ACLU has growing database of TSA patdown descriptions too graphic for public airwaves

[Liberal_in_LA]

Gavin Garrison reported to Dupré on Thursday:

"A TSA agent explained what they were going to do, including feeling the bottom of my feet and continue to feel me all the way up to my pubic bone until they 'felt resistance.' By that time, everyone was watching. They were ravaging and touching every part of my body. I'm trying to tell you what they said and did best I can without offending you. (TSA targets Gulf filmmakers at check-point (video))"

The ACLU maintains an ever-growing database of these indignities are so graphic, "they're illegal to broadcast over public airwaves. Actions that violate FCC standards are embraced by the TSA."

"Mary in Texas" reported:

"The TSA agent used her hands to feel under and between my breasts. She then rammed her hand up into my crotch until it jammed into my pubic bone ... I was touched in the pubic region in between my labia ... She then moved her hand across my pubic region and down the inner part of my upper thigh to the floor. She repeated this procedure on the other side. I was shocked and broke into tears."

A woman named Chris said:

"In the four times she explored the area where my inner thigh met my crotch, she touched my labia each time, and one pass made contact with my clitoris, through two layers of clothing. I told her I felt humiliated, assaulted and abused ... In my work as a nurse, if I did what the TSA did against a patient's will it would be considered assault and battery, and I did not see how the TSA should have different rules."
Recipients of such treatment aren't allowed to show distress. Melissa from Massachusetts did anyway:
"I was shaking and crying the entire time. I was begging them to hurry up but they kept stopping and telling me to calm down. It is impossible to gain composure when a stranger has her hands in your underwear."

http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/tsa-x-rated-porno

ACLU reports that recurring themes in its reports include:

• The searches are extremely invasive
• Many travelers are reporting intense feelings of violation and humiliation
• Some report being physically hurt by the searches
• Some feel their searches are punitive
• Reports of gawking by agents
• Reports of seemingly unnecessary repeated touching of intimate areas
• Many vow not to fly any more
• Any traveler may be forced to undergo one of these searches

[GoneOffShore]

1. And some here still say: "Anything to be safe!"

Maybe we should start asking - "Safe from who?"

The Smurfs (TSA in their blue shirts in case you don't get the reference) are mall cop wannabees empowered by complacent and frightened citizens.

It's time to stop this nonsense.

[seabeyond]

4. isnt it amazing. just amazing. but have other stories and the compassions pours out.

these people though.... fuck em. as long as they can live in the illusion of safety.

disgusting

[Aleric]

40. +100

[KansDem]

66. And some have said it's no big deal since you let your doctor touch you there...

Amazing...:wow:

[freshwest]

98. Yeah, but doctors say for them, it's like washing dishes. These guys are voyeurs or worse.

[saras]

134. No they don't

If MY doctor touched me THERE, like THAT, they'd be in the middle of a lawsuit so fast it would make their entire spine spin, not just their head.

Even sex therapists, if you're old enough to remember them, didn't touch you there without a LOT of coaching.

And they certainly don't do it in public with a crew of creeps drooling along...

[Stinky The Clown]

129. I have no respect and little care for the people who remain accepting of this national indignity

[Stinky The Clown]

130. This level of indignity, amazingly to me, was put in place by a Democratic administration.

I continue to be unable to reconcile that in my mind.

I hated this when Idiot Son put TSA in place.

I hate it even more now that the Obama administration has put it over the top.

[truedelphi]

133. When it first becme obvious that Obama's progressive stance, on display constantly

In October 2008, was a mere facade, it occurred to me, "Well that facade is perfect for someone who is going to help the Powers to Be put in place the final solutions."

People like Barbra Streisand still think that this style Administration is still the greatest thing on earth - but let's face it: the Streisands of our nation don't fly commercially. They have private planes.

When you look at how genocide occurs, it is a step by step process. First you deny people the ability to work. Then you get tighter and tighter restrictions on the ability of people to travel.

We who are considered "bottom feeders" don't have the ability to work. We are not supposed to travel unless absolutely necessary. So many of us are just waiting for the net shoe to fall.

It won't necessarily be Jewish people scheduled for the final solution. It will be poor people and disabled people and older people. Might as well get us out of the way - we all remember the standards this nation once held in place, and we are not in the least happy about the reversals we are seeing.

[Richard Steele]

145. Good germans all. nm

[pnorman]

2. K & R !

n/t

[hlthe2b]

3. This problem is not going to go away & likely to get worse...

It is time that those in denial, wake up. It doesn't matter which administration is overseeing TSA, this is just wrong. It would be excessive even if they could show some limited effect. However, all they have found is the rare bag of pot. Drug enforcement is not the purvue of the TSA and I have to wonder how effective they are towards explosive detection when tied up with local law enforcement to bust someone for drugs.

I would dearly love to give Napolitano an earful.

These groping exams would be sexual assault in any other context.

[SoCalNative]

5. This is why I've given up travel

until security theatre is either severely curtailed or completely disbanded.

[adamuu]

126. I must fly for a job interview n/t

[Matariki]

6. I'm amazed at how some will argue that we "give up" constitutional rights when we fly.

If rights can be "given up" then they aren't rights at all.

[Aleric]

39. That is the most absurd statement I have heard in awhile. n/t

[MsPithy]

41. No, Matariki is spot on,

and better yet, pithy!

[Aleric]

44. So explain it to me.

Really? So the right not to be assualted magically shields you from rape? The right to be safe in your home magically shields you from burglary? If rights can be violated, they can be taken away. If they can be taken away, they can be given away.

[MsPithy]

51. No one is magically shielded from rapists and burglars, in a word, criminals.

But, the 4th Amendment does magically shield me from the government (TSA) committing the crime of, what can only be described as the definition of, an unreasonable search!

[LSK]

55. the difference is you giving up your rights vs someone violating them nt

[TalkingDog]

60. I think your definition of Inalienable Rights needs some clarification.

You can't take away an Inalienable Right, nor can you give it away. It can be violated, as you describe in your post. But that in no way removes the Right.

