10 ms·
'TSA Arrests Me for Using the Fourth Amendment as a Weapon'
- phaus 15y agoWhen you decide to yell out the words to the 4th amendment at the same exact moment you are being processed through the security checkpoint at an airport, you are intentionally trying to cause a scene. This can and would be construed by any reasonable person as an attempt to disrupt the screening process. The author knew exactly what she was doing. While I'm not sure it was grounds for an arrest, she was maliciously attempting to provoke some sort of response from the TSA. I hate the TSA as much as anyone, but when you do stupid things on purpose, stupid things happen to you.
- peterwwillis 15y agoThese stupid things are also incredibly brave and necessary. If you have no other way of fighting what you know is wrong, you have to provoke a response.
- phaus 15y agoShe didn't accomplish anything besides making herself look like a lunatic. As I stated, I really hate the TSA and all of the abuses that have occurred, but this isn't going to help. The TSA has been guilty on numerous occasions of violating a person's constitutional rights. They have endangered the lives of some passengers and outright assaulted others. I really do hope that they are taken to task for the things that they have done, but I don't believe they were wrong to call the police. When you aren't sure what to do in a situation, it is best to defer things to a higher authority. If the police decided she should be arrested, they are the ones responsible for the decision, not the TSA. Whether or not what she did constituted a crime, I don't know, but she was disrupting the process. When I was pulling guard duty in the desert, anyone who acted in an unusual manner would have been detained. I am aware that this event took place in the United States, but the bottom line is you don't mess around with safety. Until the day that the TSA is no longer in charge of airport security, they are responsible for making sure their job gets done. How easy would it be for you to remain focused on your work while someone is standing in front of you yelling out the words to the 4th amendment? If we don't like the TSA, we need to go through the proper channels every time they do something that violates the law. Don't let them get away with anything. I know that it is extremely difficult to get the government to change anything, but the only way to get rid of the TSA is to put people in office that will side with the American people on this issue.
- dantheman 15y ago"the bottom line is you don't mess around with safety. " The TSA fails at Safety, this is just bullshit security theater. If I could, I'd fly with absolutely no security screening before the flight. I'll take my chances instead of slowly losing my life waiting in their "security" lines.
- jbooth 15y agoYou know, I can understand not being brave enough to do this yourself. I'm not. But pooh-poohing those who do do it? "Proper channels"? Yeah, I'm sure they're getting right on it. How bad would it have to be before you stopped saying "Oh quit causing a disturbance"? I mean, this is already violating our most sacrosanct freedoms. Would I have to violate godwin's law to get you to agree with civil disobedience?
- phaus 15y agoYou seem to think that she is fighting the good fight on behalf of humanity. She is a professional writer who did this as a publicity stunt so she could write about the experience afterwards. Her biggest accomplishment is that she managed to make one of the scummiest organizations in the United States appear to be in the right. Way to go freedom fighter.
- jbooth 15y agoAh, so we've catapulted the whole defending the erosion of our rights thing and now we're into personally insulting the person who told the story. Good move, considering the grounds of your argument and all. I'll repeat my question.. how bad would it have to be for you to agree with civil disobedience?
- phaus 15y agoI never said that I disagree with civil disobedience. I just don't agree with this woman's perspective on exactly what transpired in this situation. I've worked for the federal government my entire adult life. If you want to convince them to get rid of the TSA, the side asking for the change has to appear blameless. The way bureaucrats make decisions is not logical. If you give them 999 examples of the TSA breaking the law or violating basic human rights, they will simply shrug and say "remember that one time that woman went to that airport and purposely tried to get arrested? Yea, well these other complaints are probably from people just like her." To make it clear, I don't like the corrupt, incompetent, abusive illusion of a democracy that we have built for ourselves in the United States. Unfortunately, the scumbags at the TSA has been put in charge of our Nation's airports. Unfortunately, if you want to board an aircraft in the United States, you have to submit to being processed through the security checkpoint. Unfortunately, if we want this to change it will be a long and painful process. This woman's efforts will have no positive impact on the effort to get the TSA disbanded or reformed. Being able to recognize this doesn't make me a freedom-hating fascist. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to imply that I am.
