Michelle Malkin makes stuff up about detained milblogger Michael Yon
January 06, 2010 9:02 am ET by Eric Boehlert
It's odd that since Christmas the right-wing media have been screaming about inadequate airline security. (Too soft!) But then when somebody they know and admire is momentarily detained at an airport for refusing to answer questions, the same right-wing screamers scream that airport officials are harassing the wrong people.
And so, as conservatives continue their never-ending quest for martyrs, real and imagined, we have the tale of conservative darling, and milblogger, Michael Yon was was recently stopped by TSA officials at the Seattle-Tacoma airport upon his return to the U.S.
Blogger Michelle Malkin did not approve [emphasis added]:
I’ve met Michael and have blogged about his enterprising war coverage as an embed in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. The idea of him being treated as a national security threat and handcuffed is as ridiculous as anything we’ve seen from Janet Clown-itano and her cadre.
Actually, according to Yon's own telling of the event, he was detained by TSA officials after he repeatedly refused to answer their questions while they randomly searched his luggage. (Apparently Yon decided which TSA questions were appropriate, and which ones were not.) But was he ever detained as a "national security threat," as Malkin stressed? Not even Yon makes that claim.
Also, note that in Yon's original telling he claimed he was "arrested" at the airport, which is not accurate. As he later explained, the TSA never placed him under arrest and neither did local port authority police. Yon made the "arrested" claim because he was placed in handcuffs by airport officials, and that meant he'd been "arrested." But that's just not true.
So to summarize, Yon claimed he was "arrested," which was not true. And then Malkin claimed it was because Yon was targeted as a "national security threat," which was also not true. But hey, other than that it makes for a great story.
UPDATED: Blogger Ed Morrissey might want to change his "Michael Yon arrested at Seattle airport" headline since, y'know, Yon was not arrested.
Just a thought.
A spokesman from U.S. Customs and Border Protection says there are two sides to every story.
Michael Yon is an ex-Green Beret turned war correspondent who's spent much of the past four years covering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His passport, therefore, is likely to have the kind of stamps that might make TSA agents think twice, especially in the wake of Christmas Day's underpants bomber.
"In any situation there's two sides to the story," says CBP spokesman Mike Milne. "You've heard one side, and we're prohibited by the Privacy Act from telling our side."
I think that is why the drive by hit you.
The TSA/Border Patrol should have never detained Yon in the first place, since Michelle knew him.
On a lighter note, if he wasn't answering questions, because they had nothing to do with being a possible terrorist, in order to make a point, then I am OK with that.
("what is your party affiliation? Are you gay? etc)
And if he had the stamps that would raise a flag, then I suppose the TSA was doing the right thing.
I am not sure if you mentioning the Seattle Weekly story is an endorsement of the Malkin-Yon story or not...
-------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Security screenings are for the "others"
Uhhhh.... what's the word for it? You used it. It's "DETAINED". And, it's a far cry from "arrested". Words matter. You only need to be read your rights if you're being arrested. My guess is, he was detained by TSA while they determined if his refusal to cooperate with a security screening was grounds to place him under arrest. He should be thankful that he wasn't arrested, rather than pretending like he was.
And detained because of his own stupidity and stubbornness, not because the Obama Administration's TSA is incompetent or behaving in any kind of inappropriate way. They handcuffed him to protect themselves, you fool. Are they supposed to leave themselves open to attack by a guy they feel suspicious about? (oh, and btw, cops handcuff people all the time who aren't under arrest.)
And THAT's the problem here - that Michelle Malkin and others are pretending that the problem here is the TSA, rather than the stupid guy who thought he could refuse to answer lawful questions from a TSA agent!
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/04/02/detained-by-tsa/
You usually seem rational but I fear you've gone over the edge on this one...
Don't care if it's the TSA, Border Patrol, ICE, FBI, NCIS or any other alpahbet soup agency, I and any other citizen can refuse to answer questions and the state cannot hold that as evidence of guilt or justification for being detained.
Yes, you do have that right. In general that is referred to as "civil disobedience" and the police (or whoever) can detain you for up to 72 hours (maybe more now with the Unpatriotica Act). As long as they let you go before the 72 hours are up, they do not have to charge you and you won't necessarily get a phone call.
And no, you cannot refuse to answer questions from the Border Patrol. The US Supreme Court has stated that. I don't make nor do I interpret laws or the Constitution. I let the courts do that, and then I respect their decisions! Unlike you, I guess.
I'm on the side of the US Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. I'm funny that way as a loyal American I guess in your view.
And yeah, I'd be on the side of the TSA (if that's who it was) in this case - this guy was asked questions intended to root out suspicious behavior, and he unlawfully refused to answer those questions. The US Supreme Court has given our border patrol agents the right to question people like that.
I know see that you are truly an apologist for the government so long as you get to bash the GOP somehow.
