TSA Threatens To Cancel All Flights Out Of Texas If ‘Groping Bill’ Passed

The term "dumb as a box of rocks" comes to mind. All you righty-tighties who have spent the better part of your lives whining - that's the correct word for an unintelligible noise void of meaning or contribution - about how a SMALL PERCENTAGE of the population (those dreaded unEmurricun libburrals) are ruining everyone's life. Well, YOU are the small percentage who have conned some elected officials into fearing your toothless bullshit and now they are considering passing another "law" which won't see the light of day.

Can you say, "phyrric victory?" You jokers probably can, knowing what it means, weeeellllllllllllll...

And the only ones who are searched by hand are the ones who object to being scanned by the back-scatter X-ray machines. The Fourth Amendment say no "unreasonable" searches and seizures. It's not unreasonable to be asked to go through a machine to make sure that you're not carrying explosives on your person. In fact, I don't think it would be unreasonable for the government to say if you won't go through the machine, you don't fly. But I'm glad that they've offered a second option to those who have an objection to the machine -- you can be searched by hand. But you can't just opt out of being searched. That's not an option.

The Fourth Amendment say no "unreasonable" searches and seizures. It's not unreasonable to be asked to go through a machine to make sure that you're not carrying explosives on your person. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

The ACLU, of course, has opposed various different screening approaches. At one time, they opposed "proposals that body scanners capable of projecting an image of a person's naked body be employed to clear airline passengers not otherwise under legitimate suspicion" (http://epic.org/privacy/faa/aclu_testimony.html and http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...rport-security), although their stance may have weakened a bit since then. (I vaguely recall that many years ago they also opposed standard metal detectors at airports, but I couldn't find it on a cursory search so that may either be my poor memory or an urban legend.)

Reasonable minds can disagree about what is an "unreasonable" search and seizure. As usual, I disagree with both sides.

Why am I always the one to get groped when there is a woman in 6 feet of linen covering her entire body that walks right through??

And the only ones who are searched by hand are the ones who object to being scanned by the back-scatter X-ray machines. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Not quite true. Due to a specific medical issue, I get the pat down. I always trigger the machine whether backscatter or regular. Trust me when this new pat down rules were instituted, I could tell the TSA guys were not thirlled about feeling me up. I've gotten used the extra screening for years. I just deal with it and make it as easy as possible for me and them. Life's too short.

TSA is the modern equivalent of the French's Maginot Line -- only more expensive and even less effective.

Ten years & 0 terrorists found. Originally Posted by pjorourke

They are not looking for terrorist. I, like you PJ , thought this a huge waste of money at the time. I also thought the Iraq war was a waste of time , money and lives. Many of the folks bitching obout their inconvenience at the airport , had no trouble inconveniencing our military by sending them half way around the world to make the feel safer. We are a very selfish lot and do not have rational debate on things. We have no trouble asking others to do things we will not do.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/nationa...7a4a78c22.html


If you say at the highest level of generality that the American system is looking for weapons and the Israelis are looking for terrorists, obviously we would be better off looking for terrorists, because then we would spare ourselves the silly indignities we imposed on ourselves because of our civil liberties laws," said Stewart Baker, a former official with the Department of Homeland Security and the author of "Skating on Stilts: Why We Aren't Stopping Tomorrow's Terrorism."
"But we tried that, tried doing security checks on passengers, and a left-right coalition said ‘You can't trust the government with this.'"

The TSA, the Patriot Act, and all of the other wholly inappropriate responses to the 9/11 attacks are ridiculous. They serve only the interests of those who profit from conflict. Put it in perspective. We've lost roughly 3000 American lives to "terrorism" in the past decade. By contrast, 40-50,000 lives are lost each year in automobile accidents. Now, if we reduced the speed limit to 20 mph and required that governors be installed on vehicles to limit them to that speed, that number would drop to almost zero. However, people would not tolerate the inconvenience and the intrusion on their "freedom". (Not to mention the fact that oil companies and auto makers would not tolerate the intrusion on their profits.) Yet, we tolerate - welcome, even - almost any infringement on liberty if presented in the name of anti-terrorism. The TSA is the least of it, too. Warrant-less surveillance and holding "detainees" indefinitely without trial or right to habeas corpus are much greater threats to our individual rights and collective liberty.

The whole concept of terrorism is misplaced. It's a crime, and should be addressed as a crime. The very idea of a "war on terror" is foolish, as was the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty" . . . and similar results can be expected (i.e., none other than wasted money).

And for those Dan Patrick fans in the crowd, we may be seeing a great deal more of him shortly: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/firstreading/entries/2011/05/27/_house_is_in_at_20.html

I guess that's one way to get around that 'ol Supremacy Clause issue.

Why am I always the one to get groped when there is a woman in 6 feet of linen covering her entire body that walks right through?? Originally Posted by AimeeAims

Aimee, TSA specifically targets people for reasons which seem to be more tittilating than for security. When I flew out of Phoenix some months ago, I personally observed EIGHT consecutive women of ages 20-50 put through the body scanner. All were of average to very attractive, with decent breasts most were spinners or MILF types, (No BBWs picked), almost as if a certain body type were targeted. We KNOW the machines have a special diagnostic test mode the agent (likely male) could save the images to a USB stick, and that those images are so clear, that you might as well be looking at the naked body (even down to seeing sweat beads on the image). The women were selected, also by a male screener. I'd only wished I'd video documented this 25 minutes I spent watching this unfold.

