TSA May Prosecute “Don’t Touch My Junk” Guy

[Better Believe It]

TSA May Prosecute “Don’t Touch My Junk” Guy
By: Michael Whitney
November 16, 2010

You’ve probably heard of the “Don’t Touch My Junk” guy who chose to miss his flight rather than have TSA touch his genitals in its brand new “aggressive pat-downs” strategy.

As if the experience wasn’t humiliating enough – and expensive, for missing his flight – the TSA has decided to make an example of John “Don’t Touch My Junk” Tyner. The TSA announced yesterday it would investigate, and may prosecute, Tyner for declining the porno scanners and groping.

But it’s worse than that: Tyner was told he could be fined $10,000 when he was at the airport – “that was the old fine,” according to TSA. Turns out it’s now $11,000. And TSA is going for it:

"The transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who was ejected from the airport Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan and, subsequently, an invasive body search.

Tyner recorded the half-hour long encounter on his cell phone and later posted it to his personal blog, along with an extensive account of the incident. That blog and a subsequent story on signonsandiego.com posted Saturday night and gone viral, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers, and thousands of comments.

Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a press conference at the office Monday afternoon to announce the probe. The investigation could lead to prosecution and “civil penalties” of up to $11,000, he said."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/14/tsa-ejects-oceanside-man-airport-refusing-security/

That’ll show the terrorists!

Watch Colbert’s segment from last night at:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/11/16/tsa-may-prosecute-dont-touch-my-junk-guy/

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[villager]

2. Is the ACLU going to go to bat for Tyner?

Or are we going to be steamrolled again by "our" government, now in "hope and change" flavor!

[Bjorn Against]

130. Too early for an announcement, but my guess is they will

The ACLU has been on this issue for months, now that there is a case that is likely to go to court I think it is a safe bet that they will be involved in one way or another. They can't do anything until charges are filed, but once they are I suspect Tyner will be speaking with them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. They need to make an example

Yes, it is that simple.

[Dreamer Tatum]

6. Yes, we must obey. Is that what you're saying?

Jesus.

People have flipped. It really is pathetic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

No, that's what TSA wants

Why they need an example.

At this point methinks next flight to Mexico City will be through Tijuana for me.

[DCKit]

21. Dangerous ground for the TSA to tread.

The far left, far right and most of the middle agree that they've gone too far.

Only authoritarians believe the TSA is correct, and they are the (insane) minority.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Correct, they must fear this going to court

Good luck finding a friendly lawyer.

[Nothing Without Hope]

28. It it gets to the corrupt Supreme Court, no problem. n/t

[krabigirl]

35. Scary. Truly scary.

[Dreamer Tatum]

4. WTH is the fine for? They can fine you for refusing to do something?

OK. THAT'S authoritarian.

[seabeyond]

8. he got too popular, too fast. tshirts are now printed.... dont touch my junk. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. I just wish this had happened under Bush, so at least people here wouldn't defend

this abuse of power. I guess some people are willing to have anyone grope their nutsack as long as they approve of the occupant in the White House.

[seabeyond]

15. actually people were defending the beginnings of this even with bush. my thought more afraid

and comforted by the illusion of safety.had one poster challenge about ability to put bomb on a three years old. like it happens every day, ok, once a year... alright.... ever.

[Chulanowa]

118. Because they figured it would only happen to scary brown people who worship in a funny language

[Crazy Dave]

43. Rec+

[laughingliberal]

105. Yep. nt

[kelly1mm]

78. you mean like not buying health insurance? Apparently yes. nt

[seabeyond]

5. they would lose. we find out wasnt on website. not that there was a scanner, or rules

they lose

he was told to leave

[Canuckistanian]

7. I'd love to see this turn into a privacy rights court battle

And there's no mistake whose side the public would be on.

[Individualist]

9. So would I!

[villager]

10. Yes, but "our" courts will be on the other side. Alas.

n/t

[suffragette]

104. I'd love that, too

That's exactly the direction this needs to go.

[ixion]

11. All the more reason to reign in the TSA

and by 'reign in' I mean disband it.

[haele]

67. What does TSA actually do, and have the "scanners" actually stopped anything?

Y'know, a security checkpoint metal detector, et all, isn't too bad when you consider the crazies that might do damage before they're tackled by the other passengers, but honestly, does the risk of a terrorist bomber greater than the risk of a plane that is maintained by the shareholder's bottom line going down in a residential area?

