Monica Emmerson was trying to catch a flight at Reagan National Airport with her husband and their small child (I have read that the child is aged 18-, 19- and 20-months, by different sources). While going through a security checkpoint, she was questioned about the liquid contents of her child’s sippy cup. The events that followed tell me that the terrorists may have won, with or without a timetable for our troops’ withdrawal from the Middle East. You can read Emmerson’s account of the events at BoingBoing or at NowPublic.com. There is a little more Truthy, too and at The Washington Post.
Sometimes I wonder if I should be looking forward to travelling to Alaska, or if I should dread it because of the visits to the airports.
Yes they have won. The fourth amendemnt has now been superceeded by TSA.
What was the probable cause - trying to travel?
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Not that I agree with how the airline industry works, but don’t you agree to be “searched” and what not when you purchase your airline ticket? They don’t need probable cause if you say, “Hey, I give you permission to search me.”
In most of the world, a passenger must pass through a security checkpoint before boarding a plane. In the US, this typically means walking through a metal detector and having your luggage screened via X-ray. In addition to the metal detector and X-ray screening, new “security measures” at checkpoints have included the laughable requirement that all liquids and gels must now be contained in a clear plastic bag.
While security is important, arbitrary requirements only serve to annoy travelers, not to protect them. They do not inhibit terrorism. One of the problems with the so-called “security measures” is that they fail to take into account the willingness of a terrorist to die to achieve his objective.
I will submit to a reasonable search of my person and my belongings, but I would think the process of objecting to an unreasonable search is probably just as unreasonable as the search itself. When subjected to an unreasonable search or request at an airport security checkpoint, what can you do?
I agree completely that many of the restrictions that airlines employ are ridiculous, including the liquids and gels requirement. The idea that a sippy-cup of water would be dangerous is absolutely ridiculous.
But…everybody who has flown, or even just watches the news every now and then, knows about the airline restrictions. My first time flying after they instituted the “no liquids or gels” policy was I think about 6 months ago, and I had heard about the policy but had forgotten about it that morning when I packed. I had all my hygenic supplies in my carry-on, so when they scanned my bag they made me throw out my mousse, toothpaste, etc. I consider it my own fault for having those items on my person, as I knew about the rule and I should have taken it into account. I’ve taken 3 trips since then, and during almost every security checkpoint there is someone with a liquid or gel, sometimes the people throw a hissy fit, sometimes they go the peaceful route like I did. I tend not to have sympathy for these people either way simply because the restrictions are not a secret. They are made very clear at all points leading to the security checkpoint, and they are something you agree to by purchasing your ticket.
Don’t get me wrong, the way that they treated this woman was certainly unreasonable. But I don’t find the search or seizure of the water in the first place unreasonable, just stupid.
I read the Boing Boing version, and it seems one sided. I can believe that the TSA officers were heavy handed. I can also believe that the woman’s story understated her contribution to the situation.
On the larger point about being reasonable, I am not sure I want screeners deciding what should be let through and what should not.
Safety records, especially at O’Hare, have been bad for many years. Tightened security, even if it means some inconvenienced fliers, is necessary.
The other over-arching theme in the comments is that this is a sign of excessive government intrusion. If I have a motto, it is “leave me alone.” Nonetheless, I understand that if I choose to fly, I must submit to a search. If I am carrying something suspicious, I can be detained until TSA satisfy themselves that I am not doing anything illegal.
In the end, it is likely both sides of this controversy misbehaved. The stress of traveling with a child probably caused the mother to overreact, and the TSA folks overreacted to that. We’ll probably never know whether the woman spilled the water on purpose or if the TSA officer order her to clean it up, but I think that TSA employees should be given at least enough benefit of the doubt to reserve judgment. These are human beings who will make mistakes. I would rather these mistakes include keeping sippy cups off planes rather than letting explosives on.
Ultimately, my answer to the title question of this post depends on the standard. If letting the terrorists win means the Bill of Rights has been thrown out, no, this story demonstrates nothing of the kind. If it means we annoy people by infringing on their “rights” to keep their shoes on at the airport, to bring liquids on planes, and to free from idiots working security, I guess maybe they have.
@Rich: You and I both know that the various accounts are presented with a bias. I may not have said so, but I do not think that either side is without blame. I agree with you that both sides reacted to something the other side did
To put to bed my answer to the title question, I do not think that the terrorists have won. Frankly, I do not think that they can win, but I do find it terrible that there are forces at work taking advantage of the situation.
I don’t honestly believe that there is some conspiracy, myself, but it is certainly fun to joke about it. (Isn’t it? Aren’t I?) What I would like to see is consistency and reason when making the seemingly random security requirements. To me, it is stupid to make a requirement such as forbidding liquids to be brought through a security checkpoint, only to make an exception for medications and baby formula. If I wanted to get through security with something bad, I would disguise it as something that is allowed. When someone blows up a plane with baby formula, the line will move back. Then when someone blows up another plane with insulin, the line will move back once again.
I am not saying that making public policy is in any way easy, but I would hope we could do better than this.