These are NOT "pat downs".... (TSA)

[hlthe2b]

PLEASE stop buying into that euphemism. They are groping genitals, for God's sake. Requiring women cancer survivors to REMOVE breast prosthetics. They are traumatizing innocent children. I like dark humor as much as anyone, but this really is no laughing matter. Can we please be serious about it?


(Sorry, but I needed that rant)

[gateley]

1. I know! Our local paper was giving travel tips and warned to allow time in case

you opt for a "pat down" - I was thinking, that makes it sound almost friendly rather than the violation it is! :grr:

[madmax]

3. Word games.

I agree it's very maddening.

[gateley]

7. Frank Luntz would call it "passenger safety assistance" or something. nt

[madmax]

36. I've forgotten about him, temporarily.

He'll come out of the woodwork along with Mary Matalin, Karen Hughes, and the rest of the termites and bedbugs for 2012. I hope Palin runs. :evilgrin:

[KansDem]

53. Perhaps "Enhanced passenger safety assistance?"

Gotta use "enhanced" in there somewhere. It was the "stay out of jail free" card for the Bushistas...

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. K&R

[Contrary1]

4. Not implants (internal)...prosthetic breasts

Not trying to put you down, but we need to get it correct when we pass this story on.

Implants will probably be next. Maybe woman having mastectomies can opt for a velcro closure instead of stitches.

[hlthe2b]

10. Yes, of course... Just a brain "fart" as this is how it was worded

in the article. And, my mind was fixated on my frustration about the use of "pat down."

[Contrary1]

12. I've got two of them...

So I'll be getting twice the fondling scrutiny at the airport.

[cliffordu]

5. Soo.......Can I start doing these "pat downs" in the line at Safeway??

can't be too careful with them Ter'rists around.....

Sexual molestation, there is NO other word for it.

[TwilightGardener]

6. When the pant-legs are bunching up like that in the pic, you know

they're really squooshing stuff around and getting the full shape of things, as it were. That said, I feel bad for the TSA agents, in general. Probably they didn't sign up to feel other men's franks-n-beans all day. They need their jobs to survive just like the rest of us.

[hlthe2b]

14. My sympathy lies with those being essentially sexually assaulted...

The TSA workers are in a bad position, granted, but they have a CHOICE, bad as it might be. They may have memories of an unpleasant job, but they can walk away. Contrast this with those at risk of long term trauma, as could be the case for those who might have been molested or victim of rape in the past. I think they are the ones deserving of our concern and sympathy and sorry, I have little left for those carrying out this obscene policy.

[TwilightGardener]

18. I'd have to disagree that this rises to the level of sexual assault, though

it is offensive and unpleasant. We'll have to disagree on that. I just think we're all in a tough spot with this policy, travelers and TSA workers (who have to do this now EVERY DAY, ALL DAY--ugh).

[hlthe2b]

19. Try doing it to someone and see yourself in jail charged with just that.

You haven't read some of the accounts that ACLU is documenting which has caused some local prosecutors to warn TSA against any sexualizing the procedure under threat of prosecution and in response to complaints. You do realize that if you or anyone else went up to someone and performed this procedure on them while in line at the movie theater or the grocery store (or elsewhere), you would be arrested for sexual assault. The VERY same procedures that TSA is doing would land you in jail. Granted some are more professional and more careful than others, but there is no standardization, nor uniformity and no way to assure against serious abuse. You can NOT make this statement that this doesn't rise to the level of sexual assault as a blanket conclusion.

[LisaL]

23. If you stood on the street and somebody came up to you

and started patting you down including your crotch what would you call it?

[TwilightGardener]

25. Well, that's not a very good argument, because obviously there would

be no plausible reason for a stranger to approach you out of the blue and feel you up.

[LisaL]

27. So what's a good reason for someone to do it when you get to

the airport? Is there any reasonable suspicion you carry a bomb in your underpants?
By the way they weren't doing all these enhanced pat downs up until recently. Why are they necessary now all of the sudden?

[TwilightGardener]

29. Because there was an underpants bomber? Look, I think they're taking it too far, but

I'm not going to overreact by comparing it to a dark-alley-assault scenario. That's just silly--context does matter.

[LisaL]

30. So what are they going to do if someone sticks a bomb into

a body cavity?
I presume cavity searches can not be far behind.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Sure--I agree that would be silly. I'm not defending the policy, mind you, I'm just

explaining the reason why it now exists.

