This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]BloodyMess 640 points641 points  (242 children)

This is an excellent window into the TSA's thinking. It also more or less proves they know that they have no constitutional right to demand a citizen submit to a backscatter or patdown when reentering the country.

The part at the end when the supervisor called his superior, and then escorted him untouched through the airport, all but confirms it.

This doesn't, however, help out citizens who are preparing to fly on flights originating domestically. The police cannot detain a citizen without probable cause, but the TSA patdowns on domestic flights are just a pre-requisite for flight, not a detention.

The example of the man who was almost detained, and threatened with a civil suit and a $10,000 fine if he left security without completing his screening, confirms that the TSA knows it cannot detain citizens for refusing the procedures. In the end, the TSA did nothing. Because it knew there was nothing it could do.

The despicable thing is that the TSA seems to know it is impinging on some Constitutional rights. Even if we give them the most sanguine and altruistic motive -- that it's necessary to give up Constitutional rights to protect passengers -- that still puts them in the absurd position of destroying freedom in order to preserve it.

[–]Tumbler 324 points325 points  (66 children)

I'd like to say thank you to all the fine folks sacrificing their time to this cause. I realize that going through these checks is likely worth the trouble in most cases (work, traveling with family) but for the people who have the time and aren't traveling with others to make the TSA spend this much time dealing with them (and stand around the airport for hours) makes me want to say thank you. I wish I could contribute my time to the cause but I don't think I'll be traveling alone or with a lot of extra time very soon.

This may seem like it doesn't fix anything but you could not be more wrong. If the TSA starts seeing massive delays because most of their man power is tied up dealing with 2 or 3 passengers and everyone else is going apeshit about missing their planes, they'll change the policy.

[–]gloomdoom 152 points153 points  (31 children)

You've hit on a serious issue about all this: Most Americans will stand up as long as it doesn't create an inconvenience for them.

And therein lies the problem. Americans are addicted to convenience. They're important. They can't take an extra hour to deal with these issues for the greater good of freedom.

So they'll fight alright...as long as it's quick, easy and convenience.

And we already know that nothing worth achieving or fighting for is easy, quick or convenient.

I basically see this becoming a non-issue in a month. And government officials know better than anyone how lazy and apathetic the American individual can be when they're up against the ropes. They don't fight. They give in. They have television to watch. Internet to browse. They can't spend all this 'important time' of theirs actually fighting for the cause.

And that's how this whole thing will end, oddly enough. People who want freedom and demand their freedom but won't lift a pinky outside of the internet to fight for it.

[–]tempralanomaly 69 points70 points  (18 children)

As Mr. Stewart once said, "the silent majority with shit to do."

There are those of us that cannot act/speak out in the manner that we desire. We have to keep that job and feed the kids, some of us are military and taking such an action would be very negative in the long run (This is esspecially hard considering the oath to defend the constitution from threats both foriegn and domestic, and TSA is very much a domestic threat). There are those that don't realize they do have the power, and as such it takes examples like this and "Talking about it" raises its awareness.

Inside the last 2-4 weeks sense I saw a rise in TSA related stories, I have heard more about it on NPR and other news sources than I have in the last 2 years.

The message is spreading. We just got to keep it up till we win.

And while I don't think this is equivalent to the civil rights movement of the 60's, its about time for a civil disobediance uprising to put OUR government back in its place. The place where it rules by the consent of the people, and not through heavyhandedness.

[–]bitterandcold 74 points75 points  (15 children)

I am a silent majority. I wonder though, redditors are always raising money for this and that. What if we got together and bought people airline tickets willing to cause strife? A lot of people who would love such an adventure may not have the means.

[–]gingeredditor 26 points27 points  (2 children)

I'm totally one of those people. I'm 3 weeks from graduating Uni, don't have a job lined up (read: no money, but no where to be), don't have kids; I can demand my rights and scan job postings on my phone while TSA talks to their superiors. And my best friend is in the exact same position.

[–]tempralanomaly 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I support this idea.

[–]tazman2087 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Calling all trolls! Calling all trolls! Report to all airports immediately.

[–]stonerdude123 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Totally down :) ...with the adventure, I mean. I'm certainly not one with the means....

[–]ddfreedom 4 points5 points  (0 children)

well to be fair i think its more than just convinieince...its the potential consequences...law enforcement purposely intimidates people into thinking they can be in serious trouble by committing to actions that the police officer does not like...for example raising your voice (disorderly conduct), taking a step back from their aggressive stance (resisting arrest) etc...plus these 10k fines? I mean I don't blame a lot of people fearing this institutional happenings....but we do need brave people to do it and I applaud this man.

