Terrorist? You decide.
Hat-tip Donna Woodka.
Update: Cannablog is pleased to join the sippy cup anti-massacre movement.
Update 2: Wow! in the comments below, suggests watching this:
Update 3: A commenter points out that if it had been milk in the sippy cup instead of water…:
As for milk, milk, formula and juice are allowed… perhaps you and Monica Emmerson need to read the rules. These are the same rules that guided my wife and I and we have had nary a problem with sippy cups. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/formula.shtm
Though I’m not sure, on reading these rules it only seems to say she could have milk or juice in the carry-on, not necessarily in the sippy cup, and not water. You have to be very careful reading these rules… I think if Monica had just said it was “nursery water” in the sippy cup they’d have let her go through without hassle, because they were trying to say it was okay if it was milk.
cannablog 
June 15, 2007 at 1:21 pm
TSA has posted the surveillance video footage and incident report to http://www.tsa.gov . Check it out and decide what you think!
June 15, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Thank you Becca, I watched the video footage.
If you are going to secure the airports, you cannot let your entire staff be distracted by a woman with a baby.
June 16, 2007 at 11:22 am
Monica Emmerson is now a confirmed LIAR.
June 16, 2007 at 12:21 pm
The thing that gets me the most is how the public opinion so quickly sides with this woman just because she’s a mom with a kid. The video shows all. She intentionally poured the contents of the sippy cup on the floor in front of the TSA agent and attempted to proceed through to the gate. What the heck?!?!
And what is her excuse? “Do you know who I am?” yada..yada..yada.
It sickens me to hear that she tried leveraging her status as a Secret Service agent. Who gives a rat’s a** who you are. If you’re not on duty, you are like everone else.
Kudos to the TSA officers for doing their job indiscriminately and for standing their ground. It definitely make me feel safer to know that they take their job seriously.
June 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I didn’t see any confirmation of any lies, Paul. Her description of the encounter sounds credible from her perspective, she seemed upset and your staff let her clean the floors while other passengers went past.
That was awfully humiliating for her, I’m sure.
And meantime, you diverted your resources to pay attention to her to the exclusion of everyone else.
June 16, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Bumbata, do you think this woman seemed like a threat to airline safety?
June 16, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Another hormonal lying bitch rants off at the world around her.
Shocking.
June 16, 2007 at 1:30 pm
That kind of misogyny is simply inappropriate, Joe.
June 16, 2007 at 1:42 pm
so is taking people at their word when they are obviously LYING and have a personal agenda and engage in vendetta against their perceived foes.
June 16, 2007 at 2:32 pm
What lies? You are ranting.
June 16, 2007 at 5:20 pm
view the video guys! first let me start by saying liquids are not permitted through the security checkpoint and the last time i checked water is a liquid. come on people 9-11 remember! i can not tell you what a terrorist looks like. can you? not to mention she intentionally poured the water on the floor in front of TSA and the police officer but it’s ok she’s a secret service officer. what a joke!
June 16, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Wow, you guys are really pulling out the stops on this. I watched the video, and you haven’t responded to my questions.
Why should airline passengers be terrorized, and do you think that this woman deserved to be treated as a cleaning lady?
June 16, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Whig- while she is not a threat to america the issue is that she deliberatly poured water on the ground in a busy airport intentionally leaving it there for whoever to slip on. Manors? If I were to even do something with such disregard for the public and insult to the employees there because i’m a secret service agent and should be exepmt, those agents and law enforcement are held to higher standards. Plus i’m sure the mother would tell her son if he spilled something on the floor in her home on accident or not to clean it up right?
June 16, 2007 at 8:53 pm
IAMME, I wouldn’t presume to discern intent on her part, she was upset.
Do you think it is the job of
airport securitythe TSA to teach passengers good manners?June 16, 2007 at 9:30 pm
This woman was definitely lying. If you saw the video, you saw her purposely and angrily dump the water out. You also saw that it took her over a dozen paper towels to clean it up!! I have a sippy-cup-kid, and that was really a big mess. In the video, you see her obvious hostility and disrespect for the ‘common people’. Thank you TSA for not discriminating between people who may look like a danger and people who do not.
June 16, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Purposely and angrily. Well, what would you charge her with?
Why wasn’t she charged with a crime? — she didn’t commit one.
June 16, 2007 at 10:03 pm
NO! THATS SOMETHING THAT A WOMAN HER AGE, ESPECIALLY A MOTHER WITH CHILD SHOULD ALREADY HAVE. OF COURSE SHE IS UPSET BUT IT WAS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR TO DELIBERATLY POUR WATER ON THE GROUND FOR THE REST OF THE TRAVELING PUBLIC TO WALK THROUGH. BUT WHO AM I TO SAY ANYTHING? THINK ABOUT IT WHIG REALLY THINK ABOUT THE SITUATION AS A WHOLE PLEASE
June 16, 2007 at 10:05 pm
If I might change the subject a bit, when is Osama Bin Laden going to be charged with a crime? I mean, if we’re going to prosecute terrorists isn’t that kind of an obvious first step, assuming we have good evidence?
June 16, 2007 at 10:05 pm
DISORDERLY CONDUCT
June 16, 2007 at 10:08 pm
IAMME, please use upper and lower case letters when typing. It comes across as SHOUTING when you use ALLCAPS like that.
You might have a point in saying that this lady was rude, I don’t know as there wasn’t audio associated with the video, and it would be something to be taken in testimony if you wanted to prosecute her.
Is she being charged with a crime?
June 16, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Disorderly conduct, that would be a citation, correct?
Does the TSA have some authority to issue citations?
June 16, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Do you want me to convict her without a trial?
June 16, 2007 at 11:11 pm
whig — i am guessing you are either monica or her fiancee… or you would behave exactly as this woman did under the circumstance…
All i can say is Shame on her …
America knows her to be a liar now… what a poor example she sets for her children…
You can defend all u want… — the video makes things pretty obvious… — so stop trying to cover the lies..
June 16, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Rita, if you think that I might be Monica or her fiancé, I don’t think you are having a very grounded sense of reality here.
June 17, 2007 at 2:12 am
Silly wench got busted and that’s it.
Former secret service agent?! Ha! If anyone should know liquids aren’t allowed, then it should be her………..so what was her game?
Did she intend on getting it through and then accuse the airport of lax security?
She should have been charged with disrupting airport and police security/duties. She diverted all that security to herself and could have caused weaknesses elsewhere in the system resulting in something actually dangerous getting through.
As a secret service agent, would she have allowed someone like herself through a security line for the president or other official?
June 17, 2007 at 2:44 am
Should we judge her on the basis of her occupation?
She should have known better?
Has she been charged with anything?
June 17, 2007 at 3:31 am
“Should we judge her on the basis of her occupation?”