Good on you and your "My way or the highway" politics.
Plus - you "respect" the decisions of the Supremes and agree with them blindly. Glad you weren't around in the 50's or you'd have been screaming the N word at children because, as you put it, "The US Supreme Court has stated that. I don't make nor do I interpret laws or the Constitution. I let the courts do that, and then I respect their decisions!"
Try thinking for yourself and using your ideas and thoughts lead you to a side of an issue instead of ALWAYS picking the Dems.
Actually, during the 1950's, the Supreme Court were the ones who de-segregated schools, and individual governors or State officials, were the ones screaming the "N" word at little kids just wanting to go to school. Brown V Board of Education was in 1954, which was the first major civil rights case heard by the SCOTUS.
This whole discussion really has nothing to do at all with democrats, or republicans, except for the fact that the guy who was detained (IE, not arrested) is a conservative blogger/writer, who didn't answer the appropriate questions at the airport to gain entry BACK into the United States from a foreign country.
Lawsuit filed on behalf of detained passenger carrying cash...
Traveling within the United States is much different than traveling into the United States from another country, especially countries that are closely tied to terrorism, and or potential radical jihadists. Sounds like this guy was detained, mostly because he wouldn't answer questions that were asked.
The other guy was detained because he had a lockbox full of cash.
There are very big differences between the 2 stories.
How much do you make? Is it their business?
I also have some confidence that should you yourself experience being handcuffed by federal authorities you will have some difficulty distinguishing it from being "under arrest"
And why is that a valid question for the TSA to ask?
Remember that the TSA got sued by the ACLU for asking someone why they were carrying $4700 dollars and had to settle and change policy.
And Yon explained that the TSA claimed they did not arrest him but they detained and handcuffed him which is the same thing.
If Yon's assertions are correct, I'd have done the same thing.
Now, as for Malkin... She's a reactionary POS that really really really needs a spanking.
They ask those kinds of questions to filter out people who might be coming into the USA to cause us harm. It's not like this TSA agent just decided to ask personal financial questions of this guy because he FELT like it, after all! He's been instructed on what questions to ask, and someone above him determined the list of potential questions to ask! And as a lawful TSA agent, he has the right to ask those questions.
Ask me where I'm coming from or going and I'll answer.
Ask me about my income or politics and I'll tell you to f off.
What could possibly be gained from asking this question?
I can't believe you or any regular commentor on this site would be so cavalier as to give up your rights to an hourly bully/stooge with some sort of cop-complex. You get the country you deserve and you Dolly deserve to live in the Soviet Union for this subservient crud.
I am intrigued to learn how annual earning correlate to intent as it relates to terrorism.
I am genuinely intrigued.
And they ask all kinds of questions to try to find people who are being dishonest for nefarious purposes. That's why they ask prying questions.
As I understand it, they're free to do any search related to drugs or national security. They are allowed to ask any question that will aid them in asserting with reasonable suspicion that a person is engaged in one of those activities. That does not give them the right to ask for information which is not relevant to those categories.
And what is hard about following the Constitution...and who gives a crap if he was a Green Beret..big deal. What is he now????
<sarcasm>
For him to say that the TSA guys should "know" that he's a good guy despite his refusal to answer simple questions is ridiculous. We DO guard our borders, sometimes, by asking questions and trying to determine intentions by the answers.
Now I know however, it's like 66% of Americans who believe in a personable god. No matter what the facts and evidence is, if it goes against their dogma, they'll refuse to believe it. So if their religion prohibited believing in gravity, they'd have to reject Newton.
Same goes for MMfA. It doesn't matter how much you expose their lies, in their head, they see "Media Matters for America = Liberal left-wing socialist communist propaganda for Obama, a fascist anti-free speech group", and it's over.
You could say "Michelle Malkin claimed the balloon to be blue, but as we all can see, it's red.", have a picture of the balloon, and they'd insist it to be blue.
Right wing nuts get crazy saying Customs, Immigration and the TSA aren't doing the job and they absolutely have to be much tougher.
Right wing nut job refuses to answer questions from Immigration and Immigration detains him. Right wing nut job says, hey you're supposed to get tough on the "other" people not me.
Oh that's right, profile any one other than white anglo-saxon protestant, not a guy who won't answer a few questions.
However, I'd be interested in knowing whether Malkin said anything at all about the *actual* arrest and other mistreatment of science fiction writer Peter Watts back in December. My suspicion is that she didn't.
The TSA has no jurisdiction to make inquiries beyond the mandate of their operating authority. Their powers of search and seizure of personal property is limited. The TSA's question about personal income was beyond their jurisdiction and was not related to security in any manner, shape or form. You do not give up your rights as an American citizen simply because you choose to travel.
The "Barney Fife" mentality of poorly trained "Cop" wannabees is all to often manefested by TSA employees who are inexperienced and poorly managed.