All these "stripper scanners" and pat-downs accomplish is a placebo effect; someone can still stash something nasty in a carry on or laptop and get through the current security system; never putting it in their body.

What next? the body cavity search that forces women to remove tampons or birth control devices just to be able to fly? Removal of pacemakers or other medical devices just in case it's really a perfectly healthy terrorist that fakes a doctor's note and has his or her explosive device implanted in them to look like a pacemaker or orther medical device?
Removal of all gel type medicines, even with a prescription, just in case it's fake?

The rules are shams. I know someone who just last year was able to bring a box-cutter tool they forgot they had in a carry-on bag they normally used as a errand bag at home at a major, "secure" airport - and back; they only noticed they had it with them in the shuttle ride back when they were fishing for their park and ride stub.

The tea-bagger at work thinks pat-downs are okay because they really do protect us from terrorists that want to kill us. "If you don't want the pat-down, you don't have to fly". I told him "you're more likely to get killed by a home-grown terrorist or crazy going into a store at a shopping mall or to the Post Office or DMV than you are by a fanatic that hates America when you go flying - and you're also more likely to get killed in a plane by a drunk or exhausted pilot who's not being paid enough for the work he or she is doing than you are by a terrorist."

Honestly, people like that make me crazy. If they think it's okay give up personal rights to dignity for pretty much useless but intrusive security measures just because of some nameless "fear" - that we're under attack from "Those Furr'n, not Godly Chrisht'n, Brown Folks Hate Amurrikka and Want To Kill Us All" - then they have no right whining about a nanny-state socialist government.
The terrorist have won. Too many Americans now want a Big Daddy to protect them from the Bad Guys.

Haele

[tigereye]

98. the over-generalization of previous attempts to take things on planes-

the shoe-bomb, so EVERYONE has to take off their shoes in perpetuity. The liquids- so now no one can take shampoo in a large bottle, in perpetuity.

Now probably no one will be able to take various computer parts on planes..


It's crazy. Why assume that more than one person will try this, and that that kind of thinking works?



Husband was just saying we should use the Israeli approach...

[Angry Dragon]

13. Do TSA agents get scanned or pat down every day they show up for work??

That would be fair.

Do all airline employees go through scanner or pat down??
These people would be more suspect

[KamaAina]

38. Actually, yes

both pilots and flight attendants have lodged complaints about both the scanners (radiation hazard if you have to go through it every day) and the patdowns (duh).

[Angry Dragon]

60. The question was about TSA agents and airline employees

ticket agents and others

I have been in many airports and found if one wanted to
really cause a mess they could leave bombs by the ticket counters
way before anyone tried to catch a plane.

[immoderate]

70. They are worried the pilot will bring a bomb onto an airplane? That's hilarious.

:rofl:

To a terrorist, that's wasting a bomb and an airplane.

--imm

[Better Believe It]

14. President Obama should stop that threatened prosecution. He has the power.

[rexcat]

16. A jury could always nullify the verdict...

There is nothing like an activist jury in these cases!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

20. Activist jury or no

the cost of the defense could be debilitating.

[tigereye]

99. betcha we will have a giant legal fund from folks who agree with him...

[pitohui]

39. juries don'[t nullify, that's a favorite winger/libertarian fantasy

with very rare exceptions like o.j. simpson you simply don't see "activist juries" because most people who show up and serve on juries aren't "activist" type people

"activist" type people get excused for numerous reasons, and they use their excuses, because "activist" people have lives

bored, lonely people get on juries a lot and that type of person is easily manipulated by authority

ever notice how far the movement to get juries to nullify pot prosecutions got? that's right -- NOWHERE as hundreds of thousands of people jailed for drug crimes can tell you

i don't know where libertarians get this idea that juries nullify, i think it's one of those things that sound great in theory like wife-swapping that turns out to be ridiculous in practice

[grasswire]

74. Juries certainly MAY nullify.

The fact that not many do also has something to do with the quashing of information about a citizen-jurist's right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. A person can even be arrested for passing out literature regarding that right -- a right that is allowed by the Constitution as the last defense against tyranny.

I suggest that you check out the Fully Informed Jury Association www.fija.org. It is alive and well.

To all citizens: you have the right under the Consitution to judge the law as well as the facts of the case when you sit on a jury.

[rexcat]

83. Juries don't have to convict someone if they don't want to...

and I would think that a lot of people have concerns about how John Tyner has been treated by the TSA. There is a lot of publicity with this potential case and it could benefit Mr. Tyner. In that respect a jury could void (or make null) the charges.

