Why Did I Have To Go To Pravda To Get My Op-Ed About TSA Rape Published?

It's actually worse than that -- and for the record, I despise the current situation as much as anyone here.

What's clear is everything that Mike said, plus the administrative search doctrine, plus the make-up of the appeals court, plus the unwillingness on the part of Congress to do anything about it.

The administrative search doctrine plus the make-up of the appeals court is what gives attorneys pause in taking cases. You saw the result that EPIC got - a win on the comments period, but a loss on the merits. And that was a strong case. And this is the way it's going to go in the courts for the foreseeable future. Two things might change that - a favorable ruling by the US Supreme Court, or cases brought using the new definition of rape that get a favorable ruling.

If you don't want to rely on the courts there are two things that can make the situation better.

1. Direct activism - something like the occupy movement. Or get everyone to opt out every time so that the works are gummed up so badly they have to get rid of the scanners. Better yet, get everyone to opt out of the scanner AND the pat down.

2. Get Congress to repeal the statute that created TSA. Tough to do, but not impossible.

Those are the options.

EPIC is probably the best bet.

 

Thumbs up a hundredfold to Sunny.

 

What you want is immediate gratification. You're not going to get that.

 

The Rutherford Institute is also actively fighting TSA in the courts.

 

Dude, do not tell me what I want. What I want is to not be lied to, by the government or the ACLU. Fact of the matter, the ACLU collected our names for marketing purposes, not for helping us. Like the White House?
Ron Paul is at least honest about raising funds, about a hundredfold more honest than the ACLU.

Amy Alkon should not have to go to Pravda to get published. People who have been injured (I think Barbell gets this) should not have to go begging for assistance, or be independently wealthy in order to pursue their claims. That's part of the beauty of injuring people: it diminishes their ability to fight back. Why indeed.

 

I think you're way off base. The ACLU used the means available to them (the internet) to attract prospects for a case. This is no different than what any law firm does, whether they use the interent, newspaper ads or broadcast media, to look for business. If they also happen to use the names for fundraising (any actual evidence to support that, not that it really matters?), that shouldn't be any great surprise givent that they are a non-profit.

The problem, as people have repeatedly tried to point out, is that it is not clear given the current case law that people have a tort for which they can sue. Period. End of story. If you'd like to dispute that, find us some attorneys looking for clients so they can sue TSA on contingency. They're not there.

Attorneys take case they can win for a couple reasons. #1, they like to earn a living just like the rest of us. #2, they don't want to be sanctioned & put out of business, which is exactly what can happen if they go out on a limb.

We had a great one here in Minneapolis about 15-20 years ago who ultimately became known as the "Bimbo Attorney". She hit the ground running fresh out of law school & tried to make a splash & name for herself by suing companies like Hooters for sexual discrimination. She negotiated a few settlements (it's usually cheaper than proving you're right) but eventually her karma came round & she got whacked. I think she's still practicing law (had to do it "under supervision" for a while) but keeping a much lower profile. It's always a good idea to make sure that your cases are sound & well managed.

 

Rape isn't a tort? OK...

 

Because people who have lived under those types of regimes for decades are very concerned about what is happening. We experienced the outcome of such government control. I have argued many times that it is one major reason why privacy rights and anti-scanner protests are so common and well-received in Germany. Our memories are still somewhat fresh.

 

It's not rape when it's consensual, and at this point even if it's consensual, the new definition of rape hasn't taken effect yet.

When the new definition is in effect, you have to remember that it is a definition for reporting purposes. Nobody can be prosecuted based on it. At that point, however, it does become a weapon in our battle of ideas: We can then legitimately characterize what TSA does as rape. That will work to our advantage in the long run.

 

Agreed. There should have been a consent decree at the very least, not the "no harm, no foul" withdrawal we got.

 

It is said that one consent's to being searched at a checkpoint comes when one buys a ticket; other have said that "consent" is given when one puts their belongings on the x-ray belt.

What would the TSA's reaction be if one wore a message in the form of a stick-on label (think "Hi, I'm.........") that said "I do not consent to having my genitals touched by an agent of the TSA, in accordance with the FBI's new definition of rape" or something to that effect?

 

As Sommer Gentry has said repeatedly, you can't consent if you don't know what it is you're consenting to. The TSA refuses to tell us what constitutes a search or an "enhanced patdown," because it's supposedly SSI. Therefore, we can't give consent.

 

As far as I know, the 'when does consent begin?' question hasn't been litigated yet. If I had to guess, consent would occur sometime before your bags go through the x-ray and you go through either the scanner or the metal detector, because prior to that no one has seen what's in your bags, or what you have under your clothes (I can't believe I just typed that), or what's making the metal detector beep. How far before is still an open discussion.

 

I don't think that argument is going to get you very far, to tell you the truth. This happens with police - and is why you shouldn't answer 'friendly' questions from police. Once you start talking to them, it looks a lot like consent.

 

Never Talk To Police.

 

I'm watching it now (in the background). I'm liking it!

 

I think there are two different "consent"s involved here. Whether or not I consented to search, I didn't consent to sexual penetration.

 

Everyone should go watch that video.

 

I understand, and obviously I agree with you, but the other side is going to say that it isn't sexual penetration, it's a search.

 

Well, I suppose we could plant sensors and measurement equipment. The R-VAPT (Remote Vaginal Anal Penetration Transmitter) could be a new line of business for our company. Maybe I should submit a patent disclosure?