It merely shifts the focus to the fact that the Right was violated.

You are (perhaps purposefully) making a faulty argument in order to shore up a flawed understanding of Natural Rights vs. Legal Rights.

You can give up legal rights. You cannot give up Natural (Inalienable) Rights. Inalienable = UNABLE to make alien or foreign.

Rape and burglary are both violations of inalienable human rights. They are also a violation of legal rights.


I explained it to you.

The question is: Do you understand?

[Aleric]

62. No one mentioned inalienable rights

Until just now.

But there is a difference between an inalienable right and a natural right.

A natural right is one that is founded in nature - for example, gravity. You have a right not to fall off the planet. You have the right not to produce more energy than you consume.

An inalienable is one that is (under the declaration of independence) endowed by God. These rights are vague and the only articulated inalienable rights are the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Theoretically, no government should be allowed to infringe on these rights but most do and they are not encoded in the hierarchy of laws of the United States since the DoI is not a part of the hierarchy of laws. To the courts, it has no binding effect, though it does provide strong guidance.

Constitutional rights are not inalienable rights. That's why they are embedded into the Constitution. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is a Consitutional right found in the 4th amendment. It is not an inalienable right. The Consitution declares that it is a right which we have been granted and which the government can not infringe.

It is, however, possible for us to waive that right, i.e. give it away. When the TSA demands that we either be subjected to radiation or bodily searched they are saying "You must waive your 4th amendment right or we will not let you fly. We will interfere with the contract between you and your air carrier." That is called extortion.

Rape and Burglary are not violation of Inalienable Rights. They may be violations of Human Rights, I'd have to check the U.N. declaration on Human Rights to find out.

Nature does not grant you the right to be rape free. God does not grant you the right to be rape free. The government promises to punish someone who rapes you and that it will try to prevent your rape.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Er no, natural rights and inalienable rights are the same thing.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments. They are enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

And no, gravity is not a 'natural right'. Seriously, what sort of total bullshit was that?

[Aleric]

69. Philosophers and Political Scientists are not lawyers

And their opinion has little weight in court or to the Sheriffs or Marshals who enforce their decisions.

[Downtown Hound]

71. And that doesn't mean jack shit in terms of who is actually RIGHT from an ethical point of view

It was once illegal for a black person to drink out of the same water fountain as a white person. I guess all the philosophers and scholars were wrong about the need for equal rights and all the bigoted, fascist policemen who sicked dogs on people and sprayed them with fire hoses for demanding equality were right?

[Aleric]

80. And ethics have little to do with law enforcement

Law and ethics are othorgonal to each other. Laws are frequently unethical. Ethics are frequent left out of the law. So are we talking about laws or ethics? I'm talking about laws, the 4th amendment to be precise. If you just want to talk about ethics that's a different argument.

[Downtown Hound]

86. Well, in this case, I'm talking about both

The fourth amendment grants you protection against unreasonable search and seizures. And anybody who says it's okay for a TSA agent to stick her fingers up a woman's crotch for simply boarding a place I would say is violating both the spirit and the letter of the fourth amendment. And I'm really not interested in hearing your rather ridiculous comparisons to gravity in your feeble attempt to justify the agent's behavior.

[Aleric]

88. I never tried to justify the TSA

I don't know how you got that out of it.

[Downtown Hound]

90. Then what the fuck are you trying to do here?

You're spouting a whole bunch of crap about gravity and natural law and saying somehting about how because we can be raped at anytime, we have no real rights. Why don't you just give it up and go outside or something? This is one of the stupidest flamewars I've ever been involved on at DU. And that says a lot.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[Downtown Hound]

96. How do you think a woman's right to control what enters her um, private parts

can be given away? And when I say given away, I mean by the government or anybody else, not herself. And why are you really so interested in finding out that answer? Most people just kind of accept it as a given that that's an inalienable or natural right or whatever the fuck you want to call it that is hers and hers alone. Go ahead and ponder it until your face turns blue if it pleases you. I personally think the answer is rather simple.

[Aleric]

101. I answered that question, you didn't read it. n/t

[Downtown Hound]

103. And as I said, your answer was a bunch of gibberish

that made rather idiotic comparisons to gravity and other such nonsense. I read your "answer." I just thought it was a bunch of crap.

[snort]

131. Ignored

[Maru Kitteh]

153. Oooo - jumping to the personal attack because your argument sucks is

at once pitiful and a violation of DU rules. We assume you know how to find and read the DU forum rules.

[MsPithy]

93. I will probably regret this,

but, here goes. What does "othorgonal" mean?

[Aleric]

99. Sorry, I should avoid that word

Orthogonal is a mathematical term meaning "at right angles". In philosophical terms it means that two concepts are independent of one another. For example a person can be socially liberal and economically conservative. Social values and economic values would thus be 'orthogonal' to each other. This becomes apparent when looking at something like the "political compass" which charts economic values on one axis and social values on another.

Does that make sense?

[Warren Stupidity]

72. what?

"natural rights" is a philosophical concept not a legal one. The expression of natural rights found in the declaration of independence have no legal standing. The only rights the court recognizes are legal rights explicit or implicit in our constitution.

You lost all credibility when you managed the instant classic "gravity is a natural right", I suggest you stop now and give this thread up as a lost cause.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Aleric]

79. No, it's not

I was trying to derive a right from a natural law. One form of "Natural law" philosophy attempts to derive rights from nature. Usually, this form of law making is rather harsh and abusive. "Natural law" advocates have, in the past, badly misused darwinism and other laws of nature as a basis for draconian policies.

[Downtown Hound]

84. Um, yes it is.

Gravity is simply a force. It has no moral, legal, or ethical properties. Any of those characteristics you think it has is simply you projecting your own human belief system on something that existed billions of years before we even existed.

And the only one I see here defending draconian policies is you.