Somewhat. She should have known better than others.
“She should have known better?”
Secret service agent? I would think so!
“Has she been charged with anything?”
Apparently not. Probably gave her a break for cleaning up her own mess. She could have made more of a fuss and would have likely been arrested.
June 17, 2007 at 3:38 am
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/
According to this independent source, liquids are NOT a threat! Whether she lied or not this is a stupid policy. It is a big waste of time and needs to be abandoned so the TSA can focus on real threats.
June 17, 2007 at 7:01 am
Good! then we can all carry hydrogen peroxide and gasoline on aircraft.
June 17, 2007 at 9:03 am
Whig, you are just as much an idiot as this self important bitch is. Stop defending something that you and the whole world know is wrong. If I had seen her doing that, I would have stopped to find out what her problem was, and I guarantee that she would have been a bitch to me too.
June 17, 2007 at 9:53 am
Why has this become such a big focus? We are all subject to the TSA rules and regulations for our safety as a result of 911…HAD she been a threat and done something to the safety of the public would there be any discussion–no…we would be criticizing TSA for not regulating the rules on everyone..so why should we take a chance on safety?
June 17, 2007 at 10:03 am
Dear TSA folks who are posting here.
Stop whining about this. You have to accept that you are going to be criticized by people.
If you believed that this passenger was a threat to airline safety, you would be right to have stopped her from boarding a plane. There seems to be a consensus that she was not a threat, and she was allowed to board a later plane.
If you believed she was guilty of a crime, even a summary charge of disorderly conduct could have been filed by an appropriate authority. While the TSA may lack the ability to issue citations, local law enforcement could have been asked to do so.
If you do not charge her with a crime, suck it up.
What a bunch of whiny crybabies.
June 17, 2007 at 10:09 am
Also, John — it was water. Not hydrogen peroxide or gasoline. It was water in a sippy cup. Does that terrify you?
June 17, 2007 at 10:17 am
I would like to point out to Sergio and others who refer to this passenger as a “bitch” that I discount your testimony as biased by such language. You should be more professional.
June 17, 2007 at 10:19 am
Wyleeguy, thanks for the link.
June 17, 2007 at 10:46 am
Incidentally, Wyleeguy, I saw you’re moving to Berkeley soon. I’ve been here almost a year.
June 17, 2007 at 10:48 am
To whomever can answer: How are unknown liquids more dangerous than unknown solids?
June 17, 2007 at 10:52 am
And what about laptop batteries?
June 17, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Wow. My 2 year old is better behaved. This woman should be embarrassed and ashamed of her behavior. Yet, instead she glows in her infamy. I don’t see where TSA did anything wrong…other than letting the whole thing drag out for almost 10 min. Once she dumped the water, her butt should have been hauled off and ticketed for disorderly conduct and if there is such a ticket…creating a hazard to the public. Think of some poor elderly lady slipping on the water, busting a hip and never walking right again. This isn’t about Monica…it is about keeping the public safe.
June 17, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Justamom, if she should have been cited and was not, then was it a dereliction?
June 17, 2007 at 1:36 pm
She spilled the water interntionally, and lied. I completely agree with Doctor1 and Justamom.
June 17, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Do we convict people without trials now, RM1?
June 17, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Interesting that the TSA apologists haven’t told us what threat an empty sippy cup presents…
June 17, 2007 at 2:08 pm
The sippy cup was obviously made of plastique and she had a det cord smuggled inside her clothing.
June 17, 2007 at 2:10 pm
If you saw the video, you saw her purposely and angrily dump the water out.
OH MY GOD! WHY ISN’T SHE IN GITMO?
personally, i don’t care what happened after the TSA goons intercepted the dangerous sippy cup. by that time, the damage was done.
which is why you should all join the great sippy cup anti-massacre movement
June 17, 2007 at 2:11 pm
It is a threat to “good order” from their perspective, I think. That is the nature of a disorderly conduct citation, which they seem to be advocating.
June 17, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“This isn’t about Monica…it is about keeping the public safe.”
Safe from a sippy cup. I love how my tax dollars are being spent.
June 17, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Okay, Cannablog is now part of the sippy cup anti-massacre movement.
June 17, 2007 at 2:30 pm
With musical accompaniment.
June 17, 2007 at 2:47 pm
whig seems consumed with this topic. Didn’t Shakespeare say something about protesting too much? Regardless, Monica is clearly in the wrong and should be absolutely ashamed to show her face in public, not to mention her son’s face as well. What kind of woman/mother is she??? I think we can all agree that there are specific guidelines that everyone must follow in order to clear TSA checkpoints at airports. If some fool wants to challenge those guidelines/rules, then they are just asking for it. And then to throw a temper tantrum to boot. Tsk tsk Monica. As far as flashing previous secret service credentials and expecting to be treated with any leniency….come on Monica! Did you also try to get through TSA with an expired driver’s license? If you want to redeem yourself in any way in the public eye, take an additional 15 minutes of fame, suck it up, cry for the cameras and try to convince us all how seriously sorrowful you are for your actions. Oh, and apologize to the TSA officers who were just doing their job.
Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with the TSA, any airport or airline, nor do I travel more than perhaps 1 time a year.
June 17, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I think we can all agree that there are specific guidelines that everyone must follow in order to clear TSA checkpoints at airports.
Indeed, there are. And she volunteered to follow them.
But take a step further back, THE GUIDELINES ARE FUCKING INSANE. Are you such cowardly sheep that you must follow authority because they say “trust us, this is for you own good?” SIPPY CUPS?
And people wonder why Weimar fell…
June 17, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Disclaimer: I travel all the goddamned time, at least have until I quit my travel-heavy job to engage in civil resistance against the regime this summer.
June 17, 2007 at 2:58 pm
She volunteered to challenge them. Had she chosen to follow them, she would not have tried to clear the checkpoint with a sippy cup containing water.
June 17, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I’m just looking at the video. Conflicts such as this usually could “always have been handled better.” But for her to say that she “accidentally” spilled the water when the video footage shows otherwise is rather compelling evidence.
June 17, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Perhaps it could have been handled better on her part too, RM1. Does it rise to a criminal matter?
June 17, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I mean, I understand these TSA people are having a bad day at the office, and that sucks for them too. The rules are bad, you are trying to do an impossible job.
June 17, 2007 at 3:08 pm
whig, does it matter?? Seriously, what the heck does criminal anything have to do with this? She brought it on herself by her behavior, then lied about it. OH, I get it, your asking if she should be charged for lying. In that case, absolutely!
June 17, 2007 at 3:13 pm
STM, you would charge her with lying to whom?
June 17, 2007 at 3:14 pm
whig, lighten up….that was sarcasm. GEEZ!
