Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Mike, Sep 3, 2011.
And yet, we know this happened..... the nipple incident has happened once that we know of. The genital incidents happen regularly. I will agree with you that the pat-downs are probably not meant to be done that way, but in practice, in many cases, they are.
Men get sexually assaulted too, and while contact with the penis may be 'incidental' to TSA agents, it isn't 'incidental' to those on the receiving end.
And yet we've had reports. And don't forget the hair.
Way to blame the victim!! No, she probably wasn't instructed to remove it, but since it was an anomaly, it had to be resolved and the only options to resolve it are remove it or don't fly. Not really options, in my opinion.
You and I live in different worlds.
The TSA is an agency and has a culture that goes along with it. Other government agencies and corporations have cultures too. Microsoft, Google, Apple -- all have recognizable cultures. I've never experienced the TSA's culture from the inside, but with so many incidents of TSA agents abusing passengers, I can only guess what the culture is like.
What I was trying to get at with my 'mindset' comment was to respond to your comment about the things you've done in the name of freedom and democracy. You said that some of those things may be regarded as criminal. When I read that I was thinking 'how do you go from doing something noble like working for freedom and democracy to doing something criminal for it?' Kind of a rhetorical question, really.
I think with the TSA, some agents really do think they're doing the right thing and that the ends justify the means. If you're doing something criminal - and I do believe that some of those 'pat-downs' are criminal sexual assaults - to uphold some set of values, then maybe you don't really believe in those values. And sadly, I think that's where the TSA is, even if you can't recognize it from the inside.
Be grateful for that. Would you really want to live in a world full of "terrorism"? To be afraid of what the majority of people who presents themselves to your workplace may do at any given moment.
No thanks. That would be hysteria inducing.
And regardless of the venue, these circumstances in any individual, in any organization, lead to abuse: of power, of people, of values. It goes to show why everything, rational thought, the Constitution, their own values statement, is null and void the second you walk into their world.
It's difficult to see the forest for the trees.
Or to see reality in a world full of "terrorists".
No, living like that isn't living.
If you take away the perks that the TSA thugs enjoy, who's going to perform the Freedom Gropes?
TSA made it clear that the incident in Lubbock regarding the woman who removed her nipple rings was not procedure. And TSA remedied that right away. If you're going to continue to complain about the toilet seat being left up, this conversation isn't going to go very far. Corrective action was taken. What more do you expect?
No one is treated like a criminal; although I can't account for the attitude of every single TSO in the workforce at all 450 airports. I only work at one airport, and I know exactly how I train them, how I evaluate them and how I test them. I am sharing what the correct policy is, and I am not surprised that you point out the deviations or inconsistencies. Of course there are going to be deviations and inconsistencies. And you should take action to have these pointed out so they can be corrected. But to claim that this is a TSA standard is a bald-faced lie.
It is not.
I appreciate that. I was involved in some very dirty business directed against some very dirty people. We can pontificate about the greater good, ends justifying the means, killing Commies for Christ's sake, etc., but in the end, it does take a special mindset to perform that kind of work. I don't have any regrets or remorse. Not quite saying that I would do that again (it's like surviving a plane crash: yeah, I did that, too; don't regret what it took to survive; wouldn't do it again but could if I had to).
The TSA has lawyers who review these policies before they are implemented as practices. If there's any lawyer out there who can challenge these procedures in a court of law, I strongly encourage that lawyer to do so. The simple answer is that they can't because they know these policies are legal. There is no violation of constitutional rights.
My experience is that TSOs are very reluctant about these types of changes. They generally have the same beliefs that you do. (Hate to spoil any stereotypes.)
How many TSA employees were terminated as part of the "corrective action?"
If that sort of procedure isn't official TSA policy, I'd expect whoever ordered it as well as whoever carried it out to be terminated with prejudice as being fundamentally incompatible with an agency that touts itself as "...a people of integrity who respect and care for others..."
I'll bet they were simply "retrained" along with the other knuckle-draggers you willingly work shoulder-to-shoulder with.
The same was said of Executive Order 9066. You'd have fit right in with the people involved in that.