[Aleric]

87. wait, now you gravity *is* a right when I agreed with you? Wtf?

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Aleric]

100. where you wrote 'um, yes it is'

Apparently, I'm just dumb enough to keep arguing with you.

[Downtown Hound]

102. When I said, gavity is simply a force, you said, "no it's not."

So I responded, yes it is. If you meant to say something else, try speaking more clearly and in less gibberish.

[MsPithy]

74. I agree with you, except for a matter of phrasing that is small but essential.

The framers were adamant that these rights- whatever we call them- are inherent in the individual. They are not "bestowed by a government to the governed people," as you stated. The Constitution is a list of prohibitions directed at the government in order to protect the rights of the individual, not a list of rights the government gives the individual.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. legal rights can overlap natural rights

the government, as it did in the bill of rights, can enumerate natural rights and codify them.

[MsPithy]

91. Respectfully, I must insist,

the Bill of Rights is a list of government limitations, not an enumeration or codifications of rights.

The way you are describing the Bill of Rights was exactly what Alexander Hamilton feared. He thought if unalienable rights were enumerated in the Constitution, some idiot in the future -cough-Scalia-cough- would falsely assume if a right was not mentioned, it was not really an unalienable right.

I want to agree with you wholeheartedly, but this is a really important point.

[Warren Stupidity]

105. Actually it is frequently both.

Take the text of the 4th:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This both limits the actions of the government (ironically of course it does not anymore) and establishes as a legal right the natural right to be secure in your person property and things. It limits how the government can violate your natural property rights.

Or the first, which by limiting government interference over the press or religion also establishes as legal rights freedom of speech and worship.

I agree that the fact that the courts have tended to limit our rights to those that are enumerated has taken place, and disagree that it started with Scalia.

[MsPithy]

113. I agree that Scalia is not the first idiot

to have a "personal agenda driven," therefore erroneous, interpretation of the Constitution. I apologize for not being more precise. On the main point, we must agree to disagree.

[MsPithy]

107. "inalienable" or "unalienable."

http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

http://adask.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/unalienable-vs-inalienable/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12432006/Unalienable-vs-Inalienable-Rights-Know-the-difference

http://appeal2heaven.com/2009/04/29/inalienable-vs-unalienable-rights/

[Downtown Hound]

68. Your whole argument seems to be based on the fact

that because you can be raped at any time, you have no real rights. And therefore, it's okay for the government to abuse you at will. Is that in fact what you are saying? Help me out because it sure seems that way to me.

[Aleric]

78. "But you can't do that!"

No, I'm saying that having a right doesn't prevent something from happening.

Advocates of natural and inalienable rights (which are not recognized in the courts) seem to believe that these rights can not be waived or taken away. My argument is that if a right can be violated, it can be waived, taken, and given away.

This argument is going nowhere because I am arguing from a legal and practical point of view and the crowd is apparently arguing from the point of view of legal philosophy and political science.

So, going back to the rape question - yes, it is theoretically possible to waive your rights in such a case if indeed a person has a rape fantasy and that fantasy is carried out. (It is another question as to whether anyone can truly entertain such a fantasy.) When I was a kid, young girls were taught to comply with their attacker because it would raise their chances of survival. Dissecting this from a legal perspective this is "waiver under duress" which means that the right was waived but the waiver was invalid.

So the reason my title is what it is - have you ever been in a dispute and someone says "You can't do that!" Well, any english teacher will tell you that statement is faulty because, in most cases the other party just DID that. People have an incomplete understanding of rights - they tend to apply a kind of magical thinking to them. Have you ever seen Nanny McFee? In that movie the cook kept a piece of paper in her pocket that she thought would keep the children out of the kitchen. "They aren't allowed in here. I have it in writing. IN WRITING." But, of course, that paper did nothing to prevent the children from entering the kitchen.

So, when I talk about natural rights I'm diving rights into three groups - natural law, divine law and human law. Natural laws are laws you "can't" break. Divine laws are laws you "may not" break and you *will* be punished for transgressing. Human laws are laws you 'may not' break and if you do, you *might* be punished for.

In legal terms - inalienable rights, human rights, constitutional rights and statutory rights are all distinct and separate regardless of what philosphers and political scientists make of them. In this case, the argument is that the TSA is violating rights granted under the 4th Amendment. It's a distinctly legal argument. Bringing in philopshical claims on inalienability is not useful.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[MsPithy]

70. DUDE, seriously? gravity?

Just because you make something up in your head and it sounds good to you, it is in YOUR head after all, please, don't feel compelled to share it.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. Wrong, You just described Unalienable. Inalienable and Unalienable have different meaning.

You can surrender an inalienable right.

You cannot surrender an unalienable right.


There's a reason Jefferson's Memorial has the 'wrong' spelling across the base in foot-tall letters.

[TalkingDog]

157. I stand corrected. I did indeed mean unalienable rights.

If you read my post, you will see that I attempted to use the correct definition for the wrong word.

For future reference, I'm not averse to constructive criticism or factual correction. Feel free to point out any flaws in the facts presented. Knowledge is good.

[AtheistCrusader]

169. I could have been a little more polite about that, sorry.

[TalkingDog]

176. Da Nada

There is a dearth of careful consideration of the facts on the Intertubes. Trying to address it all can make one terse. Been there.

[MsPithy]

45. You are sooo right!

This has been bothering me, too! It seems to be a never-ending cycle, government (or religion) demands obedience and individuals wage bloody battle to win freedoms. A few generations later, and here we are again, too stupid to remember how much blood was spilled to protect us from our own government fondling -oops, I mean searching- our labia.

[somone]

7. This is sadistic abuse

Some of these so-called inspectors should go to jail

[LisaL]

17. TSA will tell you they are following whatever it is TSA tells them to do.

In order to keep us safe.

[lunatica]

8. I've said this before. Al Qaeda says "Boo!" and the US shits it's pants

It's not the American People. It's people like Janet Napolitano who is scared witless that some terrorist might succeed on her watch.

