How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[EGarrett]

Free speech - can't make jokes about bombs.

assembly - try cluttering up the aisle and see how long before you are arrested for safety reasons.

being detained - go and try that bomb joke a second time, and see how long you stay in a closet

search - try going through the security line and refusing to having your pockets or luggage searched

right to bear arms - do you need an example?

Answer the rest of his post.

 

[bokonon]

What if it was your daughter being told to go through a scanner that will put her naked body in front of the men at security (and apparently on the internet), or submit to having her breasts and genitals "inspected"? Can you see it now?

No, I can't. I have no problem with having my children -- sons or daughters -- raise their arms and stand on a lazy susan. The standard image here on the internet for what that scan looks like is nothing like "her naked body" (frankly, it looks more like the rotund version of those aliens from "Cocoon"). Even if it was an actual nude image, as long as it's deleted after the security screening, I still wouldn't have a problem.

If images do start popping up on the internet, the people responsible should be fired and prosecuted. Until then, the hysteria is hysterical.

Yes, they're like gynecologists, that's all. Of course.

I'm done.

Good, because the fact is that when my wife goes to the gynecologist, he does see "her naked body", and I don't have a problem with that either. This notion that it's traumatic for someone to get a peek at someone's naughty bits is kind of Victorian. It's a job, not a prelude to intercourse.

 

[EGarrett]

No, I can't. I have no problem with having my children -- sons or daughters -- raise their arms and stand on a lazy susan. The standard image here on the internet for what that scan looks like is nothing like "her naked body" (frankly, it looks more like the rotund version of those aliens from "Cocoon").

Even if it was an actual nude image, as long as it's deleted after the security screening, I still wouldn't have a problem.

Exposed: Naked Body Scanner Images Of Film Star Printed, Circulated By Airport Staff

If images do start popping up on the internet, the people responsible should be fired and prosecuted. Until then, the hysteria is hysterical.

"If" they do? They IMMEDATELY started popping up. Large groups of images that were supposed to have been destroyed. I can give you more links.

...maybe it doesn't bother you because you know nothing about it.

Good, because the fact is that when my wife goes to the gynecologist, he does see "her naked body", and I don't have a problem with that either. This notion that it's traumatic for someone to get a peek at someone's naughty bits is kind of Victorian. It's a job, not a prelude to intercourse.

That has nothing to do with why I was mocking that argument. Please see what I repeated at least three times in that post about whether or not means are reasonable and necessary to achieve an end versus ignoring that and allowing anything as long as it has a certain stated goal.

 

[roger]

Wow, some SHOCKINGLY bad logic in this thread.

Of course, and when the government decrees that you must be physically raped in the butt in order to fly, everyone in Hawaii, everyone who works as a travelling business person with deadlines, and everyone flying home on emergency to see their rapidly-dying loved one (as I had to do earlier this year), has consented to being physically raped in the butt.

The general argument in the thread is going that TSA should not be able to remove some of your rights. As a counterargument it's perfectly correct to point out that in fact you do give up some of your rights when you enter private property - you can't carry firearms, for one. The logic is fine, as far as that goes.

It is not an argument that therefore any restriction or requirement that TSA wants to impose is therefore okay. It's an argument that restrictions are not ruled out.

I don't particularly want to be groped, and it will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the legal arena.

 

[roger]

Answer the rest of his post.

Why? I don't tend to answer or argue with things I agree with.

As my last post points out, the TSA (and any private property owner) can infringe on some of your rights. They can't, of course, infringe on all of them. I have no idea what case law says about making you praise Jesus, but I'm pretty darn sure that you can't be locked in a closet and turned into a slave, even if there is a nice little plaque on the door declaring that is exactly what will happen. 'Cause slavery is illegal, praising Jesus is not, my IANAL mind suggests. But I can surely keep you from carrying a weapon into my place of business, no matter what the constitution says about bearing arms.