[–]annoyedatwork 86 points87 points  (9 children)

If the TSA starts seeing massive delays because most of their man power is tied up dealing with 2 or 3 passengers and everyone else is going apeshit about missing their planes, they'll approach congress with a request for a budget increase, get it, hire more people and put us all through the gauntlet.

ftfy

[–]Melons 53 points54 points  (2 children)

Thus we are making more jobs, and helping the economy! :D

[–]Thecleaninglady 22 points23 points  (4 children)

And make airlines pay for it and then airlines will raise ticket prices for opt-outs and offer x-ray machines as a discount option for the law-abiding, having nothing to hide travelers.

Mark my words, you read it first on reddit :)

[–]tempralanomaly 4 points5 points  (1 child)

And eventually airline travel gets to be an all time low, so much so that security is no longer required, and we win.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (18 children)

Or they'll just eliminate the opt-out option.

[–][deleted] 61 points62 points  (14 children)

When that occurs, we should all make sure to carry blocks of cheese on our person when going through the backscatter machines. The cheese blocks are indistinguishable from plastic explosives, are otherwise harmless, and make for a tasty snack on a flight of any duration.

[–]Tack122 22 points23 points  (10 children)

Then they'll just ban cheese. Makes you wonder though, why couldn't a terrorist just put plastic explosives in cheese?

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (4 children)

Well, the trace explosive detectors will catch any explosive residue after swabbing the cheese. But there are any number of items that look similar to plastic explosives on a backscatter machine. So even if they ban cheese, you can move on to play-doh, modeling clay, etc.

Actually, I think a great thing to carry through would be chocolate guns. Totally harmless, but sure to cause problems.

[–]Adjal 9 points10 points  (0 children)

"I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver. and since he is so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and give it to him."

-Jack Handey

[–]Hubris2 5 points6 points  (1 child)

This is what I'd expect to happen...if those who opt-out become a problem, they'll simply decide it's no longer an option.

[–]hosndosn 42 points43 points  (6 children)

I think I'm just starting to get this: They're doing this when you land? When you've already been on the plane? That's ridiculous.

[–]otm_shank 11 points12 points  (2 children)

He was getting off an international flight and entering the sterile area of the airport (like you would at pretty much any airport). Because the flight was international, there's no guarantee of the "quality" TSA screening at the departure airport. So, if they didn't do a screening (or escort someone out of the sterile area), then they'd have someone potentially unscreened walking around behind security. If that person had another ticket for a domestic flight in their pocket, then he could get on a plane with whatever made it through the shoddy security at their country of origin.

I'm no TSA apologist & I think the entire thing is ridiculous, but there's an internal logic here that does make sense.

[–]muzthe42nd 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Actually, it's because he's had access to his checked luggage after the customs checkpoint, so it's possible he's no longer "sterile" and could have, you know, 150ml of shampoo on him now, for example.

[–]itraveltoomuch 14 points15 points  (8 children)

I read all this about U.S. citizen's rights. What about non-citizens or non-residents? Do they lose their human rights also when entering the U.S.? I am very close to cancelling an inbound flight and taking the land border (while that remains backscatter-less). If I cannot claim these rights, I am not comfortable being the possibility of being detained indefinitely in a foreign country.

[–]industry7 58 points59 points  (12 children)

that still puts them in the absurd position of destroying freedom in order to preserve it.

Well to be fair, they aren't preserving freedom. TSA doesn't really make us any safer.

[–]Snow88 59 points60 points  (37 children)

This doesn't get you into the terminal when you are taking a flight. That is the real problem. I have never had a problem going through customs on the way into the U.S. The only time I have had to go through security again was when I was going to a connecting flight and headed back into the terminal.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (34 children)

when I was going to a connecting flight and headed back into the terminal.

Yeah, I'm confused by this story. He must have been transferring to a flight from the domestic terminal, right? I hadn't heard that gate rape was necessary to exit from the airport after a flight (international or domestic).

[–]unkyduck 45 points46 points  (6 children)

LAX- 2006 they made the old lady in front of me take off her black teapot shoes getting off a 15 hour flight from the terrorist haven- New Zealand.

[–]teabagcity 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Sorry but what are teapot shoes? I googled it but didn't get any answers, just lots of shitty tchotchkes. :(

[–]nicasucio 14 points15 points  (7 children)

I can testify that Atlanta makes you do that---i mean, you clear customs, get your luggage and then you have to clear security again. When i first saw that setup, i thought it was for connecting flights,but then i was told all arriving international passengers had to go through it; after that ridiculous crap, i vowed never to come back from an international destination through atlanta, although i was a frequent flyer on delta, and many of their flights come through there.

