GROPE! RAPE! MOLESTER! PROBE! FONDLE !

[Mortos]

These are words that cause extreme emotional reactions. They are the words being used to describe the actions of TSA screeners who are following guidelines set by the government in an attempt to find explosives or banned items that could be used by a terrorist.

They have been used so many times by so many people right wing and left that they are now being hurled daily at the men and women who have the tough job of trying to provide security at hundreds of U.S. airports.

How would you like to try to do your job and be called a molester and pervert dozens of times a day?

How would you like to have to pat down hundreds of people a day? Many of whom are obese. Some who don't utilize proper hygiene.

Here are some recent comments from TSA screeners:

“I was asked by some guy if I got excited touching scrotums at the airport and if it gave me a power thrill. I felt like vomiting when he asked that. This is not a turn on for me to touch me it is in fact a huge turn off. There is a big difference between how I pat passengers down and a molester molesting people.”

“Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me, said in my presence as I patted passengers down. These comments are painful and demoralizing, one day is bad enough, but I have to come back tomorrow, the next day and the day after that to keep hearing these comments. If something doesn’t change in the next two weeks I don’t know how much longer I can withstand this taunting. I go home and I cry. I am serving my country, I should not have to go home and cry after a day of honorably serving my country.”

“Do people know what a Nazi is? One can’t describe me as a Nazi because I am following a security procedure of designed to find prohibited items on a passenger’s body. A Nazi is someone with hatred and ignorance in their hearts, a person who carried out actions of execution and extermination of those based on their religion, origins or sexual preferences. I work to make travel safer, even if I do not agree with the current security procedures. Further more, I am Jewish and a TSA Transportation Security Officer, an American Patriot and to call me a Nazi is an offense beyond all other offenses.”

Before you post something calling what they do a sexual crime, think about how the words you use effect these people. This type of thing is utilized by the right wing echo chamber to dehumanize those with whom they disagree. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are experts at this. Now it is used by people here. These words are not accurate descriptions of what is going on. If you want to debate the effectiveness of the techniques, do so, but don't use emotionally charged rhetoric to make your point. It is dangerous and will lead to someone physically harming one of the employees of the TSA.

As it turns out the video of the child whose shirt was removed, which was called a strip search by nearly every howling critic, was taken completely out of context. The father of the child removed his son's shirt to the protests of the TSA agents not the other way around. NO children have been strip searched.

This type of emotional ploy is not only creates a cruel lynch mob mentality towards innocent working men and women, it minimizes victims of actual sexual assaults. Being pat down searched by a gloved TSA agent in a public location in noway compares to a child being anally raped or to a person being sexually assaulted and to use the same terminology for both is pathetic, unfair and intentionally cruel.

[LisaL]

1. Try to go out and public and pat down someone, especially a small child.

Then report to us what the reaction was.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LisaL]

9. I really don't know what you are talking about.

Do you think public pat downs of people which includes groin check is appropriate?

[Mortos]

20. Yes

When people are smuggling bombs in their underwear it becomes a necessary precaution. I went through a pat down search 5 years ago at a European airport and I didn't feel raped or violated. I actually thought, "Why haven't they been doing this all along?"

[smiley]

122. one guy last Xmas...

was allowed on a plane even after his father reported him what he was going to do. He never had the capabilities to detonate his underwear.

I repeat - he was allowed to board a plane even after the proper authorities were warned.

Sounds to me like the perfect boogeyman.

[Caretha]

138. Make that one People

He had no passport, he boarded the plane in a foreign country, he was assisted by some unknown, his own father had turned him in, he was on a no fly list.....damn all that and that one "PEOPLE" still got by with a panty bomb that did not detonate.

Geesh! Get REAL!!!

[KansDem]

8. I find it unbelievable that some (on DU even) equate TSA "pat-down" procedures...

...with visiting your doctor(!)

Really? :wow:

[pnwmom]

24. Why? A doctor performs invasive procedures, with a person's consent,

in order to achieve the goal of health. Sometimes the procedures are helpful, sometimes they are not. They are all done with the goal in mind of improving health.

The screening, also done with consent (you consent when you buy an airplane ticket) is done with the goal of improving passenger safety.

[LisaL]

25. When I buy an airpline ticket, I consent to go from point A to point B.

[FourScore]

32. Flying is a privelege, not a right.. n/t

[LisaL]

37. Driving is a privilege too.

If TSA decided to do pat downs on drivers would you be fine with it as well?

[FourScore]

50. You are assuming I am fine with it. I am not. I just think the argument here at DU

has been uninformed, hysterical, and does not address the real problems.

[sabrina 1]

161. Yes, it does address the real problems. If it were up to people with

your willingness not to fight, the battles that have already been won would not have been.

TSA has now had to back down on forcing pilots to subject themselves to these lurid tactics. AND, because of so many complaints and threats of lawsuits and reports to the police by the public, they will no longer subject children under 12 to the grotesque treatment witnessed on video tape. The next step is to protect all children, and I am confident it will happen, but only if people express their outrage, just as they are doing.

When the government exceeds its boundaries, anything the public says about that is not only acceptable, it is necessary in order to reign them in.

So obviously threats of being prosecuted for child molestation was exactly the way to address the abuse of children who are traveling. And for the pilots who refused to be fondled or photographed by strangers, it obviously was the correct way to address it. Exactly what way is there to address this disgusting, unnecessary oppression of the American people?

As for calling it assault, you don't get to tell other people what THEY consider to be an assault. Anytime a stranger puts their hands on a person without their consent, or under a threat, including agents of the government, it is an assault. If anyone touches me where I do not wish to be touched, it is assault. I get to decide, not the government and some stranger in Homeland Security. And not you either.

The Germans decided that stripping people naked was not an assault either, but necessary for their national security. Lots of people defended that argument back then and looked the other way. Maybe if people had taken a stand before it was too late, history would have been different. And don't bother mentioning Godwin's law, remembering history is necessary so that we do not repeat it.

[mudplanet]

119. Some of you have been drinking your overly authoritarian and not-to-smart

grade school principal's koolaid.

Why should "driving" and traveling on an airplane be considered a privilege?

You have a right to pursue your business or pleasure and moving from one place to another is often a necessary part of that activity.

