Appalling new TSA screening procedure


PDA






Tall Man
November 1, 2004, 03:39 PM
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20041010-9999-1m10transcol.html#

TSA body search upsets local woman

By Jeff Ristine
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
October 10, 2004

A new layer of security at the nation's airports last month caught a Mira Mesa woman by surprise. Now Ava Kingsford wants other women to know just how uncomfortable the "secondary screening" process can become.

Kingsford, 36, was traveling back to San Diego from Denver International Airport with her 3-month-old son when she was flagged for a pat-down search, possibly because of an expired driver's license.

She took the procedure in stride until the female Transportation Security Administration screener announced, "I'm going to feel your breasts now."

Kingsford, wearing a snug-fitting tank top, objected to what she considered an unduly invasive search. More security agents arrived, warned her that she couldn't board her flight without submitting to the final step of the search, and the situation escalated.

"I was crying; I was shaking," she said. And just after she tugged down the top of her shirt just a bit to show that she wasn't hiding anything, the agents told her she wasn't going anywhere. She ended up renting a car for a two-day drive home.

"It was unbelievable," Kingsford said. "I think there is a line they cannot cross."

But Transportation Security Administration officials say their screeners did nothing wrong and that Kingsford's experience reflects a brutal new reality in passenger checkpoint screening.

The agency announced the extra security measures Sept. 16, just a few weeks after two Russian jetliners exploded in midair, killing all aboard. Authorities believe two women smuggled explosives onto the aircraft, possibly in "torso packs" underneath their clothing.

Bob Kapp, customer service manager for the TSA in Denver, said that to conduct a thorough pat-down search of women, "it does require going beneath, between and above the breasts."

In these first few weeks of the procedure, Kapp said, "a few people have been a little bit alarmed" by the touching. But he called it "a sign of the times" that is probably here to stay. Screeners are coached to try to minimize the discomfort by explaining each step as they go along.

Kingsford, however, thinks there ought to be some common sense to the approach and that the TSA is going to get a lot more complaints.

"There is nothing that I could possibly have been hiding there," she said.
====


Where to begin? Every day, my decision to forgo air travel is affirmed...

Tall Man, driving.


(Edited to correct spelling.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Appalling new TSA screening procedure" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WT
November 1, 2004, 03:47 PM
She should have turned around and walked away. When enough passengers get fed up with the BS, the TSA will be forced to promulgate realistic search procedures.

rock jock
November 1, 2004, 03:57 PM
OK, I'll play devil's advocate here and ask: how exactly is the TSA supposed to find explaosives hidden in intimate areas w/o this type of invasice screening?

riverdog
November 1, 2004, 04:04 PM
They could use little beagles trained to sniff out explosives and drugs, et al. Dogs are forever sticking their snout in peoples crotches. Most folks wouldn't be offended by a beagle.

Personally, I always drive. Denver to San Diego is a one day drive for me, although I might stop off in Vegas for some relaxation.

mpthole
November 1, 2004, 04:07 PM
You know... :fire: I've told me wife and forwarded her stories of these types of things happening. ... all to no avail. She still insists on flying. So, when our next flight comes up in February and she gets offended for being groped by some stranger, all I'm going to say is "Well honey, you wanted to fly."

Frankly, I'd like to tell the TSA goons to take a flying leap (in not such nice terms).

Of course, I'd prefer to drive anyway. I've got enough flight miles (pre 9/11) to last me a lifetime.

jnojr
November 1, 2004, 04:08 PM
She should have turned around and walked away.

She did. She rented a car and drove to SD.

This "news" is at least a couple of weeks old, though.

spacemanspiff
November 1, 2004, 04:11 PM
how exactly is the TSA supposed to find explaosives hidden in intimate areas w/o this type of invasice screening?

i doubt you'll be playing devils advocate when the TSA screener tells you "I will now prod in and around your rectum and feel under your cheeks, bend over and spread 'em."

