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

[eliza61]

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.

Wait, did I miss some thing. Did the flights on 9/11 originate from overseas? I swore the left from Boston.

 

[eliza61]

If jesse wants to waste his time and money. He should go for it. He is not the first to challenge the constitutionality of the scanners and I flew yesterday from Philly.

They are still being used and not a peep outta the folks here.

Non issue for me. so I wish anyone who has a problem with it much luck.

 

[ironz]

Wait, did I miss some thing. Did the flights on 9/11 originate from overseas? I swore the left from Boston.

Please at least read the whole first page, where I posted that I meant to say SINCE 9/11. thank you.
That quote was quoted so many times due to my leaving out "since 9/11" which was my original intent, I did not go back and correct the original text, but posted later with my error pointed out, and the discussion continued quite nicely from there.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I have to agree, "fondle" implies tender and loving. Grope is a more accurate description - "to feel about with the hands;"

I wasn't groped, either. The TSO placed one or two hands on various portions of my body and swept said apendage/s over or across or around whatever part of me had to be examined, thoroughly and precisely but without "feeling about".

By the way, the complete definition of grope is
search by feeling: to search for something blindly or uncertainly by feeling with the hands
be without guidance: to strive blindly or uncertainly for something
feel your way uncertainly: to feel your way forward slowly and hesitantly, e.g. in the dark
None of those definitions apply. I was subjected to a pat-down in accordance with standard operating procedures after repeatedly setting off the standard metal detector.

 

[goofy4tink]

Actually, it has everything to do with it -- and I am just as gravely concerned by teachers, priests, coaches, doctors and anyone else who has the potential to abuse trust and authority with a child. You can't just bury your head in the sand and say their position had nothing to do with it, because child molesters do gravitate to positions in which they will have contact with and authority over children -- that's a known fact.

Now, recognizing that is not the same as putting a child in a box or locking a kid at home and never letting them out into the world, as you seem to imply. That would be irrational. But it would be pure ignorance to not recognize the potential for danger in all of these situations.

Bury my head in the sand?? Put my child in a box? Nope, neither one for me. I realize there are dangers out there. I have three kids...37, 34, and 17. I get that there are dangers everywhere. I get that there may be offenders employed by the TSA. But...here's the thing. There just aren't enough situations where someone is getting patted down. Everyone here seems to want to make it appear that every other person going through security is getting a pat down...and that just isn't true. I have stood in security lines at various airports and watched who was treated how. I just didn't see all that many people getting pat down. And believe me...it wasn't an 8 min wait in those lines!!

It's OK, one of us freedom loving folks would have started it.



I have to agree, "fondle" implies tender and loving. Grope is a more accurate description - "to feel about with the hands;"



Size ain't helping Jesse. Your "big boy" is as likely as the rest of us to get the "Government Grope."

Here's hoping that Governor Ventura is successful . . . whatever his motivation.

ETA: The filing in this case. http://kstp.com/kstpImages/repository/cs/files/Ventura Lawsuit.pdf

But my point would be 'who would want to'?? Again....I just don't see the big deal. Those of us who have had pat downs haven't had an issue with them. We have given honest explanations of what happened. But, everyone here would much believe that everyone is practically molested. I just don't understand why some choose to believe the more outrageous statements vs the more middle of the road.

But the real question is......would there be beer involved? And the addition of a bunch of restrooms to accomodate all of the beer drinking going on?

Oh sure...there will be more restrooms. but you'll have to pay to use them!!!

 

[maxiesmom]

Oh sure...there will be more restrooms. but you'll have to pay to use them!!!

Oh darn! Well, as long as the pretzles are still free I'm good!

 

[goofy4tink]

Ah excuse me...but did anyone say the snacks were free????

 

[eliza61]

Bury my head in the sand?? Put my child in a box? Nope, neither one for me. I realize there are dangers out there. I have three kids...37, 34, and 17. I get that there are dangers everywhere. I get that there may be offenders employed by the TSA. But...here's the thing. There just aren't enough situations where someone is getting patted down. Everyone here seems to want to make it appear that every other person going through security is getting a pat down...and that just isn't true. I have stood in security lines at various airports and watched who was treated how. I just didn't see all that many people getting pat down. And believe me...it wasn't an 8 min wait in those lines!!



Oh sure...there will be more restrooms. but you'll have to pay to use them!!!

What so ironic is that most kids are abused by some one they know. TSA agents are simply the popular whipping boy. Don't like a policy blame and demonize the people who have the least control over the situation.

In fact 90% of kids who have been molested know their molesters and 50% of them come from family members.

So this Bull&^% about tsa agents molesting children is a lie pure and simple.

http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/facts.htm

 

[ironz]

Ah excuse me...but did anyone say the snacks were free????

