for what we do, but it must have limits.

The truth is that CONUS is full of nice, juicy undefended targets for the BGs to try to hit. We cannot defend everything. Some areas – like air travel – can have disproportionate economic and social impacts in addition to the loss of life and material, and need to be defended, but ouir resources are limited and we cannot defend everything. And we certainly do not want to have to negotiate TSA at every turn (I am aware of what a PITA it is for everyone).

Truthfully, while some things do need to be defended, the best defense is a good offense. That is not TSA’s job; that comes down to the FBI/CIA/alphabet soup LEO agencies and the military to address. We can only deter. They are the ones who must really *stop* the BGs. I’d like to see their ranks and roles expanded before ours.

When something like this is federalized it invariably tries to feed itself ever bigger budgets and carve out an ever expanding range of authority. I see how it grows and I do not like it. That is one of the reasons I would be amenable to reprivatization. No other solution would stop that growth and expansion, IMHO. Unfortunately unionization (which I and approximately a third of the workforce voted against) will make that nearly impossible now.

That is my personal opinion. Note I am not speaking for the agency at all here…

KevinB on September 10, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2