
'TSA Arrests Me for Using the Fourth Amendment as a Weapon' - nextparadigms
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/18/1027775/-TSA-Arrests-Me-for-Using-the-Fourth-Amendment-as-a-Weapon-(Tales-from-the-Edge-of-a-Revolution-2)
======
jballanc
During 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
Note that the American disapproval rating of congress sits at 86% and an
approval of 11% and dropping (Gallup polls).

~~~
makmanalp
I call bullshit on that poll. People are not morons. If disapproval rating at
congress was so high according to a representative poll group, then why aren't
people voting in people that they do approve of? House terms are short. Senate
terms are long but I don't think this 86% number would have happened
overnight.

~~~
CWuestefeld
These days you're virtually guaranteed a disapproval of nearly 50% on the day
you step into office.

(warning: oversimplification ahead, but I think it's a reasonable model to
start with)

With the subtlety of the political chess match, the parties first choose
polarized candidates in primaries. That's because it's generally the party
hardcore who vote in primaries, not the moderates. Then in the general
election, they play capture the centrist vote. When they're both at top form,
the election margins are going to be razor thin.

Because the candidates were chosen in such a polarizing manner, they will
largely be toxic to those on the other side of our imaginary single left-right
dimension of political discourse.

(of course, this breaks down in gerrymandered districts where the political
machine has ensured a safe seat)

EDIT: Now, factor in the typical model for marketing most high-profile
candidates (at least this is how it seems to me). It seems that most people
don't have the opportunity to vote for candidates they like anymore. Instead
they're frightened by the bogeyman on the other side. "If you don't vote for
the guy from our party, look at who's going to get the post instead -- and
that will tilt the majority in Congress toward that other party of anti-
Americans". The result, I submit, is that most people despise the guy from the
other major party, but they don't like the one they _did_ vote for, either. So
it's not hard to push that disapproval rating even farther.

------
gerggerg
Lots 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

      > 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
> If a common civilian wishes to help, she can probably find a better way than
> standing up to some scripted peons.

Rosa Parks?

~~~
jamesaguilar
Different 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
Analogies aren't copies.

~~~
jamesaguilar
But sometimes they are useful, and sometimes they are so far off the mark they
add very little to the conversation.

~~~
jasonlotito
Oh, the irony in your post is wonderful. Thanks! Needed a good laugh this
morning.

------
phaus
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. 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
These 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
She 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.

~~~
jbooth
You 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
You 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.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_She is a professional writer who did this as a publicity stunt_

I thought she identified herself as a doctor.

But in any case, you're simply building a strawman argument. You don't, and
cannot, have any idea what her actual motivations were. Deluding yourself into
believing you know what other people are thinking is not a good way to get to
the bottom of any conflict.

(sorry, but you've hit one of my hot buttons)

~~~
sitkack
PHaus was saying that professional writers have ulterior motives (what ever
those are) and that we should discount the communication of people who are
professionals. Only amateurs can be impartial.

No wait, I just put words in his mouth AND made a straw man. Now I am
confused.

------
doogall
Kinda 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
In the UK, with some professions it can hurt your career to be arrested, too,
such as medical or teaching.

------
tptacek
This 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
Granted, 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
No, 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
I 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.

~~~
tptacek
You should read the site guidelines before deciding that I'm commenting out of
a sense of smug superiority and not out of general concern for the quality of
the site.

I think you should also analyze the fact that this story got you so
emotionally invested that the site guidelines didn't occur to you, and that
you managed to feel threatened simply because someone questioned the story ---
which, again, is pretty obvious vapid. What you're saying in this comment is,
"The TSA is bad, so why bother thinking?"

That stories like this tend to have that effect on message board communities
is the reason they're proscribed in the site guidelines. There are other
communities where a story like this would find a more receptive audience, like
Reddit Politics.

------
grannyg00se
This 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.

~~~
tommi
> 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.

~~~
grannyg00se
I came to that conclusion because she seemed uncertain about what they could
or could not do, and it seemed as though she expected a less severe outcome.
Perhaps I was reading into it incorrectly.

It was dangerous as she could have been injured, detained at length, and
possibly put on some kind of "harass this troublemaker anytime she steps into
a security line" type of list. That her constitutional rights might be
violated is almost a guarantee, although that wording is perhaps incorrect
since you don't have those rights in an airport.

I agree the situation is sad.

It wasn't just a simple delay. It was a public disturbance. She was yelling
out, causing a scene, being dragged around, etc. Seems to me that people
planning mischief often set up a decoy disturbance. This seemed like exactly
the type of disturbance one would plan deliberately as a decoy for another
operation.

------
quanticle
Some 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/>

~~~
felipellrocha
Likewise, 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_
It is a woman, but simply having a husband doesn't imply that.

------
georgemcbay
'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.

------
cafard
Should 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
The 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
Quite. 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
"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 :)

------
NIL8
Very 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.

------
maeon3
Without 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.

------
BryanB55
I 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.

~~~
rabidonrails
I 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."

~~~
jebblue
>> which she sees violations to the Constitution

If she disgrees then she should organize and conduct a legal protest.

~~~
rayiner
Legally, this _was_ a legal protest.

~~~
jebblue
How was it legal?

------
maxklein
For 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.

~~~
jasonlotito
Yeah, 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!

~~~
ericflo
Actually lots of schools have metal detectors now at all the entrances.

~~~
waqf
Actually lots of _American_ schools have metal detectors now at all the
entrances.