I also don't really like to be called a winger/libertarian. Not nice on your part. I happen to be far left liberal. Keep your slurs to yourself.

[peace frog]

17. What you gonna do with all that junk

All that junk inside my trunk
don't you, don't you touch my junk!

(With apologies to the Black Eye Peas)

[PBS Poll-435]

18. ...

:yourock:

[grasswire]

19. do they have to use the word "probe" here??

Geez. Someone will get the idea of doing body cavity searches!

[Better Believe It]

27. Check out this very funny post and DU'ers responses!

"Things Not To Say To A TSA Screener During A Pat Down Search"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9565751

[kenny blankenship]

29. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If all you have is a speculum...

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

59. NO!

Nothing that big is going anywhere near my 'out passage'. It's just not my thing.

[KansDem]

22. I wish the guest would have had time to explain what he would do about security.

He said we didn't need the invasive scanners and groping TSA agents, but we did need security. He was about to explain his ideas when Colbert ran out of time.

Would like to have heard his suggestions...

[pitohui]

42. well we've gone almost 10 yrs since 911 w.out the scanners so...

i'm not sure what needs to be suggested, for the most part, there are thousands of flights in/out/across america every day and it has been over 9 years since a plane was taken over by hijackers or terrorists, despite numerous attempts from the shoe bomber silliness to the recent attempt to smuggle bombs in the cargo hold...

what we've been doing since 911 actually seems to be working

so why do we need the backscatter devices? because some opportunist wants to pocket government money?

[KansDem]

48. I'm afraid you're correct.

...because some opportunist wants to pocket government money?

From Bush's WMDs lie to the draconian "war on drugs," somebody somewhere is making money off all this. And it doesn't look like it's letting up anytime soon...

[bluedigger]

56. His name is Deepak Chopra and he accompanied the President on his trip to India.

http://investors.osi-systems.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=530184

[Hydra]

76. OMFG!

Irony writ LARGE.

[GReedDiamond]

110. That's gotta be the OTHER Deepak Chopra?

Not this one:



...correct?

[bluedigger]

114. Apparently it is not a unique name.

I had to check myself.:shrug:

Not the same man, although reading their bio's didn't make it all that easy to separate them.:crazy:

[Control-Z]

75. That would be my guess.

It is always about the money when you get right down to it.

"so why do we need the backscatter devices? because some opportunist wants to pocket government money?"

[tblue37]

106. Michael Chertoff is making millions on those devices. That's why. nt

[kenny blankenship]

23. I may contribute to his legal defense

Fuck those fuckers.

[seabeyond]

25. right on. many on du could.... and some wont, lol. seems to be the feel. if you see anything

post it

[krabigirl]

34. Me too!

[liberalhistorian]

51. I would happily contribute to it, also. This is horseshit.

Another reason why I absolutely will not fly unless it's an unavoidable emergency, and I can't foresee anything like that. Even in a family emergency, I could probably drive and be there within a day or two, at most. I can really drive far and fast without many breaks, if I have to do so.

[supernova]

26. What's there to prosecute?

He refused a scan. Period.

Same thing as going to any other public place and saying "I don't like what's here. I'm leaving." They told him to leave. So he left.

He wasn't actively fomenting social unrest while resisting the scan.

I don't understand TSA's reasoning here.

And no, I don't think I'll be flying anytime soon anyway.

[seabeyond]

30. they escorted him out. then supervisor said he had to finish groping.

once a person starts the procedure they have to finish. he said he checked website and showed no naked scanners in sd. then he said, gotta fine the people that escorted him out. super said no, they didnt know. then he says, gotta fine yourself, you told me to go. no.... it is on website. and it was not on website. it is now. they updated. was on anderson cooper

[supernova]

64. I understand the general event flow

of event. But I still don't understand why what he did was (maybe) illegal from the TSA's POV.

[seabeyond]

65. they say you are not allowed to leave, because then truly suspected of having something

like you have a bomb strapped. went thru hoping to clear. didnt clear. you want ot leave to not get caught.

[kath]

71. WHAT?

Could you translate, please?

[csziggy]

94. The claim is that once you start going through screening you MUST complete being screened

So if you decide you do not like whatever procedure is in use that particular day at that particular check point, you cannot totally opt out and just go home without being subject to penalties. That is another level of "security" to be pissed about - there is no longer the option to just say no once you are in the line at the TSA checkpoint. At least that seemed to be the claims made to John T., the "junk" guy, by the guys in suits who tried to keep him from leaving the airport.

