TSA Detention Is No Joke

Washington Post via Drudge ^ | Monday, February 23, 2004; | Al Kamen

[jjm2111]

[Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch was lead away in handcuffs for saying his cat was NOT a bomb]

According to another waiting passenger nearby, Klayman told the screeners that the cat wasn't a terrorist and didn't have a bomb. With that, we're told, he was instantly taken out of line by the security people and put in handcuffs.

He was then apparently taken somewhere for questioning, where agents most likely didn't recognize him or realize that he was famous. He was eventually released, and he hopped a later flight.

"It wasn't a funny joke," Klayman said last week, rejecting our efforts to talk about the surgical removal of the agents' senses of humor. "I apologized for it. I support what the TSA is doing, and I should have been more sensitive. I was tired, and it was the end of the day."

Asked about the cuffs and the questioning, Klayman declined to go into detail, though he confirmed he had to take a later flight to Fort Lauderdale.

Well, beats Guantanamo.

[jjm2111]

TSA is out of control.

[ClintonBeGone]

He was then apparently taken somewhere for questioning, where agents most likely didn't recognize him or realize that he was famous. He was eventually released, and he hopped a later flight.

So is Larry Klayman. If only they could have kept him in shackles until after the Florida Senate election.

[dirtboy]

TSA is out of control.

Sorry, but any joke or reference to a bomb was a serious air security matter long before TSA came into existence.

[Wheee The People]

Boy do I wish they would keep him...put him on a bus, lose his paperwork - forever. Klayman is a pox on the earth.

[Modernman]

Sorry, but any joke or reference to a bomb was a serious air security matter long before TSA came into existence.

It's a silly rule. How does it in any way increase security? Would a real terrorist actually joke about the bomb he was carrying on the plane?

Our security measures are still a joke. Little rules like this are meant to make people feel better, but they do nothing to increase security and chip away at Americans' freedoms.

[theDentist]

"...agents most likely didn't recognize him or realize that he was famous."

What's fame got to do with it? Fame isn't a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, for liberals or conservatibes or middle-of-the-roaders. Say something stupid like that while getting on a plane and expect to be jerked out of line.

TSA did it's job. Good for them.

[dirtboy]

It's a silly rule. How does it in any way increase security? Would a real terrorist actually joke about the bomb he was carrying on the plane?

A terrorist might not, but a nutbar well could - and the rule is not just about jokes, but ANY mention of a potential bombing or terror act. And, no matter what one thinks of the validity of the rule, it was in place long before the creation of TSA, which means this story does not support the poster's assertion that TSA is out of control. Even Klayman said he was in the wrong here.

[Daus]

where agents most likely didn't recognize him or realize that he was famous.

Famous? I didn't realize that either. :)

[PBRSTREETGANG]

He was then apparently taken somewhere for questioning, where agents most likely didn't recognize him or realize that he was famous.

TSA can be faulted for a lot of things, but failure to recognize the "famous" Larry Klayman is not one of them.

[jjm2111]

He said he *DIDN'T* have a bomb and his cat was *NOT* a terrorist. It wasn't funny, but it was not like he was joking that he *did* have a bomb.

My problem w/ the whole thing is the screener should have said, "Sir, I understand your probably tired and cranky, but please don't mention the word 'bomb' even in the negative, and just comply w/ the procedures."

Slapping him in handcuffs was ridiculous.

I really don't like dealing w/ TSA, but it's easy; polite but authoritative. Don't give them any crap, but don't take any either.

[blackdog]

I've noticed a pattern with airport security which could be quite dangerous.

Any person who say's anything which triggers the focus of screeners/security seems to create a signifigant diversion. I've seen this several times.

They treat that screening area like a gateway and have an inability to do much outside that geographic area. This is proven when a screener gets troubled about something and shuts down an entire terminal because one person got thru and the screeners can't leave their posts to follow up on the passenger.

I saw an old lady in a bad mood draw the eyes and ears of every TSA worker in a steadily paced manner. They all stopped looking elsewhere.

I've seen or heard of no plain clothes or undercover security folk dispersed with regular passengers inside the terminal after that checkpoint.

Klayman's cat, or a simply staged diversion, maybe three deep seems to be a real weakness in the process.

[BCrago66]

One thing that Al Kamen got wrong: The rule about never joking about hijacking or explosives preceded the TSA.

[Labyrinthos]

TSA is out of control.

They must be doing something right because I can't recall a post 09.11 hijacking. Is the TSA perfect? No! Out of control? Hardly. BTW, I think LK is only famous in his own mind. Outside of his own organization, Drudge, and Free Republic, I bet the vast, vast majority of people have absolutely no idea who he is.

[jjm2111]

Read Dominate. Intimdate. Control. It's on FR. Will you be subject to Gestapo like treatment most of the time? Probably not. But there are severe deficiencies in TSA procedures and training.

[xjcsa]

OK here's the deal...

1. One reason such comments (even in the negative) are always taken seriously is that nobody at the checkpoint wants to ignore it, miss something that allows a plane to be blown up, and then have to blow his own brains out later that day. Comments in the affirmative are taken MUCH MORE seriously and are in themselves a criminal act.

2. In this case, Larry wasn't really detained because anybody thought he was a serious terrorist threat. He was detained for being an idiot. Who hasn't wanted to give somebody a hard time for being an idiot? He wasn't thrown in jail; he wasn't charged with a crime. He was inconvenienced and embarrassed, which is exactly what he deserved for acting like an idiot.

People seem to always check their brains at the front door of an airport; I've never understood it, but it gets annoying. Back well before 9/11, when we were still asking the questions at luggage check (has anyone given you anything, etc.), I had a guy say "yeah, a big bag of bombs, heh heh." Back then, it resulted in an interview with police and a dump-search of his luggage, along with a vicious tongue-lashing from me; he did however get to fly. Today he'd do real time.

[Old Professer]

What do you suppose they would have done with Schroedinger's Cat?

[Atlas Sneezed]

The unasked question is whether this prohibition on saying the "B" word at airports has any REAL safety benefit. As if the hypothetical terrorists would really be chatting about it in line at security.

Where is the evidence that chatting about bombs correlates with actual bombings?

This reeks of the rest of the TSA's ineffectual show efforts that provide no real security.

[JohnnyZ]

TSA can be faulted for a lot of things, but failure to recognize the "famous" Larry Klayman is not one of them.

Heck, I'm a political junkie and I wouldn't recognize Klayman. Unless he was serving me with papers or . . .

[Atlas Sneezed]

To amplify my point, there are three options for airport jokers:

1. Punish them (with fine, prison, denying travel presently and/or in the future).

2. Harrass, threaten, and frighten them into never doing this again.

3. Briefly admonish them about how they are making security more difficult, and rescreen them with heightened sensitivity.

Which of these will improve security?

#1 and 2 will stop an indivudual from joking again, but this will not change the number of bombers that get through, nor those from the multitudes who will be the next joker.

#2 is fun for the police-state-thugs to show whose turf the subjects are on, but has no effect on security.

#3 is no fun for the thugs, but actually addresses the hypothetical risk that those who make such comments are more likely to be a threat than an average passanger. (And if they are not an increased risk, then such jokes should be ignored, and the screening should be relied upon.)

[JohnnyZ]

Klayman's cat, or a simply staged diversion, maybe three deep seems to be a real weakness in the process.

Are you accusing Larry Klayman's cat of being part of an international terrorist conspiracy?