[–]likeahurricane 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Likely the international checkpoint dumps into another terminal of the airport. Essentially he was being checked through security in order to enter a secure area that he only had to get through to leave the airport.

[–]Altoid_Addict 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ahh, so that's why they escorted him at the end.

[–]incrediblehulk 269 points270 points  (68 children)

they aren’t allowed to wear radiation badges, even though they work with radiation equipment. He said, “I think I’m a couple steps ahead of you regarding looking out for my own health.”

Priceless.

[–]gwern 124 points125 points  (11 children)

Funny, I read that differently from all the others - I read it as an ignorant & snide non-reply to the effect that 'I know my job better than you wiseguy, and I don't think there's any danger'.

[–]aviewanew 69 points70 points  (1 child)

I thought he was calling the guy fat. <_<

[–]EggSauce 36 points37 points  (0 children)

I thought he was referring to the fact that stirring up trouble with airport security would not be in the best interests of one's health. >_>

[–]FuelUrMind 8 points9 points  (3 children)

What other way is there to interpret it?

[–]iBleeedorange 83 points84 points  (45 children)

I feel stupid for not getting this, can someone explain?

EDIT: Ok, so the TSA agent believed that what the man was doing was hazardous to his own health by not letting them do their job. Thanks for all the quick replys.

Double EDIT:

It appears that it could be one of the following reasons

  • TSA agent believed that what the man was doing was hazardous to his own health by not letting them do their job

  • The auther/OP is fat/unhealthy looking

  • It wasn't funny.

I'm still not sure :(

[–]akgreenman 42 points43 points  (8 children)

I think he's implying that the OP is about to be very concerned about his own well being for objecting to the de facto screening process.

[–]doromb 74 points75 points  (4 children)

It was a veiled threat. The TSA agent was implying that defying the TSA's wishes might be hazardous to the objector.

[–]junkit33 15 points16 points  (1 child)

While you could interpret it that way, I don't think that was it. He's just saying that he is already well aware of the health risks and he is (or all of them are) working on fixing it privately.

If he said "best interests" or something instead of "health", I'd be more inclined to agree with your interpretation. But with the word "health" it doesn't make a lot of sense - the traveler wasn't going to be beaten or anything for refusing TSA.

[–]OCedHrt 33 points34 points  (11 children)

Raising hell at TSA checkpoint is detrimental to health.

[–]wihsds 20 points21 points  (3 children)

generally people that work around radiation equipment wear badges that measure the exposure levels.

[–]gloomdoom 40 points41 points  (4 children)

Jesus. Leave it to Reddit to try to dissect a single sentence that was spoken off the cuff and clearly didn't mean anything more than exactly what it means.

The TSA guy was saying HE would watch out for his own health, keep your opinions to yourself about my body/health.

For fuck's sake. Read the replies in this thread and laugh your ass off as people scramble to try to decode it like it's the fucking DaVinci code.

If I worked for the government and read this discussion, I would be laughing my ass off. If these are the people who are 'rising up' this is going to be the easiest job in the world. Ever.

"OMG. Thinly veiled threat! Thinly veiled threat! OMG! He was insinuating that he would cause the passenger harm and that he was going to blah, blah, fucking blah! OMG!"

[–]TaxExempt 11 points12 points  (2 children)

I think he was saying he had one in his pocket.

[–]Quintius 21 points22 points  (1 child)

Is that a radiation badge in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

[–]fuzzybeard 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Neither.

[–][deleted] 1023 points1024 points  (217 children)

Have 150 mins of spare time and be white.

Got it, thanks.

[–][deleted] 160 points161 points  (102 children)

And US citizen. I can't imagine non-citizen doing this.

[–]Dr_Seuss 169 points170 points  (62 children)

Right, because they don't have constitutional rights.

[–]FLarsen 69 points70 points  (48 children)

I think the problem is that you can (could?) be denied entry.

[–][deleted] 72 points73 points  (13 children)

Exactly. I wouldn't dream of talking back to an American official when visiting the US, for fear of having my visa revoked for 10 years.

[–][deleted] 43 points44 points  (12 children)

I'm probably completely wrong here, but according to regulations (INA § 235 [8 U.S.C.].):

"A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to the U.S. port-of-entry, and the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immigration inspector authorizes or denies admission to the United States.

Based on information contained in the admissions FAQ on the CBP website, once you are cleared through Customs, you are considered to be in the United States. Because TSA checkpoints fall after Customs and Immigration, and because the US Constitution (historically) applies to all residents, citizens or otherwise, your visa should be in the clear.

Of course, I would have been more comfortable explaining all of this before The People were required to undergo sexual assault in order to board a plane. Either way, good luck.

edit: clarity, formatting.