I will not even go to an airport until this crap is stopped, if that is true. If a relative needs to be picked up at the airport, I will stay in my car and pick them up out front.

[daleo]

109. It's a catch22

If you go along, you get scanned or groped. If you refuse, you get scanned or groped, because you must have something to hide. Yossarian would get it.

[csziggy]

112. Yep - and there is no way to play the game and still win. n/t

[hatrack]

31. He should found "The Junk Is Too Damn Touched" party and run for something . . .

:toast:

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

61. I think you would get more votes with "The Junk is Very Well Touched"

[pitohui]

32. kinda surprised they didn't arrest him on the spot, what's the use of doing it after the fact?

yes, once you've entered the airport, you've consented to search, i thought everyone knew that this time of century, but once he refused BOTH types of search, i think the onus was on TSA to have him arrested on the spot so that he could be searched by law enforcement

this kid is apparently just looking for youtube fame but if a person goes to the airport, with all those little signs on the door not to mention all that stuff on the news and the internet telling you that by going there, you have consented to a search...and then they want to leave without a search...most of the time there's something hinky

a person could use this to create a distraction, they could use this to drop/deliver contraband landside to another person, or they could be testing to see how much they could get away with and once they realized whatever they had taped in their underwear was going to be found...they could leave and return another day

this guy made a big deal of not wanting ANY search, sorry, he ain't a fucking princess, if he won't allow either of the options, then i for one would like to know what he had taped to his, erm, thigh...sure, most of the time it's going to be his weed but there's always the chance it's a weapon

the rules are for everybody, a guy can't just walk up, declare himself a princess, and exclude himself from being searched -- if somebody is making that big of a fucking deal, that they give up their vacation, NOT to be searched...as far as i'm concerned, that's probable cause of something funny going on

the TSA fucked the whole thing up, if he'd truly been a bad guy instead of just an attention seeker, they let him walk off w. no consequences for an attempt to get contraband on the plane

nobody behaved well here...nobody

i think the TSA should stop embarrassing themselves after the fact, they had a chance to find out what he had in his pants (he should have been arrested then & there) but to come back now and say we're gonna fine you $11K with no proof now that you were carrying anything wrong and making excuses to get by without a proper search...they're not gonna win any friends that way (although the guy probably deserves a reasonable fine, like $100 or something, just for making the false accusation of sexual assault against the TSA worker)

[seabeyond]

40. this kid did his researched. he looked to see if naked scanner was at airport when he still had

choice.

this "kid" is not just out for you tube... he didnt want the naked scanner and he didnt want a grope and his choice was taken away because of *gasp* tsa incompetence.

[pitohui]

46. well he didn't do very good research, it was on front page my local paper about scanner rollout

he looks at an old website and pretends to believe that old, outdated information on a website is more believable than nationwide front page reporting that the scanners are being rolled out this november?

or why he didn't just phone the fucking airport?

or he could just not tape whatever he had taped to his leg and not worry about it, next time, my suggestion to the guy is, leave the fucking weed at home, you can drink beer with yr dad for one fucking vacation

but don't be a princess and come tell me that you can't be searched no kinda, any kinda way because you're special...sheesh....

[seabeyond]

62. wasnt old website. was the current website. i dont get paper. i use the net. he did the research

you want to blindly defend and make the victim the problem. nope

[Fuzz]

57. Even if he was looking for a youtube moment, good for him.

[alstephenson]

66. Wow. They sure have you snookered.

How does this fiasco make us safer and more secure? I think they are just trying to make pot busts and the distraction is making us LESS secure.

[ShamelessHussy]

128. for what? he refused the invasive and stupid security, so he didn't get to fly

they have no case.

if they do, then big bro has grown way too strong.

[krabigirl]

33. Wow..just wow. So you cant even leave if you don't consent to the screenings? WTF?

I am done with this country if that is the case.

[pitohui]

49. that's been the case for many, many years and most people who fly already know that

do you fly? do you ever enter an airport before you fly? can you read? have you ever actually read the signs when you enter the airport?


by entering a commercial airport you have given consent to a search, he has a choice of what kind of search, and i for one would like to continue to have that choice

he does NOT have the choice to say "i refuse to be searched" and then huff out the door with what the hell ever he was trying to smuggle into that airport so he (or another bad guy) can try again on a different day

[Steve20]

36. re

The TSA is out of control.

