Ex-Minn. governor sues over body scans, pat-downs

[dudspizza]

Jesse Ventura is taking on the NSA and TSA......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ventura_airport_security

MINNEAPOLIS – Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration on Monday, alleging full-body scans and pat-downs at airport checkpoints violate his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Ventura is asking a federal judge in Minnesota to issue an injunction ordering officials to stop subjecting him to "warrantless and suspicionless" scans and body searches.
The lawsuit, which also names Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole as defendants, argues the searches are "unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions on Governor Ventura's personal privacy and dignity . and are a justifiable cause for him to be concerned for his personal health and well-being."
According to the lawsuit, Ventura received a hip replacement in 2008, and since then, his titanium implant has set off metal detectors at airport security checkpoints. The lawsuit said that prior to last November officials had used a non-invasive hand-held wand to scan his body as a secondary security measure.
But when Ventura set off the metal detector in November, he was instead subjected to a body pat-down and was not given the option of a scan with a hand-held wand or an exemption for being a frequent traveler, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit said the pat-down "exposed him to humiliation and degradation through unwanted touching, gripping and rubbing of the intimate areas of his body."
It claims that under TSA's policy, Ventura will be required to either go through a full-body scanner or submit to a pat-down every time he travels because he will always set off the metal detector.
Ventura, who was Minnesota governor from 1999 through 2002 and is now the host of the television program "Conspiracy Theory," did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment.
Napolitano said in December that the new technology and the pat-downs were "objectively safer for our traveling public."
The U.S. Attorney's Office did not immediately return an e-mail message seeking comment Monday.
The TSA's website says there are nearly 500 full-body scanners in use at 78 airports. The scanners show a traveler's physical contours on a computer screen that's viewed in a private room. Faces aren't shown, and the person's identity is supposedly not known to the screener reviewing the images.
Not all travelers are selected to go through the scanners, but the TSA requires people who decline to submit to pat-downs that include checks of the inside of their thighs and buttocks.

 

[maxiesmom]

So if he wins, and there is another attack on an airplane, can we sue him back?

Sorry, but I fall squarely on the side of" If you don't like the security measures don't fly." No one is forced onto an airplane.

 

[Uncleromulus]

He's a bit of a jerk, I think---

 

[phred52]

Jesse Ventura is taking on the NSA and TSA!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ventura_airport_security

Huh. I'm glad someone has the time/money and desire to stir the pot.

 

[dudspizza]

Huh. I'm glad someone has the time/money and desire to stir the pot.

And he happens to have a tv show called Conspiracy Theory going on right now.... all about government conspiracy etc...... I wouldn't be surprised if this ended up on his show somehow....

A radio show here in Minneapolis just played a sound clip of Jesse talking about how extra security is what we should expect (I am assuming after 9/11)...... we are at war on our own homeland, people are expected to deal with the security....... I am paraphrasing what he said.......

Now he is contradicting himself with this lawsuit....

 

[ironz]

So if he wins, and there is another attack on an airplane, can we sue him back?

Sorry, but I fall squarely on the side of" If you don't like the security measures don't fly." No one is forced onto an airplane.

This statement is ridiculous and needs to stop being thrown around.

There are quite a few people in the world whose jobs depend on them getting from place to place in a timely fashion. It is also ridiculous for those who might live in Hawaii, or Alaska, who need to get to the continental US, or heaven forbid, other countries across oceans who might want to visit the US, or for those of us in the US who want to see the rest of the world.

***edit....as posted shortly after this post....for this next sentence, I mean SINCE 9/11. I am not editing the original text because it has been quoted too many times. I regret the oversight, but my original intention in this next sentence was SINCE 9/11. thank you*****
We have had NO in flight terrorism originate from a domestic flight. People who fly often and are in favor of having some of our rights maintained accept the very, very small risk of an incident, much like you will next time you start your car and drive down a road. That risk is much greater, and as a physician, I have seen the carnage, and it adds up to way more than the number of airplane deaths/year.

People who make these sweeping statements such as 'anything for security' need to take a HARD look at the actual relative risk. Yes, it would be tragic for 200 people to die in a plane...remember the plane that disappeared leaving Brazil a couple of years ago? But THOUSANDS die in other ways EVERY DAY, such as auto accidents, etc. I'd be more in favor of a TSA that made sure all people, esp children, were buckled into their seat belts. That would doubtless save many lives every day.