RW_Reagan
November 1, 2004, 04:24 PM
"it does require going beneath, between and above the breasts."

thats the line I usually use for girlfriends wanting to fly MY AIRLINE :D

looks like the d@mn TSA is using my pick up lines now!

rick_reno
November 1, 2004, 04:31 PM
Nothing wrong with this - we have a choice about flying, and she chose to exercise her choice and not fly. Big deal. I flew last week, 4 airports - I got wanded a bunch and patted down. I'm hoping they take an agressive approach to finding explosives - it's much better than having the plane blow up.

RW_Reagan
November 1, 2004, 04:35 PM
rick_reno:
"Nothing wrong with this - we have a choice about flying, and she chose to exercise her choice and not fly. Big deal. I flew last week, 4 airports - I got wanded a bunch and patted down. I'm hoping they take an agressive approach to finding explosives - it's much better than having the plane blow up."

just wait till they start asking us guys to "drop trouser" so they can check out the old "Mr. Happy" sometime and see if you say "Nothing wrong with this".

of course for some people, they may like that sort of thing....... :uhoh:

Cosmoline
November 1, 2004, 04:49 PM
TSA is the enemy, and poses a far greater threat than some yahoo terrorist. Unfortunately it's impossible to limit them directly as they are federal employees with layers of protection. No protest you make will be heard. It's not like some out-of-control sheriff you can run against and replace. The only solution to this will be to kill off more of the airline industry by refusing to fly. I'm doing my part. Between business and personal travel the domestic airline industry has lost at least $8,500 from me alone since 2001.

Archie
November 1, 2004, 05:04 PM
A quick quiz for you, and anyone else who wants to play.

1. The Constitution of the United States says all searches (personal or property) have to be:

A. Reasonable
B. Possible
C. Practical
D. Quick and painless

2. Checking the rectum of a person (not an arrestee) wishing to board a commercial airliner is considered:

A. Routine
B. Extreme
C. A body cavity search
D. Gross

3. Under general Federal guidelines, who may conduct a body cavity search on a non-arrested person who wishes to board a commercial airliner?

A. Any sworn officer who has facilities to clean their hands, has fresh exam gloves and a powerful flashlight.
B. Any sworn officer who is sure the suspect has something.
C. A doctor at a medical facility.
D. Supervisors and above.

4. What is the level of suspicion required to search a non-arrested person who wishes to board a commercial airliner?

A. The fact they want on the plane is enough to do a basic search.
B. For more than a basic search, reason to believe or probable cause, based on articulable facts is required.
C. To search further than generally touching the outer layer of normal clothing, and examining interior of shoes, specific suspicion is required.
D. Court order based on probably cause.

5. Who may search whom?

A. All "contact" searches must be conducted by same sex officers, except for an immediate search for weapons based on reasonable suspicion.
B. Anyone can be searched by an officer of any sex based on supervisory direction.
C. Opposite sex searches may be conducted between consenting adults. Buying them a drink cuts down on complaints.
D. No touching anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

Everybody, please understand that TSA is a very new agency. The SOPs and guidelines are new. They don’t have a long-standing organization and a legal background like regular police or F. B. I. or Highway Patrol. They get criticized every other day for lack of experience in they searched too many people or the wrong people. On the off days, they get criticized for lack of experience in they didn’t find the razor blade taped behind someone’s laptop computer.

I see these people working every day. They process thousands of people, all of whom are in a hurry to get to the plane. They are polite and professional, while performing basic ‘feed lot cattle traffic control’. They are also just people. They get fed up with smelling feet that have been too long from a bathtub, looking in another carryon bag, and listening to overpaid salesmen making cracks about their education level.

Or a woman bursting into tears because she doesn’t want to be ‘touched’. It’s not like she was stripped in public or whacked with a carpet beater.

I’m sorry lady, but yes, women have hidden contraband between their breasts. Black Tar Heroin for sure, and C4, RDX and Semtex aren’t that much different in terms of hiding. Guys have carried loads of Heroin and Opium in their briefs and shoes. Women and men both have been found with various types of contraband in various orifices. It’s a process informally called ‘stuffing’. You do the math.