If you can qualify for a driver's license, you HAVE A RIGHT to one. Which is to say, they can't legally deny you one. And, as far as I know, the only reason to require qualification for driving licenses is because cars are heavy equipment and can be dangerous if not operated safely. Unless you are "strict constitutionalists" and hold that if something isn't in the Constitution specifically you have no right to it. In that case, be prepared to treat your right to sex, drinking, and virtually everything you do as privileges that can be "awarded" or revoked as the current government sees fit.

I've actually read posts from people on DU that assert that the ability to move about the country freely is a privilege! I remember how in South Africa not to long ago only white people were "privileged" to be in the inner city after dark.

"Your papers please, citizen! These papers indicate that your are a Jew, and Jews are not allowed (privileged) to move about on the streets after dark. Get down on your knees," he said as he pulled out his pistol.

It's all in the interest of public safety.

I'm sorry to have to hurt the feelings of the people in the secret police. They're only doing their jobs. They have families, too. It's insensitive to suggest that they are responsible for their actions.

They're only following orders.

[sabrina 1]

117. Wrong, flying is a right.

I love these talking points where everything we do is a 'privilege' and there are no rights according to what we are trying to apologize for.

For your information so that we can dispel this attempt to defend the attack on people's rights:

According to: US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace

Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. - (1) The United
States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the
United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the
Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792)
before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure
that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of
commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

Flying is NOT a privilege, it is a right. And fyi, driving is a right also, contrary to the constant claims that it is not.

Driving is a right

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

[FourScore]

128. These are the kinds of bogus arguments that really weaken the fight.

Flying is a privilege. So is driving.

[apocalypsehow]

143. Baloney, it's your "argument" that is bogus, not the irrefutable fact of the Federal code just put

to you.

Did you even bother to read it? :shrug:

Here, I'll quote the relevant passage and help you out:

" A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right..." (all emphases added).

Did you get that? A right.

"Flying is a privilege. So is driving."

This is the online equivalent of simply sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nyaah, nyaah, I can't hear you!!!"

Ridiculous.

[sabrina 1]

160. The law says otherwise, but if you want to give up your rights,

feel free, just don't give up everyone else's. People have gone to court and won based on that claim. We pay for the roads, the cars, the insurance, the maintenance. It's no wonder the government takes as much advantage of people as they do. It is so easy for them.

[pnwmom]

36. Read the contract on the back of a ticket. You consent to a

lot more than that. Among other things, you consent to all the procedures you and your luggage may go through before you get on the plane.

[KansDem]

51. I fly on Wednesday. My ticket was purchased a couple of months ago...

...Don't give me any of this "consent" bullshit!

I would gladly refund my ticket and rent a car, but I can't and stand to lose money if I don't fly.

Unless you want to pay me the amount I'm out, then I'd suggest you hold off on your "you consented when you bought the ticket" tripe..

Savvy?

[boppers]

151. Is it your own plane?

Or did you enter into a contract with somebody else?

[truedelphi]

163. You have my sincere sympathy.

And no where in any of the discussion is there mention of what would constitute real safety for Americans.

If an anthrax aerosol was sprayed by a small private airplane over half a dozen various and heavily populated cities, how many citizens have the antidote in their medicine cabinets? (Forget if the antidote for anthrax is Cipro or doxyclycline.)

Or likewise, if radiation was aerosolized over us, how many have thyroid tablets?

Our "protective" government really isn't doing that much protection.

They are succeeding at numbing us to the notion of constant surveillance and intrusion, and to the apprehension of hundreds of people with drugs on their body.


We are being numbed to the notion of what is or isn't reality. The reality is that the next time there is an attack on us, it will probably be something like that of anthrax or radiation, and not another "underwear" bomber.

[grahamhgreen]

87. BS - this argument is BS. Its a Hobson's choice

A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; "take it or leave it". The phrase is said to originate from Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner at Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all.

[mudplanet]

112. So I'll just add on, and you consent to be treated any way I want to treat you.

And to go to jail if you don't like it and say so.

[KansDem]

46. Certainly you are not comparing what a doctor does with what the TSA does?

:wow:

That's beyond comprehension!

[treestar]

77. Why can't things be compared and contrasted

This is a form of anti-intellectualism. Emotional intimidation because you have no reasons.

[KansDem]

91. Oh, if you want to *contrast* what you doctor does with what the TSA does...

...do it.

But it is just plain stupid to compare them, and that's what the poster I posted to was doing.

Why can't things be compared and contrasted

Go back and read the post I replied to and then my post. And don't give me any of this "anti-intellectualism" bullshit...

[pnwmom]

141. Why? Tell me what is wrong with the analogy, other than

that it shocks you.

[grahamhgreen]

72. You can not "consent" to something that is a violation of the constitution.

As this clearly is.

[boppers]

152. Airplanes in the constitution? Probably not.

In case you're serious, the magical word you're looking for is "unreasonable". People get enhanced screening when there is a reason.

[KoKo]

155. Airlines are not doing the inspections as a Private Corporation...it's US TA Authority...under

the Constitution. "Unlawful Search and Seizure." When the Airlines hire their own Private Inspectors then we have the RIGHT TO NOT FLY. If we Have to Then we have to put up with it...or drive, go by bus or train.

But, it's our US Government (Tax Payer Dollars) who PAY THE TSA and their WORKERS. "Unlawwful Search and Seizure!" On MY TAXPAYER MONEY!

[CreekDog]

79. Because I'm not visiting a doctor

and how are x-rays safe for me? i want to opt out, but i cannot opt out of 10 (on average) xrays per trip.

[pnwmom]

142. You can opt for a pat-down instead. My husband has had more than

one of the new kind and says they're not a big deal.

[CreekDog]

146. I can't opt out of CastScope --were you aware of that?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1079123-lax-security-x-rays-cast-options.html

[pnwmom]

147. From the info at the link, it doesn't sound like much of a problem.

Hopefully your cast will be off before you've accumulated much exposure.

Q: What is the difference between backscatter x-rays and medical x-rays?
A: Backscatter x-rays only penetrate approximately ¼ of an inch before the rays are scattered, whereas medical X-rays transmit completely through the body. For comparison, the CastScope emits less than 10 microRem of radiation per scan and a typical medical X-ray emits 10,000 to 100,000 microRem per scan.