[Matariki]

37. If so, it will be interesting to see it go into the courts.

Hope he can use that to his advantage - and to the advantage of our society at large. Also hope/expect he'll be able to get lots of support.

[TexasObserver]

41. Modern Pinkertons - government goons, out of control.

They can't have someone bad mouthing them and getting away with it.

[Lucian]

44. I hope this turns into a big deal.

No one should have to be groped and have their privacy invaded just to board a plane.

[Bragi]

50. It already IS a big deal

Can't believe that TSA would decide to gratuitously charge this guy.

Have they also got a "Kick me" sign on their back?

[Rex]

45. What a bunch of fascist goons, we will NEVER bow down in subservience

to a faceless govt master! My country is turning into a third world hellhole right before my eyes. I can tell you now that I will never fly on a commercial plane again! I hope the airline industry goes out of business. Fucking jackbooted thugs run 'security' now and are trying to make sure we have no freedoms left - in the name of 'security'. What point is it in being 'safe' if you get treated like the terrorists!!!

TSA = porno-facist pigs.

[Lance_Boyle]

47. It is illegal to show up at the airport, balk at security and go home?

How is that illegal? What if you never get to the front of the security line, but instead turn around and leave when you see how long the line is? Is that illegal?

WTF are they going to prosecute the guy for?

"The requirement for all the passengers is that once they enter the screening area and submit themselves to the screening process, to complete the screening," said Aguilar.

OK Aguilar. This guy entered the screening area and then *refused* to submit himself to the screening process. Fuck you right in the ear with your made-up law. I hope Aguilar finds himself looking for work real soon.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[Rex]

55. You're being funny right?

I mean come ON. He is guilty, of something, because you just know it. Couldn't be because he didn't want people touching his penis or anything. No, couldn't be. :eyes:

People like you scare me.

[here_is_to_hope]

63. wtf?

Lolz, your first post...and then your second...and by the the third...something is definitely taped to his leg.
Best built strawman ever.
9000 innernets to you.
:puke:

[alstephenson]

68. Um, you said upthread if you entered the airport you were consenting to a search.

At least be consistent with your malarkey. Geez.

[Canuckistanian]

73. Then let them get a warrant

Or do you waive your 4th Amendment rights as soon as you cross that line?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

81. Why do you insist on referring to a man over 30 as "kid"? Please explain. -nt

[hedgehog]

85. Well, of course TSA should have let him board without a search

"Asked if he thought he looked like a terrorist, Tyner said no. "I'm 6-foot-1, white with short brown hair," he said Saturday night. "

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

92. What the hell does that have to do with my question? -nt

[PavePusher]

100. Wow, Authoritarianism, alive and well at D.U.

How vile.

[TheWatcher]

111. Your delusion and paranoia is very unhealthy.

Are you really that depressed that you didn't grow up in 1930's Germany?

I know we aren't living in the kind of authoritarian nightmare you really want yet, but can't you just be patient?

Someday we'll have all our rights taken away, I promise, and your Jack Boots will be all the rage and in style again.

There's a Good Citizen.

[TransitJohn]

113. Presumption of innocence no longer applies to the government's dealings with citizens in your USA?

:eyes: :banghead:

[RandySF]

52. In any other setting

The groping of people's thighs, breasts and private parts would be tantamount to sexual assault. Now, what do you think the scanner images of young children would be considered?

[pitohui]

53. so going to the doctor, say, is sexual assault

you missed the bus, we already had this discussion yesterday

non-crazy people realize that sometimes human beings touch other human beings, even there, for purposes other than sexual assault

crazy people don't need to be on commercial aircraft

i don't think young children should be scanned and their young bodies subjected to backscatter radiation, but it's the parent's choice, if she would prefer a (potentially) shorter life for her child than to have the child undergo a patdown because of her own fear of human touch, i don't feel i can intervene, at the end of the day, parents own their children, like it or not, one reason being a child sucks so hard

[haele]

72. I fly in and out of this airport often; they usually don't do aggressive pat-downs,

nor have they had the stripper scanners before.
I was also trained in various types of pat-down techniques in the bad old days when I was in the Navy for alternate duty purposes (Shore Patrol, Duty MAA, etc) - there are big differences between a casual or initial screening pat-down, a weapons pat-down, and a contraband pat-down.
A casual "let's wand you, check the pockets, raise your arms, and look for obvious bulges" is the most I've seen before in Lindberg. If they're now doing contraband pat-downs, going up into the crotch and buttocks area and around the breast area, then frankly, I'd leave the line and refuse to fly, also. I also don't want to go through their stripper x-ray scanners, because I've had enough radiation exposure with x-rays and exposure to radar and transmitter units this year and don't need any more if I can help it - why increase my risk of Leukemia and other radiation-based illnesses?