So, take your pick. Don’t fly. That's what this woman did; she refused to be searched and took a car. Or be ready to be searched. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to comply. Sort of like income tax.

--------------------------------------------------
Groping, or being groped by, a total stranger ain't my idea of fun neither,
Archie

spacemanspiff
November 1, 2004, 05:30 PM
oh gee, i didnt think of it that way. i guess i should consider it a privilege to be treated like a criminal merely because i'm getting on a plane. i suppose it should give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside, a feeling of safety and security, that our wonderful federal agency can perform invasive searches for no reason other than "you were randomly selected".

maybe i should send 'thank you' notes to the TSA and shower them with praise for all the good they've done, for all the potential terrorists they've caught, and for all the weapons they have intercepted by passengers who intentionally tried to board a plane with.

maybe we should suggest that the TSA start searching train, bus and automobile passengers as well! can't be too careful! its for the children, wont someone PLEASE think of the children??!!



:scrutiny:

R.H. Lee
November 1, 2004, 05:35 PM
So there 'ya have it. You're a criminal until you prove otherwise. If 'ya don't like it, don't fly. Works for me.

Old Dog
November 1, 2004, 05:41 PM
TSA is the enemy, and poses a far greater threat than some yahoo terrorist

Whoa, now ... having returned not all that long ago from helping fight those yahoo terrorists, and also having flown a bit recently ... I'll take my chances with those TSA employees ...

Definitely one of the more extreme and ridiculous statements I've seen here ...

sendec
November 1, 2004, 05:44 PM
Once again, people who complain that the government cannot protect them complain when the government attempts to do so, leading one to the inescapable conclusion that no matter what, people will complain.

GhostRider66
November 1, 2004, 05:52 PM
Please don't quote the Constitution unless you've read it thoroughly.

"quick quiz for you, and anyone else who wants to play.

1. The Constitution of the United States says all searches (personal or property) have to be:

A. Reasonable
B. Possible
C. Practical
D. Quick and painless"

"Amendment Six - 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."

The Sixth Amendment specifically states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". It doesn't allow for any other method for permitting such a search. The courts have often allowed that a person or vehicle can be searched with "probable cause" (and no warrant) but short of the person allowing it, I don't see a constitutional basis for this. Now after the search is permissible (by whatever standards are set - given permission or having a warrant), the search must be "reasonable" (read not searching the medicine cabinet when searching for stolen cars).

Now given either standard, either the Constitutional standard of needing a warrant or the courts' standard or needing probable cause, these federal officials don't have either. Explain to me how an individual wanting to board a plane and travel somewhere individually gives probable cause of anything to an official.

I have no problem with the argument that if you want to fly, you must submit to a search. But that search can only be done by the company or the company's designee with whom you are conducting the private transaction.

You can argue all you want about the "need" for it but I'd point out that you quickly dismiss these same arguments (and on a Constitutional basis) when the left uses them with regard to the "need" for more gun control.

Cosmoline
November 1, 2004, 06:12 PM
Definitely one of the more extreme and ridiculous statements I've seen here ...

Well I would have thought so myself until I started seeing lines of half-naked Americans being prodded through inspection by a largely foreign born cadre of TSA goons. I would have thought so myself until I saw TSA employees pocketing confiscated lighters, knives, and so on. And now we're moving down the slope from taking off your shoes to random breast gropes, all in the name of national security, war on drugs, etc.

I can tell you if one of the Founders had been told to submit to a warrantless search by government officials before boarding a common carrier, he would have considered it rank tyranny and refused. If the same officials demanded to grope their wives, they would have considered it an act more vile than anything George III did.

I WILL NOT BE LAID HAND ON MERELY BECAUSE I WANT TO RIDE IN A COMMON CARRIER!

Cosmoline
November 1, 2004, 06:18 PM
Once again, people who complain that the government cannot protect them complain when the government attempts to do so, leading one to the inescapable conclusion that no matter what, people will complain.

I don't expect my federal government to protect me. They won't, anyway, if push comes to shove. They have bigger problems to worry about, and I always take full responsibility for my own safety. I don't need cops and I sure don't need the feds.

