TSA mess and the police

[jodifla]

Well..aren't you just awful for letting your DD get subjected to that. (said sarcastically). Sounds like she was well prepared. As I said before, I think it is important to prepare your children for what may happen. I think children get very afraid when they are ill-prepared.


No, still not invasive. The ER physician was doing what he/she was trained to do and the TSA agent is doing what he/she is trained to do. My DH had it last weekend and as I said many times, it was not invasive at all. They put their hands around the inside of his waist. They did not shove their hands down his pants and hold on to his testicles as some are reported they have "heard". They did run their palm over them on the outside of his pants. Again, we were prepared for this. We do not feel the TSA agent was doing this to get his jollies. He was doing his job. He had to do this because he, too, moved during the backscatter.

Obviously, we are just on different sides of this opinion.

My DH had it last weekend and as I said many times, it was not invasive at all. They put their hands around the inside of his waist. They did not shove their hands down his pants and hold on to his testicles as some are reported they have "heard". They did run their palm over them on the outside of his pants. Again, we were prepared for this. We do not feel the TSA agent was doing this to get his jollies. He was doing his job. He had to do this because he, too, moved during the backscatter


Just because it didn't happen to YOUR husband doesn't mean it isn't happening across the U.S. There are too many reports of it happening -- in a short space of time -- for them all to be just hysteria.

I agree, the old pat downs were not a problem. These new ones ARE.

 

[jodifla]

From the Philadelphia Enquirer:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/busi...iety_over_airport_pat-downs_and_scanners.html


Growing anxiety over airport pat-downs and scanners

By Linda Loyd

Inquirer Staff Writer
excerpts:


In the new pat-downs, officers use open hands "and fingers" - instead of the backs of their hands - "to go over one's body, including the genital area and breasts," according to a statement by a pilot group upset by the procedure.

The head of the US Airways pilots union, Capt. Mike Cleary, said Wednesday that he had learned in informal conversations with TSA personnel that security officers now "are to run their hand up the inside of your leg until they meet bone resistance. In addition, they use a circular pat-down routine from the small of the stomach, around through a person's crotch, and up into the small of the back."


Cleary said one US Airways pilot who went through a pat-down had his "genitals grabbed repeatedly" and was "highly traumatized. When I was talking to him on the phone a few days later, he told me that he had just thrown up in his driveway. He was so worried about going to work. This particular fellow has two hip replacements, and so he cannot go through the backscatter machine [the full-body scanner]."

 

[kaytieeldr]

I'd rather be felt up than blown up.

Dibs on the t-shirt! Do you think it'll get us through security faster?

 

[ccgirl]

My DH had it last weekend and as I said many times, it was not invasive at all. They put their hands around the inside of his waist. They did not shove their hands down his pants and hold on to his testicles as some are reported they have "heard". They did run their palm over them on the outside of his pants. Again, we were prepared for this. We do not feel the TSA agent was doing this to get his jollies. He was doing his job. He had to do this because he, too, moved during the backscatter


Just because it didn't happen to YOUR husband doesn't mean it isn't happening across the U.S. There are too many reports of it happening -- in a short space of time -- for them all to be just hysteria.

I agree, the old pat downs were not a problem. These new ones ARE.

From the Philadelphia Enquirer:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/busi...iety_over_airport_pat-downs_and_scanners.html


Growing anxiety over airport pat-downs and scanners

By Linda Loyd

Inquirer Staff Writer
excerpts:


In the new pat-downs, officers use open hands "and fingers" - instead of the backs of their hands - "to go over one's body, including the genital area and breasts," according to a statement by a pilot group upset by the procedure.

The head of the US Airways pilots union, Capt. Mike Cleary, said Wednesday that he had learned in informal conversations with TSA personnel that security officers now "are to run their hand up the inside of your leg until they meet bone resistance. In addition, they use a circular pat-down routine from the small of the stomach, around through a person's crotch, and up into the small of the back."


Cleary said one US Airways pilot who went through a pat-down had his "genitals grabbed repeatedly" and was "highly traumatized. When I was talking to him on the phone a few days later, he told me that he had just thrown up in his driveway. He was so worried about going to work. This particular fellow has two hip replacements, and so he cannot go through the backscatter machine [the full-body scanner]."