Sorry....I know there is no pixie dust here on the Transportation board, but the obvious bias regarding airport security is rather disgusting. Just wait until you people who fly once or twice a year have to deal with it. I went through 11 checkpoints just in one month of last year. I will not tolerate having my buttocks and frontal genital area touched, nor add extra radiation that many times a year. The TSA is not targeting terrorists...they are not looking in the right direction. I dare say, WDW undercover security would do a better job.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

We have had NO in flight terrorism originate from a domestic flight.

All of the flights on 9/11 departed from and were heading to a domestic destination. Flight 11 departed BOS heading to LAX, Flight 175 departed BOS heading to LAX, Flight 93 departed EWR heading to SAN and Flight 77 departed IAD heading to LAX.

So I don't understand your point about NO in flight terrorism originated from a domestic flight, when all of these did.

Sorry....I know there is no pixie dust here on the Transportation board, but the obvious bias regarding airport security is rather disgusting. Just wait until you people who fly once or twice a year have to deal with it. I went through 11 checkpoints just in one month of last year. I will not tolerate having my buttocks and frontal genital area touched, nor add extra radiation that many times a year. The TSA is not targeting terrorists...they are not looking in the right direction. I dare say, WDW undercover security would do a better job.

Avoiding the actual conversation of whether or not I like the scans (you can refer to my other posts about my opinions), I think you are attmepting to fight bias with bias and using deragtory statements, such as "rather disgusting" as a method to place your bias above someone elses.

 

[sharona]

I'm happy someone is challenging this, regardless of his motivation.

Personally, I do not fly often enough to be overly worried about any side effects of the scanners and I'm thankful for that as I do not want some stranger groping me.

 

[goofy4tink]

Hmmm, my dh's titanium knee hasn't presented an issue yet. That will probably happen when we fly as a family in April...

There are many people going through those scanners every day, and many are having to get 'pat down'. Since Thanksgiving came and went, with little fuss, we have heard little about this. Now, along comes someone, with something to gain from a suit...and it all starts again. I have to tell you...I would have paid a lot more attention to his 'law suit' if he didn't have a television program.

As far a bias here on the board....I truly don't think there is bias. Yes, there are those who feel that 'if you don't like the rules, don't fly', but they are few and far between. Of course there are those who must fly for their jobs. And I'm sure that they run into these newer scanners all the time. But, I have talked to many who have gone through the pat downs and they didn't feel violated in any way. There are always going to be those who have to get dramatic. But, I imagine that those who fly frequently know what to do when they get to security. If they have a situation that will warrent their not wanting to go through the scanner, or something that will make it necessary to go through, then they probably already know how to handle it. I don't think that there is a lot of 'groping' going on out there.

There seems to be a lot of 'drama' on both sides of this issue.

 

[goofy4tink]

This statement is ridiculous and needs to stop being thrown around.

There are quite a few people in the world whose jobs depend on them getting from place to place in a timely fashion. It is also ridiculous for those who might live in Hawaii, or Alaska, who need to get to the continental US, or heaven forbid, other countries across oceans who might want to visit the US, or for those of us in the US who want to see the rest of the world.

We have had NO in flight terrorism originate from a domestic flight. People who fly often and are in favor of having some of our rights maintained accept the very, very small risk of an incident, much like you will next time you start your car and drive down a road. That risk is much greater, and as a physician, I have seen the carnage, and it adds up to way more than the number of airplane deaths/year.

People who make these sweeping statements such as 'anything for security' need to take a HARD look at the actual relative risk. Yes, it would be tragic for 200 people to die in a plane...remember the plane that disappeared leaving Brazil a couple of years ago? But THOUSANDS die in other ways EVERY DAY, such as auto accidents, etc. I'd be more in favor of a TSA that made sure all people, esp children, were buckled into their seat belts. That would doubtless save many lives every day.

Sorry....I know there is no pixie dust here on the Transportation board, but the obvious bias regarding airport security is rather disgusting. Just wait until you people who fly once or twice a year have to deal with it. I went through 11 checkpoints just in one month of last year. I will not tolerate having my buttocks and frontal genital area touched, nor add extra radiation that many times a year. The TSA is not targeting terrorists...they are not looking in the right direction. I dare say, WDW undercover security would do a better job.

