TSA Told To Tell Children That Groping Them Is A Game... Horrifying Sex Abuse Experts
from the that's-not-a-game dept
Apparently TSA agents are being told that one way to handle the new groping pat downs for children is to try to make it out to be some sort of "game." This is apparently horrifying some sex abuse experts who point out that a common tactic in abuse cases is to tell the kids that they're just "playing a game." The TSA has said that the newer patdowns will not apply to children under 12, but the rules have been somewhat unclear -- leading to the statement from a TSA director, James Marchand:"You try to make it as best you can for that child to come through. If you can come up with some kind of a game to play with a child, it makes it a lot easier."He also said that the idea of making it a game would become a part of the TSA's training. Ken Wooden, who runs an organization to try to stop sex abuse of children was not pleased:
"How can experts working at the TSA be so incredibly misinformed and misguided to suggest that full body pat downs for children be portrayed as a game?" Wooden asked in an email. "To do so is completely contrary to what we in the sexual abuse prevention field have been trying to accomplish for the past thirty years."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How dumb are these people?
Little Girl: Why are you touching me there? I don't like this!
Little Boy: Don't worry, this is just a game I learned at the airport. Now hold still.
LG: No! I don't like this!
LB: You MUST complete this game or you'll get in trouble! We can't stop now that it's started!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How dumb are these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How dumb are these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How dumb are these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How dumb are these people?
Aldous was right.
What was the line... something like: "could you imagine a world where the children couldn't engage in erotic play?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How dumb are these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How dumb are these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How dumb are these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How dumb are these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dumb are these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dumb are these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How dumb are these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How dumb are these people?
Hmm yep I guess that's balanced. Well done to the government for achieving balance. *polite faux-clap*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How dumb are these people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess driving is considered a priviledge too right.. I wonder if they will put up random kid-groping checkstops on the roads soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not? You do know that the 9-11 terrorists used roadways to get to the airport, right? Terrorists must be stopped wherever they are! Now, tell you daughter to drop her panties and bend over for the nice man with the badge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Asphalt Ribbon
I'm fortunate that I rarely need to travel for work, but if I do, I will drive, period. The vacation plans have been modified to allow for driving time, and if the destination is too far to get there and back, then the local businesses can count the dollars I would have spent as a loss, due to the TSA policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Asphalt Ribbon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Asphalt Ribbon
In a totalitarian state, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Asphalt Ribbon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Asphalt Ribbon
Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Amendment 4:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Asphalt Ribbon
The Right To Travel
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
here: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Asphalt Ribbon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Asphalt Ribbon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Asphalt Ribbon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Asphalt Ribbon
You're lucky. Many people's employers require them to fly, period. Refusal to do so would result in unemployment, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
I am as much for airport security as anyone else... but there is NOTHING about this current situation that is logical, sensible or right. This is wrong in so many ways, we have to wonder who is making $$$$ off this airport scanner deal.
One would have to believe there is a way to scan people quickly and efficiently without their picture potentially winding up on the internet or being drooled over by a perv security guard. Someone here is absolutely not thinking.
That said however, it should be realized that security scanner guards... after seeing thousands of such scans every day... would become extremely jaded to these things. We don't complain when a doctor sees us naked. So why are people so extremely vehement about this issue?
It seems there is lack of common sense, and over-reaction, on all sides of this issue. Myself, I will be willing to step through a simple scanner check and avoid the entire patdown process. And if a picture of me appears anywhere, I will sue the airport involved to the last available dime. If they're willing to take that risk... then I feel they're confident enough in the scanner system and how it works.
Anyone out there want to tell their doctor he can't see them naked? Maybe the TSA needs to wise up (as in get a grain of sanity people)... and maybe the general public needs to stop going drama queen over what is an apparently necessary step IF they want actual security.
Security or freedom folks; we can't have both. We've screamed about terrorism and planes (probably to paranoia pitch) and have empowered the government to take what is in truth probably ridiculously excessive steps. So we need to either remove that empowerment (which frankly is probably not going to happen)... or live with the consequences. When push comes to shove... most likely a harmless scan is not all that major an issue.
Not my call and frankly, I don't care. I *do* care that groping children would be referred to as a game. The person who came up with that concept needs to be removed from his position... now. He obviously is not capable of rational judgment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now you see the _real_reason_ for the over the top patdowns....
"Myself, I will be willing to step through a simple scanner check and avoid the entire patdown [sic] process."
That simple sentence sums up the entire reasoning behind these _over_the_top_ 'pat downs'.
The TSA knew that they couldn't _force_ everyone to submit to their enhanced, privacy stripping, humiliating, potentially health threatening new machines. If too many people opted out then there wouldn't be any reason to keep them.
(I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine the correct mix of authoritarian abuse and outright greed that lead to the installations of these machines to begin with.)