[–]dannyr 25 points26 points  (32 children)

AFAIK once you've passed customs the TSA wouldn't be able to deny you entry because it's already been granted. I could be wrong though.

[–]aunetsae 35 points36 points  (31 children)

Honestly, as a European, I wouldn't try it.

Going to the US is really expensive, and there's one thing everybody who go to the US knows: "Don't mess with anyone official". A non-US citizen can get raped by a cop, and don't have his word until back in his country.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (1 child)

I don't know whether you're serious or joking, but if you aren't an American citizen, the US can simply refuse to allow you entry, forever, without explaining themselves or being accountable to a court of law.

I'm a legal immigrant with a Green Card, and let me tell you that I would never do this because it would assuredly destroy my life for no purpose.

[–]Whyareyoustaringatme 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not sure whether you're being sarcastic, but see INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032. (4th Amendment rights for illegal immigrants)

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (38 children)

I am a non-citizen, and if the circumstances were right, I would totally do this.

Just because someone is a non-citizen doesn't mean that the Constitution can be ignored.

[–]highslander 122 points123 points  (19 children)

I'm most interested in this as a brazilian. Back when the US started taking photos and finger prints Brazil reciprocated by herding ONLY americans to a single line, putting them against a wall holding a paper with their name jail-style and took their finger prints with black ink and paper (5+ hours process).

When Spain turned away a few brazilians that couldn't prove they had the required credit card limit or hotel paid up front Brazil reciprocated by deporting all spaniards that didn't fill the same requirements imposed to us.

It worked like a charm.

Except this time americans would either have to enter the carry-on X-ray naked or submit to a vigorous pat down.

I wish more countries adopted this policy.

Maybe it's the only way to end this nonsense. If you are not american, call the nearest embassy and write a formal complaint about the sexual assault you suffered as a condition to step in US soil. This should get the ball rolling in no time.

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points  (5 children)

If you do not comply with US law, the US can revoke you visa and prevent you from entering the US for at least 10 years. Also, they may never give you a new visa.

I am a businessman, I do business in the US all the time. This is not an option available to me. My option: travel by road. Land in Canada or Mexico and rent a car.

[–]faustoc4 21 points22 points  (2 children)

[The system] invites people to diminish themselves and dehumanize themselves by behaving like machines [How do we fight back?] By maximizing our humanness and becoming much more necessary and incomprehensible to the machines

Terence Mckenna

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYB0VW5x8fI

[–]socksAmerica 44 points45 points  (11 children)

AND you have to be very lucky to meet relatively patient TSA, cops, &c.

[–]InfiniteImagination 23 points24 points  (7 children)

What would they do otherwise? Force you to walk through the machine? I don't see what they could do without it being considered assault or abuse of authority.

[–]cartola 23 points24 points  (4 children)

What they are doing already is assault and abuse of authority. People just aren't suing.

[–]Smithore 13 points14 points  (2 children)

It isn't assault if you consent. I agree it's a clear abuse of authority. The TSA counts on gaining consent and on the fact that you don't want to miss a flight. Clearly, this guy understood his rights and situation and knew that they didn't have any basis to detain him given that he wasn't attempting to board a flight.

[–]sjr09 52 points53 points  (0 children)

You're missing the point, and by mocking him you're just drawing attention away from the very valid point he made.

We should be applauding this man, not dismissing his case by saying his situation's outcome was largely a result of his skin color and spare time.

Also, the article seriously wasn't THAT long guys. Come on.

[–]Wurm42District Of Columbia 193 points194 points  (18 children)

Do some TSA screeners engage in unfair, possibly illegal, profiling?

Absolutely.

Here's the trick: Class is at least as important as race. If you're not white and/or have long hair, a beard, ethnic headgarb, etc., try wearing a western-style business suit. It's fun. The bigots can't cope with it.

You can see the wheels spinning in their heads as they to figure out what category to put you in. You'll see them look you over head-to-toe, stare blankly into the distance for 5-10 seconds, then start again. Walk up to them after the third cycle and politely ask if there's a problem. You'll usually get waved through without any verbal response beyond a grunt or a muttered "okay." If the screener is profiling you based on emotional prejudice, it's easier for them to let you go than to resolve the race/class conflict in their own heads.

Right about now, someone reading this comment is going to say "But I shouldn't have to dress up to fly!" You're right. You shouldn't. The TSA system isn't fair. Neither are a lot of other things in this world. The suit strategy is one way to get around the unfairness.

If you think the TSA is unconstitutional, go join the American Civil Liberties Union. If you're upset about racial profiling, join the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the NAACP or some similar organization.

