>I very much got the impression that the author was refusing to be scanned or searched just to make trouble.

That's like saying, you are just making trouble when you resist a pick-pocket or robber. You are never "just making trouble" when you assert your rights. On the contrary, government is the one just making trouble.

The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect rights. However, government seems to be full of people who are eager to take away rights. Somehow, the institution of government appeals to people who like to force their will on others. If you value liberty, you must resist these people.

I, as European, always find fascinating when US people says: "The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect rights"... I feel the purpose of government is to protect and nurture the community and give the citizen common services. Different personal opionions and exceptions apply of course, but I feel this is probably the biggest difference in culture between US and EU.

There is no reason why payment for community nurturing and common services needs to extracted by force and administered by a monopoly.

This was not about airport security - he had already de-planed and was trying to leave the airport, having already passed through immigration.

One of the things the US is supposed to be really big on is freedom from Big Brother. Having legally entered his own country, not attempting to get on another plane, and offerring to cooperate as long as someone, under color of authority, would verbally go on record that he was required by law to do so, with specifics. Nobody was willing or able to actually do this. Nobody was clear about jurisdiction. The police wouldn't do anything without the TSAs instructions.

The TSA didn't know what's up - and I for one would like the people in charge of security in the airport to know what's up, right?

EDIT: From the sounds of things this really was more about poor airport design and people flow as well as misunderstanding of policies.

I don't agree with Eil's comment at all, but that is no reason to vote his comment down. Comment voting is to make interesting comments more prominent and to remove noise, not to banish unpopular opinions. I don't interpret Eil's comment as a trolling attempt that warrents down-voting either.

Yes, he was purposely making trouble to test a theory that they don't have specific procedures in place, and that the laws contain holes that you can get through. You might say the law says you have to go through, but in this case nobody could come up with a law that says that. The guy himself asked how this conflates with his constitutional rights - also laws - and how the contradictions are resolved.

Like it or not, this kind of behaviour either strengthens the laws or removes poorly designed ones. Either way, it's important that people do this on a regular basis because laws and procedures are very rarely correct.