It was no coincidence that these 'enhanced pat downs' showed up just as the TSA announced that these scanners would become the _primary_ new security mechanism. If they made the alternative to being scanned, uncomfortable, humiliating, and utterly horrific, then people would gladly submit to being 'scanned' just to avoid the pat downs. "Wayfinder" has shown that for a portion of the populace, things are working according to plan.
The TSA's plan is no better than handing over your money, or being violated by a criminal if the alternative is getting shot. Worse, because it's the government that's violating us.
"Isn't it much better to be violated by this machine than to let Bruno have his way with your wife and children. So few people have 'opted out' today and Bruno really enjoys redheads with braces. Oh... you've changed your mind... Bruno will be sooooo.. disappointed. Just step inside. Yes, now smile, your scan might make it into this years calendar edition. What? Oh, nothing.", says the friendly TSA supervisor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now you see the _real_reason_ for the over the top patdowns....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
And why not? The current incarnation of the TSA gives us neither I'll say. The "security" measures that have been put in place are complete nonsense. Vote with your dollars on this, and simply refuse to fly. A medically unstudied scanner or what would amount to, outside of this situation, a sexual assault is not a good set of options. Since there are no good options currently, don't fly. Don't opt-out, opt not to fly. Sure driving is a lot lenthier, and requires more effort on your part, but it beats the other options. And when a doctor sees me naked, they are a trained medical professional that is doing what I am asking them to do, diagnose a problem that I went to them inquring about. I don't care that a TSA agent probably becomes jaded when seeing thousands of images, it's the principal of the matter. They have no right to see my body simply because I wish to take part in a completely legal activity, which isn't even legal in the sense that drinking is legal, you can do it but if done under the wrong circumstances can lower judgement and allow you to do something stupid that kills someone. This is entering a metal tube with wings, sitting, and standing up in a different place. Transportation should not require me to expose myself to a stranger, and I empathize for the parents out there who will probably be arrested after standing up for their and their children's rights not to be groped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
And get fired. Great solution there, Mr. Fascist.
Also do letter writing and emailing while you're upset about the issue at hand.
Better send lots of cash with those letters if you want anyone to care.
OH and voting does make a difference too.
You know, they have voting in China, Iran and many other places, too. They even had it in the USSR and Nazi Germany. Yeah, voting makes all the difference.
Sad to say; a fast fix on this is not in the cards.
Not if you apologists can prevent it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself ter
Other option: hand the TSA agent a contract to sign. He won't, so you have an impasse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
Swim, you lazy liberals!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
With TSA security, you are NOT informed about the details of the inspection, they were NOT trained or employed with the expectation that they would be feeling people up, and your body scans may show up anywhere without your knowledge or consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
Plus you can CHOOSE your Doctor, but you cannot choose who will "patdown" or scan you in the airport; not only that, you can REFUSE treatment with a doctor, try to refuse the TSA and they'll arrest and fine you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
Here's another reason why one shouldn't compare TSA agents to doctors: I chose my doctor! I spent a lot of effort to choose one (JUST one) I feel comfortable with! The doctor-patient relationship is based on trust, references, and research. It's a long-term relationship. I know this doctor and can fire her at any time.
TSA are imposed on unwary travelers with NO control over the relationship whatsoever. No trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
Lucky you. Not everyone has that choice. Does that make an examination wrong in your book, then?
TSA are imposed on unwary travelers with NO control over the relationship whatsoever. No trust.
So, if you could choose one of two agents to grope you, you'd be okay with that? Hey, you're getting to choose your agent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
It's the American sports mentality: Our team must win! We must show AQ that we can beat them at their own game! TSA for the win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
It's because of the 'win win win!" mentality that we allowed so much of our basic rights to be taken away from us before we knew it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
Kind of like a perv with a large collection of kiddy porn, eh? After seeing enough, they just become jaded. Nothing wrong there either, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
Would you enjoy your job if you were told you had to do something so ethically and morally sketchy?
Stop assuming that b/c they HAVE to do that they WANT to do it. That's naive and closed minded of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
The scans aren't harmless, Mr. Apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
According to Ben Franklin you are right, but not in the way you think.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
Instead, Sela recommends behavioral profiling rather than random checks along with a �trusted traveler� program so that pre-approved, low-risk passengers can be quickly moved through the process.
"You have to actually look for the things that are dangerous, and not just scan everybody," he advises. "My point is that if you know who is flying, you don�t really need to check for water bottles and nail files, but can direct more resources to looking for explosives and drugs.�
But that might take actual expertise, which the TSA clearly doesn�t have." _BY Steve Christ, Wealth Daily
These body scanners are just as inefficient as patdowns.