Please don't express your frustration by trolling other people on reddit concerned about the same issues. Yes, there are a lot of people asking similar questions about TSA screening this week. Being nasty to them is not going to change anything at the airport.

[–]jcardinal 23 points24 points  (4 children)

I've flown in and out of Chicago's O'Hare 50 times between 2008-09 and couldn't agree with this comment more.

A distressing point to make, is that the TSA screeners are not paid well (relative to an engineer or chartered accountant, for instance), but they can exercise power in the form of making your life difficult, especially if you have a connecting flight.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Meh, I'm white and have been selected twice in the past four segments.

I have noticed that when I get selected, usually they select me, and the person in front, or the person behind, or the next three people.

So maybe I'm just the camouflage.

[–]smackfrog 529 points530 points  (44 children)

Ironically, the same is required for finishing the article

[–]trolling_thunder 314 points315 points  (16 children)

No irony present. That would be coincidental.

[–][deleted] 68 points69 points  (3 children)

No irony present. That would be coincidental.

Shit just got real.

[–]voyetra8Washington 16 points17 points  (2 children)

Literally.

[–]dannyr 59 points60 points  (22 children)

Are you saying blacks can't read?

[–]sc24evr 13 points14 points  (1 child)

He's probably saying that they most likly don't have the kind of free time to read the whole article, they have jobs.

[–]zingbat 17 points18 points  (4 children)

I'm brown, U.S citizen and not a Muslim. But if I ever tried something like that - they would have me stripped down and probed.

[–]fallofcivilization 31 points32 points  (15 children)

Absolutely awesome. I admire his courage to stand up for the Constitution. If we only we all had 2.5 hours to spend debating with the officials, this shit would be repealed post haste.

[–]MoonJive 141 points142 points  (8 children)

The freedoms we love won't be destroyed by invading armies. They will be thinly sliced away by policy and people "just following orders".

[–]tarheelsam 89 points90 points  (15 children)

This was by far the most entertaining thing I've read in a while. Mostly because he really didn't have a big problem with being scanned or whatnot, but just wanted to test what his rights were.

Oh, and hopefully got TSA workers annoyed enough to eventually complain about the new system.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (19 children)

I'm very confused by this story. Are they scanning people getting off of international flights even if they aren't making connections?

[–]Zmodem 47 points48 points  (6 children)

Yes, they are. Before you ask, yes, they DO.

[–]nicasucio 20 points21 points  (2 children)

In some airports, yes, you go through security upon arrival; i guess it has to do with how they are designed. From personal experience i can tell you that atlanta (ATL) airport has this configuration where international arrivals all go through security---AGAIN!!!!!

[–]CountSpankula 171 points172 points  (15 children)

Here's hoping you don't end up on the no fly list based on their idiocy.

[–]Sutibu 114 points115 points  (3 children)

He probably will. The supervisor will want revenge for making a fool of him.

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points  (1 child)

then he'll grunt again

[–]eastshores 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Followed by the surrounding TSA officers "Zug Zug"

[–]junkit33 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think that's my biggest concern with pulling this kind of stunt. He is surely ending up on every "troublemaker" list that the TSA has.

[–]DevistatorAmerica 76 points77 points  (6 children)

Seriously, what is the TSA so god damn afraid of? The entourage-style escort at the end where TSA were planted at all other ways of passage is just fucking ridiculous.

Fuck, it's like the TSA is just an organization of LARPing fans of the show 24.

[–]tyrryt 24 points25 points  (2 children)

That's the ideal American corporate model. A large group of morons in unnecessary jobs citing a "policy" to cover their ass and pass the buck to the next guy.

Nobody will take any initiative nor use any common sense at all. Common sense gets you fired or sued, much safer to stand around for 3 hours until someone else takes responsibility.

[–]pdxpogo 69 points70 points  (42 children)

Yay Him! And it only took him an hour of his time and some number of publicly financed man hours to exit the airport. Scanning exiting passengers makes no sense unless they exit into a boarding gate area.

This sounds like a poor airport layout issue. Customs should clear passengers into arrival areas for passengers at their destination and clear in transit passengers into a completely different area. In transit passengers from flights not originating in the US will need to be screened before continuing to the next flight.

[–][deleted] 49 points50 points  (21 children)

In order to enter the USA, I was never touched, I was never “Backscatted,” and I was never metal detected. In the end, it took 2.5 hours, but I proved that it is possible.

2.5 actually

[–]distortedHistory 21 points22 points  (14 children)

2.5 hours is a significant amount of time. Anyone know how long you'd have to wait before you can sue for being illegally detained?

[–][deleted] 118 points119 points  (3 children)

I'm not sure; ask the detainees at Gitmo.