Q: How much radiation exposure is produced from 1 scan of the CastScope? Is it safe?
A: One scan is equivalent to approximately 10 microRem of radiation. This is equivalent to the exposure each person receives in about two minutes of airplane flight at altitude or each person receives every 15 minutes from naturally occurring background radiation.

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) developed a standard for X-raying human subjects for security purposes using back-scatter X-ray technology. The National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) states that a person receiving 1000 microRem (100 scans) per year is still considered a negligible individual dose. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and NCRP have advised that the CastScope is safe to use on anyone ages 5 and up regardless of gender or any medical condition.

[CreekDog]

149. really, you seem to think you know a lot about my medical history

how many x rays are used by cast scope? (Popular Mechanics says 10 on average)

also, is Cast Scope just for casts?

you're wrong twice here.

[pnwmom]

158. I know only what it says in the article you linked to. Nothing about

you personally.

Why don't you link to the article in Popular Mechanics if it contains useful information?

[CreekDog]

159. ok, here's the link

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/safety/the-problem-with-prosthetics-and-airport-security

[pnwmom]

162. Well I agree -- that sounds awful. I'm wondering why they don't

change their procedures to allow people in these situations to go through with a letter from their doctors. I have to take a c-pap machine on the plane with me, and I can do that because I have a letter saying it's a prescription device. Why couldn't they accept letters from doctors explaining the locations of any implants or devices that might be picked up in a scan?

[CreekDog]

164. well that's how we've been treated for a decade, i don't think they care how we feel

i used to be so good natured about being searched, but it's just gotten over the top.

and the worst part is, every several months, they figure out how to make it more unpleasant --and i go through the full workup every time i fly.

it's so unpleasant that i won't look the tsa agent in the eyes anymore, i don't smile, i don't chit chat, nothing.

i hate it so much.

and i was hoping Obama would stand up for me, but instead i have to join the ALCU to fight a policy he supports.


and i was such a big supporter of his.

:(

[pnwmom]

170. Have you tried carrying a letter with you? FWIW,

I'll write to Patty Murray and send her the Popular Mechanics article and ask her what she can do about this. She's big on veterans issues and many of them must be impacted by this. There must be some way to make this easier on people with documented medical issues like yours.

[CreekDog]

172. People with letters and documentation are treated no differently

I don't have one, but would get one if it would make a difference.

I have a call into my congressperson, Jackie Speier on this. Incidentally, I wonder if she sets off the metal detectors...I believe she still carries bullets in her body from being shot at the Jonestown Massacre in 1978 when she was an aide to Congressman Leo Ryan (who was assassinated there in Guyana).

Thanks for understanding.

[KoKo]

153. You can't be serious comparing Doctor's Exam with TSA Personnel giving you X-Rays and Groping!

When the US Government exposes us to unlawful X-Ray Radiation and it's left up to the TSA Employee how far to "examine?"

You've gotta be kidding.

[ElboRuum]

92. Ya Really...

With the obvious exception that a doctor is given consent and those procedures might actually do the patient some good.

Clearly, otherwise they are the same...

:sarcasm: tag added because you really have to be careful these days.

[pnwmom]

21. What does that have to do with anything? Try to give a woman

an internal exam in public and see what happens -- you'll get arrested. But doctors, as part of their jobs, do it every day.

[LisaL]

Oh for crying out loud.

Do doctors do internal exams in public places on women who are facing an 11,000 $ fine if they decline?

[LynneSin]

2. No one blames the people doing the groping - they are just doing their job

we're blaming the authorities that are making them do it.

I mean in this economy you have to take the decent jobs where you can find them. I kinda feel bad for them

[Chulanowa]

5. I DO give them some blame

These workers are unionized. They can go "Heck nope, we won't grope," expressing solidarity and understanding for the people in the lines. The hands-on approach is simply ineffective and causes massive delays, in addition to genuine and deserved ill-will.

But they haven't done so. I've a notion a fair number of them simply enjoy having this kind of authority over people; I doubt they get anything sexual out of it, but it can still be gratifying to get to act like you're a federal agent detaining a perp, whenever you want.

[FourScore]

11. You might want to read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9611252

[Chulanowa]

14. Very interesting, thank you

But the "fervor" is certainly due to the methods being used - they are, again, invasive, ineffective for security, and time-consuming.

It may be more legitimate to ask if these new guidelines were pushed when they were for the purpose of union-busting. The reacting to the new measures could not have been hard to predict.

[pnwmom]

30. The timing is certainly suspect, isn't it? n/t

[NutmegYankee]

103. TSA is not Unionized.

It is one of the few places in government that is not. And second - Government workers cannot strike.

[Mushroom]

157. Thank You, Chulanowa!

"Heck nope, we won't grope!"

:shrug:

[Mortos]

6. Yes they are

People are calling the TSA agents perverts, molesters and rapists. It happens in every post. It is also happening to them at every airport in the country. The quotes are from real TSA agents who are experiencing this every day.

[FourScore]

7. Actually, I am reading a shocking amount of ugly statements aimed at TSA personnel. n/t

[leftstreet]

12. It's disgusting. And embarrassing to see it on DU n/t

[grahamhgreen]

81. It would be disgusting not to see it.

[Fumesucker]

17. If you do an ugly deed you should really expect to be called ugly names..

"Just following orders" is not a valid excuse, that point was settled at the Nuremberg trials.

mo·lest (m-lst)
tr.v. mo·lest·ed, mo·lest·ing, mo·lests
1. To disturb, interfere with, or annoy.
2. To subject to unwanted or improper sexual activity.

Touching someone's sexual organs against their will is molestation.

[Mortos]

22. It's not against your will if you know it will happen and choose to fly

You have tons of other options. You can be scanned or you can take the bus. Your definitions don't describe what they are doing but do continue to inflame emotions.

[Fumesucker]

26. So all these people want random strangers touching their sexual organs?

Even the children?

[Mortos]

28. You continue to use the same inflammatory rhetoric

the OP describes. You prove my point.

[Fumesucker]

42. One man's inflammatory rhetoric is another man's accurate description..

Let me guess, you don't think Dubya is a war criminal either and you don't think waterboarding is torture?

[FourScore]

53. Fumesucker, this is the kind of rhetoric that makes it so hard to have a reasonable

discussion on this very important topic.

[Fumesucker]

59. Are they touching people's sexual organs or not?

A simple yes or no will suffice..

