I have no reference why TSA policies are wrong

Before I get a TSA pat down, I ask the guy, "You're not gonna look inside my rectum, right??"

When he says no, I say, "whew...that's a relief, cause I didn't want you to see what I have inside my rectum!"
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Intentionally touching a woman's breasts and genitals without her consent is sexual assault.
Click to expand...

Not in Ohio or many other States. Look up the law. The person doing it has to get some sort of sexual pleasure out of it as well (it isn't uncommon for additional requirements of some sort to be part of the law).

Hmm, theoretically, are you saying that any kind of strip search, no matter the reason, is a sexual assault and the people doing it should be prosecuted? I'll agree that a strip search at airports would be crazy for instance (the searches they do are NOT strip searches), but it seems a little odd that no matter how deadly serious the situation or immediate the danger, that a strip search would be a sexual assault (however humiliating it might be).
 
Last edited:
Drachasor said:
....They don't hire convicted felons at all now. Before they could hire them if the felony was committed as a minor, now they don't do that. Their regulations explicitly say that as part of the background checks.

For the sake of argument, though, if they hired convicted sexual predators, murderers, and the like, then I'd say that hiring practice should stop immediately and all those people should be terminated. There's no backing for the statement that they do that however, the best you can point it is someone with a sealed juvenile record for robbery who got hired and they've since changed their practices to stop even that.
Click to expand...

Gibberish.

I've posted the actual TSA regulations on the criminal background check, and you didn't read them and obviously have no actual knowledge of the subject. If you have trouble reading and understanding the linked reference, you can go back to my prior summary statement on the subject.

At that point, I think you will agree with my statements and opinions concerning the serious issues with people with certain types of past sexual convictions working in TSA checkpoints. (believe it or not :))

And keep in mind I'm not saying people with criminal backgrounds shouldn't have jobs - just that people with certain sexual offenses and designated sexual predators, whether more than ten years in the past or less - shouldn't be doing grope-rapes and viewing scanner porn.

Secondly I'm saying that a simple reading of the TSA regulations show that such persons are in fact employable.

A job applicant with a conviction for rape ten years and one day in the past is required to answer "NO" to the question of whether he is a convicted felon for rape charges because the fine print says to answer NO if the charge was more than ten years in the past.

Further those criminal backgrounds checks are supposed to be destroyed or the files deleted within six months due to privacy law. Therefore it seems that the TSA administration does not even know any possible criminal background of the people engaged in scanner porn and grope-rape.

However, they can get this information pretty quickly by doing a state level and FBI level check on the employees. Both databases have a fair number of errors typically "false positives" or errors in the direction of greater criminality. These will show the record whether or not ten years in the past.

Google - is your friend.

Transportation Security Regulation (TSR) 1542.209 (d).
 
Last edited:
Drachasor said:
Suppose they have unicorns magic people.

The TSA doesn't hire convicted felons. (They've had one exception to this that I know of, regarding someone who committed a robbery at 17 -- juvenile record, but they've since changed their hiring policies).
Click to expand...
No argument there, but misdemeanors, such as stalking and harassment are ok
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25911785/detail.html
Or you could hire a lawyer and take them to court. Nothing stops that.



That frankly seems like someone freaking out over a pat down. I'll grant that's an issue of concern, but that's rather unavoidable, generally speaking. It is unfortunate Dayton doesn't have the new scanners yet, but this is a temporary issue. Also, that most definitely was not any sort of sexual assault. You may check the Ohio laws on the matter if you don't believe me.

It's important to remember that just because someone freaks out, doesn't mean what happened was wrong.


Edit: I'll grant the 11k fines seem excessive to me, but I am not sure of the context on them (and you guys tend exaggerate things out the wazoo). They certainly don't seem to be remotely illegal or unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
mhaze said:
Gibberish.

I've posted the actual TSA regulations on the criminal background check, and you didn't read them and obviously have no actual knowledge of the subject. If you have trouble reading and understanding the linked reference, you can go back to my prior summary statement on the subject.