- anamax 15y ago> These stupid things are also incredibly brave and necessary. Suppose she had started reciting[1] the 10 commandments or jabberwocky? Would you have had the same reaction? If you go with "the US constitution is relevant" then she's got a problem. She claims that she didn't resist a search. That can only be true if she thinks that reciting US constitution clauses on search aren't relevant to the situation, namely a search. So, which is it? Was reciting the US constitution her way of refusing a search or was it just words? [1] She wasn't "reading" anything - she was reciting various parts of the US constitution from memory.
- jbooth 15y agoI'm trying to wrap my head around this comment. The 4th amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure. And you're saying "shame on her for refusing a search"?
- anamax 15y ago> And you're saying "shame on her for refusing a search"? No, I'm not. I'm saying that if you think that reciting the 4th amendment when going through TSA is relevant, that relevance would lead a reasonable person to believe that she was resisting the search. I mention relevance because commenters are suggesting that reciting the 4th amendment is meaningful in a way that reciting jabberwocky would not have been.
- jbooth 15y agoOF COURSE it's meaningful in a way that reciting jabberwocky would not have been. Reading the part of the constitution which protects people from unreasonable searches without probable cause, while being forced to undergo a search without probable cause. If it's still unclear how the amendment is meaningful in this situation, I'm going to ask that you go re-read the original article, then "letters from birmingham jail" and the whole bill of rights.
- anamax 15y ago
- easp 15y agoSome people dismiss the power and value of symbolism (particularly symbolism that doesn't resonate with THEM, even if it resonates with other people). Perhaps this particular bit of symbolism, or the way it was deployed, won't end up being effective, but experimentation and iteration is key.
- ChrisLTD 15y agoI think you may have just invented 'Agile Protests'!
- jberryman 15y ago> When you decide to yell out the words to the 4th amendment at the same exact moment you are being processed through the security checkpoint at an airport, you are intentionally trying to cause a scene. I can also easily see this kind of behavior causing a panic in the screening line. Maybe this isn't fair, but this is how I would imagine a right-wing domestic terrorist to act right before they blew themselves up. I'm all for civil disobedience, but this is just oblivious and antisocial to the extreme.
- eternalban 15y agoTSA groping your children is "antisocial". So pray tell us where you plan to take "legal" political action on this matter? Or is your "right-wing domestic terrorist" remark indicative of your actually buying into this theatre?
- revdinosaur 15y agoActually, her behavior (and narrative) is similar to that of "sovereign citizen" types who imbue all sorts of psuedo-legal meaning to the U.S. Constitution and what they think it allows them to do. Not all sovereign citizen groups are violent but there were two police officers murdered in TX in 2010 and several militias operating under this philosophy.
- eternalban 15y agoState craft is complex and messy business, agreed. The government of Assad is currently facing "militias" in Homs and has the same precise pov as you. (It's reasonable; I'm not, repeat, blind to the burden of just rule.) But I myself, as an American citizen, strongly object to the continued attacks on my natural rights and these "solutions" that consistently erode the limits placed on the State powers. We had a revolution in this country precisely to determine the balance between natural "rights" and collective "laws". The United States of America has precisely ZERO input on what is "allowed" as far as Natural Rights are concerned. USA may provide privileges. I myself, for example, was "sold" the following story before I elected to become a naturalized citizen of USA: "Inalienable Rights". That sounded (and still does) just right for me -- I happen to agree very strongly with the idea. But now, n years into this contract, and the USA (and some citizens such as yourself) are now telling me that I have no rights unless that it is "allowed" by the USA. So, was I scammed (in your eminent "legal" opinion)?