[FourScore]

69. I am not under interrogation.

You are missing the point and losing the argument (an argument you should be winning) by remaining ill-informed. It is not my job to educate you.Still, I do not think you're attacks are beneficial to you or others.

[Fumesucker]

74. A simple question is now an attack?

I don't see it that way.

[uppityperson]

83. " A simple question"?

"So all these people want random strangers touching their sexual organs?"
"you don't think Dubya is a war criminal either and you don't think waterboarding is torture?"
"Are they touching people's sexual organs or not?"

"A simple question"?

I don't see it that way.

[grahamhgreen]

89. But one you can not answer.

[uppityperson]

94. Which one do you say I cannot answer and wondering why you say that?

[Fumesucker]

100. I think "will not answer" is the more correct phrase.. n/t

I feel fairly sure you know the answers to all three questions..

[uppityperson]

104. You mind read and seem to be mistaking me for another poster.

Since you seem to be trying to continue with FourScore, but I am a different person, simply joining your conversation.

Again, which one do you say I cannot answer and why?

[Fumesucker]

110. First, I said "will not answer" not "cannot answer"..

The difference isn't even particularly subtle..

Secondly, I said "I think", that means it is my opinion, no mind reading involved.

And if you jumped into the conversation then why not go ahead and answer the simple questions I asked?

[uppityperson]

118. Aha, it wasn't you who said "But one you can not answer". am also confusing posters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9611442&mesg_id=9611917

YOU did say "will not answer". and now that I'm done nitpicking that...

I do not see those as "simple questions". (oh, NOW that I'm done nitpicking...), my answers to your questions.

"So all these people want random strangers touching their sexual organs?"
They consent to having their bodies palpated since that is what TSA is now doing in the name of "security". I in no way think this in any way makes any of us any more secure though. And disagree with what they are doing, but this makes a longer less simplistic answer.

"you don't think Dubya is a war criminal either and you don't think waterboarding is torture?"
No, I do think both of those. Thanks for checking, not sure what that has to do with TSA but there is my answer. I do think he is and it is.

"Are they touching people's sexual organs or not"
As I wrote elsewhere to you, yes, they are palpating crotches and chests. And legs, backs, necks, arms, butts, not sure if they are palpating feet or hands or heads.

[Fumesucker]

121. It's funny how we all look alike on the intertronz..

I'm not all that good at checking the poster's name when I reply, I'm often distracted one way or another..

:hi:

[FourScore]

144. Let me jump back into this conversation and say...

Yeah...what she said.

Seriously, I agree wholeheartedly with uppityperson!

[uppityperson]

105. DU dupe

[Fumesucker]

99. They were all simple questions..

None of which require a great deal of thought.

But in my last post to you I was specifically referring to the question of whether or not people's sexual organs are being touched by the screeners..

I have seen pictures and videos which lead me to the inescapable conclusion that people's sexual organs are indeed being touched by screeners, do you disagree with my conclusion?

[uppityperson]

102. " in my last post to you"? THIS is your last post to me. Perhaps keeping track of whom you

are replying to might help.

As far as "sexual organs", do you mean testes and ovaries? Or do you mean ones involved with sexuality, which would be the entire body (for many of us) or do you mean penises and vulva? Define "sexual organs".

And pay attention to whom is replying to you and whom you reply to since I just jumped in here, as we do on forums.

[Fumesucker]

106. Sorry, I'm involved in more than one discussion on more than one forum ..

And I'm also trying to cook dinner, makes for a bit of distraction..

But I think you know what I mean, crotches (penises, testes, vulvas) and for women mammaries.

[uppityperson]

108. Yes, crotches and chests are being palpated.

what's for dinner?

[Fumesucker]

113. Grilled tilapia with Tony Chachere's Creole seasoning, kernel corn and turnip greens..

[uppityperson]

115. Yummy, cocoa with amaretto here since it is snowing and soon to blow out

turkey, yams, garden beans from freezer. Back to above, condensing to answer in 1 place.

[pnwmom]

41. Any who flies now knows what the procedures are and chooses

to fly anyway. Or makes that choice for their children.

[LisaL]

43. So you don't think TSA employees should be quitting their jobs?

But people who have to fly on business should?

[pnwmom]

136. I think people who fly on business should continue to fly

and pick their poison as to the type of search. Personally, I wouldn't be bothered by the pat-downs, but someone else might pick the backscatter or the microwave scan.

[Fumesucker]

47. The screeners also have a choice..

They could choose to refuse to touch other people's sexual organs..

Works both ways..

Not to mention that the officials could choose not to order this ridiculous and unnecessary groping..

[uppityperson]

86. Yeah, and pharmacists could chose to not give those sluts morning after pills!

If it is part of your job, you do it. Or you refuse and quit or get fired.

[pnwmom]

137. They can't refuse to do the search and keep their jobs.

And if they did quit, there would be people lining up in droves to take their jobs. It wouldn't do a damn thing.

[grahamhgreen]

90. BS - this argument is BS. Its a Hobson's choice

A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; "take it or leave it". The phrase is said to originate from Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner at Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all.

[pnwmom]

139. No it isn't. There is a clear choice between a pat-down

and a scan. And there is a clear choice between taking a plane or traveling some other way.

[grahamhgreen]

156. Not in modern society, there is nothing as fast as flying. If there was a choice equally as fast,

Then yes, you'd have a real choice.

[LisaL]

34. What other options?

Furthermore what exactly is to stop TSA from doing the same thing on the bus?

[FourScore]

35. Bingo! n/t

[grahamhgreen]

85. BS - this argument is BS. Its a Hobson's choice

A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered. As a person may refuse to take that option, the choice is therefore between taking the option or not; "take it or leave it". The phrase is said to originate from Thomas Hobson (1544–1631), a livery stable owner at Cambridge, England. To rotate the use of his horses he offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door or taking none at all.

[pnwmom]

15. MANY people here have been doing exactly that, calling them thugs,

molesters, pervs, etc.

Even though when almost all of these screeners were hired, the closest they got to most people was wanding them.

[Fumesucker]

18. To the best of my knowledge TSA agents are not subject to involuntary servitude..

If they don't want to fondle people's crotches they have the right to refuse to do so..

