TSA mess and the police

[kinntj]

Then again, you can always choose to walk.

Then again, you can enjoy your flight after being checked by a rent a cop or a cop wanna be after they have failed numerous times.

 

[CPT Tripss]

snip
At any rate, I'm not in favor of the changed screening procedures; I'm just not against them. But then, I've been patted down before. No, nobody's put a hand on my crotch yet, but other than that I'm familiar with the procedure. MOST of the people screaming so loudly haven't even been to an airport lately; they're just yelling because others are. The three year old boy 'strip-searched' recently? Let's not forget, his father removed his shirt, no TSA Agent did or requested that.

bing bing bing . . . . bs alert! (back it up).

As for the kid . . . "Sir you misunderstood me. Please put the child's shirt back on." That, based on the San Diego incident and another video (NSFW or DIS) is apparently TSA policy. But I admit to not being certain as TSA won't publicize their policy.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Then again, you can enjoy your flight after being checked by a rent a cop or a cop wanna be after they have failed numerous times.

I said it before - they could strip search me in front of the rest of the queue if they want. I am not a prude, nor am I modest. Just get me on my plane.

This whole drama, to me, is pure bunk.

 

[WDWMom]

It's alarming to me that I see this story completely differently. I'm hoping that TSA agents treat everyone the same and follow the same procedure making it fair for all. Then there's less chance of the rogue agent treating you badly. That was one of the OP's major concerns.

I read this story and feel for the TSA agents that are just trying to do their job. They are confronted by someone trying to test their reaction by stripping in the middle of the airport. This passenger was fine stripping down to his underwear in a crowd of people but not OK with the private screening with minor radiation. (BTW, I believe the scientific reports that the radiation is equal to 2 minutes in the airplane). So what was he protesting? The negligible radiation or the nekked picture? IRONIC? Absolutely. Or maybe he was just looking for his 15 minutes of fame.

Then we find out that he refused to put his clothes back on and was arrested for being disruptive. Sounds like he was disrupting the process to me. Although I don't know the laws in sunny San Diego, according to the story, there is a law against this. And a law against filming agents. He allegedly broke the law 2x but this is somehow the TSA's fault? Isn't it funny that everyone is up in arms about TSA agents going rogue but when they try to follow procedure, they have "gone wild". Again, IRONIC?

And of course we go directly to scare tactics again. Everyone's cell phone will now be confiscated to protect the public. Sarcasm, right? Would that have been funny on September 12, 2001? It's sooooooo funny that the terrorists filmed the airports and the airplanes to prepare for their attack.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

I also found this quote from Santayana when I was googling. "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."

The hysterical sound bytes by the conservative media really saddens me. Many try to scare the general public with outrageous stories clearly trying to sway the public to their side. I like to make my own decisions based on fact, not on what someone writes with clear bias on the internet.

So who was the "gone wild" TSA agent? Or was it the police that arrested someone for breaking the law. Was it the TSA agent for trying to follow procedures? Or was it the lawmakers that made this an arrestable offense?

You can have your freedom. I want to be on the other plane that has security.

I do feel for passengers with special needs but I also see that looking at an insulin pump on a screen may look suspect. Remember that the TSA agents are putting their lives in jeopardy the same as police officers to some extent. If someone is crazy enough to strap a bomb to their stomach, they are likely to detonate it in a security line if questioned. Don't brush off their concerns either. How do want them to react? Professionally but with care. I'm glad to hear that they are working on procedures for these medical issues. Maybe they could have come up with something before implementing the new security procedures.

There was public outcry after 9/11 that something needed to be done about security. There was more public outcry after the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. How soon we forget. It only matters if it inconveniences us.

Well said!

 

[kinntj]

I said it before - they could strip search me in front of the rest of the queue if they want. I am not a prude, nor am I modest. Just get me on my plane.

This whole drama, to me, is pure bunk.

Some is bunk, some is not. I'm not basing my decision to not fly on the sensational stories out there. I've seen the backscatter pictures and believe that it is a "virtual" strip search. If I was forced to fly because of a job that required it, I would opt for the pat down. As long as I saw the TSA agent put on new gloves.

I don't have to fly for any reason, so I opt out of flying altogether. Doesn't mean I don't have empathy with those that still have to go through it.

Unfortunately, me driving puts more risk on others by putting another car on the road when I need to travel. So my driving to WDW puts the public in general more in danger of dying than a bomber on a plane. Not really an argument, but just food for thought.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...Unfortunately, me driving puts more risk on others by putting another car on the road when I need to travel. So my driving to WDW puts the public in general more in danger of dying than a bomber on a plane. Not really an argument, but just food for thought.

So, you would rather risk your life and the lives of your family than go through the new security checks.

 

[JLTraveling]

I wrote out a lengthy reply only to lose it because the site logged me out.