What makes this interesting, and contentious, is the essentially monopoly that TSA has on long distance travel. As others have pointed out, we have no realistic alternatives to flight in many cases. My local mall does not allow concealed carry, but I can take my business elsewhere if that bothers me. I can't take my business away from TSA. (and how many buses and trains have to be blown up before similar security procedures are instituted in these forms of travel).

In any case, regardless of whether I like being groped or not (I don't), it will be interesting to see how the legalities of this play out. And no, I am not arguing that because something is legal it is wise or necessary to implement, just that it would be legal.

 

[bokonon]

While that may be true for some, I have yet to find a way to drive to the datacenters in europe and my employer isn't about to lose work days for me to drive across the country 3000 miles to go to domestic data centers.

So, things have changed. Maybe your employer will decide to spend your travel budget to hire qualified people in those remote data centers. Maybe he'll trade time for money and let you travel by cruise ship and car. Maybe he'll start substituting communication for travel. Maybe he'll hire someone who doesn't mind the new rules.

I don't want to satisfy the job requirements for soldier, stunt man, fireman, or policeman, so the people who do those jobs are people who don't mind doing the things those jobs require.

 

[EGarrett]

The general argument in the thread is going that TSA should not be able to remove some of your rights. As a counterargument it's perfectly correct to point out that in fact you do give up some of your rights when you enter private property - you can't carry firearms, for one. The logic is fine, as far as that goes.

It is not an argument that therefore any restriction or requirement that TSA wants to impose is therefore okay. It's an argument that restrictions are not ruled out.

I haven't argued that none of your rights can be taken away, nor have I claimed that you don't waive some other rights when you fly. I have however, seen multiple people make statements such as "I don't have a problem with it because I don't want my plane flown into a building for Allah." or "You can't compare Nazism to this because they're fighting terrorism." Which offer the stated goal as their reason for accepting the action, while ignoring whether the action taken is reasonable and necessary. Forgive me, but that is pathetically ignorant.

I would be interested in the actual valid discussion, about whether or not it is reasonable and justified to take disturbingly-detailed and easily-distributable naked images of people in order to prevent the threat of underwear-bombing...but we can't get there unless or until we climb out of this cesspool of bad logic.

Why? I don't tend to answer or argue with things I agree with.

As my last post points out, the TSA (and any private property owner) can infringe on some of your rights. They can't, of course, infringe on all of them. I have no idea what case law says about making you praise Jesus, but I'm pretty darn sure that you can't be locked in a closet and turned into a slave, even if there is a nice little plaque on the door declaring that is exactly what will happen. 'Cause slavery is illegal, praising Jesus is not, my IANAL mind suggests. But I can surely keep you from carrying a weapon into my place of business, no matter what the constitution says about bearing arms.

Certainly, I just want to be clear that the issue is whether or not the actions taken are reasonable and necessary for the goal. Not that certain rights can and have been taken away in certain situations.

So, things have changed. Maybe your employer will decide to spend your travel budget to hire qualified people in those remote data centers. Maybe he'll trade time for money and let you travel by cruise ship and car. Maybe he'll start substituting communication for travel. Maybe he'll hire someone who doesn't mind the new rules.

I don't want to satisfy the job requirements for soldier, stunt man, fireman, or policeman, so the people who do those jobs are people who don't mind doing the things those jobs require.

Yet another post that totally misses the point...simply declaring, with no justification whatsoever, that "things have changed" and then asserting the consequences...while being apparently unaware that the whole point of this discussion is whether "things have changed" such that something like this is justified.

 

[Noztradamus]

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 missed it when the airlines decided the security procedures.

 

[Mick Houlahan]

Sure, it's dumb. But all you folks maintaining that somehow you're being sexually assaulted because some poor shmoe has to pat you down and possibly check your junk have a pretty infantile view of what's going on. Grow the hell up.

 

[TraneWreck]

What security problem?

When there's an attack, it will be because someone made it through security. Obviously no security is 100% effective, but it doesn't take much of an imagination to figure out what will be said about Obama.