At that point, I think you will agree with my statements and opinions concerning the serious issues with people with certain types of past sexual convictions working in TSA checkpoints. (believe it or not :))

And keep in mind I'm not saying people with criminal backgrounds shouldn't have jobs - just that people with certain sexual offenses and designated sexual predators, whether more than ten years in the past or less - shouldn't be doing grope-rapes and viewing scanner porn.

Secondly I'm saying that a simple reading of the TSA regulations show that such persons are in fact employable.

A job applicant with a conviction for rape ten years and one day in the past is required to answer "NO" to the question of whether he is a convicted felon for rape charges because the fine print says to answer NO if the charge was more than ten years in the past.

Further those criminal backgrounds checks are supposed to be destroyed or the files deleted within six months due to privacy law. Therefore it seems that the TSA administration does not even know any possible criminal background of the people engaged in scanner porn and grope-rape.

However, they can get this information pretty quickly by doing a state level and FBI level check on the employees. Both databases have a fair number of errors typically "false positives" or errors in the direction of greater criminality. These will show the record whether or not ten years in the past.

Google - is your friend.

Transportation Security Regulation (TSR) 1542.209 (d).
Click to expand...

I had to skim over it since I had to rush out the door. Looking it over more carefully (I had to google the exact policy), does indicate that they ignore convictions more than 10 years old -- well ostensibly ignore, it would be interesting to see how much of an issue this is at all. Just because a sexual conviction that's 10 years old isn't immediate grounds to not be hired doesn't actually mean they'd ignore that as a factor or that they've hired anyone like that. I'd say that's a potentially questionable practice, but we should probably avoid having convicted felons in sensitive areas (at least until such a time as we have penal and other systems that can guarantee proper reform within an acceptable range -- no worse than the rest of the population at least).

So I'll grant there's an issue there, but I still see no issue with the searching in general. They have potential hiring issues, which is a separate thing altogether.


Beyond that, I don't see why you don't use common forum civility and actually link to things rather than citing large documents and expecting people to google them and then search through them. You could definitely do better than that.
 
Last edited:
Drachasor said:
I had to skim over it since I had to rush out the door. Looking it over more carefully (I had to google the exact policy), does indicate that they ignore convictions more than 10 years old -- well ostensibly ignore, it would be interesting to see how much of an issue this is at all. Just because a sexual conviction that's 10 years old isn't immediate grounds to not be hired doesn't actually mean they'd ignore that as a factor or that they've hired anyone like that. I'd say that's a potentially questionable practice, but we should probably avoid having convicted felons in sensitive areas (at least until such a time as we have penal and other systems that can guarantee proper reform within an acceptable range -- no worse than the rest of the population at least).

So I'll grant there's an issue there, but I still see no issue with the searching in general. They have potential hiring issues, which is a separate thing altogether.


Beyond that, I don't see why you don't use common forum civility and actually link to things rather than citing large documents and expecting people to google them and then search through them. You could definitely do better than that.
Click to expand...

I've cited the exact paragraphs. If you like, I'll just post them. They say exactly what I've been saying. You could use common civility and, like, understand that.

Just because a sexual conviction that's 10 years old isn't immediate grounds to not be hired doesn't actually mean they'd ignore that as a factor or that they've hired anyone like that

This comment seems to indicate to me that you didn't get it.

The policy can mean that they don't even know about and issue. Remember? "Check NO if the issue is more than 10 years in the past".

But we know from considerable experience that sexual predators and child molesters don't change their behavior with time. That's in large part why they are so designated for life. It becomes an issue here when you've got porno-scanners and grope-rape on the TSA jobs.

I'm not even saying that someone with a burglary charge ten years in the past should not be pawing through someone's luggage. Just that those with sexual offenses whether ten years or not should be actively excluded from direct contact with the passengers and from the porno-scanners.

This is a very specific issue, you see.

That doesn't make the porno scanners okay or the grope-rape right. It just fixes a glaringly ridiculous oversight on the part of the TSA.

And yes, they really are this stupid.
 
mhaze said:
I've cited the exact paragraphs. If you like, I'll just post them. They say exactly what I've been saying. You could use common civility and, like, understand that.