June 17, 2007 at 3:20 pm
this is insane. TSA is nothing but small-minded nazis on power trips. What senseless bullshit, that a blond American woman with a child is a security risk, and that water in a sippy cup is dangerous. All of you defending tSA’s unprofessional, childish asshole behavior are now Good Germans, and when you’re working on road gangs in chains, you’ll be reall happy with this fascistic treatment, right?
June 17, 2007 at 3:27 pm
You know, I stopped taking the TSA’s ability to root out terrorism seriously when I saw them doing a secondary screening on a little old white-haired lady in a purple pantsuit using a walker last August.
I remember saying to my parents, who had come to collect me from the airport, “Get me out of here before I say something that gets all of us arrested.”
I’d rather drive than turn myself over to the tender mercies of the TSA. You TSA enforcers are making your “profession” into laughingstocks.
June 17, 2007 at 3:28 pm
So ronjazz, what exactly does a terrorist look like? Or better yet, if I am a slender blonde with a toddler in tote, I am somehow mentally stable and could not possibly pose a threat of any sort to anyone, especially on a small enclosed metal vehicle. Wow, that is so reassuring to know. I will be sure an dye my hair and kidnap a small child before I get on my next flight.
June 17, 2007 at 3:39 pm
STM, it wouldn’t be very smart to kidnap a child. That is a federal crime.
June 17, 2007 at 3:39 pm
WHIG,RITA and others: here are a some clarifications on a few things…..she is retired secret service due to disability, she is not engaged nor married, and that is her only child
June 17, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Nooneyouknow, where did you obtain this information?
June 17, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Yes, kidnapping is a crime; as I stated, I am smarter than monica. Point was, since I have to spell it out for you whig, that a blonde woman with a toddler is somehow less suspect than say……a middle eastern man with a beard carrying a Koran.
June 17, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Because she is blonde mom with a kid, she is categorically immune from causing any harm to the general public? Should she get a free pass through security? She escalated the situation herself by clearly dumping out the water onto the floor, and pulling out her expired SS credentials (impersonating a federal officer is a crime) could be punishable.
June 17, 2007 at 3:49 pm
STM, do you think Monica was a threat to airline security?
June 17, 2007 at 3:51 pm
doesn’t matter where….i just wanted to clarify so people are not misinformed
June 17, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Yes, whig, I do think she was a threat to the traveling public. She woefully disregarded established TSA policy regarding checkpoint security. How many other innocent people were delayed to their flight because of her antics? She purposefully poured water on the floor which could have caused anyone to slip and fall(perhaps one the people delayed behind her running to catch their plane. And the cherry on top is she went public and lied! And you want to defend this person? What part of “accept the consequences of your actions” do you not get?
June 17, 2007 at 3:57 pm
It does matter where. Are you accessing particular databases or is this public domain information you found by searching the net?
June 17, 2007 at 4:00 pm
i know her personally and although i do not condone what i have heard happened, nor was i there to tell the story myself, i do not want people assuming things about her background or personal information- that’s all
June 17, 2007 at 4:00 pm
STM, what consequences would you impose?
June 17, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Thank you noone.
June 17, 2007 at 4:01 pm
is that sincere?
June 17, 2007 at 4:02 pm
A public flogging. Sorta like what she is getting. And banned from air travel until her child is 18. And her taking to the airwaves again and giving her best Oscar performance on how wrong she was, how sorry she is and what a bad day she was having since we all know how difficult it is to travel with children. How’s that?
June 17, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Noone, I appreciate your answer. That’s what I’m saying.
June 17, 2007 at 4:05 pm
STM, you want her to sing and dance for you?
June 17, 2007 at 4:06 pm
well thank you….i am curious as to who you are though and why you feel so strongly
June 17, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Look around the blog. I write about a lot of things.
June 17, 2007 at 4:17 pm
yes…now i see that….i’m new to this whole thing but when it happens to someone in your family, you being to peek around!
June 17, 2007 at 4:17 pm
begin* sorry
June 17, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Welcome. It’s a nice community we’ve got here, lots of blogs linking together. Check the blogroll to find lots of other good sites.
June 17, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Now, whig, that would just be silly. And it would give her more time than she deserves to be in the public eye. Just an acknowledgement that she was wrong should suffice. But thanks for asking.
June 17, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I think an even bigger question is why Monica still has in her possession official government identification. That demonstrates a blatant abuse of government “power” (and I use that term very loosely). Keeping them as a keepsake may be one thing, but having them readily accessible well after leaving her position at least 2 years earlier should be raising some serious questions. In fact, that may well be a crime. If found to be criminal, should she be punished? Or do you have a valid defense position for this as well?
June 17, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Oh, yeah, forgot, she is blonde and therefore immune from scrutiny.
June 17, 2007 at 5:04 pm
You are just making up charges as you go along, STM.
If she deserves to be cited or charged, please do so, or stop whining.
June 17, 2007 at 5:11 pm
“Also, John — it was water. Not hydrogen peroxide or gasoline. It was water in a sippy cup. Does that terrify you?”
I see. so as long as someone assures security that what they have is, only water, then they should trust them.
I’m sure security has plenty of time to sit around deciding which liquids are safe and which are not.
It just wouldn’t make any sense to ban all liquids to make things simpler.
June 17, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I am in no position to bring up any charges, just making an observation and wondering how many others are carrying invalid creditials and “using” them when it benefits or suits them.
It is difficult to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I will leave now and find a more worthy opponent.
June 17, 2007 at 5:16 pm
No, not when you allow laptop batteries on the plane.
It makes no sense to ban sippy cups.
June 17, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Bye STM.
June 17, 2007 at 5:35 pm
The fundamental problem is that you TSA people aren’t actually helping us be more secure. You’ve got a bunch of arbitrary rules you’re trying to force us to follow, but they don’t protect us from actual threats. The removal of our shoes is undignified and stupid, do you really believe that we should be subjected to this because Richard Reid is alleged to have been trying to light his shoe on fire with a match?
June 17, 2007 at 5:50 pm
If those security people broke any rules then they should be charged with doing so,…..or stop your whining.
June 17, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Yes sir. I’ll just shut up and let you fuck my country up.
June 17, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Well, can you tell us which rules they broke?
June 17, 2007 at 7:10 pm
First of all I would like to say they weren’t banning the sippy cup- they were banning the contents. Yes I agree that it is perhaps a stupid rule, but it does have merit. Yes I agree that allowing laptop batteries to still be permitted is unfair. I have flown twice in my entire life and yet I still know the rules, and while I might not like them making a puplic specticle of myself because I am pouting is not going to change the rules. Yes organized protestation might work but she was not behaving this way as a form of protest. She was pissed and blatantly pured the contents out. Yes it was humiliating to have her clean up the mess but it was a lesson in humility. She flashed her old credentials hoping to get leniencey but even if she were still active her behavior was inapropriate. The whole ordeal was blown out of proportion on both sides but from what I could see in the video the tsa officials were still doing their job- for instance the man who moved the other travelers out of the way so that they would not slip and fall.
