TSA encounter at SAN [San Diego airpoirt]

[BadgerKid]

13 November 2010

These events took place roughly between 5:30 and 6:30 AM, November 13th in Terminal 2 of the San Diego International Airport. I'm writing this approximately 2 1/2 hours after the events transpired, and they are correct to the best of my recollection. I will admit to being particularly fuzzy on the exact order of events when dealing with the agents after getting my ticket refunded; however, all of the events described did occur.

I had my phone recording audio and video of much of these events. It can be viewed below.

Please spread this story as far and wide as possible. I will make no claims to copyright or otherwise.


http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

Summary: Author claims TSA's enhanced pat-down procedures amounts to legalized sexual assault and refuses to be subject to it. After several layers of TSA agents are gone through, the author is to be escorted from the airport, only to be told he cannot leave without being screened. Author is threatened to be hit with a civil lawsuit despite being told no one was forcing him to stay.


Thoughts: Sounds like insanity. Sounds like authorities drunk with power because government has got their back. I'm pretty much dreading the thought of flying.

[boston bean]

1. UnUnrec...nt

Boston

[RC]

6. UnUnrec?

Just like a good, docile sheeple would?

[boston bean]

17. not quite. try again. nt

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Renew Deal]

23. .

[hedgehog]

2. Short version - guy went to airport looking for trouble and found it.

Check out some of his other blog entries.

[mudplanet]

3. That't how civil disobedience works.

[TexasObserver]

16. People who are comfortable being submissive usually don't find trouble.

Those who never object to intrusions are the intrusive governmental agent's best friends.

By your own postings on this topic, you are quite happy with TSA and don't understand how anyone could find their conduct unacceptable. You've simply described your attitude about being subjected to intrusive behaviors. You're very accepting of it. If everyone were that way, we wouldn't have a Bill of Rights, and if enough people agree with your approach, we won't have a Bill of Rights much longer.

[Matariki]

22. Fantastic response TexasObserver.

[Lucian]

38. So we should all just submit to government intrusion?

That's what you're saying.

I don't want to be legally groped and molested when I go to the airport. Why are you so willing?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baldguy]

5. Flying on an airplane is not a civil right.

[sgsmith]

8. Nor is riding in the front of the bus

a civil right.

But some black lady was able to stand up to the authorities and the movement for civil rights had a hero.

Just saying.

[baldguy]

14. So, the author of the story in the OP was singled out because he's racially or ethnically oppressed?

Is there any evidence that the TSA is not randomly, and that anyone can be subject to such a search?

The only problem I see here is that the TSA sucks at PR. They haven't established the need for enhanced security in the public's perception (or haven't been allowed to).

[sgsmith]

15. Yes, there is evidence that TSA isn't random

They have a high probability of picking someone who doesn't look like they're going to kick up a fuss. 70 year old grand mother types. They also have a propensity for directing 17 year old hotties to the Nude-O-Scope.

[cleanhippie]

77. Can you back that assertion up with proof?

They also have a propensity for directing 17 year old hotties to the Nude-O-Scope.

Can you source that comment, or provide something to support it?

[gratuitous]

18. Oppression isn't confined to race or ethnicity

Sometimes people are oppressed without regard to race or ethnic background.

[Renew Deal]

26. The right to privacy is.

So is the right to not be molested when you try to fly.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. No, you have the right to turn around and get on a train, a bus, or drive on our wonderful

interstate system.

Or walk. Or take a boat.

[erikdane]

42. How is the right to travel on a train, bus, drive your self

or walk any different from flying?

Why is flying singled out as the one place where the government can search you without cause just because you like to travel from one part of the country to another?

Or would you like the government to be able to have random searches on trains, buses, or the interstates?

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Actually, if you'd been paying attention, you'd realize that they do.

Because of the "drug war", the 4th Amendment essentially no longer exists. Random searches on interstates? Try driving through some states with a grateful dead sticker on your car. Or long hair, if you're a guy.

This has been going on for decades. But now, now that the TSA might see their unclothed fat rolls on a screen for 5 seconds, now middle America decides to wake up? Sheesh.