[tblue37]

43. No, that is NOT the reason. Follow the money. Micahel Chertoff

and other politically connected people are making millions of dollars with the nude-o-scope scanners, so they really, really want people to use them. The aggressive pat-downs are designed to be as humiliating as possible so that people will give up and go through the scanners. It is about money, not about risk.

[TwilightGardener]

45. All right, that's the COVER reason for the new policies.

[CreekDog]

54. That's not why it exists

because you only get the pat down if you fail the metal detector.

the pat down is to check for explosives but they don't check everybody --they only check people that fail the metal detector.

so you've got an artificial knee? they pat you down because of the metal detector.

got no metal but have a bomb in your shorts --you'll probably walk right through.

don't even give this procedure the partial credit you're giving it.

it's stupid --i recommend everybody do their part to make it completely unworkable.

[hlthe2b]

31. You seem woefully unaware that this would not have caught the

underpants bomber if he had concealed within his body. Even Israeli security have come out saying that our use of scanners and these legal molestation procedures have no evidence of effectiveness and are without justification.

You seem willing to submit to lose your civil rights without any evidence that they are necessary or effective in preventing terrorism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Here's the deal

You can shape many explosives into the correct form. They are pliable and will give and take...

A far less touchy feely procedure is far harder to fool. It has four legs and a nose.

Yes cops can do this, WITH a warrant.

Read my sig by the way.

[hlthe2b]

28. I am amazed at how willing you are to give up your civil rights.

Dismayed, actually. Perhaps if you had known someone traumatized by sexual assault, rape, or molestation you would be able to relate to what a travesty this has become. The fact is that this is in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the constitution that protects against search and seizure without cause. Because they are using this as a first line of screening, there is NO cause. Perhaps you are quite young and do not know the history of how (under the guise of security) so many illegal acts have been taken in our name including internment (a euphemism for imprisonment) of Japanese during WWII (and have forgotten about our use of torture and rendition or perhaps you just aren't concerned, but someday, you will wish we had not turned over our basic constitutional rights. What is your threshold? Will you submit to body cavity search?

[TwilightGardener]

32. I didn't give up anything. I feel it's overly invasive and probably unwarranted.

I am just not willing to go overboard and call it assault--not in this context. Now, for some people it may feel like assault--I acknowledge that. But actual sexual assault would involve malicious intent or the seeking of sexual gratification, and I'm pretty sure that's not the case for the vast majority of workers, who were hired BEFORE this policy changed.

[hlthe2b]

33. OMG

So, intent makes the difference to the victim? Good God, your naivete' in this area is leaving me incredulous. You DID give up civil rights merely by defending this policy and suggesting you would submit without question. Do you not understand that?

So if they ordered a body cavity search would that be ok, too? After all, they are in authority, even if there is no cause for doing so.

[TwilightGardener]

38. Well, to expand this, some women cannot tolerate a gynecologist exam

or being washed in private areas by nurses, because of past trauma. That doesn't mean the person who would do the exam or the nursing care is automatically committing assault if the patient is upset by it. Speaking as one who has washed many behinds in my day, even when the patients didn't like it and either had to be talked into it or restrained (as often happens with dementia patients--but they cannot be allowed to remain in their own feces and urine). I'm not equating the necessity of hygiene and medical care to being frisked at an airport--but context and intent DO matter, legally speaking.

[hlthe2b]

39. Your analogy is flawed...

It is not only because there is a justification to performing a pelvic exam for health reasons, but it is done VOLUNTARILY. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. Passengers are NOT given a choice, are not selected based on specific threat identification, but this is a population based first line screening that is unconstitutional.

To take it to extremes, your analogy would suggest that medical professions should/could come in anywhere women gather to set up forced pelvic exams. After all, it is justified under the guise of health screening, right? Would that be ok?

[Fozzledick]

46. Speaking as a former Grand Juror

In Massachusetts at least this clearly meets the explicit definition of indecent assault and battery.

I've seen felony indictments issued for far less.

[pecwae]

47. Exactly so.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. You KNOW they're doing this to get people to opt for the scanners.

In a way, this is as bad as Communism because it's psychological abuse. We live in a free country, but they're constantly looking for ways to herd us.

[Marr]

20. Exactly-- this is the issue, IMHO. They obviously realize it's deeply offensive or even traumatic

for many people, so it's an effective means of pushing them over to these expensive scanners that are making so much money for the domestic security complex.