- antoinevg 15y ago> "you are intentionally trying to cause a scene" Yes, because we're British and GodForbidWeShouldCreateAScene(tm). lolololol
- easp 15y agoCops lean on people they've decided are "undesirable" with the intent of provoking them to do something they can be arrested for. The FBI cultivates antisocial young american muslims until they entrap them into doing something so they can trot them out as boogeymen on CNN. We can disagree with the ethics of such things, but is there disagreement that provoking a response can be a useful tactic?
- glenra 15y agoYou make it sound like "disrupting the screening process" is a bad thing.
- ScottBurson 15y agoI'm having the same reaction. I hate the TSA so much I avoid flying if at all possible, and indeed haven't been on a plane in three years. But making a scene like this accomplishes nothing. Or, possibly less than nothing -- if the onlookers thought she was a kook. If, instead of doing this at the security checkpoint, she wanted to stand at the entrance to the airport speaking and handing out leaflets, she would be exercising her First Amendment rights, and I would hope they would accommodate her. (If they didn't, I wouldn't be surprised, but I would be angry.) But what she chose to do was just pointless.
- quanticle 15y agoSome basic Constitutional law would have saved this guy the trouble. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that travelers do not have the right to refuse searches at an airport [1]. You might disagree with the decision, but if you're going to pull a stunt like this, you should at least be informed on the current state of jurisprudence regarding airport searches. [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/
- gazrogers 15y agoShe didn't refuse a search, she just wanted to read out the fourth amendment to the rest of the queue while it was happening.
- troels 15y agoThis text is from 2001. Also, the guy is a gal.
- felipellrocha 15y agoLikewise, imagine if Rosa Park had thought of her day's jurisprudence when she refused to give up her seat back in 1955. "Man, I am tired from all the work today, but the courts say I should give up my seat." And, surely you meant "this woman," as she does say she has a husband in the article.
- cyrus_ 15y ago
- doogall 15y agoKinda interesting how being 'arrested' is now a form of punishment or reprimand in itself. It goes on record and it may be used as an excuse to hurt you physically. Also it seems that people can be arrested (held or detained) without being 'arrested'.
- antihero 15y agoIn the UK, with some professions it can hurt your career to be arrested, too, such as medical or teaching.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- cafard 15y agoShould the TSA have done this? No. Should the author have expected to have the glamor of martyrdom without the inconveniences attached? This question is left as an exercise for the reader.
- MoreMoschops 15y agoThe inconvenience IS the glamour of martyrdom. If the TSA had calmly and politely carried out the hands-on search as she recited the constitution, there would have been no effect. No inconvenience, no martyr.
- cafard 15y agoQuite. But now rewrite the article to take out reduce it to the facts not including her psychological/physiological state (effects of handcuffs on wrists OK, relevant; perspiration rate not really.) Does it read differently?
- MoreMoschops 15y ago"But now rewrite the article to take out reduce it to the facts not including her psychological/physiological state (effects of handcuffs on wrists OK, relevant; perspiration rate not really.) " If you rewrite this to make sense, I'll give it a go :)
- BryanB55 15y agoI found this all pretty pointless... The TSA people were just doing their job. I will gladly be quiet or even assist them in any reasonable screening duties if it means keeping us safe. That is all they are trying to do, it's not like they have some malicious intent. In my opinion we are not giving up many rights by letting people see if we have any weapons us. If you do not want to go through the new body scanners than thats fine, ask for a pat down but dont make a big commotion about it and start preaching to people that are only trying to do their job.
- MoreMoschops 15y agoIt has been made very clear in many circumstances and cases that "just doing my job" is NOT an acceptable excuse.
- rabidonrails 15y agoI think you're missing the point. She doesn't fault them for "doing their job," she finds fault with the fact that there is a government job in which she sees violations to the Constitution. Also, if you would like to let someone look at your possessions, that's your right. But, a government official cannot, without reasonable cause, demand to look at your property. I'm not saying I would have tried to pull this off, but there is something to be said for her continuously asking "do you have a warrant."