[LibDemAlways]

9. If she was truly concerned about terrorists she'd preside over the

dismantling of TSA and lobby for intelligent security. What we have now is terrorism against travelers by the US government.

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. The private corporations vying for that power are a problem.

The one I'm following donated to Republicans in one of the most corrupt counties in Central Florida. In a county which believes in Southern good ole boy methods that take the power away from the people. In a county that puts that power in the hands of the most greediest, autocratic bullies they can find that will tow their lines. Yeah, that's better.

[LibDemAlways]

47. I'm not suggesting we privatize it. Only that the current

system is a failure that needs to be seriously rethought.

[The Backlash Cometh]

54. Without question.

I'm thinking of wearing my Yoga tights whenever I travel. As if people need to see my lumpy largesse.

[mikehiggins]

35. Who appointed her? Bush?

Direct your complaints directly to the President. He's the guy who can change everything in this situation with a stroke of a pen.

I no longer fly. If I can't get where I'm going by car, train or bus, I don't go.

Of course, being one of Simpsons "greedy old people" I'm retired and not under the time pressures of working people, or people travelling with kids.

So I'm okay, and in this new AMerica of ours, that's all that matters, right?

[Can of Whoop-ass]

37. Singling out Napolitano

isn't going to change the Supreme Court.

[Odin2005]

146. No, the PTB are using terrorism as a boogyman to scare us into accepting a police state.

[LibDemAlways]

10. I'm glad the ACLU is gathering the information. I hope they

decide to take some sort of appropriate legal action - and soon. This shit is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment.

[LisaL]

14. I don't know what aclu is waiting for.

[boppers]

18. They're looking for something that would be clearly unconstitutional, and overturn prior law.

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/11/19/do-the-new-tougher-airport-security-measures-violate-any-laws/

Right now, it's considered somewhat legal, if distasteful to many.

[LisaL]

19. Well, from your link:

"However, the searches must still be carried out in a reasonable fashion and with the minimum amount of intrusion necessary."
http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/11/19/do-the-new-tougher-airport-security-measures-violate-any-laws/
Do you think what these people are describing TSA agents did to them fits?

[boppers]

20. It sounds like a generic full pat-down to me, not a strip search.

Of course, I've been searched at least a good 150-300 times in my life, everything from a full strip search for prison entry, to many, many, quick patdowns for nightclub entry, to the standard police frisk, so I'm used to it. I also have people regularly lifting up my skirt and running their hands up my thighs without my consent, so I've also gotten used to that (side effect of wearing a kilt in places where people drink).

From the language used, it sounds like a lot of people found the procedures unreasonable and intrusive to *them*, and what has to be balanced out is the grey area there..... where some would find it reasonable and minimally intrusive, but others would not find it reasonable and minimally intrusive.

[TeeYiYi]

32. I agree with you, regarding possible perception vs. reality, to a point...

... I'll say this: I too have been strip searched multiple times, including the full body cavity search, but if someone is touching my clit before I board a plane, they'd damn well better be kissing me.

TYY

[Aleric]

61. The difference is

...the police can not stop you without articulable suspicion and they can not arrest or search you without probably cause. The TSA has neither.

I can't find the link now but I have read one article by a police officer calling the searches a joke. They aren't effective, they aren't reasonable.

[boppers]

135. Google "Administrative Search Doctrine"

http://www.google.com/search?q=Administrative+Search+Doctrine

Basically, places like schools, airports, courthouses, (etc.) are exempt from warrant requirements.

[LisaL]

139. Well,

"As is the case with other searches, an administrative search must also be conducted in a "reasonable" manner. The "reasonableness" of a search is determined by balancing the individual's privacy interest against the government's interest in promoting public safety."
Has TSA found even one terrorist trying to get a bomb on a plane by doing what it is they are doing? I know TSA found some pot, but it's not what they are supposed to be looking for. So, how is what they are doing is reasonable?
http://ag.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/24B46C63-24BB-4B8B-957F-6A17754F5A45/0/OAG9458.htm

[boppers]

141. From the same link:

"The goal of an administrative search is not to discover and arrest the individuals who are carrying concealed weapons. Rather, the objective in an administrative search is to deter these individuals from even bringing their weapons with them when they enter a public location such as an airport or courthouse. United States v. Albarado, 495 F.2d 799, 804 (2d Cir. 1974). "

[LisaL]

143. Both the shoe bomber and underwear bomber got onto the planes,

so they weren't deterred.

[boppers]

164. Timeline is everything.

1. Shoe bomber attempt
2. Everybody must now remove their shoes for scanning
3. Groin bomber attempt
4. Everyone must now have their groins scanned and/or patted down

The rectum bombing attempt wasn't on a plane, but....

:argh:

[LisaL]

166. I used to think that cavity searches was a far fetched idea, but

no more. It's like slowly boiling a frog.
Start off with shoes off and go from there.
What will we end up with?

[DirkGently]

11. The TSA is using a threat of sexual assault to force people into their new machines, period.

[KeepItReal]

13. +1

It is a punitive process.

[barbtries]

26. this is my airport fantasy:

when they ask me to go into the strip search machine, i say "fuck michael chertoff." when they tell me i will be subject to an invasive patdown, i ask for a man and shiver lasciviously.

in reality i'll just say no and stand there fuming while being violated.

[primavera]

33. Mine is to wear a kilt with nothing on beneath...

... and then pee on the officer who tries to grope me. "Sorry, nervous incontinence, you understand, not used to being sexually assaulted..."

[barbtries]

50. lol

if only. :rofl:

[DirkGently]

123. Making the TSA squirm is a start. 8) Lawsuits and assault charges should follow.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Absolutely correct.

I got put in the porno-scan line at SFO and after considering my options (and not flying was not one of them) went for the fucking porno-scanner. Meanwhile the family behind me, including two girls under 8, also got porno-scanned - the line between child pornography and 'security' seems rather blurry to me.