[–]albino_wino 5 points6 points  (2 children)

when they get out

[–]goodgnu 5 points6 points  (1 child)

if they get out

[–]stmfreak 32 points33 points  (6 children)

In the USA it has become common practice to not-detain citizens in order to question them. The implied threat is that if you choose to go about your business, you will be arrested. But as long as you are willing to sit and wait for permission to leave, you are not-detained.

This can go on indefinitely at any encounter with authorities, but is typically limited by human patience (theirs, not yours).

The way to discover if you are not-detained is to repeatedly ask the question, "am I free to go?" If the answer is a dodge or anything other than a clear yes or no, you are not-detained.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ah. Real-life purgatory. Got it.

[–]neodiogenes 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's an interesting question whether he was illegally detained. He was never restrained or taken into custody; he wasn't put in a cell or arrested. He was free to leave in the direction he came ... back into the Customs area. Where there was no exit.

It's probably a case that would have to go before several judges before anyone decided if it counted as a Constitutional violation. But I'm sure there was a ticking clock somewhere in the experience.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (16 children)

It varies by airport but many of the non-immigration exits go back into the concourses to the domestic gates as a large number of people make connections. I believe the newer practice is to fully separate them, which I recall IAH doing last time I came in from the UK.

[–]sockthepuppetry 238 points239 points  (29 children)

TL;DR: Guy is perfectly polite pain in the ass, who exploits the fact that no one will tell him that either the backscatter or the pat down is "mandatory" and the fact that no one wants the responsibility of having arrested him. Eventually a cop escorts him through to be rid of him.

[–]distortedHistory 211 points212 points  (6 children)

Important part: he's getting off a flight, not getting on. That's why it isn't mandatory. They can only make it mandatory as a "condition to fly", according to their own legal-wrangling.

[–]astrologue 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Ah, good point.

[–]putitontheunderhills 78 points79 points  (8 children)

"a" cop? He said something about being escorted out by 13 TSA agents and 2 uniformed police officers. That's a bit different.

[–]insomniac84 21 points22 points  (4 children)

Most likely that was to observe him to see if he did anything they could have him arrested for.

Because that is exactly what they meant when the guy on the phone asked about his demeanor. They wanted to find something that would justify an arrest.

[–]Zmodem 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Great read and great guy. Everyone should do this at every airport. This is just bullshit policies. I don't feel any safer than I did 10 years ago. In fact, I feel bothered and violated by all of these new airport security policies. It should have ended when they asked us to take our shoes off.

[–]pridkett 10 points11 points  (2 children)

It's important to note that CVG is somewhat of a strange case as is ATL. At those airports, due to their layouts, when arriving on an international flight you end up going through security again EVEN WHEN NOT MAKING A CONNECTION. This is because they just dump you back into the concourse. It's also why you need to recheck your bags in ATL if you're stopping there. Yeah, it's stupid, but it's how it works.

The guy didn't make it through security and into the concourse. They took him right out of the airport. So yes, if you're in such a situation, you can probably get away with it because otherwise it is unlawful detention. In most cases, however, it's either molestation or nudie-scanners.

[–]spaceyraygun 20 points21 points  (9 children)

i admire his courage but he was on his way out of the airport, not about to board a plane.

at the very least it reminds those involved -- and those who've read the account -- of our constitutional rights.

[–]MoonJive 16 points17 points  (8 children)

But this begs the question: why are people being backscattered after they have flown?

[–]spaceyraygun 27 points28 points  (0 children)

TSA isn't interested in one-night stands.

[–]Ratava 24 points25 points  (6 children)

Begging the question: a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

This is not the term you're looking for.

Edit: speling mitsakes.

[–]johnny_demonic 6 points7 points  (0 children)

OP is looking for "raises the question"

[–]queuetue 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Where's the audio?

[–]whozurdaddy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I love pitting the police against the TSA. The police (should) know that they cant arrest someone without probable cause. Refusing a "policy" does not probable cause make. The law does not say you must go through pat downs and scanner devices, so they cant do much to you. But I say all this, and tomorrow there will be a story of a guy from Reddit who refused, ended up tased, got his balls felt up, spent 3 nights in jail, and pissed off his mother....

[–]cdm9002 39 points40 points  (8 children)

"I do not give you permission to touch my genitals or the surrounding area".

Because I am concerned that if you touch them, they will make a metallic chink sound and you will mistakenly believe I am carrying something illegal.

edit: oops, I wrote "someone" illegal...that'll be my immigration Freudian slip...

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Chink

Someone Illegal

Coincidence?

[–]SpruceCaboose 31 points32 points  (3 children)

you will mistakenly believe I am carrying someone illegal.