What I want is really very simple. I want to be free in my person from unreasonable searches and seizures. I didn't used to think that was too much to ask. Apparently I was wrong.

spacemanspiff
November 1, 2004, 06:21 PM
people who complain that the government cannot protect them complain when the government attempts to do so, leading one to the inescapable conclusion that no matter what, people will complain.

no, we wouldnt complain if the searches were 100% mandatory. instead they are claimed to be 'random'. and why was it that the TSA changed their procedures so that passengers are searched by same sex screeners? isnt it because the TSA had perverts that were feeling up passengers they 'randomly' selected for 'additional screening'?

we wouldnt complain if the TSA actually did something instead of creating an illusion of safety and security.

we wouldnt complain if the TSA was at least consistant.

we wouldnt complain if the TSA was at least competant.



and why is it that they 'announce' what body part they are going to be fondling? is it really to 'alleviate' some of the stress the invasive search will cause?

R.H. Lee
November 1, 2004, 06:26 PM
Once again, people who complain that the government cannot protect them complain when the government attempts to do so, leading one to the inescapable conclusion that no matter what, people will complain. The government's supposed to protect me? Wow. I "feel" a whole lot "safer" now. Thanks.

feedthehogs
November 1, 2004, 06:43 PM
Making excuses for TSA workers is just another way of saying lets not be responsible for our actions.

Most TSA workers were already low level employees of airports and suddenly given hugh amounts of power over the citizens of this country with very little additional training.

Abuses are not surprising and much expected.

The bottom line is accept these and more extreme measures if you want to fly.

Nobody wants to admit the terrorists have already won.

After all giving up liberties for safety is the patriot act way.

I feel safer, don't you?

Shovelhead
November 1, 2004, 07:20 PM
Gee, and they wonder why all the Airline companies are going bankrupt.:banghead: :rolleyes:

RS2
November 1, 2004, 07:25 PM
Please don't quote the Constitution unless you've read it thoroughly.

"quick quiz for you, and anyone else who wants to play.

1. The Constitution of the United States says all searches (personal or property) have to be:

A. Reasonable
B. Possible
C. Practical
D. Quick and painless"

"Amendment Six - 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."

The Sixth Amendment specifically states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". It doesn't allow for any other method for permitting such a search. The courts have often allowed that a person or vehicle can be searched with "probable cause" (and no warrant) but short of the person allowing it, I don't see a constitutional basis for this. Now after the search is permissible (by whatever standards are set - given permission or having a warrant), the search must be "reasonable" (read not searching the medicine cabinet when searching for stolen cars).



Actually, GhostRider, that's the Fourth Amendment.

But, thanks for playing!;)

Ron

Standing Wolf
November 1, 2004, 07:39 PM
When enough passengers get fed up with the BS, the TSA will be forced to promulgate realistic search procedures.

Actually, that's when the airlines will go to the great white father with big tears in their eyes to demand federal subsidies.

rick_reno
November 1, 2004, 07:40 PM
"Amendment Six - 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."

Did you get your IV mixed up with VI? You quoted the 4th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Which one are you using?

Brett Bellmore
November 1, 2004, 07:40 PM
OK, I'll play devil's advocate here and ask: how exactly is the TSA supposed to find explaosives hidden in intimate areas w/o this type of invasice screening?

The point is they can't, without screening that's a LOT more invasive than that. You up for body cavity searches? Being fed laxatives, and locked in a room for 24 hours, waiting for your guts to empty? Being subjected to neutron activation analysis and biopsy of anything that looks suspicious?

They CAN'T keep explosives from getting onto planes, without a level of search that would put the airlines out of business! Once people are willing to die for the cause, there are so many options for hiding explosives on a body, the task becomes hopeless.