[LynneSin]

23. If the economy was overflowing with jobs I would agree with that statement

But in this job market I guess I have a bit of sympathy.

I'm sure there are many TSA agents that would like to tell their bosses to go '#(*#%' themselves but knowing that they have families, mortgages and bills to deal with at home probably keeps many of these agents silent.

[LisaL]

31. Some pilots took a stand, refused scans and pat downs, and

now pilots are going to be exempt. Sometimes it pays off to take a stand rather than blindly subject to everything you are told to do.

[pnwmom]

44. Pilots are paid to fly, not to screen passengers.

And they are a select group with special training -- hard to replace if they decided to strike.

These trainers would be easy to replace but they themselves would have a great deal of trouble finding work now. They have everything to lose and the passengers would gain nothing.

[LisaL]

49. If the employees took a stand en masse it wouldn't be so

easy to replace them all.
And you keep on and on how flying is a choice. What do you suggest people who fly on business do if they don't want the x-rays and enhanced pat downs? Do you think they got a real choice?

[pnwmom]

140. Business travelers have a choice between the pat-down and one of the

two types of scans. (Some scanners use radiation, some use microwaves.) My husband has had the pat-down and said it WAS more thorough but no big deal. I'm not going to freak out about it.

In this economy, the employees aren't about to take a stand en masse.

[FourScore]

48. That is true, LisaL. And that is the crux of this.

After 9-11, the majority of Americans were screaming for tighter security. (I was not one of those Americans, but the majority were.) TSA has lab engineers who try to foresee every kind of threat on airplanes and in airports. The screening that is being done today is a direct result of that research. If TSA has gone to far, then the people need to let them know that they have crossed the line. However, people will also need to know that they are also saying that they are willing to take the increased risk and that they understand that not all security measures are being employed. In other words, planes will be more vulnerable to attack.

[Fumesucker]

33. I've been unemployed for two years...

And yet I don't have sympathy for these people, they are making a choice to fondle people basically against their will.

If all the screeners simply said, "no we won't do this" then the officials telling them would have no choice but to capitulate.

[Matariki]

76. What would you condone "in this economy"?

People rubber stamping foreclosures? People who work for bill collectors using harassing and illegal methods? Torture? Where do you draw the line?

If they really hate what they're doing so much, they can organize and go on strike.

[Tsiyu]

129. Exactly

i suppose then that dealing drugs, prostitution, bookmaking should all become legal and acceptable now due to a bad economy.

Morals and common sense go out the window when $$$$$are involved.


Money trumps every goddamn thing these days....

[Bluebear]

4. Being forced to remove a prosthetic breast causes an emotional reaction too.

The working men and women at the TSA are generally not to blame, the ones making policy are.

[woo me with science]

96. No shit. nt

[ChoppinBroccoli]

10. Alter Saddle!!!

Sorry, but your headline just made me think of the "Bicycle Repair Man" skit from Monty Python.

[quinnox]

13. They should quit then

Because they are going to have to face these kinds of reactions daily when they do this kind of searching.

If you don't want to be accused of being a pervert or other names, then don't apply for a job where you will be doing things that people will think you are invading their private sexual areas.

The procedures are wrong, and so I have no sympathy for the workers doing them. "I'm only doing what I'm ordered" defense was proven invalid a long time ago.

[pnwmom]

19. They didn't apply for the job they NOW have. Almost all of them

were hired before the new procedures went into effect.

There's nothing that evil about their jobs that would require them to quit on some moral basis. And most of these people would probably have a great deal of difficulty finding another job in this economy.

[Fleshdancer]

38. Would you do it?

If your current job description changed overnight to include touching the genitals of strangers against their will, would you do it?

[LibDemAlways]

174. The first TSA worker who quits on moral grounds, and goes

public with his or her reasons, will have no trouble finding another job. There are employers out there who would be very sympathetic to a principled person who simply could not touch strangers' genitals for a living.

[REP]

16. Boo fucking hoo

First, if you can't take being called a name, I doubt you can "protect" anyone. I can imagine the crying and pantswetting if someone tried to hurt the poor babies.

Second, lots if people have jobs where they get treated badly. Grow up.

[pnwmom]

27. A thought-provoking post, Mortos. Thank you. n/t

[MH1]

29. Ugly America is on the rampage these days, isn't it?

[Mortos]

40. Ugly comments like these are parroted by the right wingers and the tea party

I don't mind debating the techniques but the use of such emotionally charged words to (wrongfully) describe the actions of TSA agents bothers me immensely.

Many people sound more like those idiots at town hall meetings last summer than intelligent critical thinkers.

[Individualist]

56. DLC propaganda will never hide the fact that it's fascism that is on a rampage.

[Xithras]

39. That person needs to do a little research on the Nazi's

There were more than eight million registered Nazi's in Germany during WW2, and only a small percentage were guarding trains and exterminating people.

Most were uninteresting lowly bureaucratic cogs, simply helping to turn the gears and make the government work. There were THOUSANDS of stories from Germany, recorded after the war, of Nazi government employees who were simply "doing their jobs" by shuffling papers or performing street security. There were thousands of others in "protected" industries like film and manufacturing who simply did mundane tasks like developing film, or overseeing a production line.

Most, when asked, were pretty upfront about their reasons for joining the Nazi party: "I needed a job. I didn't want my family to starve. I didn't agree, but I needed the paycheck."

They were the cogs that made the Nazi machine work. Were they evil? No, most really weren't, at a personal level. But they were still Nazi's, and their actions still helped to support one of the most vicious regimes this world has ever known. They knew full well what they were doing, and what their work was supporting, but chose their own paycheck and well being over the lives and liberty of others. They don't deserve anyone's pity.

The U.S. government is not Nazi Germany, but the mindset of these TSA employees is similar to those of many Nazi's in WW2. They know their behavior is wrong, and that their actions are leading to oppression, but they're doing it anyway because they want that paycheck.

They don't get my pity either.

[Mortos]

45. Bullshit

Your ridiculous rhetoric proves my point. Is anything the TSA doing leading to the deaths, even in a bureaucratic way, of millions of innocents. Your comparison is patently dishonest and unbelievably cruel. I don't remember the Nazis giving Jewish people the choice of flying or not.

[Xithras]

62. Work on that reading comprehension...

The only thing I compared was the mindset. The first part was a correction to a quote in the OP.