- maxklein 15y agoFor people like me who are afraid of flying, this lady is just disturbing the peace. People should be searched before being let on planes. If people are not searched, there will be more plane attacks and global transport will decline. Planes will always be targets for terrorists because of what they represent. The law is not about technicalities. It's about reason and sense, and sensible is that when someone is behaving like a crazy person, then take the person and find out why. Technical law is when a fixed sentence is applied for a particular crime (like marijuana possession), that is then applied without sense. Smile and go through the scanner. There is nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers, most of evolution we've been naked.
- Pelayo 15y agoShe agreed to a search. There are still doubts about the safety of the scanners. They have not been tested.
- jasonlotito 15y agoYeah, disturbers of the peace, like that damn black woman who wouldn't move to the back of the bus. My peace > your rights. > If people are not searched, there will be more plane attacks and global transport will decline. Damn right, brother! I say we take this a step further, and start searching people when they enter the mall. I mean, a terrorist in the mall is just as dangerous. Especially during the holidays. Or hell, let's search everyone going to the new years bash in Times Square. Just make 'em strip. As you say, nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers. And we should also start using these scanners at schools. Clearly, with all the school shootings going on, gotta protect the innocent kids, right? We can also take the same approach online. Have everyone register their computer's OS with their ISP, and only those registered computers can use the internet. I mean, if you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about, right? This can help stop child pornography, you know. And people distributing files they don't have the right to distribute. Personally, I'm afraid of dying in cars. Did you know, more people die in an automobile accident then a terrorist attack? Clearly, we need to rid ourselves of these terrorists of the road. Make every car require a breathalyzer. If you've had a drink, you can't drive. Keep it simple. Keep it safe. Save lives! It's reasonable. I mean, I'm afraid of other drivers, and they are just disturbing my peace. I mean, the only people that would disagree are terrorists, child pornographers, drunk drivers, and pirating thieves!
- gerggerg 15y agoLots of people commenting here seem to think that just because something appears to have no effect that it was a failure of an exercise and should have never happened. God forbid it cause a minor inconvenience to other humans. PEOPLE HAVE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT. Even if the effect it has seems insignificant. It doesn't matter if your an ass for doing it. It doesn't matter if some people think you were trying to cause trouble. If you don't stand up for what you personally think is right what do you stand up for? Was she right? Were the officers wrong? That's for you to decide but it doesn't really matter. She had a conviction to do what she thought was right, and hopefully inspired others to do the same. And I can't imagine not respecting her for doing so. If the only time you could complain about SOPA was in airport security only the brave and scared would complain about SOPA. And you can bet others would find them annoying.
- dustingetz 15y ago> PEOPLE HAVE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT. > Even if the effect it has seems insignificant. If a common civilian wishes to help, she can probably find a better way than standing up to some scripted peons. I wonder what her court costs are going to be. I wish she had donated that money to the EFF. The EFF is in a better position to fight this stuff intelligently, and at the right levels.
- jasonlotito 15y ago> If a common civilian wishes to help, she can probably find a better way than standing up to some scripted peons. Rosa Parks?