I never said it wasn't happening. I think it is not happening more times than it is. People's viewpoints can be very subjective. What one might find offensive and invasive another may not. We can all find articles that substantiate our view points. Consider how this thread started with fear of radiation. When I posted the facts regarding the amount of radiation, people seemed to quiet down a bit. I can just state what I have seen and experienced. I almost feel like this is a game of phone tag. People are saying I read this here, where Johnnie's cousins girlfriend had this happen. I choose to make my own opinions once I have seen and experienced it myself. Guess I'm just a glass is 1/2 full type of gal.

If the testicles of the pilot were repeatedly fondled, then that does need to be investigated and something needs to be done about it. I guess my question would be; how many times were they fondled? What does the pilot consider "fondled"? Seems the article was not directly from the pilot this happened to.

It will be intesting to see how the ACLU ends.

 

[jodifla]

I never said it wasn't happening. I think it is not happening more times than it is. People's viewpoints can be very subjective. What one might find offensive and invasive another may not. We can all find articles that substantiate our view points. Consider how this thread started with fear of radiation. When I posted the facts regarding the amount of radiation, people seemed to quiet down a bit. I can just state what I have seen and experienced. I almost feel like this is a game of phone tag. People are saying I read this here, where Johnnie's cousins girlfriend had this happen. I choose to make my own opinions once I have seen and experienced it myself. Guess I'm just a glass is 1/2 full type of gal.

If the testicles of the pilot were repeatedly fondled, then that does need to be investigated and something needs to be done about it. I guess my question would be; how many times were they fondled? What does the pilot consider "fondled"? Seems the article was not directly from the pilot this happened to.

It will be intesting to see how the ACLU ends.

This isn't Johnnie's cousin, it's the pilot's union head. So if the pilots, who have a pretty vested interest in having safe planes, are concerned and have personally experience over-the-top patdowns, I think it's worth paying attention to.

 

[TheZue]

Magpie, your daughter's pat down did not happen in the US. Does TSA run things up in Canada too? I doubt it.

LOL you really think anytime you guys decide to do something your government doesn't pressure the hell out of ours? We pretty much have to follow your lead on most issues.

 

[C.Ann]

Lots of interesting articles on this all over the internet today - coming from reliable sources - many complaints from airline employees themselves.. Look around - there's lots to read..

I do have a question though.. Let's say someone goes through this new pat down - and the TSA agent "thinks" they "feel" something that "might" be suspicious.. What is the next step? What are they required to do in terms of investigating what it is that they "think" they felt?

Anyone know?

 

[Tricia1972]

I don't think this issue is about whether or not security needed to be changed after 9/11 so debating that doesn't make sense.

It makes sense to me.

Let's all pretend for a minute that it's August 2001. It's suggested by the government that we need to tighten up security at the airports and start scanning people. Not to the point that it's done today, but to the point that it was done 6 months ago.

Can you imagine the outrage? Nobody has 9/11 and the horrors of that day as a point of reference. We can't justify in our minds that these changes are making us safer. The current security is working just fine and we’ve never been attacked by anyone. These new measures are just invasive and horribly inconvenient. Where is our freedom to travel? What’s wrong with the old way?

If we HAD had the old measures put into place in early 2001, would we have 9/11 to point to and reassure ourselves "Well security is needed....look what can happen when terrorists commandeer an airplane?" We’ll never know if the attack could have been prevented or not. It happened.

I am not getting into the debate if the new measures and how invasive they may or may not be. I need to do more to educate myself before I go there. I am simply stating that from my layman’s point of view, the time to make a change is before there is another terrorist attack. I am sure that everyone can agree that none of us want another 9/11.

How to get there is the debate. I know that other countries are doing face recognition. We can’t do that here to protect our constitutional rights. So the agencies need to find other ways to keep us safe.

 

[Anjelica]

I fly statebound about 3-5 times a year and overseas an average of once a year. The pat downs I have received overseas are alot more stringent then the ones in the states (and I still didn't have an issue with it).

I like the poster's comment about "I'd rather get felt up then blown up" - I need to make a T-Shirt with that and wear when I am traveling.

 

[Anjelica]

I have stopped guessing about the correctness of the ACLU. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

 

[LuvOrlando]

It makes sense to me.

Let's all pretend for a minute that it's August 2001. It's suggested by the government that we need to tighten up security at the airports and start scanning people. Not to the point that it's done today, but to the point that it was done 6 months ago.

Can you imagine the outrage? Nobody has 9/11 and the horrors of that day as a point of reference. We can't justify in our minds that these changes are making us safer. The current security is working just fine and we’ve never been attacked by anyone. These new measures are just invasive and horribly inconvenient. Where is our freedom to travel? What’s wrong with the old way?