I stopped paying attention to the liquid idiocy regulations a long time ago and routinely plunk contact lens solutions into my toilet kit and stuff that in my bag and send it all through the bullshit scanner and in two years of doing this have never had anyone say a goddamn thing. The security is crap. The fear and humiliation is real.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

92. Wonder what they'll do to my 75 year old mother, who CAN'T go thru the machines...

because she has a pacemaker. I will NOT fly again unless and until this stops.

[LisaL]

122. Enhanced pat down.

[Odin2005]

147. Or my friend with cerebral palsy who is also a rape survivor.

She has an electric wheelchair and several rods in her back.

[bbgrunt]

12. time to send my contribution to the ACLU.

[LisaL]

85. I'd ask them first if they plan to do anything about it,

except posting all these complaints on their website?
Surely aclu could file a lawsuit on behalf of some of these complaining passengers?

[snot]

15. Wouldn't this situation would be perfect for civil disobedience, if

it could be done in sufficient numbers?

I mean, if enough people refused to cooperate, wouldn't it make such a stink, it would have to end?

And hold it, I'm not clear -- the hands go INSIDE the underwear? ("It is impossible to gain composure when a stranger has her hands in your underwear.") But another one says, "through two layers of clothing"?

[LisaL]

16. Some who underwent these "enhanced pat downs" have

reported that TSA agents stuck their hands inside the waistband of the pants. The "groin check" is done through the clothing. So it could be the two parts of the same pat down-hands inside the waistband and groin check through the clothing.

[mopinko]

27. in another thread someone suggested singing

the chorus of alice's restaurant. it could be a movement.

[csziggy]

158. I think we should sing "Toucha Toucha Toucha Feel Me"

From Rocky Horror.

Janet:
I was feeling done in, ... couldn't win
I'd only ever kissed before.

Columbia:
You mean she...

Magenta:
Uh, huh

Janet:
I thought there's no use getting
Into heavy petting
It only leads to trouble
And seat wetting.

Now all I want to know is how to go.
I've tasted blood and I want more. (More, more, more.)
I'll put up no resistance. I want to stay the distance
I've got an itch to scratch. I need assistance.

Toucha toucha toucha touch me
I want to be dirty
Thrill me, chill me, fulfill me
Creature of the night.

Then if anything grows, while you pose,
I'll oil you up and rub you down. (Down, down, down.)
And that's just one small fraction of the main attraction
You need a friendly hand and I need action.

Toucha toucha toucha touch me
I want to be dirty
Thrill me, chill me, fulfill me
Creature of the night.

Columbia:
Toucha toucha toucha touch me

Magenta:
I want to be dirty.

Columbia:
Thrill me, chill me, fulfill me,

Magenta:
Creature of the night.

Janet:
Toucha toucha toucha touch me I want to be dirty
Thrill me, chill me, fulfill me, creature of the night.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Gee, whiz. We flew over the Holidays, and maybe we got lucky, but everything was fine.

Security was friendly, and non-intrusive.

The worst part was a 30ish guy who was obviously having some sort of meltdown and rage drunk temper tantrum about having to pass through security while trying to make his flight. After cutting in front of my wife and kids (who were obviously not unloading the stroller fast enough for his taste) at the "put your shit in the buckets" table, he proceeded to angrily whip off his leather belt, nearly whacking my toddler in the face with it as he huffed and puffed and fumed. After much slamming and pissing and bitching and sturm und drang, dude got through security and the TSA people were, like, "his gate is right there, and they haven't even started boarding yet"

Probably wanted to be at the front of the line so he could be assured to stake out his rightful claim of overhead bin space. Fucking asshole.

[grahamhgreen]

31. Just wait til they grope your child...

[proReality]

36. I saw TSA manhandling a child that couldn't have been more than 18 mos.

The poor baby was screaming hysterically in fright, but that only seemed to make the bastard TSA guy flip the kid around even more. At one point the child was upside down for about 30 seconds before TSA roughly thrust him back to his anxious father. I had to wonder if the rough treatment was because the family were obviously of Indian descent and could have been "terrorists" just waiting to blow their baby up.

My husband had to restrain me from getting up and telling the SOB off. That was 5-years ago. If I ever fly again and see something like that, I will not keep quiet even if it means I'm arrested. It was extremely brutal and completely unnecessary.

[LibDemAlways]

52. I saw equally terrible abuse of an elderly woman in a wheelchair. She

had to have been at least 90, very frail, hunched over, probably all of 90 pounds. One TSA goon yanked her shoes off and ordered her to stand. She didn't even know what was happening. Just sat there with a blank expression. Goon #1 then called over two other goons to hoist her up. They held her up by the arms while she was thoroughly wanded. Then they let go and she sort of sank back into the chair. (Can't even imagine what would happen to her today. This was 2003.) I'll never forget the look on her face when they grabbed her. Just sheer terror. Meantime, her daughter, also a senior citizen,was standing nearby crying, "Please leave my mother alone. She has Alzheimers."

I will never forget that ugly scene as long as I live. What is being done to innocent people by the government at the airport is a goddamned travestry.

[LisaL]

82. They'd likely do an enhanced pat down on someone like her

today, considering they wouldn't be able to get her to stand with her arms up in the x-ray scanner.

[grahamhgreen]

110. Shocking story!

[CreekDog]

151. i'm not surprised but i am angry

people like her are depending upon those who don't want her to go through this to speak up on her behalf.

[grahamhgreen]

109. Shocking story!

[Warren DeMontague]

112. I'm just reporting what I saw, Jack.

Honestly, the hysteria and outrage seem a little over-wrought and over-blown. Maybe I'm just not flying into and out of the "right" (wrong) Airports. I'm sure Newark sucks ass, but that's same as it ever was.