It's all just a public relations scam. If the terrorists want to blow up a plane, nothing they're doing will stop it.

hammer4nc
November 1, 2004, 07:53 PM
Article the sixth - in the originally proposed bill of rights, became what we now refer to as the fourth amendment, because two articles weren't ratified. ;)

hops
November 1, 2004, 09:35 PM
The new TSA proc one day soon will be:

Arrive at Airport. Take off Clothes and Shoes.
Have full body MRI or some scan like that taken.
Put on Orange coloured paper suit with paper shoes.
We all also get to wear a depends daiper.
We board the plane and are strapped in to the seats.
WHen plane lands we get released and our clothes back.

Avoids the body and cavity searches - and I've been humiliated 2x now - infornt of other travellers. The above proc is almost better. Ha Ha.. :(

Ok, is the above proc not already in use by the US Marshall's Service for Con Air?

Remington788
November 1, 2004, 09:44 PM
I agree with the bomb dog idea. Everyone gets sniffed by the dog and if he "hits" on you, then you get extra attention. This would eliminate the need for the so called random searches as well as settle the reasonable cause issue.

The added benefit of an on site bomb dog for any bomb threats or unattended baggage is an added bonus.

Derby FALs
November 1, 2004, 09:53 PM
Probably be of higher intelligence than the normal TSA employee.

:rolleyes:

another okie
November 1, 2004, 10:06 PM
"It doesn't allow for any other method for permitting such a search."

Actually this is incorrect. The Fourth Amendment has two distinct clauses, which modern jurisprudence tends to blur. The first is that we should not be subject to unreasonable searches. The second is that a warrant cannot issue without cause.

It does not say that a search is unreasonable if conducted without a warrant, and at the time it was written warrants were rare. If the police wished to search they usually just did so, and if you felt the search was unreasonable you sued them. The court then determined if the search was reasonable or not, and awarded damages where appropriate.

Police finally figured out that if they got a warrant they were immune from lawsuits and it became customary to get warrants almost all the time, when possible. But there are still whole books on the Fourth Amendment with chapters setting out all the times when it is reasonable to search without a warrant, such as a crime in progress, drunk driving checkpoints, Terry searches, and so on.

Flyboy
November 2, 2004, 12:01 AM
I don't know why this bothers so many people; I've flown literally dozens of times in the past year (probably approaching a hundred, actually), and I don't get searched. Matter of fact, since I got my permit, I haven't flown without my 1911 on my hip.

Man, I love sitting in seat 0-A.














(Yes, there's a message here. To heck with the airlines; they're uncomfortable, inconvenient, the food sucks, and I can beat them on any trip of less than a thousand miles. And I think this "we're going to grope you now" crap is just that. May the airlines all suffer the fruits of their demands for government goons^W screeners.)

Finch
November 2, 2004, 12:29 AM
I work for the TSA. I have done these "Horrible intrusive touchy perverted upper torso pat downs of doom" and have yet to recive one complaint. The women don't grop the breast. One lady get's a stick up he arse, decideds to plead to the media, and WOAH, the government is tromping on our freedoms. But of course we don't take not of the millions of people who fly daily without incedent. But we will jump on the bandwagon with the select few who bitch and moan.

Give me another solution. How about we pull out all security from airports. Although airlines are still a ripe target. Then when they planes start falling, bitch at the government who did nothing. I know some of you may think "well if they allowed us to carry firearms on planes, we wouldn't need TSA." Well, frankly, I belive that if we were allowed to carry firearms on board aircraft, we wouldn't need terrorist. I have seen to many stupid armchair commandos at the range to feel safe next to a guy on an airplane with a gun. You may know you abilities with a firearm, but until I do, keep it away from me and off any plane I am on.

Probably be of higher intelligence than the normal TSA employee. And with comments like these, it makes me glad firearms are not allowed to be carried on. Nothing of substance, let's resort to petty insults.

cropcirclewalker
November 2, 2004, 12:38 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/cropcirclewalker/7472ff28.jpg

This is what we can look forward too.

Maybe better to be stripped naked and chained to the chair. The hood over the head would still be good. That way the passengers would not be so humiliated by the ogling flight attendants.

