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.
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.
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?
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.
I 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.
A woman was terrified of the relatively minor consequences of speaking loudly in an airport. She did it anyway because she knew she should be allowed to. And we all learned a valuable lesson: our government and the airline industry allow innocent civilians to be subjected to abuse and detainment if they don't silently obey all commands regardless of how stupid they are.
This woman's efforts show everyone just how inhuman and wrong the system is. She can't change the system by herself. But if more people like her show up, maybe, just maybe, it can make a difference.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion that her efforts will have no positive impact. What you may be trying to say is that her actions alone will not change the law, and that is true. It may also be true that she is a lunatic, but that does not change her status as a citizen and is, therefore, irrelevant. Since civil disobedience may involve breaking the law in order to demonstrate injustice, whether she broke the law or not is also irrelevant.
Rosa Parks has been mentioned before. Her civil disobedience was not the first of its kind in the fight for civil rights. It was not even the first of its kind involving the bus laws. She is famous for having been the last such incident before the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
I believe this woman's actions in demonstration against the TSA will be one of many that plant a seed. I also mention her because part of her story sounds eerily familiar.
"Two policemen came on the bus and one asked me if the driver had told me to stand and I said, 'Yes.' And he wanted to know why I didn't stand, and I told him I didn't think I should have to stand up. And then I asked him, why did they push us around? And he said, and I quote him, 'I don't know, but the law is the law and you are under arrest.'" - http://achievement.org/autodoc/page/par0int-1
the side asking for the change has to appear blameless.
Right there, you have your finger on the rot. First, why should there be sides? Second, why is it important to appear blameless instead of appearing right?
You are correct; the federal government is rotten.
In any conflict, there are multiple sides, otherwise the conflict wouldn't exist. If the TSA had been designed with the intent of finding ways of protecting us while at the same time ensuring that the protective measures don't violate our constitutional rights, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the TSA had been staffed with competent, compassionate human beings, there would be no conflict.
You and I may view things in terms or right or wrong, but bureaucrats don't. The government is rotten because we keep electing rotten people to rule over us. Isolated efforts to fight the TSA will do far less than an organized political movement.
People need to organize and take action as a collective. Just look at what happened to godaddy and you can begin to understand.
>If you want to convince them to get rid of the TSA, the side asking for the change has to appear blameless.
Is this workable? People, and specially governments, can find blame in so many ways that you can't convince them of anything unless they are forced or they realise it themselves. (In my country, protestors against massive corruption are framed for minor things they did in past and both media and government repeatedly use those points to distract masses from main issues.)
It appears to me that the lady was trying to convince others of the unreasonableness of the process. That is one of ways of democracy. Do you think "jared" will have something to think about? Do you think "the old goat" will be somewhat careful next time? Will somebody in public or those reading her blog see her point? I do think so and that is a positive impact, however small it is.
You have suggested other channels. The most obvious is voting, other is organised protest. The lady is trying to tell people that it may not be good idea to subject oneself to such procedures, and in a way creating a mass for the organised protests or cohesive votings to happen.
And for her personal courage I am inspired: she knows that she is going to appear a fool to others, she sweats, she knows that it can lead her to physical, financial problems, but she is risking because it is a step ahead.
ps: personally I don't think politicians take note unless there is a mass protest against some existing law, so to ask an individual to use other channels is unreasonable.
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.
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.
Under her profile on that website it stated that she was a writer. Maybe she's a doctor too.
You are correct that I cannot tell what another person is thinking. I formed my opinion based on the impression I got from reading her article. Due to the nature of the topic it should be a given that anything stated is an opinion unless someone specifically claims to be quoting a law or statistic.
"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.
The sad thing is not that she didn't "go through the proper channels," the sad thing about this story is that the passengers in line behind her were more worried about missing their flights and started to yell at her to quit holding up the line.
I would love to see something like this happen, then every passenger after her refuse the scanner and recite the 4th amendment while being pat-down. Sadly, this will never happen, as 90% of those in line probably don't even know what the 4th amendment is, much less have the words memorized.
After having been accused of being opposed to civil disobedience, your post gave me a way to express how I feel civil disobedience is supposed to work.
If a large number of people started opting for the alternate method of screening passengers, it would bring the process of screening to a screeching halt, yet all would remain well within their rights. If these people complied with the alternate method, without attempting to provoke or harass the TSA, no one would have been arrested.
If you can piss the government off, without putting yourself at risk, then you have mastered the fine art of civil disobedience.
> 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.
> 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.
OF 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.
That being the case, her treatment was for resisting the search, not reciting the constitution. Reciting the constitution was merely how she resisted the search.
I'm not claiming that the amendment is not meaningful. I'm pointing out how the amendment's meaning is relevant to what happened. The original article makes it clear that the reciter didn't understand that relevance.
BTW I haven't written anything about the legitimacy of TSA searches so your presumptions along those lines are unfounded and insulting. And, before you presume to teach me something, learn the difference between recite and read. (Hint - she did the former, not the latter.)
You seemed to think that those "quibbles" were important when you thought that they supported your position, so surely they're just as important when they don't.
She misrepresented what she did.
BTW - Comparing what she did with King cheapens King.
> Suppose she had started reciting[1] the 10 commandments or jabberwocky? Would you have had the same reaction?
I suspect she would have gotten the same reaction, or something very near to it. When being herded through a TSA checkpoint, the last thing they want you doing is yelling.