[CreekDog]

150. it's gotten far worse to be patted down or inspected over the past couple years

and past few months in particular.

you don't notice? that's great. i do. i can tell you lots about our security and what they check because i get the workover each time.

how nice for you that you don't think it's worse. me, not only do i think it's worse, i what they'll come up with in 2 years at the rate they're going.

[Warren DeMontague]

156. I'm sorry that my experience doesn't conform to your expectations.

Flying, in general, sucks ass- you'll get no argument from me there.

But the TSA-as-boogeyman hysteria, again, strikes me as overwrought compared to what I've actually experienced. And I've been patted down, wanded, and selected for all sorts of "special" screening.... especially, invariably, on the East Coast, apparently because I am a MAN with LONG HAIR which means I must have a treasure chest full of WEEEEED hidden somewhere in my stuff, me hardees! :D :eyes:

YMMV. Like I said, maybe it depends on the airport. Worst thing I saw on this last trip was this "grown" "man" having a massive temper tantrum about having to go through security.

[CreekDog]

159. how about forced x-rays?

that you cannot opt out of?

are you subject to those?

[Warren DeMontague]

160. What are you talking about?

Do you think that if you just keep throwing stuff at the wall, eventually I'll agree to be outraged enough, and then because of my immense personal pull with the TSA, things will change?

There are no "forced x-rays that you cannot opt out of", as far as I'm aware. If you're talking about the so-called nudie scanners, which people CAN opt out of, none of the airports I've been at have had 'em operational, not that I've seen.

Personally, the x-ray factor bothers me more than the "OMG OMG OMG the TSA might see me nude OMG" factor, but then I've spent a lot of time since my dissolute youth trying to stay in decent shape, and if they want to ogle, let 'em. Nevertheless, as a general point I think there should be a damn good reason before people are subjected to any extra ratiation, and "that guy might have a bag of weed in his pocket" isn't a damn good reason. I don't believe the stuff- in whatever fashion it's actually being implemented- is making us much safer (certainly, "dump your water so you can buy more for twice the price down the hall" isn't making anyone safer except the people running the evian concession) ... that said, again, my personal experience even as recently as last week has been that while flying- in general- sucks balls these days, the security apparatus doesn't seem any worse than usual.

What DOES seem worse is the fucking obnoxiousness of some of the passengers, like the rage-drunk shitwit who was so wrapped up in being pissed off at the inconvenience of getting through security he almost whacked my toddler in the eyes with his leather belt.

[CreekDog]

161. CastScope --you cannot opt out of it

it may be used on children as young as 6 years old.

they take multiple images that see through a cast or other medical device.

from TSA's own public affairs: you cannot opt-out.

yes, i think that's outrageous.

maybe you shouldn't use only your experience to judge TSA.

(and my concern is radiation...the invasion of privacy notwithstanding. my other concern is that this imaging is being forced on a specific group of people who are bearing more than their share of the radiation and intense screening than the rest of the traveling public)

[Warren DeMontague]

162. I think I must have said about 10 times in this subthread, that this is my personal experience.

And it may be fully dependent upon things like, which airports.

And, I think I said more than once, YMMV.

So I'm not sure what else you want. I'm reporting my experience, and again, I'm genuinely sorry if it distresses you to hear someone report an experience that doesn't line up sufficiently with your take on something.

[CreekDog]

163. No you said i was making it up

i'm not.

and you keep saying your experience then denying that others' are treated wrongly.

at least be consistent.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. Where did I say you were making anything up? I never said that. I said I wasn't aware of a non-opt

out x-ray scan. I was not aware of the CAST-scan, and like I said, I too have problems with the whole unneccessary x-ray radiation thing. If it makes you feel better, though, I stand corrected. The example you cite, the CAST-scan, I hadn't heard of, until you mentioned it.

I'd also like you to point out where I am "denying that others' are treated wrongly". I didn't do that.

I think you're talking to someone inside your own head, not me.

[CreekDog]

168. Well you kept denying it, here with your "throwing stuff at the wall" comment

you wrote (in response to me posting that some x-rays are not "opt out":

"Do you think that if you just keep throwing stuff at the wall, eventually I'll agree to be outraged enough, and then because of my immense personal pull with the TSA, things will change?

There are no "forced x-rays that you cannot opt out of", as far as I'm aware. If you're talking about the so-called nudie scanners, which people CAN opt out of, none of the airports I've been at have had 'em operational, not that I've seen."

-----------------------------

and as far as denying others' experiences because of your own, here goes (you wrote):

"But the TSA-as-boogeyman hysteria, again, strikes me as overwrought compared to what I've actually experienced. And I've been patted down, wanded, and selected for all sorts of "special" screening.... especially, invariably, on the East Coast, apparently because I am a MAN with LONG HAIR which means I must have a treasure chest full of WEEEEED hidden somewhere in my stuff, me hardees! :D :eyes:

YMMV. Like I said, maybe it depends on the airport. Worst thing I saw on this last trip was this "grown" "man" having a massive temper tantrum about having to go through security."

=============

so if you're just recounting your own experiences that's true but you cannot bring yourself to do it without casting aspersions on everyone who reports a more severe experience. hey man, if that's what you think --go ahead and own it. if you don't think that, then you shouldn't have written what you did.

[Warren DeMontague]

170. I know exactly what I wrote. First off, I said "as far as I'm aware". Like I said, I

hadn't heard of the CASTscan, until you mentioned it.

I stand 100% by what I said, the hysteria strikes me as overwrought compared to what I've actually experienced. It does. Now, I'm not such a solipsist as to believe that nothing exists unless I, personally experience it. Nevertheless, based upon my experiences and the airports I've been in, my perception is that the security isn't any worse than it's been at any other point in the last 10 or so years. The only thing I noticed significantly worse on this last trip was the pissed off, entitled, self-absorbed obnoxiousness of some members of the flying public, like the dude I mentioned. That in no way minimizes the reports of the people who've gone through intrusive pat-downs. All I know is, that sort of ramped up security hasn't seemed to be in effect at the airports I've been at. I'm not just saying that because I haven't been intrusively searched; I was watching for it, and no one had to go through anything resembling the horror stories I've seen recounted. We're lucky, here in Portland- AFAIK, PDX is widely regarded as one of the better airports as far as not being a hassle.