June 17, 2007 at 7:16 pm
“She flashed her old credentials hoping to get leniencey……… ”
And they probably thought it was bullshit because you’d never expect another person highly trained in security procedures to act in such a way.
Makes one wonder why she’s no longer in the secret service. I’ll bet she was fired for inappropriate behaviour of some sort.
June 17, 2007 at 7:28 pm
What merit does this no liquids rule have?
None whatever.
June 17, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Everything I saw in the video put me on the side of the TSA officers. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen a woman like Monica Emmerson behave before. I see it at Whole Foods, at Saks and pretty much anywhere where the upper middle class woman is angry that she doesn’t have the life of a queen, so she’s going to abuse the working people around her.
She clearly dumped that cup of water, even shook it out to make sure it was empty! Guess what, the world is not her personal dumping ground. That was a hostile act. God knows if she would have smacked the officers or resisted them or caused any danger or harm to anyone there that day. Who cares if she is a white, blonde mother? it doesn’t mean that her spilling her water on the marbled floor isn’t going to cause an elderly person to fall and cause someone to sue the airport. She’s the kind that thinks she can slap, hit and talk down to people because they aren’t as wealthy as she is.
Honestly, how dare she? The officers weren’t enjoying it. I’m surprised they could even contain her.
This isn’t just about terrorism, it’s about following the rules and supporting equality. She could be a drug mule for all they know or feeding her baby vodka.
These people have a good reason for what they do and they have every right to continue doing it. For anyone who has taken a high school chemistry class, you know that it’s pretty important to get rid of outside liquids. I get rid of mine because I’m well prepared. And when I spill things on the floor, on purpose or not, I don’t expect other people to clean it up for me.
She was treated very appropriately. They should fine her for littering and I think no one should allow people who speak disrespectfully to airport employees. I have no doubt that she was being belligerent.
June 17, 2007 at 7:36 pm
“She could be a drug mule for all they know or feeding her baby vodka.”
Yes, she could be feeding her baby vodka. Call children and youth services at once.
June 17, 2007 at 7:41 pm
“What merit does this no liquids rule have?
None whatever.”
You really are a thick one aren’t you!?
August 10, 2006 · British authorities have arrested 24 suspects in their investigation into an alleged plan to blow up as many as 10 aircraft bound from London to the United States, using liquid chemicals carried in hand luggage.
June 17, 2007 at 7:44 pm
John, you should take a look at the link in Wyleeguy’s comment.
This was not and is not a credible threat.
June 17, 2007 at 7:50 pm
“What merit does this no liquids rule have?”
August 24 1999– On board an Uni Air McDonnell Douglas DC-9 a fire starts in an overhead luggage compartment over Hualien Taiwan. The fire was cause by the accidental ignition fumes from a bottle of household cleaner. One person died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_in_aviation
June 17, 2007 at 7:59 pm
That’s pretty remote, John.
June 17, 2007 at 8:01 pm
And we are still talking about water in a sippy cup. I’m not saying that people should be able to bring random chemicals on board. Solid or liquid makes no difference, as I said, the likelihood of exploding laptop batteries seems a higher risk.
June 17, 2007 at 8:12 pm
“That’s pretty remote, John.”
yeah, out in the middle of nowhere I guess.
And so,…………..what rules did security break?
June 17, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Did I call for disciplinary action?
June 17, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I said that you can expect people to complain, the rules are stupid. You have to be willing to take that as part of the job description.
June 17, 2007 at 8:27 pm
We’re allowed to complain, because we’re your clients. You work for us, the American people.
If you think we should understand better some of the concerns you have to face, and are allowed to talk about, then I’m certainly glad to have a discussion that people can use to improve real security. It starts with an honest assessment of risks.
Sippy cup of water = low risk.
June 17, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Monica Emmerson and her baby were absolutely positively no threat to anyone or anything other than the ego of idiots occupying our airports.
If these clowns cannot distinguish real threats from imaginary threats, they are worse than useless. For wasting time harassing secret service agents and terrorizing babies, I say fire the lot of them as an example for the rest.
These fools add NOTHING but delay to my travels. They are in no way an impediment to any intelligent terrorist or determined individual. Lets cut the BS here and call them for what they are. USELESS!
June 17, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I recently flew from LAX (Los Angeles Airport, CA) to MCI (Kansas City, Missouri Airport) with my 5 year old son, my 5 month old daughter, and my husband. As one of our carry-on bags we had, of course, a diaper bag.
I got stopped at LAX airport security where they seized two UNOPENED, FACTORY SEALED bottles of Sparkletts water. They rudely informed me that I could not pass security as water is not allowed, but that they could have an officer escort me off the grounds if I wanted to make a bottle and could then bring that through.
WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT PROVE?
I snapped back that that did me no good as a bottle is only good for up to two hours.
But seriously, where in the hell is the reasoning behind the madness? I could use THAT SAME WATER to fix her a bottle and that would go through security? Well, I feel safe now! All those terriorists have to do is pretend it’s a bottle. Thanks LAX.
Additionally, I had two bottles inside the diaper bag (Playtex Nursers with Drop-in bags) filled with 6 oz. of water in each. And I guess they didn’t catch them. Or is it that I can bring in water that’s OPEN (and could have been tampered with), but I couldn’t bring in FACTOR SEALED (OBVIOUSLY UNTAMPERED WITH) WATER????
After exclaiming how unfair it was and asking how I would be able to make my daughter a bottle (of course I didn’t tell them about the two bottles that each contained 6 oz. of water ready to mix with formula), a guy in line behind me tapped me on the shoulder and said, “You can buy water once you get inside.” I replied, “Yeah, it’s like 3 bucks for one bottle!” He said, “No, I think it’s more like 5 dollars or more.”
Then I got it……
That’s why they seized my FACTORY SEALED WATER!
They WANT ME TO NEED THEM.
The WANT ME TO HAVE TO BUY THEIR OVERPRICED PRODUCT!
How completely unfair.
Well, needless to say that because I had the two bottles, it was enough to get me through and I didn’t have to buy their OVERPRICED water afterall! So, ha!
You know, all they’d have to do is ask the customer to take a drink right in front of their eyes. Then there would be NO QUESTION that the water is truly JUST WATER.
It’s ridiculous.
I guess in the bigger scheme of things…. I can see why they need to do it. I can see that it’s a way of keeping passangers safe. BUT, at the same time, I think their system is flawed….