(Further, EPIC and the ACLU *are* challenging the TSA's procedures.)
This is a huge topic. I could write a tome on it. Don't worry, I won't.
Lawyers are challenging the procedures in court - none of my colleagues believe these procedures are legal, and neither do I (and yes, I'm a lawyer). We are jaded about the make-up of the courts, but that's a separate issue.
EPIC has probably the biggest case, but there are others. In EPIC's case the court came down on the side of the TSA on the constitutional issue. For the comment period the court came down on EPIC's side. EPIC has filed for a rehearing - I don't know how that will come out, but the circuit court that heard their case is pretty conservative, so my guess is that EPIC will lose. Then it's likely to go to the Supreme Court. Hard to know how it will fare there. I think Scalia will be a wild card.
Actually, they are not challenging the substance of TSA policy but the procedure of how that policy was implemented. Big difference. The EPIC challenge is not the body scan technology itself but the process of how TSA fielded that technology. Still, it hasn't stopped one AIT across the country from being used. Not one. Nor will it.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'the substance of TSA policy'. If you mean whether or not the TSA can conduct screening, then you're right, they are not challenging that. They challenged on a number of grounds - the 4th Amendment issue was one of them. The lack of a public comment period before the roll out of the scanners was another. There are others.
So feeling mens penises is just how it is, eh?
Do TSA screeners touch the sides or under women's breast?
You fail to respond to the several videos and first person accounts that clearly show or describe TSA screeners running their hand all the way to the crotch of people being screened. The elderly lady was forced to remove her undergarment if she wanted to fly. That was TSA's doing even if you won't admit such.
Given the lack of TSA screeners to be trained properly in other areas why should anyone expect they can be trained to do a Grope-Down without crossing limits?
I agree, you come across as desensitized.
The same arguments were made for Executive Order 9066. Of course, I can see why someone working for the TSA would hope that none of the TSA procedures are challenged. You'd lose the ability to continue the abuse of the traveling public that you and your fellow thugs enjoy so much.
Yes TSA being the law abiding organization it is has ignored standing Congressional legislation by not complying with the Administrative Procedures Act.
Even your dear leader Herr Pistole has ignored letters from Congressional Committees asking for information.
TSA seems to think the law does not apply to its efforts to terrorize the citizens of the United States.
I'd use a stronger word - like "psychopathic." Believing that the TSA is a good way to keep flyers safer is a lot like believing that Stage III FGM with infibulation is an effective way to control violence against women.
That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. I'm not desensitized to what happens at the checkpoint. I am desensitized to the realities of the world. No argument there. You wish to superimpose that on what happens at the screening checkpoint, and I never said any such thing.
There are certain aspects of screening that I agree have to change. I think TSA's cookie cutter approach needs some adjustment so that supervisors can exercise more discretion. Biggest complainers will be you (collectively) because you don't want the cookie cutter approach to go away. You seem hung up on this fantasy that one-size-fits-all or that "everyone" should undergo the "same" screening process. That's a load of bull.
In a couple of weeks, the first phase of TSA's risk-based screening will be implemented nationwide. I anticipate that many of these changes will be welcomed as common sense finally arriving until we get to the part where you (collectively) believe you should benefit from this policy and find out, for one reason or another, that you don't. That's when all the bitchin' will start (if it ever stops) with the "why him and not me?" whine.
Back on topic: I have no doubt I'll probably rot in (expletive deleted). Has nothing to do with TSA, though, as much as some folks would love to believe that TSA is so evil.
Well given self statements to the effect that a person has engage in some activities that might well be against the law does give reason to question what limitations a person will use to control their actions.
Organizations in and of themselves are not evil. The people who make up the TSA are.
It also gives one pause to wonder at what point a soldier decides that the document he pledged an oath to defend should be used as toilet paper just so they can get their jollies groping people and stealing stuff while lying about their reasons for doing so.
Especially when they've publicly admitted that their efforts are futile on the "security" front, and joyfully tell people that they'll continue to molest people simply because no court has yet told them it's wrong to do so.
Separate names with a comma.