[Renew Deal]

76. You didn't answer the question

"How is the right to travel on a train, bus, drive your self or walk any different from flying?"

Molestation at the airport has not been "going on for decades."

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Either airport security is permissible, or it isn't.

You seem to think there is a "right" to get on an airplane without having to pass any sort of security clearance. There isn't. You have the right to not get on the airplane. You also don't have the right to drive on the roads without a license or registration. You don't have the right to get on the train without a ticket.

[EFerrari]

49. Flying in American airspace is also not a right.

Being bailed out by American tax payers is also not a right.

The benefits of exercising goodwill on both sides is pretty obvious.

[Greyhound]

55. The freedom of movement is protected under Article Four of the Constitution.

There is no exception for the mode of travel.

[daleo]

61. This sort of thing can be expanded past air travel

Security can expand to every facet of life - why not random checks on the street? The bus, the train, your car? The workplace? The mall? Your home?

Once you let security paranoia in, there is no logical place to stop.

[ThomCat]

71. They now DO have random checks in the street in some places.

Here in NYC the cops do tens of thousands of "random" stops on the sidewalks every year to identify, frisk, and question people without any probable cause, and this is apparently legal.

This is mostly only done in poor and minority neighborhoods. You won't get stopped and frisked in a middle class neighborhood unless you stick out because you aren't white. But even being white won't protect you in a poor neighborhood.

How does this keep people safe? I don't really know. I think it has more to do with criminalizing people, turning innocent people into criminals against their will for the crime of being poor and members of a minority. The police have a quota of people they need to turn into criminals every month to keep their numbers up.

If their numbers don't stay up they might loose funding. Can't have that!

And it's so much easier to criminalize innocent people than it is to go out there and do all that hard work to find real criminals. Especially when the real criminals might be, um, white collar white guys. Can't be going after them. They probably have lawyers. Poor people who are innocent are easier targets. They don't have lawyers because, being innocent, they didn't think they would need one, and being poor, they can't afford one.

Always go for the easy target!

I still don't have any idea how this supposedly keeps us safe. I just know that tens of thousands of these happen every year, and lots of people end up in court because the cops 'find' stuff on these randomly chosen people occasionally. If it seems to happen more often at the end of the month, hey that's just a coincidence you're hearing about. Move along!

[B2G]

7. I would imagine

That some of the TSA agents aren't real happy about this either. Everyone seemed very professional...right up until he encountered that last dick.

[ohheckyeah]

9. If the videos are a fair representation of what happened

the man was not belligerent at all.....he was somewhat miffed by the end when the man was detaining him from leaving the airport after he was told he could leave. Before that,he stated his position calmly and succinctly and I can't say I disagree with him. Having a choice of being x-rayed which could be physically harmful, or being what amounts to sexually assaulted in some people's minds isn't much a choice.

[spin]

10. If enough people find the new proceedures objectionable ...

why not form an organization to boycott flying until the procedures change?

If enough people simply refuse to buy tickets, the airlines will see a large decrease in people flying and will pressure the government to relax the new requirements.

If we don't start to stand up, sooner or later we will live in a society that resembles the old Soviet Union. Homeland Security will be the equivalent of the KGB. The terrorists will have won as we will have no freedom or privacy and our nation will no longer serve as an example of a "shining light on a hill". Our lives will be almost as hopeless and limited as lives in the nations where the terrorists originate and people in those nations will no longer look at us in envy.

[RC]

11. And the is the idea our owner corporations are moving to.

Freedom in name only, to keep us U.S. safe.

[spin]

31. Reminds me of "Welcome to the Machine" by Pink Floyd ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u07oXPKefQ&feature=related

[Matariki]

21. Here you go.

Lots of relevant info, coordinated efforts and Nov 24th Opt Out Day

http://wewontfly.com/

[spin]

28. Great site ...

Personally I rarely fly and if anyone would get a kick out of looking at a revealing picture of me nude or get a thrill out of feeling my privates, I feel sorry for them.