I got through with 12 ounces of OPENED water….afterall!
June 17, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Oh yeah, and give me a break.
Monica’s son was more than likely drinking from that cup at some point…right in front of those idiots eyes. If it were bomb liquid or whatever he wouldn’t have been ok! Get a clue people. How unreasonable…
If I were Monica I would sue those jerks!
Additionally, didn’t the fact that she was able to wipe it up herself and they carried away the wet paper towels prove that they weren’t THAT worried about what that odd looking liquid was!?!? Didn’t the baby screaming for his drink make them question it?
Those workers are mindless. They’ve been overly trained and don’t even have enough sense to question WHY. Yeah, I understand it COULD have been a danger to the other passengers, but it wasn’t. He was drinking it! Also, those workers need to take a step back and say, “why is management pushing this to the point of craziness?” I’ll tell you why….
THE BOTTOM LINE
MONEY
PROFIT
COLD HARD CASH
They want you to spend 5 bucks or more on a bottle of water that cost them about a dollar.
Crooks.
June 17, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I’m sure the TSA workers don’t make a profit on the water sales. There are certainly profit interests behind policy setting in all areas of this administration including warfare.
June 17, 2007 at 9:14 pm
One final word, because I can’t resist…
I was also able to “sneak” 12 oz. of water in ready-to-add-formula playtex bottles on my return flight at MCI (Kansas City, Missouri).
My advice to Monica…
When going through airport security, place the sippy cup inside your son’s diaper bag. For whatever reason, they don’t check it then. Only when it DOESN”T MAKE SENSE and the kid is drinking from it (and not dying). LOL.
June 17, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I didn’t say or mean to imply that the TSA workers make a profit…
However they DO IN FACT work for/at the airport who certainly IS trying to make a profit. I bet the powers that be train all newcomers in seizing liquids readily to force patrons to spend money on overpriced replacements once inside. Everyone wins, in their eyes…
TSA looks like they’re doing a great job, keeping passangers safe and sound. And the airport increases their sales because people who once brought their own drinks are now forced to purchase them.
It’s sort of like workers at Circuit City, or wherever, they try to get you to sign up for store credit, they try to get you to purchase extended warranty on the items…all to pad their own pockets…they get a comission. I’m not saying TSA gets any sort of comission, but those workers at C.City push it because their managers and their bosses push it on them….
June 17, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Thanks Karen, I understand what you are saying.
June 17, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Stop talking to yourself. It’s very obvious.
June 17, 2007 at 9:54 pm
You see what you want to see.
June 17, 2007 at 11:09 pm
For the record, the woman in blue and the man in yellow that detained her were airport police, not TSA (the ones in white). She was lucky she was not arrested, because they had every right to do so for someone so uncooperative and defiant.
June 17, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Jim, if she wasn’t cited or arrested, then the police apparently felt there was not cause to do so.
Do you think they were derelict?
June 17, 2007 at 11:21 pm
The police did the right thing to make her clean up her mess and let her go on her way. Missing her flight should be the least of her worries. Of course, she might not have missed her flight, as she has established herself as a blatant liar. Her real offense was going public with her lies, when she should have sucked it up. Now the world can see her childish behavior. She deserves and is indeed receiving public scorn for this. She might also be hearing from the SS about her behavior.
June 17, 2007 at 11:33 pm
You should suck it up, Jim. It’s your job.
She’s a civilian, she can complain, and people can look at the evidence.
That is what is happening, I agree. I don’t agree that there is a consensus that she deliberately did anything. She was upset, and then she was humiliated, and then you came on here and people called her “bitch” and other names.
You haven’t acquitted yourself well. A better response would have been to say you respectfully disagree with her account, and provide your point of view.
And leave it at that, unless you want to press charges.
June 17, 2007 at 11:47 pm
“She might also be hearing from the SS about her behavior.”
Yeah! I’m waiting for the crazy bitch to try some crap like this when they come around asking for their I.D. card.
I’m sure this won’t be the last we hear about her crap. Just wait and see!
June 17, 2007 at 11:56 pm
John, as I understand it, she will be on MSNBC tomorrow.
You discount yourself again with your name calling.
June 18, 2007 at 12:00 am
I am not sure of that information, by the way.
June 18, 2007 at 12:11 am
You make no sense in any of your arguments. Unfortunately, your persistence doesn’t amount to any intelligence.
June 18, 2007 at 1:15 am
Can’t wait for the MSNBC interview! Wonder how much she will get paid to further make a fool of herself.
Some people have no shame.
June 18, 2007 at 4:04 am
John and others call her rude and obscene names and focus on what they believe is her stupidity and bad attitude. They repeatedly say that now everyone will see what a fool she is, etc.
The thing is, this will pass and in a week or so no one will remember her.
But every single day TSA will continue to be maligned and ridiculed for their demonstrable incompetence and their ridiculous actions. Hello, TSA? No one thinks you’re doing a real job, much less anything to keep us safe. Long after this little tempest is forgotten, TSA and it’s low level ‘enforcement’ employees will still be seen as ridiculous impediments, their entire presence in our airports an expensive farce paid for with our tax dollars. John et al using foul language and exaggeration here is a telling example.
June 18, 2007 at 11:32 am
More sippy cup courtesy of my wife.
June 18, 2007 at 11:38 am
Monica Emerson is a LIAR !!
Shame on her… because of her bahaviour … people will now distrust others who come-forward with genuine gripes against the TSA….
June 18, 2007 at 11:40 am
Rita, if you have nothing to add besides name calling, you are unwelcome.
June 18, 2007 at 2:38 pm
get a life whig…
June 18, 2007 at 4:51 pm
The rule has merit in that no one knows specifically what the liquid is. I never said it was a good rule, but I can understand why it was thought up, what I dont understand is why it is still in practice. And to all those people complaining about needing the water to make formula, can I ask when flights stopped serving drinks? I flew this past march and recieved a drink on the plane, I am sure you could always ask for water which they would give to you free considering I didnt pay for my water when I got it. Yes the TSA were the initial start of the incident in asking her to get rid of the water but it was the police officer who noticed the purposefully spilt water. It went from there. I am not saying lets all be “nazi’s” as someone put it and blindly follow the rules. My main issue here is for the lack of respect, the TSA were doing their job. Monica disrespected them and others who might walk down that passage way.
“If you think we should understand better some of the concerns you have to face, and are allowed to talk about, then I’m certainly glad to have a discussion that people can use to improve real security. It starts with an honest assessment of risks.” I like this, it calls for open ended discusion and debate, not throwing a petty tempertantrum which is what she did.