What this guy went through was not part of the policy just two weeks ago when I flew out.
And as for airline security, I'm more concerned about the condition and training of my flight crew - heck, I'm more concerned about the condition of my aircraft, than I am about some fanatic that wants to go out in a blaze of glory.

Haele

[LisaL]

89. A doctor is a medical professional that underwent

years of training. Furthermore any contact with a patient is usually done in a private exam room, and not out in the open for everybody else to gawk at .

[iaintnohick]

124. TSA abuse

Inappropriate sexual contact is illegal in any context. Anyone who is touched where they shouldn't be touched should immediately get a real police officer and have the offender arrested on the spot. It is child abuse and illegal for a parent to give consent for a minor to be touched on the private parts. It is illegal for a minor to give consent to be touched on the private parts.
Under 18 CFR 2246, " 'sexual contact' means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade."

[leveymg]

54. I don't understand this sudden outburst against TSA. I'd fly naked, if it was the only way to keep

bombs off planes. Looking around at most of my fellow passengers, that solution wouldn't be very entertaining, but I can live with that.

As for this "Don't touch my junk" guy, he's been American idolized enough. Strikes me as an arrogant, sexually immature creep who's doing this to get his 15 minutes as a reality TV celebrity.

[Better Believe It]

69. I refuse to fly naked and I'm willing to take my chances rather than live in a police state .....

with "big brother" watching over everything I do in order to "protect" me from terrorists, radicals, pinkos and other un-Americans subversives.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[leveymg]

80. You're taking this thing way too seriously (and making it too personal).

:eyes:

[Gamow]

82. Invasive search without probable cause is very serious. nt

[leveymg]

84. You give up your expectation of privacy when you post here, as well. But, it's a fact of life

that all of us have had to adapt to. I personally am not as uncomfortable being groped as I would be having my remains scraped off a piece of broken and burnt aircraft fuselage.

I dissent. The current level of TSA screening is not intrusive by my standards, given the reality of the threat to life.

[LisaL]

87. How do people give up their expectation of privacy when

they post here? I don't see anyone attaching their naked photos to their posts.

[leveymg]

90. I was referring to the reality of gov't surveillance of internet postings at political sites.

Would you please stop fixating on the naked stuff! Americans have the strangest sense of moral propriety and hang ups about their bodies. I suggest we need to examine our priorities. Would you rather have your body image scanned or accept a greater risk of being killed in an exploding airliner? It's not like nobody's tried, lately.

[Gamow]

95. That is a false choice between invasive security-theater and safety, the fact is

that is doesn't make us any safer. If someone wants to put explosives inside of their colon, then even these invasive measures won't help (i.e. body scans and "enhanced" pat downs cannot detect this... and it wouldn't take much c4 to down a plane). If we then start doing cavity searches; then they can use any number of alternatives to kill Americans. We cannot erode our basic rights because of a small risk.
Of course, reasonable measures are necessary. Intelligent screening methods, like profiling behavior and face-to-face questioning is what works for Israeli airlines.

[Quantess]

91. I agree.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Gamow]

96. Thanks!

:)

[dionysus]

93. or, if someone doesn't want to be groped by strangers...

go through the damn scanner, it takes 10 seconds....

i understand not wanting to go through the scanner, but if you won't go through it, are they supposed to just let him through?
and yes, the TSA guys were assholes.

[Ilsa]

103. The problem is that it is only theater. Luggage (down below) is still not being

properly screened and people can still get aboard if they are willing to put explosives, etc up their rectums and/or vaginas. The TSA wants to give the appearance that everything is safe, but in fact, it isn't.

There are better ways of screening passengers and they don't have to cause loss of dignity.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. "Don't touch my junk" is going to be 2010's "Don't tase me, Bro"

Who knew there were so many poets out there?

[sabrina 1]

79. Then there should be a huge boycott in support of him.

I used to avoid the word 'fascist' for what this country was becoming, and besides, I thought when we got rid of Bush, all this faschism would stop, but now, I have little hope that unless the American people stand up now, which is already a little too late, the next thing we'll be ordered to do is to take loyalty oaths.