Having said that, I can understand why some people are upset at the new procedures. I have one child who is now in her mid thirties, but if she was 13 and some TSA goon was enjoying groping her I would be pissed.

Government has used the terrorist attacks as an excuse to take away our freedom and our privacy and now they are in our pants copping a feel or giggling at the size or lack of size of our sexual equipment on their scanning machines.

As I said, the new procedures don't personally bother me. What does bother me is that they undoubtedly will come up with something even more intrusive and humiliating if we allow them half a chance.

The fact is that there are many ways we could be attacked by terrorists. We can waste billions on checking airline passengers and they can simply attack subways or passenger trains. I can think of at least 25 ways for a terrorist to attack that would be hard to detect or deter. The fact that we haven't been attacked makes we wonder if the conspiracy theorists might be right about 9/11.

But perhaps we were simply caught by the terrorist with our pants down. The Bush administration and now Obama's administration really attacked our Constitution rights. The founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves.

[Ilsa]

27. I want for everyone to have to be screened the same way.

Including political figures, the rich and powerful, Everyone. It's the only way to get enough of the right voices heard about changing the procedure for screening.

[spin]

29. That sounds fair to me. Just like Congress having the same medical care we have...

or receiving the same increase in pay that they give those who are on Social Security.

[csziggy]

45. Wonder what Congress critters would think of getting the same "security"

Every time they enter the Capitol Building?

Probably some of them would get off on getting groped that way.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. That would be GREAT.

I'm envisioning getting on a plane that's half empty, like the good old days. X-ray away!

[pitohui]

36. because it just won't happen, all those people who promise to quit flying neveR do it

honestly i wish the damn babies WOULD shut up and stay home, because the planes are packed to the brim and have been for years

[spin]

43. I remember a time when people used to stand up to the government ...

In the 60s and 70s.

[csziggy]

44. Boycottflying.com

http://www.boycottflying.com/

Our Open Letter To the TSA and the Aviation Industry

We, the undersigned citizens of the world, will no longer accept being dehumanized, humiliated and abused in the name of security. We do not want our children strip searched and our wives groped. To prevent further degradations of our dignity and freedom, we vow to stop flying until all our demands are met.

We have two demands:

* The immediate cessation of all body scans and gropes;
* A conference of security experts, organized by Bruce Schneier* and BoycottFlying.com, on how to secure airline travel while protecting democratic freedom;

It is possible to provide a safe and enjoyable aviation experience without treating passengers like terrorists and sheep. Until we are approached with respect, we will boycott flying.

Signed by,

The Members of BoycottFlying.com

[spin]

48. Thanks for the link. (n/t)

[AsahinaKimi]

80. signed up

Thanks

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. We are closer to that than most people want to even consider

the Fourth Amendment has been shredded.

[spin]

60. Totally!!! (n/t)

[Xicano]

12. "Internal Security"

The age old cry of the oppressor...n/t

[spin]

32. "Homeland Security" was and is a name I dislike and distrust ...

the next phrase will be "The Fatherland".

[TuxedoKat]

39. I know

I hate that name too, it sounds Big Brotherish. I hope Pres. Obama changes it before much longer. Tweety said the same thing a few weeks ago on his show, how much he disliked that name. I can't remember what he suggested they change it to though.

[NuclearDem]

13. Alright, it's official

I'm taking Amtrak from now on.

[Matariki]

20. Honestly, DU is infiltrated isn't it. Is it professional, or just immature attention seekers?

I can't believe what I see in this thread. I see a consistency though.

[Mimosa]

24. The populace is being trained and conditioned into passivity in the face of 'authority'

Threats of terrorism have benefited the government to do what they probably wanted to accomplish anyway. :(

[Renew Deal]

25. This story is proof that we have let the terrorists win

It's a national embarrassment that we put people through this when they try to fly on an airplane. People shouldn't be groped or x-rayed when trying to fly. They shouldn't be treated like criminals just for trying to travel. I don't understand how these tactics are not a violation of privacy.

The grope a dope tactics at the airport need to end.

[reggie the dog]

75. i remeber in the 90s

you could still put a few of joints in your pocket and get on the plane... oh for the days....

[GoneOffShore]

82. You got that right.

It's too easy to give up rights.

I'm not a zek being transported to the gulag. I'm a citizen traveling in my own country.

[sally cat]

30. Big Sis and the TSA have gone crazy and it's a public relations disaster.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Meh. If they want the naked pictures of me that badly, they can have them.

I'm just not feeling the outrage. I find it more outrageous that they stick you on a fucking plane in a grossly undersized seat for 4 hours and don't let you use the bathroom, while they use the "fasten seat belt" sign for crowd control.

Flying sucks. This is news?

[I Have A Dream]

46. Maybe if you were a woman, you'd feel differently.

Most men don't mind things like this. Many women do.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Fair enough.

I don't think I pretended to be speaking for anyone other than myself.

[spin]

47. They came first for the Communists ...

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

This situation is a little different. So far it's our rights they are after.

November 12, 2010
Line Up to Give Up Your Rights
By Wesley Clark, MD

Airline travelers are now standing in security lines around the country for the opportunity to pose nude for the Department of Homeland Security. "Naked body scanners" are just the latest development in the field of Man-Caused Disaster prevention, a part of the Overseas Contingency Operations (War on Terror) in which the actions of a handful of suicidal terrorists, almost exclusively of a certain religious persuasion, have led to a massive government assault on the freedoms of all Americans. Since 9/11, the declared objective of al-Qaeda to destroy our society and our way of life has been implemented mainly by our own ruling class.

Stupefying amounts of our money -- hundreds of billions of dollars of our collective wealth -- continue to pour into the ever-expanding bureaucracy and government-run programs to listen to our phone calls, read our mail, collect our personal data, and particularly to intrusively inconvenience every citizen who travels by air. With each new, inexpensive, and creative exploit by al-Qaeda, the depth and breadth of invasive searches has progressively increased -- from emptying our pockets at first, confiscating nail files, then removing our shoes, our belts, wallets, jewelry, watches, confiscating toiletries, followed by random searches and pat-downs, and now nude body scans.

The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Under the Patriot Act, our private communications may be eavesdropped on, and personal transactions can be secretly scrutinized with self-written warrants (National Security Letters written by a federal agent) that prohibit your banker, librarian, or others served from notifying you of the search (you can't even legally contest the warrant if you find out about it yourself, because if you complain to your lawyer or a court about it, you commit a felony by divulging that it exists). This act was originally justified by the War on Terror, but it has since been employed hundreds of thousands of times, often against innocent citizens swept up by innocent associations with alleged intelligence targets. The Obama administration is seeking to broaden the act still more.

TSA searches are now gutting the few remaining Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure. Essentially, our government, supported by the courts, has defined a "Constitution-Free Zone" incorporating all airports and the area of the United States within one hundred miles of a border or the coast (termed the "functional equivalent of the
border, or extended border"), in which constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment are deemed not applicable, and are routinely flouted by the Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/line_up_to_give_up_your_rights.html

[I Have A Dream]

50. +1 nt

[Lugnut]

68. +100 n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Excuse me. I come from a family of German Jews. We had relatives in the camps.

If you want to bitch about having to take your shoes off at the airport, or even get scanned by the dreaded "porno scanners", please find a different example. This is NOT Naziism.

And the 4th Amendment didn't disappear with the TSA, it disappeared with the DEA. I note Wes Clark conveniently forgot to mention that part. Want to get the Constitution back? End the fucking drug war. Airport Security is beside the point.

[spin]

79. I see your point ...

and I am truly sorry about the horror your relatives underwent.

I also agree that the drug war is a failure and should be ended. Prohibition never works but governments love power and the War on Drugs offered the excuse to increase that power exponentially.

I'm not happy about the way our country is headed. We are gradually losing our freedoms and our government is invading our privacy with the excuse that they are protecting us from terrorists. No, the government hasn't reached the level of tyranny that the Nazis achieved, but they have started down a road that will change our nation in ways I never thought would happen. I know people that are very hesitant to use their rights of free speech as they fear the government will hear and disapprove. It reminds me of the McCarthy Era but may be far more serious as technology has advanced in amazing ways since that period of our history.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist crusade, dating from 1950 and heightened during his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, rose to legendary ferocity. Although Congress censured the Wisconsin Republican in 1954, the legacy of fear and suspicion McCarthy helped create lived on through the 1970's, as evidenced by FBI surveillance of the civil rights movement and Vietnam era anti-war demonstrations.
http://www.trackedinamerica.org/timeline/mccarthy_era/intro/

The terrorists win when we lose what makes us unique as a nation, our rights and our freedom.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. I can't speak for anyone else, but the fear hasn't forced me to shut up.

I switched to an unlisted number after I started getting LTTEs posted, mostly because random people started calling me to say they agreed with me. Which was fine, but I figured the anti-choice cranks, in particular, could also find my number and I didn't want them calling me at 4 in the morning lecturing me about Jesus. But other than that- and I'm certainly aware of the history around things like COINTELPRO- I feel just as secure expressing my opinion as I ever have.

As for airport security, personally, I think a better case could be made for it if it wasn't clearly such a big phony dog and pony show. I don't believe most of it- like the ridiculous rules about bringing liquids on board- really keeps us any safer. And I can understand people objecting to the naked scans- really, I can- but honestly to me flying has been so miserable for so long, now, the thought of TSA people looking under my clothes is sort of redundant.

I also think that there is a good case to be made that many of the things done in the name of the "War on Terror" (like the War on Drugs, of course) - the Patriot Act, bypassing FISA, etc. are, like you say, detrimental to our freedom and amount to the terrorists "winning", i.e. chipping away at the core values that this nation stands for. But I'm not sure airport security- even excessive, even onerous, even giant and fake- rises to the same level. It's specific to people flying, and no one has to fly. And it's odd that there has been a groundswell of threads on the TSA in the last couple days. Is it just because of the scanners? It makes me wonder who is pushing it, now, and why.

[spin]

87. The new push on airport security may be driven by ...

the fact that the new scanners were funded by the stimulus bill.

Airport scanners funded by stimulus bill sit in mothballs at Transportation Security Administration
February 23, 2010

One year ago, President Obama signed a $787-billion spending bill meant to stimulate the nation's economy. As Ticket reported Monday, the White House says it's working, that things would have been worse without it.

***snip***

Now Politico is reporting that, in just one example, the bill's $25 million for airport screening machines -- the kind that could detect explosives worn by wannabe Christmas Day bombers -- are sitting in mothballs.

Apparently, it took the Homeland Security Department seven months to order 150 of the scanners. Their California-based manufacturer, Rapiscan, says it has delivered more than 100 of the machines to the Transportation Security Administration, where they sit waiting.

Maybe the delay is good news for privacy advocates, who still don't like those scanners.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/airport-scanners-funded-by-stimulus-bill-sit-in-mothballs-at-transportation-security-administration.html

The administration would probably like to point at evidence of the good that the stimulus program did for the country and therefore may be pushing the technology on the flying public.

The simple solution for those who are opposed to the scanners or the intimate body search is simply to avoid flying. If enough people do this, the airlines will scream bloody murder and the TSA may change its procedures.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. No, I mean there has been a significant amount of noise and outrage about the TSA

Maybe it's just b/c the new scanners and procedures have come on-line.

Flying sucks, you'll get no argument from me there. But if enough people avoid flying, people like me will be in heaven, because the planes will be half empty.

[daleo]

63. Lots of people used to like being a subject of royal power in the 1700s

But some people just couldn't stand it.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. And lots of people in caveman times felt that Sabre Toothed Tigers were a bigger threat

than making shit up and using totally random unrelated examples in a poor attempt to win an argument.

[daleo]

83. The American Revolution was about resistance to arbitrary state power

Many people consider the TSA screening to be equivalent to arbitrary state power, hence the totally related example.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. You don't understand why there is security in airports?

Really?

[daleo]

91. Security in airports does not necessarily require naked scanners

And sexually abusive pat-downs, including pat-downs of toddlers. The world got along without them for seventy five odd years. Most countries still get along without them.

Someday we will look back on this era with amazement, like we look back on the McCarthy era.

[pitohui]

35. well then don't fly, i'm sick of the effin' hysteria

a bunch of babies screaming that a patdown is sexual assault have suddenly climbed out of the woodwork

what is the point of this? a patdown is NOT sexual assault, it is a safe, cheap, effective alternative to the ionizing radiation and the violation of privacy of the nude-o-scope being rolled out this month...millions of dollars are being spent on these devices which will ultimate result in some people getting cancer and everyone who flies having nude digital images stored "somewhere" out of their control where they can very easily make their way into pervert's photo albums or the internet

a patdown is perfectly safe, it's cheap, it doesn't cause cancer, it doesn't leave a digital record

so you want to pretend the fucking PATDOWN is sexual assault?

sorry, creating a nude digital image of my aging body to keep and drool on against my wishes and without paying me for the use of my image THAT'S sexual assault

i'm really fucking tired of the astro turf

if you think a patdown is invasive, wait until you experience cancer treatment, now THAT'S invasive...and if you think the sellers of the body scanner are going to give you one thin dime toward your chemo think again

how many lives are you willing to destroy to put $ in your pocket? (because there are too many of these stories, all of a sudden, it's obv. planned to come out in time with the roll out of the body scanners across america)

[Lucian]

40. A patdown is sexual assault.

A legal form of it.

Sexual assault definition from wikipedia:

Sexual assault may include rape, forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration, forced sexual intercourse, inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of the victim in a sexual manner

I find a patdown, with no justification, especially on the groin, a form of sexual assault. It is inappropriate touching, which, according to the definition, is sexual asault.

[tblue37]

53. And, for women, the breasts. nt

[Lucian]

57. Yep.

That was implied.

[tblue37]

52. False dilemma. The choice should not be aggressive, invasive grope or

cancer-causing backscatter scanners.

~First of all, these methods don't even work. It is just security theater.

~Secondly, despite claims that it isn't so, women are being patted down by male agents.

~Third, agents are deliberately selecting young, attractive females to X-ray or pat down.
Fourth, some victims of sexual assault end up feeling molested all over again and severely traumatized.

~Fourth, in Great Britain, using te nude-o-scope on minors is forbidden because it violates child pornography laws, yet it is used on children here in this country.

~Fifth, would you honestly be willing to allow your own very young child or pretty teenaged daughter to be aggressively groped by a TSA agent, especially since there is no guarantee it won't be a male agent getting his jollies?

~Sixth, there is plenty of evidence that the TSA agents are deliberately making the patdowns as unpleasant and gross as possible, specifically to force passengers to choose the scanner instead.

~Finally, the point is that they want to force everyone to go through the scanenrs, which is why they make the patdowns so nasty. Michael Chertoff and other politically connected people are making millions on those scanners, and they are going to make damned sure that people won't want to go through the grope, espeically since it is done in public.

[Mimosa]

54. ^ TBlue nailed it: 'they want to force everyone to go through the scanners"

TBlue is also correct in this: "Michael Chertoff and other politically connected people are making millions on those scanners, and they are going to make damned sure that people won't want to go through the grope, espeically since it is done in public."

It's all about the money. People who fly private charter planes don't have to go through this.

We really don't know what the doses of radiation will do to people over time. But what the heck, cancer makes money for hospital and pharma corporations too, doesn't it?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

58. Then you may salute the flag during your freedom handjob

let the rest of us be,

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Here is the problem

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re-read that.... NEITHER is appropriate and BOTH are security theater.

Perhaps we should just dispence with the FOURTH AMENDMENT and while we are at it the rest of the Bill of Rights, save the Second... to keep the RW happy that is.

By the way, there ARE patdowns and there are patdowns.