And much more dangerous, I really don't feel safe with doing an open x-ray while the doctor hides behind a lead wall, that's what these are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
Increased Lobbying by Manufacturers of Full Body Scanners
Full Body Scanner Lobby: Michael Chertoff & Rapiscan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
Give me liberty or give me death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
Are you seriously going to try and draw that comparisson? On the one hand we have a liscenced professional who's expertise we have personally chosen to consult in order to preserve or restor our health. On the other hand, we have a minimally-trained, minimum-wage goon who is being imposed upon us by some third party in order to perpetrate a farce security policy which is arguably doing nothing to make anyone any safer.
THAT is why people are so vehement about this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
I'd rather have freedom thanks. There is a way worse chance of engine failure in a plane than a terrorist attack. It's sick that they use the threat of terrorism and 911 as a way to slowly take away our civil liberties. There is no such thing as security in life and freedoms when lost are near impossible to regain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Groping children is insanity--and itself terrorism
FREEDOM. If you would rather have security, go live in Europe.
Those who trade a little freedom for a little security deserve NEITHER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could someone please return our 4th amendment rights? It seems that they have been stolen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Rights only amount to what the Supreme Court says they do. People wanted a more conservative SC that wouldn't let "rights" get in the way of big business and big govt. Well, they got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Court
> get in the way of big business and big govt.
The Supreme Court had nothing to do with this policy. It was conceived and implemented by a liberal Democrat administration and Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Court
Saying that The Supreme Court has no power to restrict government policies is both ignorant and dishonest. Congratulations, you win twice!
It was conceived and implemented by a liberal Democrat administration and Congress.
And conservatives as well. You left that part out. Hey, you're a triple winner now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Court
> policies is both ignorant and dishonest.
You might have a point if I'd actually said any such thing. Since I did not, it seems you're the dishonest one here.
The Supreme Court can only restrict the government by ruling on a case brought before it. It can't take any action on it's own volition. So until someone sues the TSA and the case works its way up from the district court, through the courts of appeal, and is granted certiorari by the Supreme Court, they can't do anything about these policies.
> And conservatives as well.
Well, no, not really. Until the election a few weeks ago, the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. The conservatives didn't have the votes to implement anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Court
> policies is both ignorant and dishonest.
You might have a point if I'd actually said any such thing. Since I did not, it seems you're the dishonest one here.
Oh really? Lets see, right up above you said "The Supreme Court had nothing to do with this policy." Now, I'd say that the Supreme Court's previous rulings approving of the government's taking away of civil liberties in the name of "law enforcement" and "security" had a whole lot to do with this policy being implemented. Being a power-hungry federal cop yourself, of course you'd like to deny that. And most people know that cops are notorious liars anyway (another privilege the courts have bestowed upon them). No, you are indeed the dishonest one here. Perhaps you're just so used to it that you can't even see it anymore.
The Supreme Court can only restrict the government by ruling on a case brought before it.
And, like I said, it's previous rulings have led to what we have today. But I really wouldn't expect anything but denial from the likes of you.
> And conservatives as well.
Well, no, not really. Until the election a few weeks ago, the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. The conservatives didn't have the votes to implement anything.
The so-called conservatives have mostly gone right along with this. And it was Bush and his bunch that established these agencies, fanned the flames of paranoia, instituted torture, declared the right to hold people indefinitely without trial, etc.. Maybe you were too busy polishing your badge and watching Fox news to catch any of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tetsubo
Sooner or later they're going to try this BS on someone who was raped or sexually abused and they're going to loose agents.
Not that the TSA cares. These jerk offs (literal in this case) are expendable.
And you're right, our 4th amendment rights have been stolen. I fear it may require the people of this country taking them back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
The liquid ban was the straw that broke this camel's back. I remember the movie "Live Wire" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104743/ so the 2 part secret special liquid bomb plot just made laugh.
But for everyone gnashing their teeth about the "Children" should Security Theater not check kids because we believe that terrorists will draw the line at using children? I think all the groping is stupid, and telling kids it's a game is REALLY stupid. Tell them yes it is an invasion of their tiny privacy, but they want to fly to see grandma, and so to make everyone else on the plane feel safe they have to suffer. The greater good and all that. (You can tell I'm not a parent.) I say you let your little rug rat scream it's heart out, get a really good hissy fit going, the kind that makes everyone around uncomfortable. A plane full of people can now feel safe that one child is not carrying explosives, or box cutters, or a few too many ounces of Kool Aid in it's sippy cup, but now they will have to fly in that same said safe plane with a hyped, up pissed off screaming (rightfully so, righteously so)child.
I'm waiting for the next security panic to be about how neither pat downs nor the naked scanner, show body cavities. I bet terrorists can't wait to start (talking about) stuffing C4 up their rectums, hey it works with heroin.
How compliant will sheeple be when for "Americas Safety" you need to bend over for the "Fickle Finger of Freedom"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
"I bet terrorists can't wait to start (talking about) stuffing C4 up their rectum"
How much explosives can fit into the human stomach? With someone who's not planing on surviving the attach, that seems like the next step. I wonder of a TSA approved stomach pump would be enough to get people to protest in mass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just tell the kids the truth, that radical terrorists are why we endure this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OH SNAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: radical terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perverts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why...
It wasn't to protect ourselves - although they can certainly be used for that. It was so that the people who possess the means to overthrow a government that has become so blatantly corrupt that is defies any test of sanity.
Sadly, our government past that point a long time ago, and because they were allowed to continue - unchallenged by its citizens - they pressed further and further.
The government have BECOME the terrorist. We turn to one terrorist to protect us from another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why...
You have a right to defend yourself. You have a right to Organize and Assemble. You don't have a right to impose your will upon another (even a blatently corrupt self-serving politician) by violence or any other means.
Secession or Cessation is something that should be considered when establishing a government.
Queue the invetible civil war comments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why...
And this is why the Constituation (Bill of Rights actually) guartunees us the right to bear arms.
More bullshit empty posturing from the gun nuts. This �right to bear arms� of yours has done nothing to rein in the excesses of your Government. It�s just a distraction to keep you preoccupied with demonstrating how �free� you are, while one by one, your real rights are being stolen away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why...
The trouble with shooting at the Government, is that it need have no moral qualms about shooting back. It is the peaceful demonstrations that tend to be more effective�look at Mahatma Gandhi. Because those that shoot at them immediately look like the bad guys that they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh ... they work for the TSA? What part of their track record would hint at informative, thoughtful, and appropriate decisions?
Let's see:
1) Vague and impossible directives
2) Zero accountability
3) Nearly unlimited budget
4) Nearly unlimited power
....sounds like a recipe for success...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's so bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Martin Luther King Jr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, you meant a different quote? My bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A: People can choose a doctor. My wife has a female doctor for a reason.
B: Porn addicts see thousands of naked women too. Doesnt mean I want them to see my wife and daughters nor do I think they become jaded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see a problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fun times!
Freakin' sickos!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True, and valid point. But we don't object to an unknown emergency room doctor do we?
Anonymous: "A doctor is a trained professional"
And if the TSA is going to employ these devices... so should be ALL security personnel. They should go through intensive training, not only in use of these devices, but in ethics as well. They should go through aberrant personality tests to insure they are relatively stable individuals to start with. If that is NOT being done... then that is a problem, to be sure.
"Security or freedom folks; we can't have both." "Why not?"
Because this is a well-known situation. The more security a society insists upon, the more personal freedoms it must be willing to abandon to obtain that security. Since airplane security is bordering at this point on obsessive... the loss of personal freedoms are going to be proportional. If we don't like this... then Americans need to stand up and make it known that too many freedoms are being impacted-- and then be willing to accept lessened security. We have to choose. We can't have total security with no loss of freedom. We can't have total freedom without loss of some security. Myself, I opt for reasonable security, and reasonable freedom. It's a matter of balance.
Jilocasin: "That simple sentence sums up the entire reasoning behind these _over_the_top_ 'pat downs'."
Agreed... and let me re-state my actual intention. I am *personally* willing to go through a scanner, period, if it means it will eliminate the chance of someone sneaking a bomb aboard a plane. I don't see a scanner as being that intrusive. I think the pat-downs are inexcusable any way you look at it. An alternative: if you don't want a scan... you don't fly. Too many people want to have their cake and eat it to. There is very seldom any perfect solution.
I do agree, 100%, that the TSA seems to have some kind of God-complex and is so out of touch with reality it's inexcusable. But then, that describes government in general, world wide. I didn't mean to imply that I am willing to undergo a scan instead of a virtual rape (although that is certainly the case). I mean I don't personally find a scan all that unreasonable. (Someone mentioned potential health problems. I know nothing about that-- have these things been thoroughly tested?)
I seriously have to question this whole concept of "we have a solution and it's going to be implemented nation wide, right now, and the American Public has no say in it whatsoever. LOL. When did we become a military state, anyway?
A friend of mine mentioned something else interesting: So okay, a guy doesn't sneak into a plane with a bomb on his belt. Instead, he walks into a much more crowded airport and takes out 1000 people instead of 200. Or he walks into a mall at Christmas rush hour. Or he detonates in a crowded hospital waiting room or... or.. or...
What are we going to have next, checkpoints at local grocery stores? Just how far does "security" go... and how much are we empowering people that really do not need to be empowered any more than they already are?
Just because a person is in charge doesn't mean he's sane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No they have not been tested. There have been some reports that the radiation type and level will increase risk for breast cancer in women and cause birth defects (by altering male seamen). Also the TSA personnel are not allowed to wear radiation badges, something that is required in all other situations in which you work with radioactive scans, so there is no data for how much exposure they get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uggggg.....
"I am *personally* willing to go through a scanner, period, if it means it will eliminate the chance of someone sneaking a bomb aboard a plane."
More power to you. Unfortunately, what little evidence that does exist shows that the 'enhanced scanners' wouldn't have detected they type of explosive it's supposedly been rolled out to protect us against. Heck, it has problems if your clothes have too many pleats. So you can proudly submit to a process that _won't_ eliminate the chance of someone sneaking a bomb aboard a plane.
Wayfinder:
"They should go through intensive training, not only in use of these devices, but in ethics as well. They should go through aberrant personality tests to insure they are relatively stable individuals to start with. If that is NOT being done... then that is a problem, to be sure."
Well, there's another problem. Techdirt itself not too long ago ran the story that there is little of any training at all. The few lucky ones that do get training, get training on scanners that aren't anything like the ones they are using. The rest are encouraged to sign the forms claiming they've received training, in lieu of any _actual_ training. So there goes your "ER Doctor" analogy.
It's impossible to prevent a determined lone operative from killing someone if he's willing to die in the attempt. That's just a fact of life.
What we are seeing is Security Theater at its worse. Corporate Fascism run a muck.
The TSA and all of it's ridiculousness hasn't stopped a single airplane terrorist plot.
Go ahead, reread that last sentence, I'll wait. It didn't stop the shoe bomber, the undie bomber, the printer bomber, the liquid bomber, and it won't stop whatever idiotic plot some deranged individual comes up with next. So remember that while you watch some 4 year old, or a crippled 87 year old abused and humiliated.
Want to know what would actually help? Aside from running around overseas giving people more reasons to hate America that is.
Improve emergency response. Better police, fire, ambulances will minimize the impact of any successful terrorist attack regardless of where it happens (airport, shopping mall, subway, etc.)
Improve basic intelligence gathering and dissemination. What caught the liquid bomber? Good old fashioned detective work. We knew about 9/11 before it happened. We just failed to connect the dots. The wrong people knew and we didn't do anything about it.
Encourage people to stand up for themselves. That's what stopped the final plane on 9/11. That's what stopped the shoe bomber and the undie bomber. Not the TSA, other passengers that said to themselves, "that isn't right" and felt empowered to do something about it.
You want to protect planes specifically? Install a metal detector, a few random bomb sniffing dogs, trained (I mean really trained, not TSA trained) armed guards. That will allow you to catch the 'low hanging fruit'. Which in the end, the only type of terrorist this might possibly catch. The dumb and the simplistic.
Add background checks for pilots and the crews that man or service the planes. Reinforced cockpit doors to keep any one who happens to 'loose it' regardless of whether they happen to be a terrorist away from the planes controls.
There you go. About as safe as you can reasonably expect to be in the modern world.
No spending a gazillion dollars.
No civil liberty violations.
No humiliation and degredation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure the machine will make the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I could just be a nut-job conspiracy theorist, but even a stopped watch is right twice a day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Q.What kind of training do TSA agents undergo?
A. Security officers conducting pat-downs receive 5 hours of formal training and 5 hours of on-the-job training. Officers operating the full-body scanners get 2 1/2 days of classroom training and 8 hours on-the-job training.
Doesn't sound very 'intensive', does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one question...
Our government was set up to represent the people, unfortunately, they are not for the people, by the people, in fact even the right to bear arms cannot save us from this government and all the Nazi-Germany-like impositions they have been putting on us resulting in numerous civil liberties being drowned. I don't think we could even over-throw the government, which as a United States citizen, is our responsibility to step up when our government is too far ahead of itself. This is clear and has been clear for the last 40 years.
Ugh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The next thing
Of course, one other concern is that you have to empty all items from any pockets and can't be carring anything in your hands. That meant that I had to give up control of my boarding pass (minor) and also my passport (major). I can deal with packing my watch, cell phone etc. into my carry-on bag before going trhough the x-ray machine but you need the ID for the TSA. This is a rip-off situation just waiting to happen.
Of course, we've always had an issue with being patted down and not having control of the carry-on for however long that takes (it can go for several minutes if a TSA agent is not immediately available). All that time and my laptop is just sitting at the exit of the x-ray machine, often out of my sight just waiting for someone to help themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A: The problem people have is not strictly fear of being seen nude. There is a health aspect too.
B: If a doctor told me they needed to see me naked everytime I went I would object and there is a HIGH probability they would end up with a malpractice suit from not just myself.
The last time a doctor saw me naked was at my request. They ensured there was a third party in the room to protect them against false claims and I was told what they had to do and gave my consent. If I told a doctor that they did not have my consent to touch me or to see me naked they would have no legal grounds to do so.
On a side note I work in medical education and have seen how doctors are informed of these issues.
I will teach my children that if they do not want to be touched or to be seen naked by ANYONE, doctor, security agent, police, babysitter, etc to say NO. Period. Anything after that is assault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow.
