Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Mike, Sep 7, 2012.
No, I think it is more like a side effect of sanding close to the Nude-O-Scopes.
I notice that Rugapee doesn't want to answer our questions. Typical for TSA employees. The truth is unspeakable!
I have to wonder why people who fluff dicks for a living don't just get in the porn business.
Wow! -- The Nobel Committee made a huge oversight when they awarded the Nobel prize in Chemistry this morning.
Doesn't fulfill the power-trip craving. Porn's consensual and anyone can call "cut" at any time.
You try to call "cut" at a checkpoint and the pedosmurf-clerks threaten you with lawsuits.
Yes, it's more in the realm of S&M now, and not the friendly consensual variety. Especially with the recent development of testicle spanking.
Your assuming they had one to start, or didnt sell it to the devil or other entities prior to collecting a paycheck for crimes against the constitution and treason.
Looking forward to the day when s testicle spanking results in the violent removal of the Freedom Fluffer's.
In a discussion at Flying With Fish I asked if he would check with his sources on just waht TSA means when they say resistance.
Typical of TSA employees they seem unable to face the truth of what they are doing.
Just yesterday, Sommer Gentry wrote this in the "Dubunking..." thread:
Saw that. Also mentioned in the Resistance thread which I responded to.
from the Fish article on what "Resistance" is, quote the deputy assistant federal security director:
Nothing requires these misfits or forces them to put their hands between our legs and feel our genitalia and anuses simply because we're getting on an aircraft. They do it because they have no respect for themselves or for anyone else. You get Rugape on here slathering on the corn pone, yet the fact is, he and his buddies are doing this crap to other human beings.
So "resistance" is just a wide ranging term that can mean anything from a passport card found in one's pocket, to coming in contact with genitalia.
Because a real terrorist is going to hide weapons, explosives and incendiaries in a body cavity, exactly where the Scope 'N Gropes don't detect anything. If the TSA was intent on real security, they would use metal detectors and explosive trace portals.
TSA employees have no medical training, and that correlation is both false and creepy at the same time.
That stuff you just quoted is really some of the most perverse I've seen.
ETA: Another thought. If all of that claptrap about resistance and screener judgement is true, why isn't the answer to the question, "Will you be touching my genitals" a straightforward "maybe"? Why is the response always indignation or, as we've seen with Rugape, a dogged insistence on this vague new usage of the word "resistance"? If this was not sinister and perverted, they would be able to admit that maybe they will be touching your genitals, and they would be able to provide a justification for the "need" to do so. It would probably be a stupid justification, but they would be able to provide it.
Had a CE today on consent and an interesting comparison was made. In healthcare everything revolves around consent for treatment, tests etc. For the most part it's all informed consent either verbally or written and has the range of positives and negative outcomes. In the field and emergency setting implied consent applies with persons who are unconscious, altered mental status and a couple other special cases. This is done utilizing the standard of "if a person in the same position (but conscious) would they consent to help/treatment". Then beyond the consent it comes down to documentation as if you didn't write it down it didn't happen.
TSA on the other hand they try to claim informed/implied consent with signs that are facing the wrong way or so small even a eagle couldn't read, there own website and even screeners pulling rules out of there asses. In realistically everyone here cam see through that screen. They go do far as to cause consent by coercion (DYWTFT) which is really a bad idea as that's making terroistic threats (in some juridiction is classified as assault)which will aggravate the level of charges and personal liabilities.
The lawyer said he was surprised it hadnt happened yet. As all it will take is one person who gets assaulted (in reality is battery) and or threatened by a smurf who turns around and calls there bluff and calls in law enforcement to take them down. He also cautioned that self defense is an option but if you plan on beating a smurf you can expose yourself to some liabilities/charges. He joked if you take one smurf out one better be able to everyone of them at a checkpoint as well.
At the point of calling 911/LE one needs to stand their ground, file a criminal complaint and have named all involved, witness to, accomplice in and pressure for arrests. Then after the complaints / arrests keep the pressure on the local DA see things through. He went as far as to take the story to the media as many times as needed to keep the pressure on.
The lawyers final comments was if you like having a livelyhood, your patch and a clean record look at TSA as a "what not to do" reference.
Separate names with a comma.