Just because a sexual conviction that's 10 years old isn't immediate grounds to not be hired doesn't actually mean they'd ignore that as a factor or that they've hired anyone like that

This comment seems to indicate to me that you didn't get it.

The policy can mean that they don't even know about and issue. Remember? "Check NO if the issue is more than 10 years in the past".

But we know from considerable experience that sexual predators and child molesters don't change their behavior with time. That's in large part why they are so designated for life. It becomes an issue here when you've got porno-scanners and grope-rape on the TSA jobs.

I'm not even saying that someone with a burglary charge ten years in the past should not be pawing through someone's luggage. Just that those with sexual offenses whether ten years or not should be actively excluded from direct contact with the passengers and from the porno-scanners.

This is a very specific issue, you see.

That doesn't make the porno scanners okay or the grope-rape right. It just fixes a glaringly ridiculous oversight on the part of the TSA.

And yes, they really are this stupid.
Click to expand...

A background check would show all felonies, not just ones 10 years old. The person doing the check would certainly notice that (and it would very likely end in the person not getting hired, I'd think). So while I grant the policy as written is potentially problematic, that doesn't mean they've hired anyone like that or that their hiring system in practice is doing anything grossly wrong. So in this, I think we basically agree.
 
Drachasor said:
A background check would show all felonies, not just ones 10 years old. The person doing the check would certainly notice that (and it would very likely end in the person not getting hired, I'd think). So while I grant the policy as written is potentially problematic, that doesn't mean they've hired anyone like that or that their hiring system in practice is doing anything grossly wrong. So in this, I think we basically agree.
Click to expand...

Except for the part that you do not want to see......

The policy can mean that they don't even know about and issue. Remember? "Check NO if the issue is more than 10 years in the past".
 
mhaze said:
Except for the part that you do not want to see......

The policy can mean that they don't even know about and issue. Remember? "Check NO if the issue is more than 10 years in the past".
Click to expand...

I'll agree there's a potential paperwork problem and this could lead to a serious isolated incident. It is something that should be fixed. However, my stance is that I think it would be extremely unlikely such a person would be hired, so as a practical matter we are probably ok. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed though, so like I said, we basically agree.
 
I don't like airport security. It's a pain in the ass.

I wonder if the government were to drop its insistance on this security and let the airports/airlines decide for themselves. You can bet that they'd still have security.
 
Drachasor said:
I'll agree there's a potential paperwork problem and this could lead to a serious isolated incident. It is something that should be fixed. However, my stance is that I think it would be extremely unlikely such a person would be hired, so as a practical matter we are probably ok. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed though, so like I said, we basically agree.
Click to expand...

I disagree because of the time sequence. You have jobs that perhaps really don't have any serious restriction against various sexual perps - TSA personnel. You hire whoever applies and who meets the qualifications.

Now you change the job definition to include porno-scans and grope-rapes. About four percent of the general population has a sexual orientation toward children.

http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/what-is-pedophilia.htm

For the 50,000 TSA agents, you likely have 2,000 such persons, whether convicted or not, porno-scanning and grope-raping. That's just the pedophilia subset. For a number of good reasons, even if a pedophile serves his time, he is typically required to register, and his neighbors should have access to such information.

Seems that needs to be extended to TSA if they are going to continue with their grope-rapes.

Here's what we'd have then:

"Hi, I'm Eliza Smith, your friendly TSA pat-down person. I'm a convicted pedofile and a registered sex offender. Now, may I pat down little Johnny?;)

Drachasor said:
....my stance is that I think it would be extremely unlikely such a person would be hired, so as a practical matter we are probably ok....
Click to expand...
This kind of doubletalk needs to be eliminated. There's a street I walk down quite often, and there's a high crime rate on that street.

You know, it's PROBABLY OK to walk down that street. And guess what, because it's PROBABLY OK, I guess we don't need police, laws or anything. And of course, since it's PROBABLY OK, there's no reason to go for concealed carry.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom