Have any newspapers published Editorials (not op-eds) against airport scanning/groping? NT

[Eric J in MN]

NT

[hlthe2b]

1. Related... what happened to thread on CO attorney's lawsuit

It included his Federal Court filing asking for an immediate injunction against TSA, based on his experience and that of his daughters returning to Denver from San Diego. I am really dismayed that it has disappeared. Was it a bug? Surely not intentional? :shrug:

[TorchTheWitch]

3. The thread in LBN was locked due to suspicious source...

The attorney in question does appear to be a right wing nut job, however, the bigger point here is that these body scanners are also being placed in courthouses as it was the courthouse where he refused to be scanned or groped. There is a video on YouTube of one of his encounters at the courthouse where he refused the scan/grope and was denied entry... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnlLwWKvQlM&feature=player_embedded

Think what you like about this attorney's politics or his motivation in filing the suit. The POINT is that these intrusive scanners are NOT just coming to an airport near you, they're invading everyday places such as the courthouses... exactly as many of us have feared. Considering that radiation is cummulative and how many people have to go into the courthouse almost every day for work (attorneys, paralegals, document filing clerks, etc.) this is a HUGE problem.

When I was a paralegal I had to go to the courthouse to file papers almost every day and sometimes several times a day. NO WAY would I allow myself to be groped or scanned every damn time I had to go there. Aside from the intrusiveness of the be naked or groped searches the cumulative effects of being zapped as much as several times a DAY is utterly horrifying.

[hlthe2b]

6. I don't know the attorney's politics, but the lawsuit is legit...

Given he is from the Springs, he is likely a Rethug, but that is not relevant here. He has a decent reputation. The filing is legit. It was posted on a legit website. The actual court filing was included. This is a serious post on a serious matter. I am appalled that you would be supporting this. I have taken it to the admin forum.


(edited for spelling)

[TorchTheWitch]

9. supporting what?

I know the filing is legit, and I don't care whether he's a flaming nutball RWer or not. I don't think his motives are suspect at all especially considering his YouTube video at the courthouse. I'm irked that the LBN thread was closed by the mods, but I'm not in a position to make that call, and don't know if the source that was used in the LBN OP is legit or not since I'd never heard of it. I even posted an OP (something I think I've only done a handful of times in all the years i've been here) to at least address the scanners being put into courthouses with a legitimate source since other than the LBN thread that was locked I don't recall any other thread that addressed these machines being put into courthouses.

Personally, since this TSA issue has come up I've seen a few mod reactions to threads that appear very biased in either closing a thread or allowing it to remain open, and in all the years I've been here, I've never seen that before... and I probably haven't because I'm very lenient in coming to those sorts of conclusions.

I've already considered taking the issue to the admin forum but was trying to figure out if for once I wasn't being as lenient as I usually am in this instance when it comes to mod decisions since I know how livid this body scanner/groping thing makes me.

Frankly, the biggest reason I even made the post about the LBN thread being locked was to at least get the YouTube video posted here somewhere.

I'm sorry if my post confused you at all and I'm embarrassed that it could have been seen in that light... usually I'm pretty good at making myself clear.

[hlthe2b]

10. Thanks, TorchTheWitch..

I'm sorry I misunderstood your reply. I thought you were defending the deletion. I'm glad you came back to clarify, as I have read many of your posts that had me convinced you too were questioning this whole TSA policy for all the reasons cited repeatedly by many here.
:toast:

[TorchTheWitch]

11. no problem - and thanks for taking it to the admin forum

I think maybe I was trying to be very careful what I said in that post for fear that this thread would end up locked, too, which may have made my meaning unclear.

And now I realize I'm pissed that I suddenly feel like I have to watch what I say concerning this TSA topic. :banghead:

[struggle4progress]

12. Did you read his filing? It was better written than Orly's stuff, but it was vacuous and sloppy

and it isn't going anywhere in the legal system

[hlthe2b]

14. His is not the only Federal legal filing....

No, I am not qualified to review his legal filing, but he is considered to be competent by attorneys with good reps in Colorado. Perhaps, if his filing lacks precision, it only serves to underscore the fact that attorneys should not represent themselves, particularly when they have an emotional attachment to the issue.

Regardless of whether you believe it to be "vacuous and sloppy," or what some perceive as his politics it is an important development. Attorneys are starting to file based on a number of issues--including, but not exclusive to the 4th Amendment. That IS noteworthy. That at least one moderator believed we should not have the right to know about it and discuss it, appalls me. I hope that Skinner will see the need for unbiased discussion of this and all political issues.

[struggle4progress]

15. The filing is only six or eight pages long. He wrote it in an hour or an hour and a half.

He did not legal research for it. He cites no cases and no statutes. It's not really a case: it's huff-n-puff intended to get attention for himself

[hlthe2b]

16. A point you should have been able to make...

and to discuss with others on the original link, IMHO.

[struggle4progress]

17. I concluded it was rightwing noise. Others concluded the same

[hlthe2b]

19. What percentage of original threads are based on articles...

from MSM and other sources that we here readily discredit with discussion. Full discussion. Are you advocating for pre-judgement of threads-- i.e., based on particular bias-- to decide if it gets posted? Lots of SUCCESSFUL legal filings make it through, though attorney friends of mine opine on their inadequacies. And, supreme court cases have been settled despite having no legal basis behind them-- to wit, Bush v Gore, 2000

[struggle4progress]

22. Feel free to take it up with the mods/admins

[hlthe2b]

23. As posted earlier in my replies, I have done so....

I hope, though, you will take my comments to heart.

As one with considerable medical and epidemiological expertise, I recognize that much of what gets posted in the Health forum is based on junk science. While I try to correct the most egregious of the posts I see, if I insisted all of them be deleted because they were based on a source of information that is demonstrably unreliable, there would be little left. So, like most of the medical folks here, I just try to correct and add facts where possible, countering the junk science. It seems to me the same should be expected with posts that include legal filings or lawsuits that you consider similarly "unreliable"...

[2Design]

2. mostly op ed - blogs -

have not seen a newspaper against tsa but most newspapers are republican or republican leaning in their reporting

[LisaL]

4. Here is one:

"TSA's tactics are all about bullying. The agency wants every American to enter a literal position of surrender while being undressed by an X-rated x-ray machine. There is good reason to question whether such devices are effective, let alone safe. The airport backscatter machines can easily detect metal objects on people, but they are quite a bit less effective at detecting chemicals whose atomic makeup is similar to that of the human body. Rational discussion of whether such machines do any good are swept away with the, "It's classified" dodge."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/20/tsas-security-charade/

[struggle4progress]

13. That's a Moony source. They're quite unreliable in their position

[LisaL]

5. Here is another one:

"Many veteran fliers have mocked the TSA’s policies as "security theater," measures designed not so much to catch terrorists as to reassure the public that air travel is safe. There have been numerous examples of passengers managing to smuggle contraband past gate security — even suspected terrorists boarding planes."
http://www.newsherald.com/articles/editorial-88644-government-hated.html

[Eric J in MN]

8. Thanks. Those editors should have explained that private guards at airports...

...have to follow TSA rules. And if the TSA is abolished, someone will make airport rules. The issue is: what should the rules be.

[LisaL]

7. One more. Basically, google is your friend.

"We surrender our rights and we surrender our dignity in the name of safety."
http://www.news-press.com/article/20101128/OPINION/11280360/Editorial-Don-t-let-fear-erode-American-freedoms

[TeeYiYi]

18. Here's one...

Americans should stop the TSA’s pat down of our rights

By connor boyack

Published Nov 20, 2010 01:01AM
Updated Nov 20, 2010 01:01AM

snip

During the ordeal, the TSA agent tasked with manhandling Tyner reportedly stated that by purchasing his ticket, Tyner had given up “a lot of his rights.” Perhaps this is a recent development; I don’t recall seeing any fine print about voluntarily surrendering my constitutional rights when I last purchased an airline ticket.

To the contrary: Nobody has to give up their rights, including “the right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures,” by engaging in a commercial transaction with an airline. The federal government, with no probable cause, has seen fit to intervene in this voluntary relationship and impose its onerous mandates on all travelers — and on top of that, has the audacity to refer to them as “customers.”

This right to be free from searches and seizures is deeply rooted in the American experience. In colonial times, the English claimed an unrestrained, oft-abused power to search one’s property or person at any time, for any reason (or no reason). The ensuing resistance to such an egregious assault on the privacy of innocent individuals was, according to John Adams, “the spark in which originated the American Revolution.”

snip

The past few weeks have changed this attitude, however, with the introduction of new “enhanced” pat-down methods which, quite literally, are a form of molestation in which a stranger runs his or her hands over your body with the palms touching genitalia, in full view of other travelers. What would clearly be illegal for any other person has become sanctioned by law for a worker with a badge.

More at link: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/50704991-82/rights-tsa-tyner-boyack.html.csp

TYY

[LisaL]

20. One more:

"The pat-downs used by TSA workers are highly invasive and a clear invasion of privacy. Moreover, they are relatively useless, according to several law enforcement officers."
http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_16629228

[LisaL]

21. One more

"The TSA's latest intrusion appears to have pushed Americans across the line. The virtual strip search done by TSA's full-body scanners and the "enhanced pat-downs" for those who decline to be scanned have sparked criticism by the ACLU on the left, and Tea Party Express on the right, along with thousands of Americans who just want to fly from here to there without having an intimate encounter with a TSA agent."
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x656203299/Editorial-The-TSA-crosses-a-line