June 18, 2007 at 5:02 pm
[…] Monica Emmerson, her son, and a sippy cup [image] Terrorist? You decide. Hat-tip Donna Woodka. Update: Cannablog is pleased to join […]
June 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Pandora,
I think you underestimate the logistics of traveling with a toddler. In any case, we agree that the rules are offensive and useless. Let us agree to stop putting the American people through such a degrading process when it isn’t even based on honest risk assessment.
June 18, 2007 at 8:11 pm
I watched all the videos. What I saw was a bunch of TSA workers standing/sitting around looking bored until there was some “excitement” to be had.
Watch the video in the exit ramp. The female TSA worker is “high-fiving” or whatever just before she is relieved by the Mr. “Move the Sign”.
Meanwhile, as a cluster of Airport Security, TSA, and other personnel deal with Ms. Sippy-Cup (and personally, I could care less whether she’s lying or not — they didn’t charge her, and I’m convinced that they would have if she had actually committed a violation, since they made her mop up the water) — anyway — meanwhile — a whole passle of passengers go by and the “security” personnel give them NARY A GLANCE!
Oh, I feel safer now.
June 18, 2007 at 8:15 pm
whig — I would assume that you are being deluged with a lot of TSA trolls.
Sorry folks, you don’t fool me.
June 18, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Confirmed Liar.
Well I’ve watched the video and there are three obvious lies in her story:
LIE 1: I unscrewed the cup to drink the water, which accidentally spilled because I was so upset with the situation.
If you accidentally spill something you don’t shake it making sure to get the last drops and then make spin your stroller around as if you’re going to head back into the security checkpoint. Her “accidental spill” was nothing of the sort. I’ve watched “the spill” a dozen times and there’s no way she can claim that was an accident.
LIE 2: I was ordered to clean the water, so I got on my hands and knees while my son sat in his stroller
No. You didn’t. You didn’t even make a motion towards the water you had just intentionally spilled until you had gotten the attention of your fiance’ who, by the time you started wiping up the mess you had just made, was holding your child.
LIE 3: A total of four police officers and three TSA officers reported to the scene where I was being held against my will.
Really? So, 7 people were all hovering over you watching you grovel on your hands and knees? No. One TSA employee whose post was near where you were (and where there is always a TSA posted (the exit from a causeway)) was “nearby” at best. The female officer who came up after you dumped the sippy cup and a second officer on bicycle (who was probably called over so that there was a witness to what a jerk you were being) was there. That’s, at best, 3 total people. Not four police officers and three TSA employees.
So, with these three lies… how many more do you think she made? I’d make a pretty good bet that if there was audio, we’d have quite a few more to list. Look, I don’t have any special love for the TSA or its employees but I hate liars and those who think they deserve some special privileges at the airport.
June 18, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Hey Wow!
Ever been in an airport? Do you know why there is a person stationed there? To keep people from going INTO the terminal… why would they be inspecting or making special note of the people LEAVING the airport? Perhaps you think they should search people AFTER they’ve gotten off a flight? Not real bright are you?
June 18, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Hey Wow!
Ever been in an airport?
Uh, yeah — “john” — I have.
But I believe — correct me if I’m wrong, here — that the TSA staff posted at that station is there to keep an eye on those exit posts, and make sure that people don’t enter or re-enter the airport that way.
Mr “Moves the Sign” has many, many moments, when his eye is not “on the ball” AFAIC — he has a conversation with (we assume) a co-worker early on — it goes on for more than 60 seconds, which, to my mind, is a long time in security parlance — he goes around the corner out of sight of his station, he seems distracted by the interaction with the sippy-cup, which is more than being handled by at least, by your own reckoning, 3 other officers, and he does not, imho, have his eye on the possible re-entry point, which, to my mind, is his job.
Also, you may note that that “dangerous” puddle of water is negotiated quite easily by an elderly woman in the beginning of the video.
Please don’t ever again impune that I am “not real bright”. I don’t like it when people malign me without any knowledge of who I am, and I am, in fact, very bright. I didn’t call anyone here stupid, and if you don’t want me to call you stupid, but rather argue you on the merits of the evidence, please don’t treat me that way.
If you personalized my secondary statement about “trolls”, then I will only say: If the shoe fits, wear it.
June 18, 2007 at 10:50 pm
John,
Has Monica Emmerson been charged with a crime?
She is a private citizen, she has related her version of events. The video evidence was not persuasive to me that she was dishonest. You are entitled to draw your own inference.
June 18, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Whiggie,
Have the TSA people been charged with any crime? Did they break any rules?
June 19, 2007 at 12:43 am
John,
Please see my response to you in Comment #107 above.
And it is Whig, not Whiggie. I have not been disrespectful to you. Don’t start.
June 19, 2007 at 12:46 am
If you require a more specific answer, I would need to be provided a copy of the TSA rules.
June 19, 2007 at 3:34 am
So, 3-4 oz of potable liquid water is a problem? Perhaps she could have frozen it…then it would have been okay since there is no apparent regulation that prohibits bringing solids thru security in sippy cups.
June 19, 2007 at 6:19 am
BTW, there are 2 users named John here. I’m trying to change my name to –John1
Anyway, this woman broke the rules and security only enforced what they were hired to do.
I’m sure the rules don’t say something like….”It’s up to you if someone can bring liquid on board”.
June 19, 2007 at 9:21 am
John1,
Please see my response to “John” in Comment #98.
I’d like to see the rules but I expect they are secret.
June 19, 2007 at 9:34 am
Here’s the thing. We’re the people who fly on commercial airplanes to travel. We don’t want them to blow up in the sky.
I’m trying to get the TSA to stop acting like a bunch of children who can’t handle criticism when they aren’t protecting us from real threats while they harass and humiliate passengers over things like a little bit of water in a sippy cup that is being used by a toddler which is low risk.
June 19, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Hey, Whig. I think what you just wrote in your last post is exactly the right expectation for any organization charged with helping to protect the public safety. Potential abuse of authority is always possible, and it occurs often enough in the TSA to be noteworthy. But, I hope you will agree that there are morons in most companies in responsible positions that don’t have the brains that God gave a goose (with apologies to geese everywhere!) and have little or no common sense and are incapable of making reasoned decisions. I suppose that the law of natural selection applies and they are eventually released, but there are many more candidates waiting in the wings to fill the losers jobs. Still, I hope and truly believe that many of the thousands of members of the TSA take their job seriously and really are trying to do the right thing.
I travel often abroad and have the opportunity to see the airport security services at work in other countries as you likely do as well. If it’s any consolation, there are as many boneheads at work there as there are here in the USA. The TSA clearly does not have a monopoly. In fact, I would have to say that in my view some countries are even in worse shape security-wise than we are here. A sobering thought to consider as one heads of to who knows where.
