How can we punish the TSA Gate Rapers?

[mhaze]

They can empty it beforehand but if the line is slow (very possible), it can refill. It is not something that people have control of.

The agent in this case was a jerk. The man told him that there was a potential problem and where. Because the agent didn't know what the passenger was explaining, he ignored him instead of listening.

The agent wasn't trying to hurt this guy. He just didn't have enough training to deal with the situation professionally. The problem is that very few TSA agents have enough training to deal with the dichotomy of looking for bad guys while assuming that the people they are checking are actually good guys.

So you are admitting that the agency and staff supposedly "protecting us" are actually a bunch of morons?

Well, we knew that.

And that won't work.

 

[mhaze]

....Then there's the issue that flying is voluntary, thus the entire process can be avoided.....

Suree....

So if you are okay with never going to Cancun, Acapulco, Paris, Bermuda, or Anchorage, you can avoid the entire process because it's all voluntary.

And you can avoid "going to the back of the bus" by walking, can't you?

See a little problem there?

 

[TraneWreck]

ETA: Tranewreck - you're a lawyer, right? Can you shed any light on this?

Any prior precedent will likely be blown away by post-9-11 security claims.

I'm sure this stuff will get challenged in the courts, but once it gets up to Roberts, I strongly doubt those scanners will be removed on 4th amendment grounds.

They've made exceptions to 4th amendment restrictions in the past---sobriety check-points, immigration check-points, and some others. They're supposed to be minimally invasive and only used when a compelling state interest exists (not sure if that's the right phrasing). But these same things also applied to wire tapping, and we saw what happened to all of that.

(That's a lazy way of answering that...)

 

[Travis]

For all the talk of "stopping terrorism," let's take it a step back. Ultimately, it's a question of safety. Dying from a terrorist attack isn't really that different from dying in a car accident.

So we have to ask ourselves whether or not this is a prudent measure. We cannot ignore the fact that more and more screening is costly in both time and money. So does it live up to our expectations? How much safer are we with these measures in effect? If the answer to that question is unknown, then why go through the trouble?

Because the second someone does manage to get a bomb on board a plane and kills 300 people there will be hell to pay if anyone can show that there was any sort of technology not implemented regardless of whether it would have helped.

Suree....

So if you are okay with never going to Cancun, Acapulco, Paris, Bermuda, or Anchorage, you can avoid the entire process because it's all voluntary.

If only there existed things that were buoyant on water that we could then use as a conveyance to places that reside near water. Oh well. We might as well wish for some way to cook the bloody woolly mammoth meat I have stuck on the end of my spear.

 

[bokonon]

And you can avoid "going to the back of the bus" by walking, can't you?

See a little problem there?

Yeah, the problem is there's no "back of the bus" -- everyone is subjected to the same set of rules at the security checkpoint, so your repetition of the phrase continues to be meaningless bleating.

 

[rwguinn]

Yep, a new policy.

Forced unilateral nudism, and some occasional genital groping, is not a new thing in free societies, however, medical personnel have done that for centuries already.

Is there anything you won't give up in the name of health?

What you and your ilk are ignoring, in what seems to be a studiously stupid argument, is that one you are selected, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.
You cannot just leave the secure area or the airport. You are required (according to the original narrative) to submit to the screening.

 

[Varanid]

I really thought this was kind of funny at first because I never fly. The terror I would experience for the 60 seconds or so before crashing into a bloody fireball would be too much for me to take. I like boats, trains, cars, and occasionally roller skates.

I don't care if some TSA guy wants to feel insecure about his man parts for the rest of the day, grope away. No, I wouldn't enjoy it, but it wouldn't cause me to loose sleep or whatever.

This all changed when I thought about someone groping a loved one.

I see the side of the argument that one needn't fly if one doesn't like the procedures. But, I will not excuse the TSA employees doing the groping either- I do not, will not, and cannot excuse bad behavior because someone is 'doing their job'- find a job where you aren't forced to grope people.

 

[Varanid]

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

Seriously?
'IF'? Have you ever visited the intrawebz?

 

[DavidJames]

What you and your ilk are ignoring, in what seems to be a studiously stupid argument, is that one you are selected, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.
You cannot just leave the secure area or the airport. You are required (according to the original narrative) to submit to the screening.

What you and your ilk are ignoring is that flying is not a right, nor are you forced to fly. You are welcome to walk, ride a bus, take a car or a boat.

What a bunch of freaking whiners.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Suree....

So if you are okay with never going to Cancun, Acapulco, Paris, Bermuda, or Anchorage, you can avoid the entire process because it's all voluntary.

And you can avoid "going to the back of the bus" by walking, can't you?

See a little problem there?

Nonsequitor -- Even if we assume one has to fly, being inconvenienced or giving consent to have your privacy violated is not the same as a policy that discriminated against a single race on the basis of being darker than the majority race. Policies enacted due to security concerns =/= racial discrimination.

 

[bokonon]

This all changed when I thought about someone groping a loved one.

I see the side of the argument that one needn't fly if one doesn't like the procedures. But, I will not excuse the TSA employees doing the groping either- I do not, will not, and cannot excuse bad behavior because someone is 'doing their job'- find a job where you aren't forced to grope people.

Sure, let's make gynecology and proctology illegal, because it makes FSM76 feel icky.

Seriously?
'IF'? Have you ever visited the intrawebz?

I have. I repeat, if people are posting images, they should be fired and prosecuted.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I have. I repeat, if people are posting images, they should be fired and prosecuted.

I've seen several images posted online. Now, I couldn't tell you whether they were genuine or not because I have absolutely no idea how to tell that sort of thing.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So um, if you don't like the policies, dont fly seems like the best option.

This reminds me of the people that would call in to mci to get phone service, when told of what they needed ( usually some form of identification, sometimes a deposit.) they would get angry and demand another option. At which point they would be informed that they can always not get phone service.

If you don't like the hoops you have to jump through to get something, don't jump through them, but don't expect to get the service as well. I may not feel like wearing shoes one day, but that doesn't mean i should expect a convience store to revoke their " no shoes no shirt " policy.

Flying is not a right, never has been. This would be different if health care required a groping, but this is a service offered by a company that has no obligation to offer it. If you find their policies offensive, show that by not using them. People got along just fine without flight, for quite some time, i am sure we can still do so.

If i opened a restaurant that required people to be slapped in the face before entering, i should expect not to get that much buisness. But in the same sense when i tell people that the slap is required, they shouldn't be surprized when they get slapped.

Yes, that sounds reasonable to you. Unfortunately your analogy is not valid. It is, therefore, a false analogy.

We don't always fly because we "want to". Many of us fly because we need to. Because of job requirements for example. It's not the same comparing it to going to a restaurant. You can choose going to a restaurant or then, going to a different one, or just eating at home.

Yes, there are other travel alternatives but they are all slower and sometimes, again, because of work requirements, you ned to get from A to B really fast, and the only way to do it is by flying.

So don't try to simply hand wave the problem by saying "You don't like the policy, don't fly", because flying is becoming more and more necessary in this globalized world. Just like cell phones, which are becoming virtually mandatory if you wanna keep up with everyone else in society. Not being able to fly is becoming more and more less of an alternative. We live in a world where flying is necessary for most people, and the service needs to improve dramatically.

 

[Lensman]

A 61 year old Caucasian, cancer survivor, does not strike me as terrorist material. At some point you have to use common sense. A seven year old girl on her way to Disneyworld with the family does not have a block of C-4 strapped to her groin.

If the only way a suicide bomber could smuggle some contraband onto a plane was by hiding it in his daughters/nieces underwear - do you think he would hesitate?

 

[mhaze]

Yeah, the problem is there's no "back of the bus" -- everyone is subjected to the same set of rules at the security checkpoint, so your repetition of the phrase continues to be meaningless bleating.

Yes, actually there is a "back of the bus".

It's the lower quality, slower, and often more expensive non-aerial means of transportation to which some here think people that don't like the new porno-enhanced security procedures should be relegated to.

It's actually the continued bleating that people that don't like the porno-enhanced security should just use another means of transportation that is continuing to be meaningless bleating.

 

[bokonon]

Yes, actually there is a "back of the bus".

It's the lower quality, slower, and often more expensive non-aerial means of transportation to which some here think people that don't like the new porno-enhanced security procedures should be relegated to.

It's actually the continued bleating that people that don't like the porno-enhanced security should just use another means of transportation that is continuing to be meaningless bleating.

You're relegating yourself. The requirements for boarding the "higher quality, faster, and often less expensive aerial means of transportation" are not beyond your ability. You're not being asked to go back in time and pick different parents, which would have been the only "solution" available to those who were relegated by others to "the back of the bus."

If your sensibilities are so precious that the idea of someone seeing what you're hiding in your trousers is unbearable, then you're simply deciding that you don't want to pay the new fare that everyone else is paying. That's fine; there's no law that compels you to fly, or prohibits you from chartering a plane to accommodate your modesty.

 

[Ysidro]

Bet if you ruin their day enough times, they'll start slacking off and not pushing the stupidity as aggressively.

Sure, if I don't want to fly because I piss them off and give them a reason to keep me from getting past the gates.

But I dont' have that kind of money.

So instead of doing the stupid thing that also gets me on the no-fly list, I'm going to do the smart thing that also lets me fly because they know I'm not a freaking nut-case.

 

[Ducky]

If the only way a suicide bomber could smuggle some contraband onto a plane was by hiding it in his daughters/nieces underwear - do you think he would hesitate?

Any evidence this is actually a plot or are we just making up movie ideas?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, they implement these policies and they are not law enforcement personnel. Yet the implemented policies appear to be contrary to Bill of Rights, and in many cases where the passenger doesn't provide explicit consent legally constitute assault.

Now, consider the charge of assault for a second.

Who would it be leveled against? The perp.

Not the agency. It'd be interesting to hear the arguments made by the TSA attempting to bump the such a case from the local DA and county court into federal court.

Next question?

You can always refuse and skip your flight. No assault at all.

 

[rwguinn]

You can always refuse and skip your flight. No assault at all.

Not according to this:

At this point, I thought it was all over. I began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine.

Now while this is anecdotal, and the TSA rep said tonight on DFW TV that you simply won't be allowed to board your flight if you refuse, there is the fact that the various directives and rules are not evenly applied, and quite obviously, with the colostomy and urology bags (esp. the latter) the TSA is in effect an untrained rabble pretty much doing what they can get away with. They have power, and a fair number of them are enamored with that, and use it--and yes, that's anecdotal, too. I have experienced it.
Arrogant bastards.