The Blue-Shirted Gestapo ... May They Rot in (expletive deleted)

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Mike, Sep 3, 2011.

  1. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    Actually, there probably isn't any. I'm serious. I think this is one of those things that the agency doesn't dare have put in writing for fear it will leak out. My suspicion is that instead it's passed on by word of mouth or other deniable means. Some people go to a demonstration in at the TSA lair in DC, they go to the regional HQs and do the demo for others, and it spreads out like a pyramid scheme.
     
    Lisa Simeone and Caradoc like this.
  2. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Not for security reasons, but for the level of embarrassment the TSA as a whole would suffer once the public understood the actual scope of what the TSA claims the ability to do.

    (Not for security reasons because as anyone with any background at all in security understands, "security through obscurity" isn't "security" at all.)
     
  3. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    Look at the situation with Wikileaks. Some private goes in, pretends to be a complete moron rocking out to Lady Gaga, and downloads 250,000 secret diplomatic cables. And this was under a situation of military security. The solution for TSA to this problem of course is just to not put the search protocol it in writing, but just do the demonstration. Note that even the manual that was leaked had no details about the search method, at least as far as I recall.
     
  4. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    He's probably referring to the case where the guy was harassed and arrested for having the 4th amendment written on his chest and eventually released without charges.

    It's a civil action, not a criminal case, but the judge is allowing the case to proceed (1) against the two TSOs for civil rights violations and (2) against the three law enforcement officers for false arrest and detention.

    When government employees grossly violate someone's constitutional rights, they can be held personally liable, and that is what is happening here. Since this is a civil action, the level of proof required is a mere "preponderance of the evidence"; only criminal prosecutions require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". This should be a great "teachable moment" for the trainers!!!!
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  5. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    What's the over/under on whether the TSA actually learns the right lesson from this case?
     
  6. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    I am somewhat familiar with that incident. It only reinforces my statement that these were deviations from TSA policy. The TSOs failed to stick to policy. Otherwise, this individual should have been able to proceed without incident. The challenge is to produce one case where TSA policy was found to be illegal or unconstitutional. There isn't one.

    But I agree with you that his incident has a good teaching point: to not let the antics of passengers goat them into poor screening decisions.
     
  7. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    Not yet.
     
  8. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    I'd be willing to bet that if passengers were actually aware of the limitations (or rather, lack thereof) on what the TSA believes they're allowed to do in that back room, the number of cases would be a lot higher.

    After all, it took 34 years to rescind Executive Order 9066.
     
    Lisa Simeone and barbell like this.
  9. RB

    RB Founding Member

    TSA employees learn? That's a hoot.

    Heck, even the trainers can't teach them how to do pat downs without grabbing crotches and breasts.
     
  10. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Or "karate-chopping" the genitals.
     
  11. mikemey

    mikemey Original Member

    Actually, the function of the breast is NOT sexual. It is to feed a newborn baby. The breast as a sexual organ is purely the result of the prudish American values, and the outdated belief that seeing a naked breast on the beach will corrupt the youth. That said, there really is no reason to be touching that, or the genitals in order to get into an airport.
     
  12. RB

    RB Founding Member

    How can a mere traveler know if the TSA Screener has deviated from policy?
     
  13. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    Well, except that the nipple is one of the richest sources of nerve endings in the human body, so, yes, it is an arousal organ.
     
  14. RB

    RB Founding Member

    That would explain the great amounts of money spent worldwide by some making the female breast more shapely, larger, and so forth.
     
  15. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    You obviously aren't female. :D
     
    DeafBlonde likes this.
  16. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    At the risk of further derailing the conversation, breasts are, as we all learned in biology, a secondary sex characteristic. Therefore, they are, indeed, "sexual."
     
    nachtnebel and DeafBlonde like this.
  17. mikemey

    mikemey Original Member

    eh, potato, potat-aho...lets call the whole thing off.

    Back to your regularly scheduled TSA bashing. :)
     
  18. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    Good. It's where TSOs belong. All of them. And as an atheist, I say that I feel it's truly a shame there isn't a (expletive deleted) because TSA is the one case where I believe such a punishment (eternal torment with no reprieve) is truly deserved.

    Then it's because of that AND for working for TSA.

    Working for TSA. Not performing gropedowns, not spouting DYWTFT, nothing like that. Not anymore. Unless you're a double-agent for freedom-loving human beings the world over, trying to sabotage and transform TSA from within, the mere act of working for TSA is the wrongdoing at this point in time. Guilt by association, yessiree.

    Yes, really. You're oversimplifying and you know it, and it is disingenuous, dishonest and reprehensible. All of this emotion over an unnecessarily and unjustifiably intrusive patdown, performed in violation of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed therein. Oh, and not "a" patdown. Millions of them, performed over and over and over again.

    And I'd like to go back to that for a second - unjustifiably. Meaning that it cannot be justified, that there is nothing that could ever render it appropriate. Stopping WEI from getting on airplanes cannot justify TSA patdowns. Ever. Stopping terrorists cannot justify TSA patdowns. Ever. Protecting lives cannot justify TSA patdowns. Ever.

    UN-justifiable. Completely, totally, forever and without exception. Unjustifiable.

    We will not be dissuaded or discouraged by attempts at psychological destabilization. You can accuse us of naiveté all you want, and all we have to say to you is "Sticks and stones, TSA employee, sticks and stones."

    We will continue to look at things that way and we will continue to work to effect change based on that point of view. And at the end of the day, if we get the change we want and you don't, then naiveté is an asset. At the end of the day, if we go home to our lives of liberty and TSOs go "home" to their cardboard boxes to discover that their fellow rats ate their fellow garbage that they were planning on cannibalizing for dinner, then our so-called "naiveté" has served us well.
     
    Caradoc likes this.
  19. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Bart says we are naive yet he refuses to hear and believe that TSA employees routinely exceed the scope of the pat down as told to us by Bart himself.
     
  20. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    D
    of course.
     

Share This Page