Personally, I don’t care what the TSA says or does, or for that matter neither do I particulary care what Ms Monica Emmerson says or does, the matter certainly could have been handled more maturally and responsibly. Both sides are equally responsible for their own actions and both look equally bad in my humble opinion.
And lastly, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the TSA. Thanks for the blogs – I think this is a great forum to vent and will visit often.
June 19, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Givemeabreak,
Plenty of second guessing on what happened and could it have been handled better by either the TSA or the passenger.
That’s not the point. This sort of rule is bound to lead to terrorized toddlers.
We don’t want our children terrorized by our government.
June 19, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“I’m trying to get the TSA to stop acting like a bunch of children who can’t handle criticism”
I think what you’re trying to do is troll.
If you were half serious you’d be sending letters to your congressman and other people instead of getting on a blog and dreaming that you are actually having a debate with TSA people.
June 19, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Whig
“John1,
Please see my response to “John” in Comment #98.”
Apparently you missed this so I’ll post again.These people were just very lucky this incident happened on landing and not in the air as it was a very powerful fire.Note; it was caused by some household cleaner carried on board.
(August 24 1999– On board an Uni Air McDonnell Douglas DC-9 a fire starts in an overhead luggage compartment over Hualien Taiwan. The fire was cause by the accidental ignition fumes from a bottle of household cleaner. One person died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_in_aviation)
June 19, 2007 at 4:31 pm
This is really all you need to see:
June 19, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Wow! Yeah, I think so.
John1, I see. So this is my blog, and I’m the troll here? Why do you keep commenting again?
June 19, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Also, it appears you have revealed yourself to be the same John of which you said there were two.
I’m just not going to respond to your household cleaner troll. We’re talking about water in a sippy cup being used by a toddler.
June 19, 2007 at 5:28 pm
If the water in the sippy cup had been frozen would it have been allowed? Things to ponder….
June 19, 2007 at 5:34 pm
This post is being read hundreds of times a day, which is way out of average for a single post on this low volume blog. It is more than <strike>half</strike> a quarter of our daily volume for the last three days (update: according to SiteMeter).
That’s not too unusual, while the story is fresh. But in case anyone wonders if it is being read — it is, and this is currently the number two search result for “Monica Emmerson” on Google.
June 19, 2007 at 7:22 pm
ok. So anyone who disagrees with Whig who is the owner of this blog.
Please don’t post anything.
June 19, 2007 at 7:51 pm
WTF are you talking about, John1?
June 19, 2007 at 9:05 pm
whig
Posted June 19, 2007 at 7:51 pm
WTF are you talking about, John1?
whig
Posted June 19, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Why do you keep commenting again?
June 19, 2007 at 9:07 pm
You are trolling.
June 19, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I find it HILARIOUS that the people on the side of TSA and the officers claim one minute,
“There is no way to know for sure that the content was water.”
and in the very next breath they either say, “You can see her cleaning up the water” or “She deliberately spilled the water.”
Hmm, so sounds to me you were QUITE SURE that it WAS INDEED water!
As for the comments about getting FREE WATER once boarded on the plane. You are correct. The issue is…a baby is hungry when a baby is hungry. Perhaps you haven’t flown in awhile? You must arrive two hours before your flight takes off. Most babies eat every two to three hours. And I’ve never met a baby that doesn’t cry or scream when hungry until it’s fed. No matter how much you try to play with them, give them a pacifier, etc. When a baby is hungy it’s hungry NOW damn it. You can’t simply say, “Wait until we board for the FREE WATER baby!”
Give me a break, you need to get a clue. Try babysitting or wait til you have children of your own. Then you’ll know what it’s like!
June 20, 2007 at 12:05 am
Hmmm…
Frozen water you say?
I bet it would be allowed because afterall gases don’t have a freezing point. It clearly couldn’t be anything harmful then, right?
Then again, put the water in a ready-to-go bottle inside a diaper bag and viola you get through with it.
Yeah, I feel safe now.
Both LAX and MCI I got through with 12 oz. of water. Mind you if I wanted to tamper with liquids that would be the easiest place to do so, not two factory sealed Sparkletts water bottles.
TSA is a joke. The just like to feel and look important. Maybe their are people out there that buy into it and DO feel safer in the air with TSA *doing such a great -cough- job*?
June 20, 2007 at 12:11 am
Karen, I get your point but water isn’t what a hungry baby needs. I doubt the TSA would let milk through, however.
Heavens, milk!
June 20, 2007 at 12:13 am
Bryan @ Why Now?:
June 21, 2007 at 7:25 am
Hello, John (the one who insinuated whig isn’t all that bright, not John1) here again.
I find it interesting that whig is using the anonymity of the web to conjure in his mind that we are all TSA employees hell-bent on invading his blog with pro-TSA trolling. I’m just a simple systems admin who works for a Fortune 500 company and and is in the Army Reserve. I fly enough (three times with our 1-year-old in the past year, one of those internationally(Mexico)) to have seen people like this woman who think they are far more important than any other person in a 50-yard radius.
This woman chose to publicize this incident for which she was 100% at fault. She has no one to blame but herself.
The TSA employees likely saw some sad, sad, pathetic excuse for a human being in front of them and thought to themselves, “you know what, this woman’s life must suck pretty horribly for her to act this way, she’s missed her flight, we should just let her go.” whig’s assertion that since she wasn’t charged she is innocent is naive. I wonder if he thinks every person who’s only given a warning for speeding wasn’t really speeding.
As for milk, milk, formula and juice are allowed… perhaps you and Monica Emmerson need to read the rules. These are the same rules that guided my wife and I and we have had nary a problem with sippy cups. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/formula.shtm
June 21, 2007 at 10:01 am
John, you say you are Army Reserve.
Have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan?
June 21, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Watch the video just before 2:03pm. She takes her son out of the stroller at 2:02 then waits for him to walk off as she deals with the officer. You can actually see her turn her head towards him but she does not try to stop him until he is clearly moving away. Then she feigns concern and “rushes” to pick him up, actually going past him out to the ticketing terminal to wave the male in the suit over. Perhaps she felt that her partner in the suit had some clout to throw around as well (you see him give a card to the MWAA police officer) since hers wasn’t working.
As a vet and a father she loses all credibility with me for disregarding her son’s safety. Parents, would you let your toddler loose in an airport while you were occupied with a cop on your own, or leave him safely in the stroller?
In the video the boy is obviously not distressed when he is removed from the stroller. He is not screaming for his sippy cup, he is not having a fit and harrying his mother. She makes no attempt return him to the stroller (if some of you feel the need to believe that she took him out to look for her ID).
There are water fountains in the boarding terminal and obviously sinks in the restrooms, no need to buy water. She said it was just tap water so no difference there.