Simply stated, the Constitution has a single purpose - the limit the powers of the Federal government. It does not grant rights to anyone. It does, in a few places, clarify them.

Your right to travel freely can be extrapolated from general freedom, but conveyances are not granted to anyone. To do so would infringe upon the rights of others. Also, there are many situations in which the government is allowed to regulate travel, especially where said travel industry is involved in interstate commerce.

The TSA is such a regulatory body. Its powers were granted by Congress. You are free to travel, but you do not have a right to any conveyance - perhaps not even one owned by you. Consider state driver's laws. Ignore them and see how quickly you lose your driving privileges. You will still be free to travel, but you will need to get someone else to drive you. Then again, you can always choose to walk.

This again shows ignorance of the judicial branch of the federal government. The fact that Congress granted powers to the TSA does not, in fact, make those powers Constitutional. It just proves that Congress decided to do something and did it, and it has not yet been tested before the Supreme Court. Anybody *can* do anything they like. Doesn't mean it will hold up in a court of law.

And the part about conveyances is untrue as well. Now you might have an argument IF a specific airline (or many airlines acting collectively together) placed consent to a TSA search in the written contract with each airline passenger. I say *might*, because that again would have to be tested in a court of law, as discrimination laws might then apply, but it is possible. But as no airline has yet committed the political suicide of coming out and directly making TSA screening a written condition of flying on its planes, then infringement on others' rights is a non-argument.

I said it before - they could strip search me in front of the rest of the queue if they want. I am not a prude, nor am I modest. Just get me on my plane.

This whole drama, to me, is pure bunk.

And that right there demonstrates that your arguments are not based on actual concerns for either safety or liberty. You just don't care. Which is, of course, your right. But not a very good basis for an argument about Constitutional freedoms.

 

[kinntj]

So, you would rather risk your life and the lives of your family than go through the new security checks.

Absolutely. You and I both do it driving to the mall. Most people get killed relatively close to their homes than driving cross country.

 

[jsmith]

this entire thread-and the tempest in the teapot that it is creating-just emphasis how willing americans are to be manipulated by the mainstream media. Yes the situation in San Diego seems out of hand-but it also appears that the Harbor Police are contributing to that as well.
We are a family who fly ALOT-my husband an i work in the defense industry-both our sons are in graduate programs that do defense related research. As a family-since the first of November we have taken 18 air trips-these involved passing thru airport security in-Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, Denver, Las Vegas,Colorado Springs, and Huntsville ( Colorado Springs and Huntsville are smaller airports which do not have scanners) and layovers in Dallas and Houston that did not involve security screenings. In 18 trips -my younger son was put thur the scanner in Denver 1 time-he said the machine resemebled an MRI-and i witnessed one pat down i would consider intrusive. None of the other screenings have been signifgantly more intense that what we have experienced entering sporting events, concert venues or our work places. Yes i think there are areas where things are out of hand or offensive-it is a national transportation crisis-no its not-and for those of you who seem thing think its going to hit the airlines bottome line-there are a record number of seats booked for the holiday travel season-so if thats going to happen-its not going to be this month.
this of course has been our personal experience-your mileage may vary.

 

[kwelch10377]

I'm a little late to the party here, but wanted to throw in my experience. I recently had to take 2 business trips, one to Orlando and one to Vegas. On the way back from Orlando I went through the scanner and it went off, I had no belt on, no change, jewelry or anything else that I can think of that would set it off. Then I realized that it could be the underwire in my bra. I asked if I could go take it off and then go back through, they told me no I had to get the pat down. Fine whatever, never had one before didn't think it would be a big deal. Well needless to say I really think the TSA agent should have bought me dinner first. It was a little overboard. I think what was most embarassing was the fact that they do it right out in the open in front of everyone. I know I still have my clothes and everything on, but I think it would be a little more appropriate for them to take you behind a screen or something.

I understand the need for safety when flying and I don't really have a problem with the scanners, but there has got to be a better way than these pat downs.

 

[CathrynRose]

You can have your freedom. I want to be on the other plane that has security.

Remember that the TSA agents are putting their lives in jeopardy the same as police officers to some extent. If someone is crazy enough to strap a bomb to their stomach, they are likely to detonate it in a security line if questioned.

I trust the security they previously had in place, before they began patting down Gramps and Junior was juuuust fine. I'll take my chances.

As far as the TSA putting their lives on the line. Hahahaha! Your argument is actually one we've already discussed, as the massive glob of people would make a fantastic place to blow up - prior to going through the screening, of course. Putting their lives on the line.

It's become an area I'm more scared of, than getting on a plane without a 4 year old being patted down.

They backed off the enhanced pat-down for children under 12 apparently.

BUT - we have that video that clearly shows just 2 days ago, a child - whom passed through the regular metal detector and NOT setting it off, being.... patted down.

What the blazes is a "child abuse clearance"??? Or are you asking if they've had a background check that includes their criminal/sex offender status?