Now, If you see that as "casting aspersions", then I guess that's what I'm doing. :shrug:

[CreekDog]

171. you mean you didn't see any pat-downs?

those pat-downs are a lot different than they were a year ago.

how could you not see the difference between a pre-2010 pat-down and a current one when going through a security line?

[Warren DeMontague]

172. No. Actually, I did not see a single pat-down.

And I told you, I was looking to see how different the security was.

[Le Taz Hot]

22. Excuse me???

"It is impossible to gain composure when a stranger has her hands in your underwear."

IN the underwear. IN???? Times like this I'd be wishing I still had heavy-flowing periods. "Get a nice handful, there, sweetcakes?"

[Bonobo]

23. The funniest thing is hearing white people say there's no problem because THEY never had one. nt

[CreekDog]

149. people who don't go through it all the time or at all say it's okay for me to go through it

...all the time.

yeah, i have a similar complaint.

[fasttense]

24. My sister travels all over the country. She always travels 1st class.

She says that 1st class always has their own separate line and she has not seen anyone get a pat down nor seen any of those useless naked x-ray machines during the last 6 months.

I know this is only anecdotal so, has anyone else noticed if 1st class passengers get extra special treatment?

Are the pat downs and naked pictures reserved for those who can't afford a 1st class ticket?

I posted this question on another forum about TSA and got some interesting responses. I'm just wondering what others have noticed.

[NutmegYankee]

28. I have never seen a seperate screening lane for first class.

The thought of even seeing one makes me ill to the stomach.

[grahamhgreen]

30. Yes, first class has their own lines in most cases

A friend of mine works at an airline so we fly first quite a bit.

So far, I have never been groped or body scanned....

[Justitia]

136. Hubby is platinum level, first class - different line, same security

Major frequent flier / upgrader due to business.

At some airports there are different lines, however, they end up at the same security check point - you just get there a little faster.

And he has definitely had the full-on, "enhanced", grope - testicles manhandled and all (I've been with him when it happened).

It's shockingly aggressive and they keep telling you that you "still have an option to go through the scanner" - like 3 times.

The enhanced pat down is punitive - meant to punish anyone opting out of the scanner.

[barbtries]

25. i think

janet napolitano should be fired.

[Aleric]

43. Her boss, should be fired

This shit *started* under Obama. He needs to put an end to it NOW.

[SammyWinstonJack]

46. +1000!

[barbtries]

49. i've written to the president about it.

but i don't see him being fired. and i certainly hope that he will remain in office for the full 8 years.

[Aleric]

59. Have you gotten a meaningful reply?

Or a BS form letter?

[barbtries]

75. form letters at best

but i've registered my belief. i do believe it helps to let your lawmakers know how you feel. i'd rather see a policy change than a "meaningful reply." i mean really think about how much mail the man gets and he's trying to run a country of what is it, 360 million people now? but writing to the white house and to my reps makes me feel better for one thing. what else can i do after all. and just to illustrate my belief that it can help, the republican senator here in NC voted to repeal DADT. i took it as a victory.

i've received more pertinent responses to my communications to sen burr and rep price, but they were still form letters. i don't resent that, there are only 24 hours in a day. and even though kay hagan is my democratic senator, her replies really put me off. they hardly ever say anything. take a position, defend it, change it if you're convinced it's the right thing to do, but don't clutter my inbox with spinny BS.

[Angry Dragon]

56. This "shit" stared under bush

[Aleric]

58. Not the scanners, not the groping.

Obama had a chance to end the TSA or make it useful. Instead he chose to install the scanners and begin the groping. It's his admin. It's his DHS. It's his cabinet member. He owns it.

[Angry Dragon]

64. Off the TSA website

TSA began deploying state-of-the-art advanced imaging technology in 2007.

[barbtries]

76. yep.

bush was still president the first time my son and i were introduced to the strip search machines, in 2008. once in CA i was at a friend's house and a friend of theirs who worked for the TSA verified my belief that the machines were showing "everything."

[LisaL]

81. Well Obama clearly supports it. If I recall correctly he said

it's "necessary."

[grahamhgreen]

29. These people are disgusting, perverted, sick and unconstitutional.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[BlueJac]

42. Not legal period!

Keep your hands off my body and my Social Security you fucking lying crooks.

[Lucian]

48. I'm hoping the ACLU will take action against those searches.

[pecwae]

53. So, get on with it ACLU.

Take some action - now.

[seabeyond]

57. Take some action - now.... yes nt

[Warren Stupidity]

63. I feel so much safer.

[Locrian]

95. on purpose

I am 100% convinced this is all designed as either a test or gradual way to ensure the public is "docile". If we can "stand" for this they have us beat like a dog.

[pasto76]

97. TSA worker statements of "we dont like this either" is bullshit

from day 1 TSA people have been pumped up to be arrogant and aggressive. From searching infants to making more than 50 soldiers going BACK TO THE WAR take our boots off, they express typical "absolute authority" behavior. Woe to the person who objects or resists. Healthcare and EMS providers have to be invasive sometimes, and we do it without disrupting a persons dignity.


Someone please tell me again what terrorist incident or event makes this kind pf pat down necessary?

[Liberal_in_LA]

104. pat down photo of the day - TSA takes a peek down the pants

http://www.timesunion.com/news/slideshow/TSA-pat-downs-at-Albany-International-2100.php#photo-9

[Blue_In_AK]

108. Some of those photos are very disturbing.

I see no reason to subject the elders in wheelchairs, especially, to this kind of invasive search. Thankfully, the last few times I've traveled out of Anchorage, I've only had to walk through the metal detector and didn't beep, so there was no further pat-down. I don't know quite what to expect when we travel to Costa Rica in a couple of weeks.