- jamesaguilar 15y agoDifferent situation, different level of public sympathy, different level of justifiability based on the shared ethical views of the people. Basically, the situations are not analogous.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
- jballanc 15y agoDuring the Cold War, there was this mentality held by leaders on both sides that said you could not show weakness to the enemy. It was this mentality that caused the Cuban Missile crisis, and that allowed it to be resolved by secret communication along privileged back-channels (all the while keeping public posturing such that neither side had to reveal any weakness). As idiotic as this mentality has always seemed to me, as I get older (and hopefully a bit wiser) I've come to understand there is some merit to it. I travel overseas frequently. One of my favorite airports is Istanbul's Ataturk International Airport. I like it because I can sit in a cafe waiting for my plane to New York, and I can listen to the PA make announcements for flights to Nairobi, Dubai, Singapore, Moscow, Pairs, and Sao Paulo. Istanbul literally connects to the entire world. And yet, there is only one gate in the entire terminal that has "secondary screening", the one for the New York flight. The thought that somehow the threat of terrorism is greater in the United States than anywhere else in the world is laughable to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to world events. Yet, it is only the United States that feels the need to have extra security precautions. I wonder how many Americans see the TSA, the Patriot Act, etc. as evidence of the greatness of America. "Our country must be the greatest in the world if it requires so much effort to protect," I imagine them thinking. "Why would so many people be against us if it were not the case?" In reality, the rest of the world sees a frightened bully, and they're not falling for it any more. They go to places like Istanbul's airport, or any of the hundreds of other airports around the world that have extra screening set up exclusively for US bound flights, and they see weakness. What's really almost funny about all of this, is that the 4th amendment is uniquely American. It is not at all uncommon in other countries for police (or the Gendarme) to be authorized to stop pedestrians and perform a search without cause. The mere existence of the 4th amendment has, traditionally, been a sign of strength. As if to say: "We're so confident of our security and the resolve of our justice system that we will give our citizens this extra right." By reducing 4th amendment rights, the US is not gaining security, it is showing weakness...and that can be dangerous to the long term health of a country.
- Lost_BiomedE 15y agoNote that the American disapproval rating of congress sits at 86% and an approval of 11% and dropping (Gallup polls).
- maeon3 15y agoWithout citizens like this to assert and reassert our rights in the face of violent psychological bullying at areas of great injustice, nobody reading this would have any rights at all. I don't get to call this country mine as much as she does. The fact that psychological blitzkrieg is the response to holding up a screening line means something is terribly wrong here.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Vivtek 15y agoThe odds of a terrorist attack aboard a plane are so low because of heightened security. Get rid of it, and those odds are likely to increase. You can't possibly believe that. First, she read the freaking Constitution and was treated like a terrorist, and there's a name for that - and it's not security. Or American. Second, that "heightened security" is - with the exception of keeping cockpit doors closed - 100% pure, unadulterated bullshit. Liquids in a plastic baggie? Give me a break. I get so tired of people not willing to think for a minute.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- grhino 15y agoThere are hidden costs to increased airport security. Money spent on increased airport security could be spent elsewhere. The expected cost of a unwanted event should be less than or equal to the expected cost of preventing that event. The choice to implement a security policy should be a rational one.
- ChrisLTD 15y agoTrue. However politicians are the ones who make the rules. And no politician wants to be left holding the bag if a terrorist attack does happen. They want to be seen as having done everything possible even if what they are doing isn't effective. Sadly, I'm not sure how we can change this dynamic. Will we ever punish politicians for being too hostile to civil liberties? Most people/voters simply don't care.
- grannyg00se 15y agoThis is a very interesting experiment she decided to conduct on what seems to be little to no research. I'm glad that she didn't get seriously injured or harassed or locked up for several days. From what I can tell, once they got her isolated she was treated very well. But it was dangerous. As far as I'm concerned, once you step into an airport (especially an american airport) you are no longer a citizen of any particular country and have no rights. Unfortunately, she did not simply read the constitution. She yelled it out loud so that others could hear, thereby causing quite a disturbance. Several times she mentioned that people were staring and I imagine all security processing had come to a halt at that point. I think they had no choice but to remove her from the area because of the disturbance. Also, if somebody nearby was planning on doing something, she would have created the perfect time to do it. She could have become an accomplice in a serious crime. I agree with all of the statements she was yelling out, and it is unfortunate that things have come to this. But please be careful when considering this kind of action. Especially if you have loved ones at home who are going to worry about you.
