Screener admits move was retaliatory and had nothing to do with security
Paul Joseph Watson
A TSA screener admitted to a woman traveling through Houston Airport that she was prevented from boarding her flight for retaliatory reasons as punishment for a bad attitude rather than any genuine security threat, after the woman refused to allow TSA agents to test her drink for explosives.
The audio and video in the clip above is scratchy, but the woman is heard saying, “Let me get this straight, this is retaliatory for my attitude, this is not making the airways safer it’s retaliatory.”
“It pretty much definitely is,” the TSA screener responds.
The incident began when the woman refused to allow TSA agents to carry out a controversial policy where they test drinks for explosives that are purchased by passengers after they have already passed through security.
“This was inside the terminal at the Houston airport,” the woman writes on her You Tube channel. “I was not allowed to board a plane (even though I had already been through airport security) because I drank my water instead of letting the TSA “test” it. The TSA agent finally admitted that it wasn’t because they thought I was a security risk – it was because they were mad at me!”
The new policy, which as we highlighted is completely pointless and unnecessary, was back in the headlines earlier this week after the Drudge Report posted an Infowars story featuring a video which showed TSA screeners testing drinks in the departure lounge at Columbus Ohio Airport.
After the story went viral, the TSA responded on its official Twitter feed by re-posting a TSA blog response from July which claimed the procedure was “business as usual.” As we documented, the response was a glib attempt to brush aside the story and completely failed to justify the reasoning behind the policy.
The fact that the TSA screener admits the woman is being punished for her attitude confirms the premise that many of the TSA’s security procedures actually have nothing to do with safety and are more a form of obedience training for the general public.
Another example can be cited in the context of reports that travelers are being punished with more invasive pat downs if they refuse to pass through radiation-firing body scanners.
As Consumer Traveler’s Charlie Leocha reported last month, “When meeting with privacy officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and TSA later that month, I was told unofficially that there were two standards of pat-downs. One for the normal situation where passengers are going through metal detectors and a different pat-down for those who refuse to go through the whole-body scanners.”
“With this latest announcement, TSA admits that it has been clandestinely punishing passengers for refusing to go through the invasive whole-body scans with an even more intrusive aggressive pat-down and that soon those more invasive pat-down will creep from airport to airport,” adds Leocha.
A third example of obedience training that has nothing to do with genuine security is the TSA’s policy of ordering travelers to “freeze” on command when they are lined up at the security checkpoint.