[spin]

62. The simple fact is that a terrorist ...

might hide explosives inside his/her body.

Hell, people smuggle in drugs everyday using such methods.

Would the new scanners or the X-rated pat down detect such explosives?

New Airport Body Scans Don't Detect All Weapons

by Jon Hamilton

The Obama administration's plan to protect air travelers from terrorists is counting on a technology that is powerful but imperfect, experts say.

The plan will place hundreds of full-body scanners in airports around the country. These scanners use a technology called backscatter X-ray to create images that can reveal weapons or explosives hidden beneath a person’s clothing.

But they don't detect everything, and they won't be in every airport.

***snip***

Other experts, though, say backscatter scanners would probably miss a weapon or explosive concealed in a body cavity.

And that apparent weakness has provided an opportunity for an Indiana company called Nesch LLC, which is developing another low-dose X-ray device that can find contraband where other scanners can't.

This machine is called DEXI, for Diffraction Enhanced X-Ray Imaging.

"To my knowledge it's the only one that very reliably can detect the presence of such substances, explosives or illegal substances that are hidden inside of a human body," says Ivan Nesch, the company's president and CEO.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122499686

So of course, we can expect the new Enhanced X-Ray Imaging systems to replace what we are now using. It's a damn boondoggle designed to make some companies rich!

Meanwhile, the terrorists (if they are real and have any commonsense) will be designing attacks that do not involve any aircraft passengers or flight crews.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Trust me I know

why the other day when Gohmert (republican from Texas) Got a little worried about a cord in the nether parts of a woman, he should have called TSA... if he was that worried. Hey, a Republican got HALF of the procedure right... there is hope!

And yes, you could potentially use one of them as well.

Oh and this is the obligatory FUCK HOOVER...

Of course there is more, a really well endowed, read fat, person, as in morbidly obese, could hide this stuff in fat folds.

As I said in 'nother thread, a well motivated terrarist will find ways around this. All these methods are mommy devices to make people feel safer and keep them scared... they won the war, the nature of the US has been irrevocably changed.

[spin]

69. A bunch of people hiding in caves ...

defeated the United States and turned us from a free nation to an oppressive dictatorship who has no respect for the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

How sad!

[daleo]

65. Cancer treatment is voluntary

Nobody is forcing you to undergo it, nor are they denying you the right to travel if you choose not to take a course of chemotherapy. It's a non sequitur.

[GiordanoBruno]

86. What kind of man

would let Government thugs strip and grope his 13-year old daughter? Or anyone elses...

[Lucian]

37. I hope it goes to court and the victim sues.

The victim being the passenger. Maybe the the courts will know that we will not let ourselves be legally groped and molested.

The only way this security nonsense can be stopped is if we all stand up and say we won't allow them to do that.

[spin]

51. If we let them get away with this ...

they will be back with even more great ideas to humiliate us.

[LibDemAlways]

66. Mandatory body cavity searches are on the horizon if

people don't stand up now and say "enough is enough" with one voice.

If people simply stopped flying (unless absolutely necessary for work or a family emergency) the airlines would get the message in a hurry that the flying public will no longer tolerate this shit. Politicians do not listen to ordinary people. They do listen to corporations. We have to make the corporations listen to us and hitting them on the bottom line is the only way to do it.

The TSA has gone too far. People are pushing back. Good.

[spin]

70. Damn right!!! (n/t)

[GoneOffShore]

81. Lots of folks on here with a pro TSA bias.

Because they are "workers" who are "only following orders."

"Support the TSA 'clerks' in their unionization efforts so they can continue to oppress us and keep us safe."

What bullshit.

[Dreamer Tatum]

89. This puts DUers in a quandary

We fucking flipped over the TSA under Bush, when they were FAR less invasive than they are now. Some people are so remiss to criticize ANY aspect of the Obama admin that they'd rather sit there and dream up reasons why women should be fine with having their twin cinemas groped by a government employee.

Me, I call it as it is and play it as it lays: it's out-and-out abuse.

[GoneOffShore]

90. Thanks. You've got it right.