Next time we fly, I'll be telling my daughters that if they have to get pat down that they have the RIGHT to say "no" and that they should because people shouldn't touch them like that. I will be glad to help prove any TSA agent who thinks my girls are smuggling bombs wrong by helping them. They can implement ways to help check kids where the parents are involved instead of invading the private space of minors. I don't know ANY parent would be say "nah, I'm not helping you check my child so you don't have to grope them".
The TSA needs to get it together. Now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All well and good, but...
I'm in total agreement with your statement. The problem is that scanners don't eliminate the chance of someone sneaking a bomb aboard the plane. This merely forces a change in tactics on those planning to do violence, and the whole thing continues to escalate from there.
Behavioral profiling, folks, that's where we need to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I knew it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does anyone dare belittle how big of a deal this is to people?
We all have different personal boundaries, but I think refusing to let a government stranger feel or see our genetalia is well within the bounds of reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta agree with others
Even with the level of patent absurdity that the TSA has been ramping up to over the last 9 years, this is such that it escalates from mere "you can't be serious" to a full-blown "OMGWTFBBQ!!! ARE YOU F*$%#@G SERIOUS?" level of cluelessness.
The whole agency, but James Marchand in particular, first, and foremost, needs to be taken out and fired, jailed, pilloried, hung up by their shorthairs, and then subjected to a little down-home TSA extra special lovin' then next time they try to do some common everyday activity.
"Excuse me, Mr. Marchand. But before we let you leave the store with that 6-pack and pack of condoms we have to make sure you don't have any car keys or illegal lubricants in your posession. Just bend over this counter so we can check all our favorite hiding places [SNAP!]"
wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will teach my children that if they do not want to be touched or to be seen naked by ANYONE, doctor, security agent, police, babysitter, etc to say NO. Period. Anything after that is assault."
I could not agree more.
Anonymous Coward: "The scans aren't harmless, Mr. Apologist."... "And get fired. Great solution there, Mr. Fascist."
In my experience Anonymous, when any user has to resort to labeling and calling names... it's because his viewpoint doesn't stand on its own merit. People are entitled to opinions different than yours. That's what freedom of speech is all about. It entitles you to speak your mind; it does not entitle you to harass others. Seriously guy, a little more maturity here. You can surely state your opinion without insulting others for stating theirs.
Uncle Fester: "I'm in total agreement with your statement. The problem is that scanners don't eliminate the chance of someone sneaking a bomb aboard the plane. This merely forces a change in tactics on those planning to do violence, and the whole thing continues to escalate from there."
Yeah Fester, that's the primary issue in all of this. Where does "reasonable security" turn into terrorism all of its own? At what point does our need for security violate our rights as individuals and citizens of a supposedly "free" country? When does reasonable become unreasonable?
Or more accurately and importantly in this case... when does security cross the line and itself become unacceptably abusive? It seems to me that a lot of these things being implemented go way beyond the need for "security" and into areas of gross propagandistic paranoia. We've seen such activities in past history... when a government went from being open and "free" to an abusive police state.
When people can legally-- by grant of the government-- fondle children and call it a "game"... or even do so without calling it a game... it is obvious this method of "security" is anything but.
I am sure that security official, in making his "game" statement, did not intend it to come across as it did. I am also fairly sure he needs to be transferred to a less potentially harmful position for being that totally clueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
perhaps somewhere around "wildly inconvenient but actually potentially fairly useful" might be the point to start debating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta agree with others
Even with the level of patent absurdity that the TSA has been ramping up to over the last 9 years, this is such that it escalates from mere "you can't be serious" to a full-blown "OMGWTFBBQ!!! ARE YOU F*$%#@G SERIOUS?" level of cluelessness.
The whole agency, but James Marchand in particular, first, and foremost, needs to be taken out and fired, jailed, pilloried, hung up by their shorthairs, and then subjected to a little down-home TSA extra special lovin' then next time they try to do some common everyday activity.
"Excuse me, Mr. Marchand. But before we let you leave the store with that 6-pack and pack of condoms we have to make sure you don't have any car keys or illegal lubricants in your posession. Just bend over this counter so we can check all our favorite hiding places [SNAP!]"
wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will teach my children that if they do not want to be touched or to be seen naked by ANYONE, doctor, security agent, police, babysitter, etc to say NO. Period. Anything after that is assault."
I could not agree more.
Anonymous Coward: "The scans aren't harmless, Mr. Apologist."... "And get fired. Great solution there, Mr. Fascist."
In my experience Anonymous, when any user has to resort to labeling and calling names... it's because his viewpoint doesn't stand on its own merit. People are entitled to opinions different than yours. That's what freedom of speech is all about. It entitles you to speak your mind; it does not entitle you to harass others. Seriously guy, a little more maturity here. You can surely state your opinion without insulting others for stating theirs.
Uncle Fester: "I'm in total agreement with your statement. The problem is that scanners don't eliminate the chance of someone sneaking a bomb aboard the plane. This merely forces a change in tactics on those planning to do violence, and the whole thing continues to escalate from there."