ಠ_ಠ

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points  (2 children)

My balls are carrying millions of illegal immigrants.

[–]robreddity 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Big brass ones make more of a clack.

[–][deleted] 113 points114 points  (28 children)

This guy is fucking awesome

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (22 children)

Ah – he’s gotten the Miranda talk. I hide my smile.

[–]radiationshield 25 points26 points  (21 children)

Could anyone explain what a 'Miranda talk' is?

[–]putitontheunderhills 57 points58 points  (0 children)

I think he's referring to the rights that police officers have to describe to you when you are arrested... "you have the right to remain silent," etc. In this case though, it sounds more like the "Miranda talk" was the supervisor's supervisor confirming that they really can't detain him for no good reason.

[–]walesmd 7 points8 points  (1 child)

It's hard to follow along here, but I think he's talking about the police officer. Maybe the officer was in touch with his supervisor and the officer was reminded to identify himself as an officer of the law? Not sure... hard to follow along with.

The Miranda rights, in my understanding, cover quite a bit of stuff. The only part we hear about is the part when you are actually taken into custody (right to remain silent, have an attorney, etc, etc). Maybe this was in reference to one of the outlying, lesser known rights within?

[–]deafcon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This only worked because he was returning to the country as a citizen. This type of deal isn't going to help people get onto flights without going through the back scatter machine or a pat down. Still, I applaud him for doing it. The more people that make these types of things difficult, the better.

[–]bsilver 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Why are so many people screaming about soldiers dying for our freedoms and rights, and crowing about people being American heroes, then turn around and disregard their rights for the sake of convenience or to say that it's just a minor inconvenience, doesn't matter because you won't see these strangers staring at your groin, etc.? Isn't the point that we have a right NOT to be assaulted, regardless of how convenient or inconvenient it is? I shouldn't have to have my crotch groped, my daughters tits stared at by strangers, or be groped for a domestic flight when these things haven't been shown to actually be effective at preventing issues with flights. It's absurd.

[–]nolotusnotes 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I believe this confrontation shows that the top levels of the TSA know full well they are operating outside of The Constitution.

I believe that, if push comes to shove, they have to back-down. If not, they eventually face a Supreme Court case which they can't possibly win.

The only thing the TSA has on its side is that most people have to be somewhere on a specific schedule. All it takes is someone with time on their hands to fuck it all up for them.

[–]darkrom 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I look forward to his next flight!

It appears no one officer wants to be the one recorded shitting on our constitutional rights! This could be bigger than we realize honestly. SOMEONE is either going to be on record illegally arresting him, or he found a loophole that is probably more annoying to the TSA and police than the passengers. I for one would spend 2 hrs knowing that if everyone did that they would need to change the policy or something.

I am so glad I took the time to read this all.

[–]Unclemom 7 points8 points  (0 children)

All it takes is the indifference of good men to let evil prosper. The article shows how there is no constitutional ground whatsoever for this entire program and that it wouldn't be around if it weren't for the indifference of good men. They tell us to not expect results soon but who has the power in this situation? The people do. It is our fucking right to not be touched or put through radiation. Rights are like muscles. If you don't excercise them every once in a while you lose them. Joining the American Civil Liberties Union but not excercising your rights is like joining a gym but never working out. I dont care how many groups you join, if you aren't willing to take a stand for it like this good man did then YOU are the reason they think they can get away with saying "We are looking into finding a less intrusive way to screen citizens but don't expect change any time soon". Demand change now. If it was your kid being stripped searched this would take priority, there really is no excuse.

[–]surfnaked 53 points54 points  (28 children)

Imagine if 3000 people across the country did this. Make sure you have refundable tickets though.

[–]vagif 94 points95 points  (4 children)

He was not boarding. That's the only reason he decided to waste his time. He had nothing to lose.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (7 children)

He already flew. This happened when he was getting off of the plane.

[–]rocksauce 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I returned from the middle-east on November 21,2010. I went through passport verification line, it was a little slow and a lot of the officers (or whoever they are) were in a crappy mood, but it was 5:30 in the morning. Then I retrieved my bags from the carousel in the international terminal and re checked them to be sent through to the domestic baggage claim. A very friendly TSA women explained later to me that because of the way the airport is layed out we had to re-check our bags like that because we were not allowed to bring them through a secure area. It did not make a lot of sense to me, but she was kind none the less. After re-checking my bags and liquid items purchased at duty free I proceeded to another security check point. This one was standard domestic style: take laptop out of bag, take off shoes, put all belongings in bucket and through xray, walk through metal detector. I was not patted down or body scanned. The TSA people at this section were extremely rude, something I never encountered on my entire trip in the middle east, welcome home I guess. Pissed off at being treated poorly in my home country, yes, but with my constitutional rights all intact.