To the best of my knowledge, Boston is considered domestic. And those responsible for that hijacking boarded the plane in Boston...came down from Maine if I remember correctly.

If this starts getting contentious again, it will be shut down. No one is thrilled with the new patdowns. The vast majority feel that if it's the rule, it's the rule. We may not like it, but it is what it is. There isn't much we can do to change it. Does patting another passenger down make me feel safer on a plane? No, not at all. If it were me, I would cut down on all carryon baggage, I would redo the security measures that go on 'behind the scenes' as far as baggage handling, food service and maintainence goes, and I would bring in explosives detecting dogs...don't much care if someone is allergic. You don't have to pat the dogs..they can sniff out explosives from a decent distance. You don't want to go through the scanners??? Fine..you will be wanded and sniffed..period.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Good for Jesse!

I'm one of those that agrees with Judge Napolitano that we do infact haver a right to travel by the means of our choice. There is no need to give up our 4th amendment rights to travel within this country.


I was also good to see that Albequerque's prosecution of an air traveller trying to fly without ID resulted in an acquittal. Fortunately, he videoed the event and that was a deciding factor.

 

[livndisney]

I am glad people are challenging the TSA.

 

[nytimez]

I'm more bothered by the fact that the expensive and invasive new system doesn't actually work. They've failed to detect explosives in key tests.

I'm also bothered by the fact that Homeland Security has not released its actual safety data on them.

So, high security I can live with. High security that doesn't work and is of unknown risk? Not so much.

 

[ironz]

Sorry....I meant SINCE 9/11.
SINCE we reinforced cockpit doors. NO terrorist can take control of a plane like that again. That particular threat has been removed.

Also, since that time the passengers themselves have learned to start defending themselves (such as the underwear bomber--flight originated overseas).

Also, they don't use the wands anymore. They use their hands. and not just the backs of their hands. I've had it done.

And yes...the number of 'holes' in our airport security is appalling...cargo, airport employees, and even the TSA themselves, who can bring anything on their person or in a separate bag into the "secure" area with nary a glance or screen.

 

[popriv]

Good for Jesse! Whatever his motivation.
Most of these procedures are for show to make it look like increased security.
Most of them are reactionary. as in now you cant bring a printer cartridge.
AFTER the shoe bomber, no more gel shoe inserts....
Whatever the next " event " is, it will be something new and TSA will implement another new rule, but it will be AFTER the fact....

I think common sense profiling could accomplish as much as the tactics they are using now on everybody..

I dont fly often so not much impact on me personally.

jmho

Pop

 

[maxiesmom]

I'm sorry you find it ridiculous, but flying IS a choice. No one is taken and forced onto an airplane as part of their normal, daily routine. Maybe you have to choose between not flying and your job, which would be a hard choice, but the choice is still there. You may have family obligations that you feel "force" you onto an aircraft, but you still do have a choice wether you board the plane or not.

I'm not saying that for some not flying would be easy. But there are ways around it if it bothers you enough.

I find the comparison between air terrorism and normal driving to be "ridiculous". As of yet, terroists have not strapped bombs on themselves and ran out into the middle of a highway. Or hijacked cars and sent them crashing down the roads, which would be the only way your analogy would make sense.

While profiling may make the most sense to some, there is no way it would fly here. Too many years spent getting people to ignore race and look at each person as an individual to try to switch gears now.

 

[goofy4tink]

I'm sorry you find it ridiculous, but flying IS a choice. No one is taken and forced onto an airplane as part of their normal, daily routine. Maybe you have to choose between not flying and your job, which would be a hard choice, but the choice is still there. You may have family obligations that you feel "force" you onto an aircraft, but you still do have a choice wether you board the plane or not.

I'm not saying that for some not flying would be easy. But there are ways around it if it bothers you enough.

I find the comparison between air terrorism and normal driving to be "ridiculous". As of yet, terroists have not strapped bombs on themselves and ran out into the middle of a highway. Or hijacked cars and sent them crashing down the roads, which would be the only way your analogy would make sense.

While profiling may make the most sense to some, there is no way it would fly here. Too many years spent getting people to ignore race and look at each person as an individual to try to switch gears now.

I have to go so far as to say that there are some people who are expected to fly in order to do their jobs. I am not going to go into making a choice of having a job you love and that pays you well vs going through security or in being able to get someplace quickly...perhaps an ailing family member..whatever, it makes no difference.

