Might want to FOIA / Privacy Act request them for the information in your file. It should make for interesting reading. The person who'd be authorized to say "no" to that has very, very different motivations in life than a ground-level security screener. For example, they're paid to avoid bad PR, and "The Privacy Act, which was established to prevent government abuses of power like the secret files the FBI kept on folks, does not prevent us from keeping secret files on you" is the definition of bad PR. They would also have to commit to that position in writing. Every bureaucrat learns very quickly that things which are not written down never happened. The events described by those tweets? Never happened. Get a signed logbook entry, though, and you have instant chain of evidence going back to God Almighty.

This is, generally, one of those "letters on paper can be used to hack bureaucracies to one's advantage" kind of things.

c.f. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/admin/fl/foia/reference_guide.xml

The above is mostly motivated by an enduring interest in the inner mechanics of complex systems, not by any particular feeling with regards to Wikileaks.