I'm down for some free snacks!
Also...a round of applause...because this is probably the most decent thread about this subject that I have seen or participated in.
Like I said...I just want people to THINK about the reality, the efficacy, and the relative risks, keep their minds open...and let's all have good flying.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Bury my head in the sand?? Put my child in a box? Nope, neither one for me. I realize there are dangers out there. I have three kids...37, 34, and 17. I get that there are dangers everywhere. I get that there may be offenders employed by the TSA. But...here's the thing. There just aren't enough situations where someone is getting patted down. Everyone here seems to want to make it appear that every other person going through security is getting a pat down...and that just isn't true. I have stood in security lines at various airports and watched who was treated how. I just didn't see all that many people getting pat down. And believe me...it wasn't an 8 min wait in those lines!!


But my point would be 'who would want to'?? Again....I just don't see the big deal. Those of us who have had pat downs haven't had an issue with them. We have given honest explanations of what happened. But, everyone here would much believe that everyone is practically molested. I just don't understand why some choose to believe the more outrageous statements vs the more middle of the road.


Oh sure...there will be more restrooms. but you'll have to pay to use them!!!

Well, you know that some of us get a hand search of our everytime we fly. It does not matter that the WTMD does not alarm; it does not matter that the checkpoint does not have a WBI. It's the rule simply because one can not walk without shoes, or needs a wheelchair. Gov. Ventura and I are not the only ones that has an issue with that.

What the TSA does is NOT a pat down.. A pat down, or frisk, is a search of a person's outer clothing wherein a person runs his or her hands along the outer garments to detect any concealed weapons or contraband. For a police officer to perform that, there must be reasonable suspicion that a crime was, or is about to be, committed.

A blueshirt gets to do a more invasive search just because one wants to board an airplane. Where is the crime in that?

 

[kaytieeldr]

A blueshirt

You repeatedly (in earlier threads, as well as here) refer to TSA personnel as "blueshirts". While you obviously disagree with what they do, they're doing their jobs. Would it be possible for you to refer to them as TSA employees? Or TSOs? Or employees, or staffers, or workers? Every time you refer to these personnel by the color of their uniform, it strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to inflame.

 

[eliza61]

You repeatedly (in earlier threads, as well as here) refer to TSA personnel as "blueshirts". While you obviously disagree with what they do, they're doing their jobs. Would it be possible for you to refer to them as TSA employees? Or TSOs? Or employees, or staffers, or workers? Every time you refer to these personnel by the color of their uniform, it strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to inflame.

Not only that, it's extremely offensive. Of course it's meant to inflame. what I find cowardly is the deliberate attack and mockery of an entire group of people for no other reason than some one doesn't like a policy. It is no different than refering to all black women has crack ho's , all hispanic americans as illegals or all muslim Americans as terrorist.

And yet if some one was to paint all service men by the action of the ones involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib and started calling them rent a cops or tortures or any other name, or god forbid say start calling cops "pigs" even while policemen have a loooong documented history of brutality there would be an outcry on these boards like you've never heard.

 

[nytimez]

Not only that, it's extremely offensive. Of course it's meant to inflame. what I find cowardly is the deliberate attack and mockery of an entire group of people for no other reason than some one doesn't like a policy. It is no different than refering to all black women has crack ho's , all hispanic americans as illegals or all muslim Americans as terrorist.

And yet if some one was to paint all service men by the action of the ones involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib and started calling them rent a cops or tortures or any other name, or god forbid say start calling cops "pigs" even while policemen have a loooong documented history of brutality there would be an outcry on these boards like you've never heard.

Wow, I have to apologize to Goofy4Tink for what turned out to be an accurate prediction after all -- this thread did ultimately get invaded by sensationalism.

Too bad. It had been largely informed -- if heated at times -- debate until this post.

 

[deegack]

Incorrect! The US Supreme Court, along with many Federal District Courts have ruled that airport screening procedures are an exception to the 4th Amendment and are Administrative Searches and are completely Constitutional as long as three criteria are met. The below links will shed more light on this.

Ventura's case will be tossed fairly quick.

http://fourthamendment.com/blog/ind...g_searches_no_longer_con&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=7886

The cases were before the new scanners/pat downs. The case also say they must be reasonable and the power is not limitless. I am looking forward to the decision when this issue comes before the USSC.

No one has mentioned the recent Russian airport bombing. There is no need to get on a plane to cause mass destruction.

One last thing, there have been car bombing attempts in the US. There was one in Times Square last year. So unless you are willing to go through pat downs every time you enter or exit the interstate, a bridge, a tunnel, a train a subway a bus etc etc you should not be willing to go through this process to get on another mode of transportation.

 

[CPT Tripss]

As an organization, the TSA treats all air travellers as potential criminals using techniques that law enforcement personnel can not impose without having reasonable suspicion of a crime. The employees of that organization (TSA) are culpable too. They are bad eggs. You say they are just "doing their job." That defense of their actions is sad, out of date and discredited . . . and, exactly why I characterize them by shirt color.