If we HAD had the old measures put into place in early 2001, would we have 9/11 to point to and reassure ourselves "Well security is needed....look what can happen when terrorists commandeer an airplane?" We’ll never know if the attack could have been prevented or not. It happened.

I am not getting into the debate if the new measures and how invasive they may or may not be. I need to do more to educate myself before I go there. I am simply stating that from my layman’s point of view, the time to make a change is before there is another terrorist attack. I am sure that everyone can agree that none of us want another 9/11.

How to get there is the debate. I know that other countries are doing face recognition. We can’t do that here to protect our constitutional rights. So the agencies need to find other ways to keep us safe.

But if there is no proof that what HAS been done is not working or is not enough how can the changes be justified?

Your approach, as it applies to my home, seems to be this. I have locks on my doors and windows. I had an incident ages ago where a stoned guy ran into my house. My way of dealing with that trauma was to add ADT as a home security ad on. Now, as of this point I have been safe so I am content. I can assume that my system is a reasonable deterrent because my home has not been robbed. On the other hand you are correct in thinking that it is completely possible that I have not been robbed simply because no-one has tried. None the less I'm not so sure it would be reasonable to act on that particular line of reasoning. Not only because the assumption is not based on anything material but for other reasons too. How can I possibly add onto my current system unless I know where the flaws are? I could, conceivably just attack idea after idea. I could block out my basement window but what if a thief was aiming at my roof. I guess I could also block off my roof vents too. But what about if a thief wanted to come in through a window, is it still reasonable to board them up? Suppose I do but what about a thief that is content to just wait for me to open the door to let my dog out, so I get rid of the dog. Now the door is the obvious risk, do i board that up too? On and on and on, this can go on forever because for each added measure I can take I can think of a work around.

How far do I go before being unreasonable and at what point did caution cross the line into too much?

I agree, no-one wants 9/11 to be repeated but what if, like with the ADT in my house, what we already had is, in fact, enough? I won't argue that it would have been much better if some guidelines were in place that could have prevented 9/11. Of course stopping 9/11 would have been magnificent. Still, the men who did it were very motivated and had time to perfect a plan. Chances are that particular group would have been able to do catastrophic harm no matter what was in effect. Maybe things wouldn't have happened the way they did but I doubt there would have been a non event. So this begs the question, how can anyone prepare for the unknown? I'm not saying we do nothing, what I am saying is that we should use as much caution with the cure as with dealing with the disease. Disease can kill you but overdosing on medication to cure it will still leave a person just as dead.

 

[ccgirl]

This isn't Johnnie's cousin, it's the pilot's union head. So if the pilots, who have a pretty vested interest in having safe planes, are concerned and have personally experience over-the-top patdowns, I think it's worth paying attention to.

Right. But...it wasn't the head of the pilot union himself. I'm just saying, I have had the pat down and it was fine. I don't want to jump to hysterics here. Before we paint the TSA agents with a broad brush of wanting to feel up our children maybe we should treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty.

Love the comment about the ACLU by the way. Sometimes I really question their motives?

 

[CathrynRose]

I have to be honest, I find the supporters to be perplexing mostly because very few are being clear over what it is, exactly, that they are supporting.

They are tearing away at complaints but they really aren't saying what the advantages are to the changes.

Me too. Oh, yes, yes - to keep us safe.

I'd rather take my chances with the 'no grope' security, than the tummy circle, down to the crotch, up into my back touch, done to me or my family - which I CAN DO, if I go ahead and book first class. My g/f just whipped on through security.... A fast pass of sorts, if you pay enough.

I wonder if The Terrorists will pay extra for this convenient blow-up service?

Lots of interesting articles on this all over the internet today - coming from reliable sources - many complaints from airline employees themselves.. Look around - there's lots to read..

I do have a question though.. Let's say someone goes through this new pat down - and the TSA agent "thinks" they "feel" something that "might" be suspicious.. What is the next step? What are they required to do in terms of investigating what it is that they "think" they felt?

Anyone know?

I thought I had read - and this is before the enhanced touchie-feelies, that people had reported being ....pretty much strip searched. Did they have to cough and squat? No. But it was a back room, where they searched.

I'll look for that....

And the reason I'd believe this is simple... let's say they found a grenade under a man's "stuff".

Is it "Oh, you have a grenade. We have to take this. No flying with grenades!" Like it's a soda?? I doubt it.