I believe they are testing how far they can push the people. So far, pretty far. But if they do not meet with resistance on this, then what is next? The people already said they did not want these scanners or their bodies mauled by sickos calling themselves 'security', but the people were ignored, now we have to show them, NOT the other way around, who is the boss of this country and of them.

[LisaL]

86. For what?

Jeez.

[Danger Mouse]

88. You. Have. Got. To. Be. Shitting. Me.

:banghead:

[Bonobo]

116. Self-delete. Wrong place.

[AsahinaKimi]

97. Screw it

I won't fly. I hope a million people feel the same way, let the airlines bitch to the TSA.

[bliss_eternal]

101. all i wanna' know is...

...when dudes started calling it, "junk?" and for gawds sake, why? :shrug: seriously. i miss some of the other terms for male genitalia. junk just doesn't seem all that flattering. :blush:

[Better Believe It]

102. Good questions. It's the first time I've heard that expression. Junk?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

127. you prefer....

meat and two veg?

twig and berries?

wedding tackle?

Thank you Austin Powers for reminding me of these...

sP

[DeadEyeDyck]

107. Just completed a SocStats class at Emory...

I learned that the odds of someone being on a plane with you with a bomb is one in 10,408,947. The odds of a plane having two bombs aboard are one in 708,648,406,733,745.23

I always like to have the numbers on my side so I bring my own bomb.

[daleo]

108. This comrade is an enemy of the state

An example must be made of him, comrades.

[Katya Mullethov]

121. dah

[TheKentuckian]

115. Land of the free and the home of the brave=LOLZ!!!

The thought of this nonsense even being within bounds of consideration much less implemented to thrall like applause is mind blowing.

There seems to be a fairly drastic divide in interpretation of basic ideals that can't easily be bridged (if such a thing is even desirable).

People that tolerate this will pretty much accept anything if the right boogieman is pulled out of the closet.
Not for me.

[Bonobo]

117. Airports have no right to detain people.

If you choose to leave, whether it is in the middle of their "procedure" or not, they have no right to detain you against your will.

That is called arrest and only the police have the right to do that and only under certain circumstances.

My bet is that that is the main issue here and the rest is window dressing and posturing.

[Better Believe It]

120. The government is growing very powerful. They can imprison you without a trial for years.

[PBass]

119. His problems are a result of threatening to have the agents "arrested"

That wasn't smart. That's like threatening to have a cop arrested, when he is patting you down.

Why couldn't the guy go through the scanner? It's an either-or choice: pick the scanner or get frisked. I don't get his objection to the scanner. Does he refuse to take a shower before going in the public pool? Somebody will see him naked there too.

(off topic?):

You know what gets me... the right wingers are all over this story - apparently, nobody had their privacy violated under Bush **cough** Patriot Act **cough** they can tap your phones, open your mail and read your emails without a warrant. I'd bet 1000 dollars that the Bush Justice Department abused the law and spied on Democratic leaders and candidates, members of liberal groups, and so on. Just a hunch.

[Pacifist Patriot]

123. It may be an either-or choice, but neither option is acceptable.

There is no demonstrable evidence the use of these techniques will make flying any safer. They are an invasion of privacy and an assault on civil liberties.

The odds of a terrorist making it on to a plane with the security measures already in place prior to body scans and aggressive pat-downs are so ridiculously low, I am willing to accept the risk in order to preserve my civil rights and basic human dignity.

The comparison between airport security measures and the public pool is, well, mind-boggling, actually.



"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[crikkett]

122. Wait - I thought the "don't touch my junk" guy got his ticket refunded n/t

[nunyabidness]

125. Holy crap! Do some research! This tool was looking for publicity for his blog.

Go read his blog…http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com…he's a tool. He went in with his phonecam running. All of his blog entries are whiny "the gov't is out to get us" the sky is falling crap. Read more that one post. Do some research, for crying out loud. I would've arrested him on the spot. He knew the TSA policies for boarding ahead of time so turned on his camera and went to it. He wanted to get a rise out of a TSA employee and hopefully catch something incriminating on tape so he could post it on his alarmist, crybaby blog.

[Bonobo]

126. -1

[ShamelessHussy]

129. Excellent Idea, as we need a national conversation on these ridiculous security measures designed to

make some rich at the expense of everyones privacy and security.