Yeah Fester, that's the primary issue in all of this. Where does "reasonable security" turn into terrorism all of its own? At what point does our need for security violate our rights as individuals and citizens of a supposedly "free" country? When does reasonable become unreasonable?
Or more accurately and importantly in this case... when does security cross the line and itself become unacceptably abusive? It seems to me that a lot of these things being implemented go way beyond the need for "security" and into areas of gross propagandistic paranoia. We've seen such activities in past history... when a government went from being open and "free" to an abusive police state.
When people can legally-- by grant of the government-- fondle children and call it a "game"... or even do so without calling it a game... it is obvious this method of "security" is anything but.
I am sure that security official, in making his "game" statement, did not intend it to come across as it did. I am also fairly sure he needs to be transferred to a less potentially harmful position for being that totally clueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In my experience, apologists and fascists don't like to be identified as such.
it's because his viewpoint doesn't stand on its own merit.
It's my viewpoint that some people are apologists and fascists. Tough luck if you don't like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA and Children
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20024067-1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The passenger story was just a feel-good "patriotic" cover story Bush used when DHS was first made shortly thereafter. I could be wrong, but I think that's what really happened. I know about the alleged cell phone call, but how do we know it's authentic? And that hideous two-word phrase has kept popping up in movies and such everywhere ever since, it annoys the hell out of me every time I hear it - it's pure PR, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flight 93 Conspiracy Theory
One of the conspiracy theorists screws up his courage and asks "So God, who really killed JFK?"
God replies, "Well, I know this will disappoint you, but Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone shot Kennedy, and Jack Ruby acting alone shot Oswald."
The one conspiracy theorist then turns to the other and says, "Wow! This conspiracy is deeper than we ever imagined!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you beat the game?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Make It Easier?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wakeup People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How dumb are these people?
May the good Lord protect those children who are subjected to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA Pat Downs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA Pat Downs
It's easy to talk big, but in reality you would probably just put you head down, look the other way, and hope that your display of submission would save you from being next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TSA Pat Downs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TSA Pat Downs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TSA Pat Downs
Just like it's easy for an Anonymous Coward like you to hide behind your keyboard and be a dick to a lady who's raising two survivors of sexual abuse. Way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA groping "game"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is vile and disgusting
Jesus Fucking Christ, I know of people who have been sexually abused, and their abusers used that exact tactic to get them to submit to their urges. This is, quite simply, an abomination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Total Security Fail Administration
btr1701: You wrote:
>The Supreme Court had nothing to do with this policy. It was conceived and implemented by a liberal Democrat administration and Congress.
Wrong. Department of Homeland Security and the TSA were conceived and implemented by the Bush II regime, shortly after 9/11. An all-GOP-led regime. The current administration and Congress have very little [read: no] control over Homeland Security and TSA.
Current transportation security is reactionary to what has been tried before, and does nothing to actually stop the next attack. I suggest reading Bruce Schneier's blogs at http://www.schneier.com/ .
The only truly effective things the air transportation industry or Department of Homeland Security has done to prevent further terrorist attacks is to reinforce the doors to the cockpit, and for the passengers to learn to subdue the terrorists.
And TDR:
>I've continually seen references to the story about flight 93's passengers fighting back, but it's my understanding that Cheney had the plane shot down and that's why it did go down, not because of any passenger revolt.
Your understanding is incorrect. Fighter planes were on their way, but they didn't get there. Had the military shot down Flight 93, it would have been trumpeted in *all* the media, and most especially, Fox News, as a "See? Bush is *not* a failure!" piece.
I watched airport security evolve in the six weekends after 9/11. It was bordering on the overcautious even then. Please - take a nail clipper file away because it might be used as a weapon? I can do far more damage with an ink pen. Or my bare hands. Or my cane, which I need to use to walk with as I have arthritis. And that was *before* the TSA got organized. We are so close to being a totalitarian rule country right now that it scares me.
One last story, which relates to that last statement: I know an elderly gentleman who, about three years after 9/11, told a small group of us gathered at his home for Thanksgiving (something he and his wife do every year - Thanksgiving for those that have nowhere else to go) that he saw what happened in Germany in the early to mid 1930s. He lived there, with his parents. He is a Jew, of German origin. He hid in his family's home during Kristallnacht - yes, while it was happening and in the city in which it was happening - and he saw the aftermath of Kristallnacht the morning after. Shortly thereafter, his family fled Germany to come to the US, because they saw what was happening to Germany and didn't want to be there for any more of it.
This elderly gentleman then told us that what he saw in the 1930s he was seeing again in the aftermath of 9/11. And he was terrified, because it seemed to him that no one else (or at best, a very few people) saw it happening. And part of his fear came from the fact that he's too old to flee again.