All she had to do was exit the security area, dump/drink the water and go back through security (BTW I fly out of National every few weeks and have yet to see a long security line, BWI,IAD and LAX are other stories of course). She would have been back through and at her gate in no time.
And yes, this has happened to me personally before. At BWI I had a zippo in my carry-on. The TSA inspector told me that I could keep the shell but I had to throw away the guts. Not in the trashcan next to me at the station mind you, I had to exit the line under escort and go back through from the beginning of the line, AFTER I threw away the lighter guts on the ticketing side. And boy that was a line. Annoying? YES! Time consuming? YES! Pointless? SURE! Did I complain? NO! Why? Because it’s not their fault I can’t read signs posted EVERYWHERE. It’s a small price to pay for even a minimal increase in security. I didn’t think I was better than the other passengers or that I had earned the right as a vet to be above suspicion. I play by the rules, as inane as they often seem, so that the a-hole plotting something has to keep adjusting.
I definitely don’t believe in sacrificing democratic rights for the sake of ‘Public Safety’. But I also try not to confuse a ‘right’ with a convenience.
Fly without any electronics or carry-on baggage = inconvenient: Oh yeah! A violation of my constitutional rights? Nah, just a violation of my American obsession with convenience and instant gratification.
The sad thing is that TSA will continue to have problems with their security coverage and citizens will continue to complain and cause scenes because they confuse inconvenience with harassment. That is until the next attack happens and the same citizens will complain because enough wasn’t done to prevent it.
And it will still be their inalienable right as Americans to do so.
Ahhh whatever…
June 28, 2007 at 7:17 am
“whig Posted June 21, 2007 at 10:01 am John, you say you are Army Reserve. Have you served in Iraq or Afghanistan?”
I can thankfully say that no I have not.
June 28, 2007 at 9:06 am
Fortunate for you, how did you manage to avoid a rotation?
June 29, 2007 at 4:16 pm
So anything new with Miss Sippy Cup? Any schedule for her to show up on Larry King!?
I’m reading now that amongst the gasoline and everything else in that London car bomb–there was also a patio propane tank–I guess for a barbeque. Hope they don’t do something rediculous now like make people give I.D. when filling propane tanks.
June 29, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Haven’t heard anything new, but the story wasn’t about her as much as it was about how stupid the regulations are when they think water in a child’s sippy cup is a big deal.
June 29, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Nobody will ever know if it WAS actually water because she spilled it on purpose.
For all we know it could have been something else.
June 29, 2007 at 8:06 pm
If there was probable cause of it being something else she’d have been arrested.
July 3, 2007 at 5:15 pm
John, what the hell are you smoking? I watched the video multiple times and all I saw was a mother who, like any normal mother, was focusing on her child and trying to get to her gate in a timely fashion, albeit surrounded by a band of trailer-trash doughnut munchers who were bored stiff and needed something to do to justify their paycheck.
If the security plan had been that well thought out, it would have provided an opportunity for Monica to dispose of the nitroglycerine or C4 in the sippy-cup in an approved trash container at the inspection gate. Years ago, I went to the airport and forgot to take my 4″ lock-back out of my pocket. I went to the ticket desk, they gave me a manilla envelope, I put my name on it, and it was waiting for me when I returned from my trip. That happened on a few occasions. So, long before 9/11, there was a precedent for “handling” these things, whether discardable or not.
Dateline 2001: my son was flying out of SFO and forgot the $17 micro-sized “Leatherman” tool on his key chain. He asked about doing something similar to what I had done in the past only to be told that the item was going to have to be confiscated. So, he made a scene, held the line up for half an hour and basically admitted his wrong doing, but that didn’t give the security officers the right to legally steal his personal property. He gave up the unit, and after returning home after his trip, was at his friend’s house, where his friend’s father (who worked for SFO security) gave him the $70 “big boy” cousin of the same tool, which he just happened to have lying around “his” house because he had stolen it either from someone at the security gate or from the contraband storage locker. Great bunch of people. So my son now has this modern day version of an expensive Swiss Army knife, compliments of some poor shlep who, like my son, just forgot, amid a time when none of the braintrusts in airpoprt security could see the potential for a problem. Needless to say, I guess now they have formalized that process and I guess there is a provision to secure these forgotten items before entering the security inspection gate.
But getting back to Monica, that fat female security cow that had twisted her arm was totally out of line. As long as people like you keep placating themselves into thinking that this is acceptable behavior, we will shift even more toward an Orwellian existence, and when someone asks when it all happened, no one will know because at each juncture everyone like yourself just acted like sheep and let themselves get fleeced.
At the rate these idiots are going, they won’t have to worry about Islamic terrorists. They’ll piss off so many people that our own citizens will be blowing up security buildings.
By the way, did you vote for Bush?
July 4, 2007 at 11:26 pm
“my son was flying out of SFO and forgot the $17 micro-sized “Leatherman” tool on his key chain”
Next thing you know they’ll be wanting to confiscate box-cutters.
What the hell is this world coming to!
July 4, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I’m with you on that one, Mary.
August 7, 2007 at 11:19 am
All of the commenters who have explained how Ms Emmerson was at fault and suggesting ways to comply with the rules are simply missing the point.
Which is this:
There is NO REASON for the TSA to ban sippy cups or any other small containers of liquid. NONE. By following “the rules” we are allowing ourselves to be controlled and abused by the fantasy of security against manufactured fears.
It isn’t about Ms. Emerson. It’s about the ban and the blocades and the suspicion and the presumption of terrorist motives being used against totally innocent citizens of what is supposed to be the home of the FREE and the land of the BRAVE.
But some of us, apparently, would rather live in the institution of the CONTROLLED on the island of the COWARDS.
August 7, 2007 at 3:28 pm
dirk gently,
I’m going to say again because I think people do not understand that laptop batteries are potentially explosive.
Now I am not saying this to panic people but to express a realistic perspective in securing our air travel and so we do not expend useless efforts trying to prevent unlikely threats.
If we value our convenience in having laptops aboard our flights, we cannot simultaneously panic about a mother and young child with a sippy cup of water. Make rules to secure air travel but use some good judgment.
As I said at the outset of this thread, if Monica Emmerson had been any kind of threat to security it was as a distraction. And that’s just bad security on the part of the TSA.
August 23, 2007 at 11:21 am
[…] if he’d said it was nursery pudding? This entry was written by whig and posted on August 23, 2007 at 11:21 am and filed under […]
September 27, 2007 at 11:25 pm
“Kudos to the TSA officers for doing their job indiscriminately and for standing their ground. It definitely make me feel safer to know that they take their job seriously.”
What a fucking moron! Enjoy hell!
November 22, 2010 at 12:56 pm
First they came for sippy cups and I said nothing, because I do not drink from sippy cups. Now they’re coming for my junk!