All of this is so unnecessary and doesn't make anyone safer.

[LibDemAlways]

114. You have to wonder what the hell is the

matter with this country that the citizens don't demand an end to this crap. 19 Middle Eastern men with box cutters pull off a terrorist attack due to the negligence of the US government and years later old ladies in wheelchairs are being felt up by that same government for no reason whatsoever. Pure insanity.

[mrfrapp]

120. I'd rather be unemployed

If I was a TSA worker I'd rather be unemployed than have to engage in that kind of behaviour. It belittles everyone.

[truebrit71]

173. Just what the hell was that small child supposed to be hiding? This is madness.

And the fact that it is allowed to get to these levels under Obama makes me ill.

[LibDemAlways]

175. The presumption of innocence, which is at the very heart of

our legal system, has been replaced by these idiots at the airport by the presumption of guilt. And it extends to everybody - from the tiniest infant to the most elderly among us. You are right. It's insane. We've officially gone nuts.

[Pooka Fey]

106. K&R

[ZombieHorde]

111. Sometimes I think we deserve this for being so stupid. nt

[whathehell]

124. Speak for yourself.

[earth mom]

115. Where are the class action lawsuits because this shit is unconstitutional as hell!

:grr:

[alp227]

116. given what's happened i wonder if the TSA has a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy

or their officers are just as submissive and enabling of authoritarian abuse as frightened American citizens who drink PATRIOT Act/Bush anti-privacy Kool-Aid.

[bertman]

117. These abuses sound like they are coming from a small group of deviants who

have been hired by the TSA and allowed to violate its guidelines.

I flew to Mexico and back recently and saw nothing that even barely resembled the kinds of abuse described here. For the record, I AM NOT condoning it or saying it doesn't exist and I have resolved to not fly again until these procedures are outlawed. My point is that there are some sick fuckers out there who get off on this kind of thing and it appears that they are being allowed by someone at their airport to get away with stuff that is not even allowed by TSA's guidelines. They and their supervisors should be fired and made examples of for the rest of the TSA employees who might even consider such a thing.

During my experiences going through security and customs twice I saw mostly genial, professional folks who were trying to do a job that many of us find abhorrent and unnecessary. There were a couple of zealots with the 'hard-ass' look about them who relished having a badge and some power, but mostly they were just Americans doing a job.

Get on the phone and call your Congresscritters and Senators and tell them that this is outrageous. If enough of us do that, it will change. (I hope).

[LisaL]

121. No it doesn't.

Sounds like these agent follow the guidelines of the "enhanced pat down."

[LibDemAlways]

125. If this crap was not being tolerated or even condoned at the highest

levels they would have issued a statement to the effect that the sort of abuses related on the ACLU site are not acceptable. They haven't done that. TSA refuses to even acknowledge what an "enhanced pat down" involves. There might be some room for interpretation and some agents are going about it more forcefully than others. However, as far as the policy goes, no one in the government is demanding that it stop or holding anyone accountable.

[bertman]

137. Your statement might be more accurate if you said "to my knowledge, no one

in the government is demanding that it stop or holding anyone accountable."

My guess is that there are plenty of people in the government and probably in the TSA who are trying to stop this insanity. Of course, their jobs will be on the line if they are too open about their criticism. That's the part that is equally as disgusting as these 'enhanced pat downs'.

I agree that it is being tolerated and even condoned at the highest levels. That doesn't mean that there are government employees and leaders who are working to stop it. Sadly, President Obama doesn't seem to be one of them.

[LibDemAlways]

138. I'll amend my statement to "No one in the federal government is publicly

trying to stop this insanity." I know that a couple of legislators in New Jersey called for changes, but I haven't heard a single federal official speak out against it - just a bunch of mealy-mouthed "It's necessary for security" bs.

[LisaL]

140. Obama was very public in his support of TSA.

So there really is no doubt he isn't one of leaders objecting.

[bertman]

165. He has supported every single intrusion into Americans' private lives that I

can remember. He did offer lip service to the idea of not giving telecom immunity for spying on Americans without warrants, but guess what--he backed down on that one too when it came to the vote.

[customerserviceguy]

118. The only thing that stops this

is if a TSA jackboot gets coldcocked, and a jury votes "Not guilty."

I'd be proud to be on such a jury. Any holdouts for a guilty verdict would be subject to the patdown as described in the trial until they saw the light.

[LarryNM]

119. Check the Resume of the First TSA Administrator

TSA has been corrupt from its beginning.

[sarcasmo]

127. Many vow not to fly any more, the best way to combat this stupidity.

[LibDemAlways]

128. Yep, hit the airlines where it hurts. If people gave up discretionary

flying because of this crap, the airlines would go squealing to the lawmakers to do something about it. The politicians will not listen to us. They will listen to the corporations.

[Odin2005]

142. every TSA person who does not refuse to perform this BS is complicit is sexual assult.

Fuck them.

[defendandprotect]

144. Americans are nuts to let this go on ... especially based on the farce of an "underwear" bomber!!!

This is about controlling movement of citizens --

next this will be on trains, buses, etal --

and then what? Stopping cars crossing state lines? Counties?

STOP it now while we still can!

[LisaL]

148. I am not sure but what exactly do you think we can do to stop it?

[defendandprotect]

152. Let's see ... how about "just say NO" -- ????

Obviously, not traveling until these inspections are stopped are one way --

If we can't resist this kind of very personal attack on our privacy, what

could we successfully resist?

[LisaL]

154. Well that certianly has not happened (at least in large numbers).

People are still flying. So how is that going to work?

[defendandprotect]

155. Notice that no one is giving leadersip to resistance ... obviously, no one

in power is very interested in telling the public what they are losing in

participating in this programming --

It can only "work" when the public wakes up --

What are you willing to do to stop it?

or are you simply willing to go along with it?

[Glassunion]

174. Fuck sakes... Does TSA mean SS in German?

Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government.

The TSA should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master.

It's for the children!!!