I hope the airlines go so broke that nobody but .gov employees can fly. They deserve it.

io333
November 2, 2004, 12:42 AM
*nevermind*

Archie
November 2, 2004, 12:47 AM
Brett Bellmore: The point is they can't, without screening that's a LOT more invasive than that. You up for body cavity searches? Being fed laxatives, and locked in a room for 24 hours, waiting for your guts to empty? Being subjected to neutron activation analysis and biopsy of anything that looks suspicious?Actually Mr. Bellmore, twenty minutes will see if a person has 'foreign items' secreted in their body. I'll stipulate in certain cases differentiating narcotics from explosives may be problematic; but 'foreign items' is 'foreign items'; that one ain't making his flight.

The correct answer to question 1 is 'reasonable'. There are several exceptions to the Fourth Amendment requirement for a 'search warrant'. There are no exceptions to the 'reasonableness' requirement.

For everyone who asks the "...how would you like..." question, answer me this: How would you like five to ten percent of the people you deal with in your jobs to have a screaming hissy fit when you attempted to perform your job?

Were it up to me, I would issue guns to passengers on domectic flights. Bombs are another problem altogether. There is pretty much no defense from a bomb on an airplane. Unfortunately, with Ms Whatzername screaming bloody murder, it's really hard to make real progress in the contraband interdiction field.

I am really amazed at the response to this. I thought more High Roaders were adults.

By the way, we almost have a new world's sniveling record on this thread. It still doesn't beat out Al Gore and the DNC in 2000. But it's close.

wprebeck
November 2, 2004, 12:51 AM
I'd like to comment solely on the search technique, and not on the "this is retarded, why are they doing it?" comments. I don't fly , so I don't care about it, to be honest, and I don't want to get caught up in the right/wrong aspects of why they are doing this. I'd just like to make some remarks about HOW to do a proper search, and what one can find if a search is done correctly, so please, no flaming me about the reasoning behind the searches. I neither agree, nor disagree, with the reasons for doing...

Now, with that out of the way, let me give you some background on myself:
I work at a jail. Specifically, a decent sized one (2000 inmates in custody at any given point, 40,000 booked per year) here in Louisville. I've been there for the past 4.5 years, the last 2 of which have been in an area that requires me to search incoming prisoners.

Having done this job for a couple of years, and groped many hundreds of people, I feel that I perform a fairly competent search. Yes, a search is uncomfortable, and you WILL have your groin/buttocks area searched. After all, if that area isn't checked, you can hide a number of items there. Here's just some of what I've personally found, and where it was:
18.5 grams of crack cocaine - partially inserted into rectum.
14 grams of powdered cocaine - see above
1/2 pack of Newport cigarettes - rubber banded around Mr. Winkie (I kid you not...I actually got an indictment against him, too. The grand jury LOVED my testimony)
Cigarette lighters - under Mr. Winkie, partially in rectum, in between buttocks, in shoes, socks, etc.

While not my finds, I've also seen:
A cell phone - buttocks
Another phone - waistband
Handcuff key - shoe
Meth - socks, shoes, pants, etc


See, doing a search ain't fun for the people performing it, either. For those of you in Louisville, remember the article in SNITCH recently about the two officers that find all the contraband? Those two guys are on my shift, and I've learned mch from them. The article described them as seeing more booty than a porn star, or something to that effect, hehe. But, that's the truth. I can guarantee that if you put something up your butt, be it cigarettes (yep, they still smoke them), lighters, crack, whatever, I can feel it. And, that's without taking your pants off. Unless it's shoved COMPLETELY in there, I'll feel it. You may not (and probably won't) like it (I don't), but I'll search the entire area around your groin, including underneath and in between things.

For women, it's a bit different, and for obvious reasons, I don't search them at work. But, they do have their breasts searched. We give our female officer crap about that, from time to time, hehe.

Anyway, my point is, I don't NEED to do a strip search on you, to find things. The strip search only comes into play after I feel something that could be contraband, and lemme tell ya, that's worse than doing a pat-down, sometimes. I swear, I've seen more men naked this year, than most women do in their lifetime.....And that sucks.