Is it "Oh, you have a grenade. You're going to have to leave now. Try the busses or a train, buddy. Good luck!" I doubt that, too.

 

[Tricia1972]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point has very little to do with what is currently done in airports. I thought I even stated that I would need to educate myself more about current security before getting into that debate.

What I wanted to get across was that if anyone had suggested that we beef up security in the airports prior to 9/11 I would bet that the outrage would be as great as it is now if not greater.

 

[Let'sGoFlyAKite]

Man this is a HOT issue!! I can tell you that I'm VERY upset that we are all accepting of our selves and ESPECIALLY our kids to have someone other than our friendly family doctor touch in places we teach our kids it is NOT ok to be touched!!! I'm not blaming the specific TSA agents, I'm blaming the government (Big Brother) that is CONDITIONING our children that it is a 'normal' thing for strangers to touch private body parts. We adults still remember a free and open society, so we fight it. The kids dont. They accept whatever they are told. It really saddens me. I cant imagine WHY a 9 year old boy or 12 year old girl would be suspected of trying to smuggle a weapon on a plane. This is SIMPLE CONDITIONING.....What comes next? Cavity searches on our CHILDREN???!!! I am infuriated. If anyone knows where we can write or e-mail to complain, please PLEASE let me know. (guess we'll be driving 24 hrs to Disney...)

 

[Anjelica]

But
I agree, no-one wants 9/11 to be repeated but what if, like with the ADT in my house, what we already had is, in fact, enough?

The attempted Christmas bombing last year proved that what "we" were doing up to that point was, in fact, NOT enough. Obviously we lucked out because he was an idiot but the steps and measures that were put in place were not enough to ensure this idiot didn't board the plane with explosives.

I would guarantee had the Christmas bombing indeed gone off and another tragic terroristic act successfully completed many would not have the stance they do today in terms of the "over-reaching".

 

[CathrynRose]

(guess we'll be driving 24 hrs to Disney...)

I'm in Chicago - we can make it in 19. Haul butt.

I just read that gate screenings are also making a come back. Neat. You can either have your naked picture taken or have an 'enhanced pat down' done - and possibly be chosen to be patted down, again?? Flipping awesome!!!

Genuine request - please someone link me to the TSA stopping a threat with either the naked screen machine, or the cheap thrill pat down.

 

[TheZue]

The attempted Christmas bombing last year proved that what "we" were doing up to that point was, in fact, NOT enough. Obviously we lucked out because he was an idiot but the steps and measures that were put in place were not enough to ensure this idiot didn't board the plane with explosives.

I would guarantee had the Christmas bombing indeed gone off and another tragic terroristic act successfully completed many would not have the stance they do today in terms of the "over-reaching".

Numerous security experts have said repeatedly that this technology will do nothing to stop an underwear bomber. They don't pick up things like liquids or powder (what the underwear bomber had) well. Even the patdown probably wouldn't have caught it...it wasn't like a hard block of explosives, it was a bit of powder sewn into his undies. If a woman wanted to do this it would beyond easy to put explosive powder into a feminine hygeine product and wear that through. If we weren't doing enough to stop it before WE STILL AREN'T because these new "precautions" won't do a thing...but now everyone has handed over just a little more of their privacy and dignity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/are-planned-airport-scanners-just-a-scam-1856175.html

 

[Colleen27]

Ok- what's your idea? Profiling? That's fine with me, but many folks find it VERY objectionable. Seriously, what do YOU think the government should do to make sure 09/11 doesn't happen again?

Well, I think profiling would be a good start, rather than making a big show of patting down disabled women in wheelchairs and flight attendants and children for the sake of political correctness, but realistically I don't believe the government can stop the next 9/11. The very nature of terrorism is far more adaptable than any government endeavor, and there are ways around any precaution we take (particularly when the precautions are as well-publicized as this one). I seriously doubt the "next 9/11" if/when it comes will have anything to do with passenger air travel at all; we've focused so much of our attention on that aspect of the attacks that we're all but ignoring other vulnerabilities. Which isn't to say we should ignore airport security altogether, but we should be stepping back and taking a big-picture approach rather than the series of increasingly invasive knee-jerk responses to threats and failed plots.

 

[CathrynRose]

And you know what bothers me, as well?

I've seen people pulled aside several times (before enhanced pat downs - my last flight was October 26th). The people are visibly annoyed, however more compliant than when a police officer pulls someone over ("Mind telling me what I did? What did you pull me over? I was not speeding!")

It's disturbing.