To everybody else,

TSA is very bad. They will be the backbone of that new Civilian Security Force as powerful and as well funded as the Army that Obama spoke about a couple of years ago. They have already been doing limited screening on certain subway systems, AMTRAK stations, Greyhound bus terminals (all as tests), and even at a high school prom (on a judge's "order"). They are prepared to form mobile teams and do highway vehicle searches (screenings) between cities, these are called VIPR teams from what I understand.

We need aircraft security, but do we need grandmothers and babies being groped when the Muslim woman in the burkha goes through the line without so much as a wanding? Do we need 100,000 overpaid government bureaucrats with fat pensions and also with attitudes and power to arbitrarily control whether you get to your destination on time? What happens if you give lip to a TSA Agent? They put you on a watch list ensuring you'll be groped in the future....and you're risking a $11,000 "civil" fine. You can't "refuse" the screening and just go home, you walked in, you WILL submit, or on the no-fly list for you and a $11,000 fine. They can do things to you that the police officer sitting at the podium at the end of the security area CAN NOT even do to you....!!!

So what are we going to do about this?

Why am I always the one to get groped when there is a woman in 6 feet of linen covering her entire body that walks right through?? Originally Posted by AimeeAims

Have you looked in the mirror lately, beautiful?

the radiation would be the only valid concern i had. what is it with that groping concern that i don`t get? Women are attended by women anyway and males by male. Its not like a male officer is stripsearching me. I don`t understand that hysteria.

the radiation would be the only valid concern i had. what is it with that groping concern that i don`t get? Women are attended by women anyway and males by male. Its not like a male officer is stripsearching me. I don`t understand that hysteria. Originally Posted by ninasastri

I haven't seen anyone's post here rise the level of "hysteria" (with the possible exception of Randy4Candy). My own objections are already listed above. But I think many in the general, "civilian" population may be considered "hysterical" about it because they are far, far, more inhibited than me or you or the other posters here. I should also point out that it takes quiet a long time to accomplish this "pat down" on the order of ten to fifteen minutes which could be an issue if flight time is near.

They are not looking for terrorist. I, like you PJ , thought this a huge waste of money at the time. I also thought the Iraq war was a waste of time , money and lives. Many of the folks bitching obout their inconvenience at the airport , had no trouble inconveniencing our military by sending them half way around the world to make the feel safer. We are a very selfish lot and do not have rational debate on things. We have no trouble asking others to do things we will not do.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/nationa...7a4a78c22.html


If you say at the highest level of generality that the American system is looking for weapons and the Israelis are looking for terrorists, obviously we would be better off looking for terrorists, because then we would spare ourselves the silly indignities we imposed on ourselves because of our civil liberties laws," said Stewart Baker, a former official with the Department of Homeland Security and the author of "Skating on Stilts: Why We Aren't Stopping Tomorrow's Terrorism."
"But we tried that, tried doing security checks on passengers, and a left-right coalition said ‘You can't trust the government with this.'" Originally Posted by WTF

You are constant as the norther star. Who but you would point out that getting your junk felt up at the airport is as strategically important as the oil reserves of Iraq?

The best solution, in my opinion, is to issue 8" Bowie knives to every passenger over the age of 21. I doubt any of the bad guys could ever get all the way to "Akbar".

You are constant as the norther star. Who but you would point out that getting your junk felt up at the airport is as strategically important as the oil reserves of Iraq?

The best solution, in my opinion, is to issue 8" Bowie knives to every passenger over the age of 21. I doubt any of the bad guys could ever get all the way to "Akbar". Originally Posted by Iaintliein

You don't have to issue them on a Southwest flight. We Texans are already pissed off.

So I guess all them Dem Libs are happy with the Patriot Act now that a Democrat is in the White House. Same with nation building, verdict without trial, Predator drones, collateral damage, blood for oil, etc. Just a bunch of hypocritical blow hards. When they were talking about "McSame" I didn't think they were talking about Obama.

You don't have to issue them on a Southwest flight. We Texans are already pissed off.

So I guess all them Dem Libs are happy with the Patriot Act now that a Democrat is in the White House. Same with nation building, verdict without trial, Predator drones, collateral damage, blood for oil, etc. Just a bunch of hypocritical blow hards. When they were talking about "McSame" I didn't think they were talking about Obama. Originally Posted by gnadfly

And you have the comprehension of an amoeba. Iaintliein quoted me. I wasn't for TSA then, nor now. I only point out the hypocrisy of some, which would include you. You seem not to mind sending our troops in harms way for false security yet bitch and moan when your scardy pants mentality has you waiting at the airport. Get with the reading program gnad , before you get demoted to Marshall status!

And the only ones who are searched by hand are the ones who object to being scanned by the back-scatter X-ray machines. The Fourth Amendment say no "unreasonable" searches and seizures. It's not unreasonable to be asked to go through a machine to make sure that you're not carrying explosives on your person. In fact, I don't think it would be unreasonable for the government to say if you won't go through the machine, you don't fly. But I'm glad that they've offered a second option to those who have an objection to the machine -- you can be searched by hand. But you can't just opt out of being searched. That's not an option. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Well, I for one, believe being exposed to unknown, unstudied doses of radiation is unreasonable. Call me crazy.