 

[sam_gordon]

As an organization, the TSA treats all air travellers as potential criminals using techniques that law enforcement personnel can not impose without having reasonable suspicion of a crime. The employees of that organization (TSA) are culpable too. They are bad eggs. You say they are just "doing their job." That defense of their actions is sad, out of date and discredited . . . and, exactly why I characterize them

With the OK of the government and using a procedure that (so far) is legal.

Don't make it sound like the TSA screeners are coming up with procedures on their own.

 

[kaytieeldr]

As an organization, the TSA treats all air travellers as potential criminals using techniques that law enforcement personnel can not impose without having reasonable suspicion of a crime. The employees of that organization (TSA) are culpable too. They are bad eggs. You say they are just "doing their job." That defense of their actions is sad, out of date and discredited . . . and, exactly why I characterize them by shirt color.

No, it's none of those things you claim. Sad? Perception. Outdated? Nope - current. Discredited? How? My own patdown indicated determined that the WTMD was overly-sensitive that day. I had nothing unauthorized on my person.

Just like you, each employee is doing her or his job. It's fine that you don't agree with the policy - but put your actions where your mouth is. Stop insulting people who are earning a living, supporting themselves and their families - and take action to get the system changed.

But STOP INSULTING INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES, some of whom (or whose relatives) read this forum.

 

[nytimez]

With the OK of the government and using a procedure that (so far) is legal.

Don't make it sound like the TSA screeners are coming up with procedures on their own.

Some of them clearly are. Like the ones who detained a nursing mother for trying to insist that they follow the TSA's own written rules on breast milk screening (here's a link if you're not familiar with it).

I believe and hope incidents like that one are rare. But the fact that they happen at all bothers me.

 

[goofy4tink]

Well, you know that some of us get a hand search of our everytime we fly. It does not matter that the WTMD does not alarm; it does not matter that the checkpoint does not have a WBI. It's the rule simply because one can not walk without shoes, or needs a wheelchair. Gov. Ventura and I are not the only ones that has an issue with that.

What the TSA does is NOT a pat down.. A pat down, or frisk, is a search of a person's outer clothing wherein a person runs his or her hands along the outer garments to detect any concealed weapons or contraband. For a police officer to perform that, there must be reasonable suspicion that a crime was, or is about to be, committed.

A blueshirt gets to do a more invasive search just because one wants to board an airplane. Where is the crime in that?

As an organization, the TSA treats all air travellers as potential criminals using techniques that law enforcement personnel can not impose without having reasonable suspicion of a crime. The employees of that organization (TSA) are culpable too. They are bad eggs. You say they are just "doing their job." That defense of their actions is sad, out of date and discredited . . . and, exactly why I characterize them by shirt color.

I did wonder how long this would take to happen...actually, longer than I thought.
You know what the problem with your stand is??? You put it in a way that just angers and frustrates others. To the point that any good point you may make is lost in the 'drama'. You really would make more of a point without all that 'blueshirts' stuff or the sensationalism of being 'groped'. I mean really??? Do you really think you're the only one who has to be 'touched' or 'groped'?? You're not. Many, many others have been searched, just as often as you are. You want to change it??? Well, it's not going to happen on this board, not with the way you post. You lose all sense of credibility with your over the top style. We're not talking about Nazi Germany here...yeah, I said it, I went there. We all know that's what the whole 'blueshirts' thing is about..hence it's being offensive to so many people.
To tar an entire group of people the way you have is reprehensible..it really is. There are fine, upstanding, caring people working for the TSA. And I really doubt they are all standing around, waiting to run their fingers underneath anyone's waistband..not even yours.

We have been having a good discussion here..one I hope can continue. But, there are just some comments that are not going to go unchallenged. In all reality, I tend to agree with a lot of what you say...as far as what is needed to ensure safety in the air. But I can not agree with your casting aspersions on an entire group of people. They are doing their job. Since you obviously know what is going to happen when you fly, prepare for it. Then, just deal with it. Start a campaign that will let congress know how many of us feel. But don't continue ranting the way you do here...I'm telling you, you aren't making any converts..just the opposite. And that's too bad. I'm sure there are many who would love to see a change in security proceedures but they just can't go along with your views.

 

[eliza61]

Wow, I have to apologize to Goofy4Tink for what turned out to be an accurate prediction after all -- this thread did ultimately get invaded by sensationalism.

Too bad. It had been largely informed -- if heated at times -- debate until this post.

So when you (not you personally) post accusations (always without proof) of TSA agents child molesting and raping that's ok, that's not sensationalism?

Yes, we all know terms like"freedom fondle" or "government grope" are not there for sensationalism, I mean hey it's an every day term. How could I possible make a mistake like that?

When you demonize an entire group by now not even referring to them as humans but as a colored material, that's pretty ok? That's definitely used to foster calm rational discussion?

Gotcha, yeah, I'm the one sensationalizing this....