"It's not my fault I'm doing bad things, because I need that paycheck."

It's a bullshit attitude. Oppressors are oppressors, whether their motivation is ideology or a paycheck.

By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled that driving isn't a right either, but is a privilege extended by the government. You have no right to drive, but it's a choice you make. Remember that the next time a police officer pulls you over and tries to search your car without cause. You chose to drive.

[LisaL]

82. Not just police. What is to stop TSA from doing car searches and driver

pat downs? TSA stands for transportation security, not just aviation security.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. So why wouldn't TSA be able to do the same things it does to passengers that want to get on the plane? Why wouldn't TSA install x-ray scanners and pat down stations in order for people to get on a bus or on a train?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

80. Wow, there's some real irony there...

...arguing against fascism gets you compared to a fascist.

Up is down. Wrong is right.

Whatever.

[FourScore]

93. It was rude. I apologize.

I do not agree with comparing TSA workers to the Nazi's. I think the whole Nazi comparison is inappropriate and dumbs down the discussion. Your point actually becomes less strong when you use that comparison. That's what I should have said.

[Xithras]

114. I never compared TSA workers to Nazi's

The Nazi comparison actually comes straight out of the OP, but the quote in the OP contains a common, and unfortunate, historical fallacy. I was just setting it straight. Most Nazi's were just normal working suits who went to work every day to collect a paycheck. It's important to always remember that. The real power in the Nazi regime didn't come from the leather trenchcoated SS officers we see so often in movies. It came from the ordinary people who went to work for them every day, and did the jobs that made the Nazi government sustainable. It was a collective effort by both the evil and the ordinary.

Still, the only comparison I made was that general mindset. Not about Naziism, but about not being responsible for your actions because it's "just a job". We all make choices, and we all determine what our labors will be supporting. That is the only comparison I made, and the only one that can be made.

I don't think the TSA screeners are Nazi's. But I do think they've chosen to take the wrong side in this fight. Because they made that choice, I can't pity them.

[Mortos]

125. You absolutely did compare them to Nazis

and you did it again in your denial. and you questioned my reading comprehension.

[Xithras]

127. I could also use that same comparison on most soldiers, some LEO's, and many corporate employees.

The "I'm just here for a paycheck, so the behavior I'm supporting isn't my fault...even if I disagree with it" mindset can be found in most large organizations that do distasteful things. Pointing that out isn't an insult, it's reality.

I could point out that the same mindset belongs to many American soldiers in Afghanistan. Or to WW2 Nazi's. Or to IT workers in India. Or to the guy who throws your couch on the lawn after the bank takes your house. It's not a comparison, or an equation of their behaviors. It's simply an argument that humans have commonly used throughout history to justify their participation in damaging activities. "It's not my fault. The Machine is oppressing you. I'm just a cog."

The argument ignores the fact that when the cogs quit working, so does the machine.

[FourScore]

101. I'm not sure why the moderator deleted a message I had already self-deleted.

Anyway, you should know that I deleted it myself.

[jaxx]

52. Thanks for trying to bring some sanity to the over the top outrage.

You got a few who listened, but most just went on adding to the inferno. People actually expecting the TSA workers to quit...that's not even sane in this time of joblessness. And the misinformation being spread...knowingly still spread even though it was shown to be false.

Once again, thanks for trying. It's embarrassing to see some of this stuff on DU....my, my how times have changed.

[LisaL]

60. So if I had to fly on business I should be the one quitting?

[ZombieHorde]

54. I recommended this, but the emotional reaction by those who are being touched is understandable.

A large number of people have been molested as children, and being touched sometimes causes an intense reaction. Some of these people are with their families, so they have to break down in front of their families, and their families have to watch them break down.

If your twelve year old daughter had been molested, and then she starts to freak out when a stranger touches her by her breasts and genitals, and then she looks to you for protection, you just may discover you have a hard time being calm. This scenario has probably happened on more than one occasion.

Don't you think the pat downs are emotionally abusive in some cases, even if the TSA agent is a cool person? Many people act poorly when being abused, or when they are being forced to watch their loved ones being abused.

Again, I agree with your claims, and I agree with your goal of having good debates, but I think you may be asking too much here. I will try to watch my words and tone, but I can't expect those who may be feeling traumatized to be polite.

[alarimer]

107. And some people are just averse to being touched by anyone, especially strangers.

I do not want people touching me against my will. I hate even brushing up against strangers in a crowd. This is a whole lot worse than that.
But also these searches are done without probably cause, and in violation of the Constitution.

[jberryhill]

55. One TSA worker has already been punched by a passenger

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40318901/ns/travel-news/

The American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents TSA workers, is urging the TSA to do more to protect its employees from abuse from airline passengers angry over the new security methods. The union reports that some members “have reported instances in which passengers have become angry, belligerent and even physical with TSOs (transportation security officers). In Indianapolis, for example, a TSO was punched by a passenger who didn’t like the new screening process,” the union said in a Nov. 17 statement posted on its website.

[LisaL]

63. Here how one abc news employee desribes her experience with the

pat down.
"The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around," she said. "It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist. It was embarrassing. It was demeaning. It was inappropriate."
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/tsa-responds-passenger-outrages-underwear-search-happen/story?id=12208932

[jberryhill]

65. Punching the TSA worker is the appropriate response?

There are several lawsuits and pending Congressional hearings.

In the meantime, we should call people names and punch them. Do I have that right?

[LisaL]

70. There is nothing in my post that suggests

punching anyone is o'key.

[woo me with science]

57. What do you call putting your hand on someone's vulva and under their balls? nt

[jberryhill]

145. An evening in the wrong bar in Thailand /nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

58. Justified. Deal with it.

The truth sucks, but it's still the truth. That people at long last start facing the truth is to be encouraged, not guilt-tripped.

The point is not whether the screeners "enjoy" what they're doing. The point is that it is being done. Period. It's disgusting that it is happening at all. I'm really surprised that even needs saying.

And the fact that screeners are made so uncomfortable about doing their jobs? They SHOULD BE uncomfortable about this. It's way, way, way, over the line. Not by a little bit, but a lot.

This is a (supposedly) free country. This kind of thing should not be happening anywhere, for any reason. There is no reason good enough for this. It's that simple. And anybody who isn't upset about this is seriously lacking good judgment. And common sense. And respect for people.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grahamhgreen]

64. dupe

You will permanently damage kids and adults by this kind of crap.