- outworlder 15y ago"As far as I'm concerned, once you step into an airport (especially an american airport) you are no longer a citizen of any particular country and have no rights." This. As a tourist, I've found the US to be quite nice and I would like to visit more often. However, all this theater makes me want to avoid flying as much as possible. I have been treated well so far, but I wonder how much of it boils down to sheer luck.
- tommi 15y ago> This is a very interesting experiment she decided to conduct on what seems to be little to no research. How do you come to such conclusion? > But it was dangerous. In what way? Dangerous as in her constitutional rights might be violated? > As far as I'm concerned, once you step into an airport (especially an american airport) you are no longer a citizen of any particular country and have no rights. That is just sad. What's the next step? You don't have any rights in a railway station? Subways? > ...I imagine all security processing had come to a halt at that point. On a single line perhaps, not all. > Also, if somebody nearby was planning on doing something, she would have created the perfect time to do it. How so? If a simple delay on a check point creates a "perfect time" and it is an actual big risk, then there are bigger problems on that airport.
- tptacek 15y agoThis isn't just a DailyKos story about the TSA on the front page of HN. It's a stupid DailyKos story on the front page of HN. It actually demeans well-reasoned, carefully-considered strong objections to the TSA by presenting a categorically bogus objection. Here's a person who's memorized the 4th Amendment without actually learning what it means, yelling it at the airport in a one-person demonstration, and then doing a victory lap on a blog. And here's us on HN competing with each other to see who can more stridently agree with her. Flagged, of course. You should too.
- peterwwillis 15y agoGranted, the way she went about it was borderline retarded. Are you saying you agree with the way she was treated by TSA and police? Or will you concede that perhaps this act of defiance (however misguided) was much more productive than the silent consent all of us give every time we shuffle through the cattle stocks?
- tptacek 15y agoNo, this act of defiance was counterproductive, since it paints reasonable people with the same lunatic brush and is based on an illogical and ignorant argument. But I don't so much care about ineffective vanity protests as I do about the fact that a DailyKos article about one was on the front page of HN. Which is why I flagged the story, and think you should too. Stories like this are a trap. Most of us, being reasonable, logical people, have a litany of valid arguments against the TSA. A story like this confirms those beliefs and is conflated with them, so that pointing out that the story (a) sucks and (b) isn't germane to HN is taken as an argument against the beliefs, and not just the story.
- peterwwillis 15y agoI wasn't aware I was supposed to flag every DailyKos story (I honestly have no idea wtf that site is). So, i'm sorry for not doing that. I resent your smug sense of superiority. I am a reasonable, logical person but I don't have a carefully structured and researched legal paper to present as to why the TSA's policies should be reformed. I just know they're assholes and they fuck with me for no good reason. Clearly this woman realized that too and she decided not to stand for it. The fact that she didn't do it well enough does not discount the action in itself, nor does it prove or disprove any other argument against the TSA. Furthermore, by flagging this story with the reasons you listed you're basically saying the HN readership is so stupid that by reading this article it will debunk any other arguments they have heard or will hear. That basically you're protecting the brainless HN readers from the ideas presented therein, or are protecting people from reading this and forming a negative view of "valid" TSA arguments from "reasonable, logical people." There is a deeper lesson to take away than just whether her argument was legally valid. For example, take the reasons that you feel are right and take a stand the way she did.
- georgemcbay 15y ago'I yell, “Thomas Jefferson said, 'those who would give up their liberty for their security deserve neither.'”' Actually that was Ben Franklin. But otherwise, bravo. For all the talk of moving your domains on the 29th to boycott godaddy's support of SOPA, I wish an 'assert your 4th Amendment right while flying' day would work, but I don't think it would because the vast majority of people (even those who are supposedly activist-minded) are only willing to protest when the cost to do so is very low. That's why godaddy is a whipping boy and the TSA is more powerful than ever.
- NIL8 15y agoVery important read for all of us. I now sit hear wondering what I can do - what we can do - to help our country. We are in a scary place.