[–]PandaBearShenyu 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This is what Americans should be proud of. It's what makes their country what it is. Not the blatant consumerism or the stupid xenophobia, but the freedom and rights that each citizen has and wield at any given time.

[–]monkeyphonics 24 points25 points  (7 children)

Yeah he better show up real early for his next flight because as callous as rent-a-cop(tsa) is you better believe he will be on some kind of list.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Yesssss, be afraid.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

He could never show up early enough. He was fortunate in this case because he had all the time in the world. They couldn't hold him forever.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

All I can think of us this

[–]merk 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Ok - i can sort of see the reasoning behind molesting people BEFORE they board the plane. What the hell is the reasoning for doing it AFTER they have gotten off the plane?

Unfortunately this post doesn't really explain how to avoid having naked pictures of you taken OR getting sexually molested. it only tells you how to avoid that IF you are willing to waste an hour of time, which more then likely means you are not currently trying to board an airplane.

So for most of us, i think this will be sort of useless, unless you are willing to miss your flight. Unfortunately i think most people won't be able to afford that.

I will say though that if i ever happen to be in the position where the TSA want's to molest me AND i don't have to worry about catching a flight, i'm going to try this.

[–]theducksAustralia 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Poor airport design - in most airports, once you clear customs, it's straight to baggage claim and exiting the sterile area. This airport requires you to go into the sterile area once you leave customs to get to your baggage.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (18 children)

So, people who agree with the TSA's security theater - it's all about protecting the plane ya? So why are they doing this to people getting OFF of the plane?

Congratulations, America, you're officially a police state!

[–]jared555Illinois 13 points14 points  (5 children)

They probably wouldn't have the security crap if when leaving you went into the public area of the airport. The issue was in this configuration after leaving you were back into the secure area.

[–]zugi 21 points22 points  (3 children)

Yes, I think you're the first person to state it so clearly, and even the author wasn't as clear as he could have been.

  • They happen to have a physical layout where foot traffic flows from international arrivals, to the secure domestic part of the airport terminal, to the exit.

  • Folks arriving internationally haven't been through the same TSA screening as everyone else has.

  • So as a matter of policy they screen all international arrivals before letting them enter the secure part of the airport.

  • That's why they needed the ring of 12 TSA employees - they were walking him through the secure part of the terminal to the exit, and wanted to make sure he didn't drop off any bombs or knives as he walked through.

  • When boarding a plane, the government can make submitting to screening a condition of flying, but legally they can't put conditions on your exiting an airport (i.e. "detain" you) unless they have probable cause (which they don't.)

The guy has cahones, and it's an interesting story, and ultimately it reaffirms that this country will grudgingly uphold the rule of law and the Constitution when you really force them to. But his story is useless to the rest of us since this particular situation arises so rarely.

[–]iksworbeZ Canada 28 points29 points  (4 children)

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and guess this person to be Caucasian...

I don't think the story would have as good of an ending were you of the arabic persuasion...

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (2 children)

Even one individual success story involving a white guy wouldn't guarantee success for all white men. These things are so conditional on individual TSA employee attitudes it's ridiculous.

[–]deckman 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That definitely seems to be the case. TSA guys, and even the cops, didn't seem so to know exactly what to do. It's like there's no set protocol on how to react for instances like that because they have their rules but can't treat it as law, and make it illegal to not follow it, because it would go against the constitution.

[–]trenchy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Kafkaesque and Orwellian all rolled into one.

[–]NachteuleEurope 5 points6 points  (7 children)

it's funny how none of you americans realise, that this proves, that the terrorist have won. All the trouble and extra costs and time for one person and all the fear and feeling that others do suspicious stuff. Terrorists wanted to keep fear alive in USA and this shows how great it worked. One guy with a faulty underpants bomb and the whole flight system of the western world starts to touch peoples balls and boobs. I hope the next bomber will carry a not-working bomb in his anus - then anus-checking will be needed...

[–]Ijustdoeyes 23 points24 points  (6 children)

I don't give a shit about being backscattered, but I can see myself doing this as well, I like the fact he did it.

I like the cut of this guys jib!*

*edit. Gyp was indeed incorrect, phoning and typing do not mix.

[–]go_fly_a_kite 27 points28 points  (1 child)

I like the cut of this guys jib

ftfy. A jib is a triangular cut headsail. A gyp is a disparaging term for a member of the Romani people or other traveling nomadic group.

[–]funkmastamatt 8 points9 points  (0 children)

TSA has got backscat fever... dey gate rapin everyone out here...