How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[Craig4]

As far as I'm concerned, the Fourth Nuremberg Principle fully applies here. They know damn well that it is illegal and immoral to sexually assault people, even if they are “just following orders”. They know that as government officials, they are obligated to obey the Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment. They know that what they are doing is wrong, and they are fully culpable for going along with it. I have no sympathy at all for these criminals.

Wow, killing millions, trying to prevent terrorist attacks, I definitely see how these two things are morally equivalent. Way to cheapen the Nazi analogy.

Hate to burst your bubble here but this one is settled law. You need to read United States v. Aukai, 04-10226. There are some lower court rulings out there too.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Am I the only moderate here? I don't like these new pat-downs and scanners, I think they are overly invasive, unjustified,won't be sufficiently effective anyway, and they should be discontinued. But I also don't think the TSA employees are all a bunch of Nazis and rapists, and I doubt most of them enjoy these patdowns, and I bet they'd be as happy as the passengers to not have to do them. I don't plan to fly any time soon, but if I do I won't blame the pawns for the stupid policies their overlords dictate, and I certainly won't make a spectacle of myself with protests. The mature course of action is to write, call, or visit your congressional representatives--and the airline, and the airport itself.

Not that I wouldn't look very good in skimpy bike shorts, mind you.

 

[WildCat]

Right. You can hardly pick up the local fish wrapper because it has so many pages of help wanted ads.

Then they should suck it up and live with the fact that people think they're perverted sickos.

 

[Drudgewire]

By all means, punish the poor paid by the hour work a day guy or gal who has to implement a policy someone else dreamed up. You think it's a picnic for them? To have to touch strangers all day, plus put up with travelers' lousy attitudes, and probaly encounter some pervs to boot.

Not to mention these "clever" reactions will do nothing but slow down the lines even more and really just punish the people who are trying to get to their gates on time. Any sympathies I might have had for someone in front of me being mistreated would turn into "taze that *******" if it turned out he had instigated it.

 

[Checkmite]

It's not sexual assault if it's consentual; and by flying the airlines, you consent to their security procedures. It's in the literature that accompanies the ticket you buy, period.

I likewise agree that the procedures are over the top, but this "rape" and "sexual assault" manufactured indignation is stupid. Take the damn train - then maybe the government might spend some more money bringing our rail system into the 21st century.

 

[WildCat]

Hate to burst your bubble here but this one is settled law. You need to read United States v. Aukai, 04-10226. There are some lower court rulings out there too.

Really? What other Constitutional rights do you give up by flying to grandma's for Thanksgiving?

Can the government make you say a prayer to Jesus in order to fly? Quarter troops in your home? Make blacks sit in the back of the plane?

The ACLU doesn't seem to think this is "settled law": http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/airport-security

There comes a point where the policy is "unreasonable" as opposed to "reasonable".

 

[BenBurch]

Word is that people into humiliation fetishes are booking short flights JUST so they can get the pat-down.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Then they should suck it up and live with the fact that people think they're perverted sickos.

Yes, yes, and gynaecologists love hearing all those remarks about them, too, despite what would happen to the health of half the population if they didn't do their job.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, yes, and gynaecologists love hearing all those remarks about them, too, despite what would happen to the health of half the population if they didn't do their job.

And those with domination fetishes are applying for jobs at the TSA...

 

[mhaze]

Really? What other Constitutional rights do you give up by flying to grandma's for Thanksgiving?

Can the government make you say a prayer to Jesus in order to fly? Quarter troops in your home? Make blacks sit in the back of the plane?

The ACLU doesn't seem to think this is "settled law": http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/airport-security

There comes a point where the policy is "unreasonable" as opposed to "reasonable".

Right.

The NEW procedures are not settled law. Which actually should be obvious.

The old procedures were not in my opinion unreasonable. The scanners were not porno scanners and the pat downs were not checking genitals, breasts, etc. The new scanners are porno scanners, and the new pat downs are porno groping as far as many people are concerned. Hence the new procedures are in many peoples' view unreasonable search.

Thirdly, it's not possible by the existence of a contract to give away basic constitutional rights. Otherwise, slavery would exist.

 

[bokonon]

Take the damn train - then maybe the government might spend some more money bringing our rail system into the 21st century.

Hear hear. China has poured big bucks into high-speed rail between all its major cities. Sure, 160 mph isn't 500 mph, but it also doesn't consume as much fuel and spew thousands of tons of contrail into the air.

 

[mhaze]

Hear hear. China has poured big bucks into high-speed rail between all its major cities. Sure, 160 mph isn't 500 mph, but it also doesn't consume as much fuel and spew thousands of tons of contrail into the air.

And "go to the back of the bus" while you are at it?

 

[BenBurch]

Hear hear. China has poured big bucks into high-speed rail between all its major cities. Sure, 160 mph isn't 500 mph, but it also doesn't consume as much fuel and spew thousands of tons of contrail into the air.

I like traveling by train! We do need to sort out some issues with the Class-1 railroads, though. By law they have to give passenger traffic priority routing, and usually they do not.

 

[Checkmite]

And "go to the back of the bus" while you are at it?

This is where reasonable people stop taking you seriously.

 

[bokonon]

And "go to the back of the bus" while you are at it?

I assume you think this means high-speed rail is second-class travel?

No, you need not "go to the back of the bus." You can still take the plane and go through the same security screening as everyone else, or go "First Class" and charter your own plane.

I haven't seen so much whining since the kindergarten ran out of apple sauce.

 

[willhaven]

And/or:

4) Eat lots of broccoli and beans prior to your trip and let 'er rip when the guys face is level with your anus for the genital groping.

They would probably consider that assault.

 

[Cainkane1]

I'm thinking some manner of gigantic penile prosthesis that will show up on their scanners and force them to pat it down? I mean, this new policy is an absolute disgrace and, until smacked down by the courts, deserves the full force of mockery and social rejection that the public can foist upon it.

Well object all you want to. Some people would rather not have their plane slammed into a building for Allah.

 

[bokonon]

Well object all you want to. Some people would rather not have their plane slammed into a building for Allah.

I tend to agree with those who say this is not a reasonable fear these days, unless the airline has hired someone to fly the plane who has become unhinged by religion.

That said, the latest poll I've seen says that 64% favor vs 32% oppose the machines, while opinion is split 48% for to 50% against the pat downs.

Sounds like those who engage in "outrage theater" in the terminal will be unlikely to be applauded by those who are delayed by their antics.

 

[Craig4]

Really? What other Constitutional rights do you give up by flying to grandma's for Thanksgiving?

Can the government make you say a prayer to Jesus in order to fly? Quarter troops in your home? Make blacks sit in the back of the plane?

The ACLU doesn't seem to think this is "settled law": http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/airport-security

There comes a point where the policy is "unreasonable" as opposed to "reasonable".

Fine, take it to the Appellate and get some new precedents. This is the law, it's called judicial review. You may have read about it in middle school.

Nice cheapening of the Civil Rights Movement analogy too there.

 

[Craig4]

Right.

The NEW procedures are not settled law. Which actually should be obvious.

The old procedures were not in my opinion unreasonable. The scanners were not porno scanners and the pat downs were not checking genitals, breasts, etc. The new scanners are porno scanners, and the new pat downs are porno groping as far as many people are concerned. Hence the new procedures are in many peoples' view unreasonable search.

Thirdly, it's not possible by the existence of a contract to give away basic constitutional rights. Otherwise, slavery would exist.

Did you even bother to read the decision?