I am one who has always upheld what the TSA does. These people are merely doing their jobs. And yes, there are those here who will tell you that if these TSA employees don't care for the way their jobs are now going, they can quit and find another job. But, in this economy, that is going to be hard to do...both for TSA employees as well as those who would be forced to quit a job due to the expectation that they will fly for that job. BUT....I am not crazy about the path the TSA is going down. I don't think it accomplishes anything...other than to make the average flying public feel better. It doesn't make me feel any better than I can take only 3.4 oz bottles in my carryon now, it doesn't make me feel any better that I can go through one of the new scanners that see everything. It is truly about 'show'. And it is very reactive. We have yet to do anything before the fact...it is always after the fact. Shoe bomber??? Remove your shoes...for example.
Surely there are agencies in this country that can outwit terrorists. There have to people that can expect the unexpected and prevent terrorist acts.
Profiling??? Have no issue with it. And, I'm sure it is going on, although the average person isn't aware of it. Do what needs to be done and stop fiddlling around, with these 'safely measures' you have in place now.

Are we ever going to be 100% safe? Nope, it's just not realistic. It's all about averages. I'm really much more concerned with cargo in my plane than I am about someone carrying on a bottle of water.

 

[nytimez]

I'm sorry you find it ridiculous, but flying IS a choice. No one is taken and forced onto an airplane as part of their normal, daily routine. Maybe you have to choose between not flying and your job, which would be a hard choice, but the choice is still there. You may have family obligations that you feel "force" you onto an aircraft, but you still do have a choice wether you board the plane or not.

I'm not saying that for some not flying would be easy. But there are ways around it if it bothers you enough.

I find the comparison between air terrorism and normal driving to be "ridiculous". As of yet, terroists have not strapped bombs on themselves and ran out into the middle of a highway. Or hijacked cars and sent them crashing down the roads, which would be the only way your analogy would make sense.

While profiling may make the most sense to some, there is no way it would fly here. Too many years spent getting people to ignore race and look at each person as an individual to try to switch gears now.

This seems awfully reactionary to me. No one makes us do ANYTHING, that doesn't mean we have to sit back and take whatever comes our way anywhere.

It's also a highly flawed argument. Whether flying is or isn't a choice is not really directly relevant -- the real argument is whether these machines are safe and effective.

If you want to make a case for either, I'll listen. But to simply say it's a choice and therefore should be tolerated completely misses the mark.

 

[maxiesmom]

If you want to make a case for either, I'll listen. But to simply say it's a choice and therefore should be tolerated completely misses the mark.

Neither do I. But I do think the government is better suited to make these decisons that the general public. I don't trust the guy on the plane next to me to decide what is safe or trustworthy screening. He is the same guy that doesn't leave his seatbelt buckled, no matter the announcemnts telling you it is safer to fly that way. He is the same guy who thinks everyone but him is supposed to shut down electronic devices.

Flying is by and large a personal choice. What isn't a personal choice is how we are screened. We don't all get to say "Well, I am ok with wanding. But not with going thru a metal detector." The person next to me can't say "Don't wand me, it makes me feel violated". Safety measures where we bow to what the public wants or is comfortable with are not worth much.

 

[nytimez]

Neither do I. But I do think the government is better suited to make these decisons that the general public. I don't trust the guy on the plane next to me to decide what is safe or trustworthy screening. He is the same guy that doesn't leave his seatbelt buckled, no matter the announcemnts telling you it is safer to fly that way. He is the same guy who thinks everyone but him is supposed to shut down electronic devices.

Flying is by and large a personal choice. What isn't a personal choice is how we are screened. We don't all get to say "Well, I am ok with wanding. But not with going thru a metal detector." The person next to me can't say "Don't wand me, it makes me feel violated". Safety measures where we bow to what the public wants or is comfortable with are not worth much.

To me, I need to see the evidence. I won't simply trust the government because -- let's be honest here -- they haven't earned that trust.

It's not a matter of the government vs a random guy next to you. It's a matter of science.

You, me and the guy next to you all agree that we need good security. The answer isn't to leave it up to any one of us, nor to be simply told "this is how it works." There is an obligation to prove to us that, as I said before, it is safe and effective.

Show me evidence of either, then we can talk about whether or not the privacy issue is a big deal... but to me, the issues of safety and effectiveness are far larger and simply MUST be considered before we just accept that the government thinks we should do this.