AND wait till the scans of 14 year olds wind up pasted all over their facebook page - what kind of irreparable harm will that do?

What are you defending?

This country is the United States - united around a document - that document is our constitution, this is clearly a disturbed violation.

[Mortos]

66. I just used the ignore feature for the first time ever

In 6 years of being a member of DU. This thread could be very useful.

[Matariki]

67. And a woman was detained for say 'screw you' under her breath to the TSA agent

who touched her genitals and breasts - AFTER going through the scanner.

Pretty soon it will be illegal to even say anything but "yes sir" or "yes ma'am" to them, no matter what they do to you.

I don't have any sympathy for them. They should go on strike to end these procedures if they hate them so much.

[grahamhgreen]

75. Our current rights have been eroded to "you have the right to remain silent"

[Matariki]

78. More like "you HAD BETTER remain silent"

makes you weep.

[woo me with science]

171. +10000

This should be an OP. I had not seen that one.

[Matariki]

68. self delete

don't know why my post showed up twice.

[treestar]

73. And looking down on them because they are not "professionals"

[reggie the dog]

84. not nazis????

"“Do people know what a Nazi is? One can’t describe me as a Nazi because I am following a security procedure of designed to find prohibited items on a passenger’s body. A Nazi is someone with hatred and ignorance in their hearts, a person who carried out actions of execution and extermination of those based on their religion, origins or sexual preferences." not a nazi because you are looking for prohibited items???? like banned books, the torah,,, ???? coppers began touching me like this when i was 12 looking for drugs that i didnt even use yet... it is not normal to randomly do this to people in a free society, part of freedom means the govt has the burden of proof to prove guilt, it is not up to us to prove our innocence....
no my friend, nazis in 1937 were not exterminating people, they were trouncing their rights, i refuse to wait till our govt is actually killing people, but i saw the videos of the detainment camps.....in the usa under w......they are empty, for now and I am glad i no longer live in the usa or even on the same continent

[ElboRuum]

88. A nest of Hobson's choices.

If you don't like our procedures, don't fly.

If they don't like performing the procedures or that their job is sucky in other ways, they can quit.

Easy to say if you look upon the Hobson's choice as in some way legitimate or acceptable in an informed and fair-minded population. I do not. We have a right to be secure in our persons (and "touching your junk" is beside the point) and the people who work have a right to execute their jobs in an environment which doesn't dehumanize them. If the situation itself (in this case, the implementation of these procedures) presents issues where these two mandates cannot be met, Hobson's choice is just not acceptable. Amendment #1 indicates a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, the TSA (whether it wants to admit or not and whether it likes it or not) is a government agency, and therefore subject to the consent of the governed. So long as screeners are the public face of the TSA, they will be the targets of the outrage of the governed.

Until the TSA has the courage to take the privacy concerns of travelers more seriously than it does and starts responding to de facto allegations of undue burden, then it can just deal with the outrage.

Just for the record, I'm not convinced of the whole "It'll give me cancer" backscatter issue. I don't have enough information to draw a reasonable conclusion, but from what I've thus far read, you absorb much more radiation from flying itself (you are closer to the atmospheric lid, and thus are exposed to much more radiation than at ground level) than you absorb from a backscatter. But I am concerned greatly that our methods for supposedly keeping air travelers safe are "horse escaped, closing barn door anyway", and in the meantime no conversation of "OK, now you're just being silly, let's talk" ever occurs.

[Matariki]

95. Good post - but regarding potential health risks -

BurtWorm posted an excellent link to a letter written by Democratic Congressman Rush Holt to TSA head John Pistole. The thread didn't get the attention it deserves.

In the letter, Rep Holt quotes Dr. David Brenner of Columbia University on the potential health effects of "back scatter" x-ray devices:

Dr. Brenner has pointed out that the majority of the radiation from X-ray backscatter machines strikes the top of the head, which is where 85 percent of the 800,000 cases of basal cell carcinoma diagnosed in the United States each year develop. According to Dr. Brenner, excessive x-ray exposure can act as a cancer rate multiplier, which is why our government should investigate thoroughly the potential health risks associated with this technology.

you should read and kick the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9610064

[ElboRuum]

109. A bit of a non-starter, there.

The majority of radiation from space hits you on the top of the head, including solar. Not really illuminating anything there. If it is true that we do receive more radiation from the act of flying than we get from the screening x-ray, then if absorption of radiation is a bother to someone, then they should probably not fly anyway.

Truthfully, we accept many sources of radiation from quite a few of our modern conveniences, and we seem to be more or less fine with that. Of course, this is why I always am skeptical of the "ZOMG!!! CANCER!!!" worriers who seem to have little problem with putting a transmitter in their ears powerful enough to communicate effortlessly with a cell tower 10 miles off, but mention a low power X-ray and it's now a big deal. I agree we need better facts than some weak "assurances" by the very same agency that sues for the implementation of these machines and the company which supplies them, but it hardly qualifies taking an alarmist view without better information refuting the manufacturer's safety claims.

[Matariki]

116. You really should read up a bit more on it.

Part of the potential issues is the way this particular device concentrates radiation on the skin - vs. more typical sources of radiation that distribute it through the whole body. Coming from a family where parents and grandparents died of cancer, I'd rather not take the risk. I frankly don't trust the TSA to tell the truth about the risks for that matter.

I think your post is well written and spot on, btw.

[dbmk]

177. But..

.. the level of radiation in the scan is equivalent to two minutes in the plane you are trying to enter. Or the 15 minutes waiting to go through it.

[FourScore]

97. THANK YOU!!! Finally, an educated, well-reasoned post!!!

Well done, ElboRuum!!!

[JNelson6563]

98. The lowly workers don't matter!

[joeybee12]

111. And you know for a FACT that the child in Utah had his shirt taken off by

his father? that's a FACT?

[Freetradesucks]

120. This whole groping deal is fucked up.

Why the fuck are they touching children's privates? What was so wrong with the goddamn metal detectors?

Sure, the 9-11 high-jackers made it through with box-cutters, but they were legal at the time.

[Feron]

123. Just following orders isn't a valid defense.

A decent person would refuse to grope or x-ray the clothes off a stranger.