I didn't need his account to see it happening. But it scared me to have this survivor tell his story, and then to say that it's happening again.
We the people need to nip this in the bud now, even though it's blossomed into a rather large flower. The government doesn't care about Joe Sixpack any more, no matter the political persuasion of Joe Sixpack. They're in it for the power, they're in it for the money. Those are not the principles upon which this country was founded.
We still have our Second Amendment rights. Perhaps it's time to use those rights - before those, too, get taken away from us.
(Factual accounts nullify Godwin, so don't even think of using that "Law" on this comment.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Total Security Fail Administration
It's not that they can't do it, it is that they won't do it - and they seem to be only interested in making it worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Total Security Fail Administration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Total Security Fail Administration
The problem is, all "the people" care about is having a party to go this weekend. They have abandoned all principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Total Security Fail Administration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Approves of this.
������..,-�� ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;��-,�����������.._,,,---,,_
������.,� ; ; ;,-� , , , , , �-, ; ;�-,,,,---~~������~--,,,_�..,,-~�� ; ; ; ;__;�-,
������.| ; ; ;,� , , , _,,-~�� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ���~�-,,_ ,,-~�� , , �, ;�,
������.�, ; ; �-, ,-~�� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;��-, , , , , ,� ; |
��������, ; ;,�� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;�-, , ,-� ;,-�
�������.,�-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;��-� ;,,-�
������..,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; �-,�
������,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-���: : ��-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;�,
�����..,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : :| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-���: ���-, ; ; ;�,
�����.,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; �-,_: : _,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : :| ; ; ; |
�����,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; �� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;�-,,_ : :,-� ; ; ; ;|
����..,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~�� , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;�� ; ; ; ; ;|
..����,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,� , , , , , , ,( : : : : :) , , , ,��-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
���.,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;�, , , , , , , , ,�~---~�� , , , , , ,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;�,
��.,-�� ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ��~-,,,,--~~�������~-,,_ , ,_,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; �,
�.,-��-~��,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,�; ,��� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,_ ; �-,
���.,� ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; �, ; ;�, . . . . .,� ;,� ; ; ; ;, ; ; ;,�-, ; ;,� ��~--���
���,�-~� ,-�-~�� �, ,-� �, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; �, ; ; �~-,,,-�� ; ,� ; ; ; ; �, ;,-�� ; �, ,-�,
���.,-�� ; ; ; ; ; �� ; ; ;�� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ��-,,_ ; ; ; _,-� ; ; ; ; ; ;�-�� ; ; ; �� ; ;�-,
��..,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;����� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;��-,
��,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; �-,
�..,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..�-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; �,
�.,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,���.���,-~� ; ; ; ; ; ,�
�,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;�~-,,,,,--~~������~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,��..,-~�� ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-
�| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; �, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,��,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-�
��, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,��.�, ; ; ; ; _,,-��
�.�, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-�� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,���.��~~���
�..��-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-�� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-�
�����~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~�� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-�
���..| ; ; ;������� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-�
���..�, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-�
����| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
�����, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;�,
����.�, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-��.��-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; �,
���..,� �- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-�����.�-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; �,
���.,� ; ;� ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-������.�, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;�,
���,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-�����������-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
��..,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-������������, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
��..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,�����������,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,�
��..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,����������..,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,��
��..| ; ; ; ; ; ;,����������.,-� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-�
��..�,_ , ; , ;,����������.,� ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-�
����,,�,�,�,��|���������.| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; �--,,
����.�������������..�-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;��~,,
�������������������-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;��~-,,
������������������..��-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;�-,��-,
�������������������..�, ; ; ; ; ; ; �-,__,\\--\\.
���������������������-, ; ; ;,,-~��� \\ , ,|, |
�����������������������~-��_ , , ,,�,_/--�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
child molesters at the TSA
Whoever came up with this idea should fired, because he's probably a child molester himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wishful Thinking
A trained army of hypercaffeinated toddlers on sugar highs and their righteously pissed off parents kicking the shit out of several thousand hired child gropers on the same day. Taking the doors at kennedy will be remembered as P-day. Just watch out for the traffic cones; they might keep the cata-, er, minivans from landing on the weathered mats.
In all seriousness, the TSA can't be disbanded like the den of criminals they are too soon. And if, somehow, they happen to miss a child being used to deliver a bomb to a plane and the passengers happen to subdue the rugrat, I'll bet all of Obama's change that they immediately claim that if they had only had the purview to search inside of children they could have made their first catch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for groping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pat downs
A lot of what you hear about TSA, even on the news is made up. I heard a story where they took a lady with a medical device or feeding tube and strip searched her and wouldn't let anyone else witness it. That is ridiculous. We never ask anyone to remove clothing except for jackets and belts and shoes. And we always offer to have a witness with us.
If they have some strange medical device we might pat it outside the clothes, then have them pat it and test their hands for explosives residue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]