I've seen several articles - some a few years old, some very recent - stating that they do not wait for the results of any back ground checks, before putting these people to work. Some took as long as 90 days to come back.

So sex offender back ground checks, or otherwise don't seem very important to them.

The three year old boy 'strip-searched' recently? Let's not forget, his father removed his shirt, no TSA Agent did or requested that.

Per the TSA, that boy - shirtless or not - should have never been patted down. He was much younger than 12, which has been stated as the age. (Which, BTW still ticks me off.... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are still *minors*!!)

The Dad whipped his shirt off, because the child was scared and shy and wouldn't hold his arms out. This wasn't good enough for them, because as the video showed - they still patted him. 3 of them watching too! What a dangerous job, and it takes *so* many of them to do it.

So, you would rather risk your life and the lives of your family than go through the new security checks.

Yes. I'm don't need a 4 year old to be patted down, to feel safe.

 

[CathrynRose]

There is a report out there - this was pre enhanced screening, but post naked xray machine - of a man, whom went through the naked machine, whom was pulled aside as (he was told) his "groin was fuzzy and not clear"

I thought the scanners didn't SHOW that. Hmph...

 

[CathrynRose]

I'm a little late to the party here, but wanted to throw in my experience. I recently had to take 2 business trips, one to Orlando and one to Vegas. On the way back from Orlando I went through the scanner and it went off, I had no belt on, no change, jewelry or anything else that I can think of that would set it off. Then I realized that it could be the underwire in my bra. I asked if I could go take it off and then go back through, they told me no I had to get the pat down. Fine whatever, never had one before didn't think it would be a big deal. Well needless to say I really think the TSA agent should have bought me dinner first. It was a little overboard. I think what was most embarassing was the fact that they do it right out in the open in front of everyone. I know I still have my clothes and everything on, but I think it would be a little more appropriate for them to take you behind a screen or something.

I understand the need for safety when flying and I don't really have a problem with the scanners, but there has got to be a better way than these pat downs.

Thank you for sharing.

And why can't she just take the bra off and give it another whirl?

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

This again shows ignorance of the judicial branch of the federal government...

Your Constitutional posts are wrong in more ways than I can list.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Yes. I'm don't need a 4 year old to be patted down, to feel safe.

You people keep posting bunk like this even after the TSA changed its guidelines for children under 12. Try again.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Absolutely...

I'm cool with that - your life. Me - I'd rather fly than have a tombstone read, "He chose to die for modesty's sake".

 

[kwelch10377]

Thank you for sharing.

And why can't she just take the bra off and give it another whirl?

They wouldn't explain why I couldn't go take it off, just that I couldn't. I even asked if I could just take it off under my shirt and not go to the ladies room and they said no.

When it happened again at Logan the woman was super nice and said that typically the underwire of higher end bras will sometimes set it off. Needless to say I took my bra off before I went through security on my return flight from Vegas. I was not taking the chance of having to get a pat down again.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Don't you know, you must be "properly" clothed in order to have the intimate pat down.


I wonder whether kwelch had an opportunity to divest and go through to WTMD a second time?

One may request that the pat down be conducted in private. It's an individual decision - I want any patdown I recieve (and I get them regularly) to be in public. I do not want to add to the "I never saw any one being patted down" chorus.

 

[olwyngdh]

I'm a little late to the party here, but wanted to throw in my experience Well needless to say I really think the TSA agent should have bought me dinner first. It was a little overboard. I think what was most embarassing was the fact that they do it right out in the open in front of everyone. I know I still have my clothes and everything on, but I think it would be a little more appropriate for them to take you behind a screen or something.

I understand the need for safety when flying and I don't really have a problem with the scanners, but there has got to be a better way than these pat downs.

I hadn't thought about it before, but I wonder if the reasoning for doing it out in front of witnesses, considering all the hoohah about the pat downs as it is, is to protect the agents from further and worse accusations. Same as a male Dr must have a female in the room when examining a female patient. I don't think, under the present circumstances, that people would believe a TSA witness if a passenger lied--a whole roomful of people on the other hand...

This would explain cameras in private screening rooms too, since someone said that they are filmed.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I hadn't thought about it before, but I wonder if the reasoning for doing it out in front of witnesses, considering all the hoohah about the pat downs as it is, is to protect the agents from further and worse accusations. Same as a male Dr must have a female in the room when examining a female patient. I don't think, under the present circumstances, that people would believe a TSA witness if a passenger lied--a whole roomful of people on the other hand...

This would explain cameras in private screening rooms too, since someone said that they are filmed.

I think that this is part of it. I also believe that they do it in public to get people to submit to the scans. You see what it is going to be like. If you opt to go for the pat-down, you can't pretend that you didn't know what to expect. I am sure that a lot of people who considered asking for the pat-down decided to accept the scan after watching a pat-down take place.