I have no pity for people that violate the civil liberties of others voluntarily and then whine and cry later that people call them names.

[TK421]

124. Guess what? I've had retail jobs I've hated and bitched about plenty of times on here

but I was never required to grope peoples private areas...and knowing what kind of reaction that will get from most of us, guess what? You know what kind of job you're getting into, you get no sympathy from me because you know what you do is fucking repulsive! You mean to tell me these people don't watch the news? Don't read the papers or hear about this shit from their fellow employees? What...they shouldn't care because it's "just their job and thats what they do"? Should they be shocked at the public outrage over some of the shit thats been going on at some of these checkpoints?

Give me a break...these people are getting paid for what they do...thuggery, and they know it..

If you have a fucking CONSCIENCE ( that word is not familiar to many these days ) and you are in a position like this...you don't continue...I sure as fuck wouldn't

And I'm just waiting for the first fuck to come along here and say "Well, maybe it's the only job they have and it pays the bills"?

HEY!! maybe I like to fly without having some fucking degenerate grabbing my fucking dick or putting me through an x-ray machine you fucking shitheads!

bunch of scared fucking mindless-ass sheeple...

[makemyday]

126. GROPE; RAPE; MOLEST; PROBE; FONDLE; -- Criminal Sexual Assault

At his trial Adolf Eichmann argued he was only following orders. He was found guilty of "crimes against the Jewish people, crimes against humanity, and war crimes" and was executed on 31st May, 1962. If one changes term "Jewish" to "American" and substitutes the name of the TSA Administrator, there seems to be be a parallel of "crimes against the American people, crimes against humanity, and war crimes." Perhaps there is also a parallel to the appropriateness of the punishment. Disregard of any of the "Bill of Rights" amendments to the Constitution should be recognized as a capital crime. In the cases of the TSA enhanced screenings the threat of confinement and fear (a terrorist threat) against the individual traveler might even make the unorthodox searches equivalent to "aggravated criminal sexual assault."

[Rex]

130. I have to tell you, that if ANY stranger pinched my nutsack I would

say 'HEY stop groping my balls'! I know I would be in soooo much trouble and that is why I will never fly again. You deal with it your way, I'll deal with it in mine.

[Matariki]

132. I find it alarming that no one is even sure if they'd be 'in trouble' for saying 'stop'.

Very disturbing.

[LisaL]

134. Once you in the screening area you are facing an 11,000 $ fine

if you refuse both the pat down and the x-rays. So if pat down is started and you ask them to stop I presume the same applies because you didn't complete your screening.

[Matariki]

135. And if you say "stop groping my genitals"? You've forfeited not only your 4th Amendment rights

but also your First?

[Rex]

150. That has me kinda creeped out as well.

When can I say 'stop touching me', I think people are in for a huge awakening if they think THIS is going away as a topic of importance.

[Greyhound]

131. Fuck them. They are not "serving their country" they are advancing the demise of this nation,

and for the pathetic justification of collecting a paycheck.

"Do people know what a Nazi is?" Yes, and they too were "just doing their jobs" and they too clung to the thin justification that there was no choice, There is always a choice. (remember that The Pope was a Nazi, too.)

What they do is molestation by definition. If they find that objectionable they should quit.

You can whine and cry as long as you wish, and some of us will call you on your bullshit every single time. This is wrong, period, and those doing it are the problem for without them it cannot be done.
:kick: & U

[LibDemAlways]

175. +1000. Well said.

[Dawson Leery]

133. Screw them. More fools with a uniform and unearned authority to abuse.

They are not "keeping us safe". they are working towards the destruction of this country.
I have NO INTEREST in hearing "just following orders". I have no respect for those types.

[Crunchy Frog]

148. The whole system is degrading, both to the agents and to the passengers.

There must be a better way to provide effective security in airports.

[TexasObserver]

154. MORE CAPITAL LETTERS!! AND MORE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!

IT MAKES IT CORRECT, DON'T YOU KNOW???!!!!



Except for this time. Your point has already been advanced ad nauseam the past several days, and rebutted.

[lunatica]

165. So in order not to offend the TSA people doing pat downs we should just welcome it?

Your argument is pretty lame because you're trying to make us feel sympathy for people who, whether they like it or not, are humiliating their fellow Americans. People do feel sexually assaulted when their genitals are touched and felt by strangers but you would have us submit without complaining because these people are just doing their jobs. Do these people really feel it's their patriotic duty to submit their fellow Americans to humiliation? Do they really believe it isn't humiliating because they're only following orders? And at what point would they draw a line and refuse to keep obeying orders?

They aren't keeping this country safe by doing this, because now the terrorists have moved on to other methods and Americans are getting angry. How does that make this country better in the world?

[mstinamotorcity]

166. This is not about the TSA!!!!!!!!

This is not about the screeners. This is about somebody's friend who wants to get a Government contract to service the Nation's airports for profit by way of the Federal Government. Is anybody listening to the backdrop of the Privatization Meme?? Don't you hear wages dropping as we speak. And if some Private Company takes over anytime they want to cause a fear panic in America all they need to do is have a convenient Security Breach! This is so obvious that any two year old can see it. I feel sorry for the TSA Screeners. They are getting railroaded and belittled for somebody's profit. Certainly not theirs. And they are in no way getting the support of the American people. One of the reasons is they want unions and any other form of organized labor in this country abolished. The next thing you will see is Republicans trying to reform the U.S. Labor Department's Hourly and Salary rates for workers. I don't see that they will be geared to higher wages or salaries, knowing they talk out the side of their neck about lowering minimum wage on more than one occasion.

[distantearlywarning]

167. Actually

A Nazi was someone who was a German patriot, someone who followed orders even when they thought those orders might not be right, NOT necessarily someone who actually believed in the abuse of Jews and others.

The comparison is totally apt, regardless of what this person might want to believe about themselves and their actions.

[Odin2005]

168. If they don't want people thing they are pervs they should quit.

If EVERY TSA agent suddenly said that they would not do this shit what would the authorities could do about it? NOTHING.

[bdamomma]

169. you don't see our fine elected officials being patted down,

they just walk through, again, the American people being treated like crap.

[Scurrilous]

173. Kick

:kick:

[backscatter712]

176. Don't like being asked to violate people? QUIT!

I have little sympathy for TSA employees.