And those people blaming him for the inevitable attack will have no actual means of stopping whatever happened, they will just ramble on about "weakness" and not being dedicated to the war on terra, and all that.

 

[Ducky]

So, things have changed. Maybe your employer will decide to spend your travel budget to hire qualified people in those remote data centers. Maybe he'll trade time for money and let you travel by cruise ship and car. Maybe he'll start substituting communication for travel. Maybe he'll hire someone who doesn't mind the new rules.

I don't want to satisfy the job requirements for soldier, stunt man, fireman, or policeman, so the people who do those jobs are people who don't mind doing the things those jobs require.

Hardware installs and setup need person on site, but remote administration day to day is fine. That still leaves me flying.

I've had all of these arguments presented to my employer. I still have to fly, which means the "Just don't fly" argument is nonsense. I am not the only person who is required to travel in an efficient way great distances by my employer.

If the next argument is to just get another job then the reality of the job marketplace isn't apparent then.

 

[JihadJane]

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.

"A policeman's lot is not a nappy one...."

 

[I Am The Scum]

Hardware installs and setup need person on site, but remote administration day to day is fine. That still leaves me flying.

I've had all of these arguments presented to my employer. I still have to fly, which means the "Just don't fly" argument is nonsense. I am not the only person who is required to travel in an efficient way great distances by my employer.

If the next argument is to just get another job then the reality of the job marketplace isn't apparent then.

I'm honestly curious if you could sue your employer for sexual harassment by proxy.

 

[Ducky]

I'm honestly curious if you could sue your employer for sexual harassment by proxy.

I could sue for anything. I probably wouldn't win and would be out the medical insurance and paycheck I depend on.

 

[Drewbot]

This will help out the private jet manufacturers and charter airline companies.

 

[EGarrett]

When there's an attack, it will be because someone made it through security. Obviously no security is 100% effective, but it doesn't take much of an imagination to figure out what will be said about Obama.

And those people blaming him for the inevitable attack will have no actual means of stopping whatever happened, they will just ramble on about "weakness" and not being dedicated to the war on terra, and all that.

You said none of the politicians would have a solution to the security problem. What security problem were you referring to?

 

[Aoidoi]

Out of curiosity Ducky, do you set off the metal detectors? I know my friends with various joint replacements got some sort of doctor's note about it.

I wonder how many more doctor's notes will be required to explain various medical ailments now visible to the new scanners. They already soaked a guy in his own urine, I assume colostomy bags will be another issue.

 

[Drewbot]

I think that terrorists are not going to attempt to take over a plane, now that passengers know that they have to take the terrorists down themselves, people didn't fight back before, because they thought a hijacker was going to land, and have some demands met, and they'd be rescued, by flying those planes into buildings, they made every person on the plane a counter-terrorist agent.

 

[JihadJane]

Dead people beware! They want to see you naked too!

Many dead people, including Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are on the TSA Terror Watch List

 

[TraneWreck]

You said none of the politicians would have a solution to the security problem. What security problem were you referring to?

Is this some kind of game you're playing, or do you really not understand my argument?

100% effective security is impossible; we will be attacked again.

When that attack happens, political opponents of the President (especially if that person is a Democrat) will be blamed for security failures, whether there were any or not.

Thus, if an attack occurs in the next two years, Obama will be blamed by Romney or Palin or whoever for failing to keep America safe. This implies, of course, that there was some actual way to prevent said attack.

The people making these political attacks will have no actual solution that would have stopped said attack from occuring (the security problem), but will ramble on anyway, never advancing a positive idea, and complaining about vague things like Democratic wimpiness and the need to double-down on the war on terror.

This is why Obama CANNOT get rid of the scanners or stop the pat-downs. If a bomb goes off in a plane after he ordered the machines removed, he would be impeached.

If that wasn't clear, could you please explain what you're having trouble with instead of just repeating the same sentence over and over?