[LisaL]

24. Some passengers have reported being scanned and then

patted down. So a scanner isn't even going to necessarily prevent pat downs.
And apparently if somebody refuses a scanner and/or a pat down, they can't just leave the airprort as they are facing an 11,000 $ fine.

[somone]

42. Hell of a choice: Molestation or Cancer

:mad:

[avaistheone1]

9. They are just doing their job.

:sarcasm:

[liberal N proud]

11. Pay for an airplane ticket and get a hand job for free

[many a good man]

49. First Class passengers get a Rusty Trombone

[L0oniX]

13. I'm going to save up a big ol fart for when they do that to me.....

or turn my head and coff.

[Turbineguy]

15. Consider how unpleasant this must be

for TSA people who are not perverts.

[hlthe2b]

17. I feel sorry for the victims, far less for the perpetrators...

as I detail in post #14. Sorry, but to place all your sympathy on those who have a choice, (bad as it might be), is really misplaced, IMO.

[avaistheone1]

16. Security

Yet Homeland Security is not so concerned about cargo.

[Kennah]

21. Did you say cough, and then turn?

[Kennah]

22. I get it now

I researched the above photo the OP posted. The TSA member's name is Pat, and well he's gone down on this passenger. No word as yet on the name of the TSA member's member.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

26. I call them, "Feel Ups"

gonna eat a huge bean meal the night before I fly
and save it just for the right moment.

[Dappleganger]

41. Yes, that's what I was calling them too.

And we aren't going to fly, period.

[ladjf]

35. I'd rather pull down my own pants than to have a TSA grope my

genitalia. nt

[Moostache]

37. In the HISTORY of aviation, there was ONE successful large scale attack on the US...

Make the cockpit 100% locked and inaccessible from the passenger compartments and voila...no more terrorist threat from hijacked airplanes....of course, that would also mean Chertoff and pals would lose billions in stolen money...

BTW...I do not care if hijackers take hostages in the passenger compartment or blow up 100 planes. You fly, you accept risks, period. Man is not built to survive 35,000 foot altitudes or 600 mph speeds without a healthy technological assist and a willingness to accept the risks inherent with such actions. If you do not like it, DO NOT FLY. If you accept that its possible for your flight to crash, then you should likewise accept that it is possible for you to die after entering an airplane from reasons accidental, intentional or nefarious. Again, don't like it? DO NOT FLY. But, the idea that we should willingly accept this one more invasive action in the name of "security" is a fucking JOKE!

The constant regression of rights and presumption of innocence is sickening. The Patriot Act. TSA. Homeland Defense. Iraq. Afghanistan. Wire Tapping. Gitmo. Water Boarding. Torture. Abu Gharib. And now government sanctioned sexual assault of citizens....some as young as 3 or as old and infirm as women in WHEELCHAIRS!!! WHAT THE FUCK!!! I MUST SCREAM THIS BECAUSE I LITERALLY AM SEETHING MAD ABOUT IT ALL AND CANNOT HELP MYSELF!

I shit you not. If this kind of TSA, Homeland Security bullshit is not stopped, if people do not collectively stand up and say "ENOUGH! WE REFUSE TO GO ALONG WITH THIS FOR ONE MORE MINUTE!!!", then the day is coming where we will read of "subversive citizens...aka 'terrorists'" who have been rounded up for "background checks" and for "illegal activity scanning" whereby the police state - the REAL aim of the plutocrats running this ship aground anyway - controls all, sees all and invades all with no regard for niceties like "rights" or Bills thereof...

[LibDemAlways]

52. I'm beyond pissed, too. And then I read that

Boehner is exempt. He waltzes through the airport and bypasses the nudo-o-scanner and groping while grandma gets her genitals pawed. The rich and powerful to the rest of us: "Let them eat fucking cake."

[hobbit709]

44. "Feel ups"

[Caretha]

48. Now imagine

this is your 12 yr old son. :mad:

[sarcasmo]

50. Good sheep, OBEY!

[lunatica]

51. I hate the idea but I'm never flying again until this stops, if ever

This country overreacts so fucking much that it's an embarrassment to be a citizen sometimes. One underpants bomber fails to bomb anything and millions gets to have their genitals touched. One shoe bomber fails to bomb anything and millions have to take off their shoes.

Oh! But they found one, repeat, ONE syringe full of heroin! Seriesly!11 Imagine if it had made it past the pat down!!!!1111!!