Man, I keep going off on a tangent....Sorry about that. Basically, I just wanted to get the point across that a GOOD search will make the person being searched uncomfortable. Let's face it, if you're not gonna do a thorough search, then why bother putting on the gloves at all? If you're scared or too squeamish to touch another man's groin, then you should find another job. If you don't want this done to you, then don't get locked up. Like I said, I'm not gonna get into the TSA issue, because I simply don't care. I don't fly, I'm not likely to fly anytime in the near future, and it'd be tempting to shove something under my stuff, just to see if the screener caught it, anyway. Yeah, I'm obnoxious like that sometimes, especially when I do a better job of it, than they do.

For those who don't like being searched, my only suggestion, in a non-sarcastic tone, is to not fly. I'm aware that's not a possibility for some of you, and I understand that. In your cases, I'd suggest pushing for a momvement to allow for CCW on airlines. After watching Mythbusters, the TSA/FAA have lost the whole "depressurization" argument, haven't they?
:D

And, for all you street guys out there:
Please, for the love of everything sacred, search your prisoners. I get tired of adding charges on people, because road cops are scared to dig around in someone's butt for a minute. And hey, I did see a cuff key in a shoe once. What if the person in question had gotten that out, and used it? Dead officer, perhaps, like the two in Florida a few years back....

cropcirclewalker
November 2, 2004, 12:55 AM
You fools that don't mind being humiliated and treated like a terrorist to fly.

The terrorists won! You've given up without a fight. You got what you deserve.

Take off your shoes and stand in line to get groped. Shame, Shame, Shame.

Sindawe
November 2, 2004, 01:38 AM
I'm old enough (as I'm sure some of my fellow HighRoaders are) to remember when flying commercial airlines was a pleasure and an adventure. As a child, I would get wings, playing cards and the like from the Stewards, half-way decent food on long flights, and friendly, courteious treatment from everybody.

Then came the metal detectors and carry-on baggage x-ray. We could live with those. Not overly intrusive, people were still somewhat courteous. Plastic utensils, and food barely passable for a school lunch room.

Then came the script based pop-quizes at check in. And the increasing lines for passenger screenings. People were not very friendly anymore, seemed like they felt the job was a chore and paying customers a bother. Inflight meals now a box lunch sandwich, and forget getting a vegetarian meal, even if you purchased your tickets months in advance.

Last time I flew, in Nov 2001. LONG LONG LONG lines for check in, most of the check-in stations empty. Long pointless scripts about who packed my bags, where was I going, what color is my hair, did my ancestors have relations with farm animals. Endless wait at passenger screenings, again most stations empty. Take off your shoes, take off your belt, all metal off. Stand with your arms and and look straight ahead. "Sir, why is the wand beeping around your mouth?" Maybe 'cause I have BRACES you NITWIT! Meals? HA! A few grams of stale salty peanuts and a partial can of soda (this on a 5 hour, mid-day flight that spans the lunch hour)

Then they loose my freaking luggage. No, could not tell me where it was. No the bar codes on the check tag don't help. No, we can't tell you when we will find it and get it too you. :fire:

So at this point, I'll not fly. Not 'cause I'm afraid of terrorists or high-jackers. 'Cause I know that if some TSA drone wanted to grop me up, I'd bloody their freaking nose and end up in jail. Not worth the hassle, aggrivation and expense to be treated like a burden by the airline employees and a convict by the TSA drones.

Let the airlines crash and burn (figuratively speaking), let the concourses become home to spiders, pigeons and ghosts. Let the runways crumble to dust. It was fun while it lasted...

c_yeager
November 2, 2004, 03:36 AM
While i think that the TSA went way over the line i would like to point out one thing:

Kingsford, 36, was traveling back to San Diego from Denver International Airport with her 3-month-old son when she was flagged for a pat-down search, possibly because of an expired driver's license.

What kind of idiot tries to board a plane this day in age with expired ID? You get what you get when you do stupid things.

iipalindromeii
November 2, 2004, 03:49 AM
You know, I think we're going about this the wrong way: saying too much, too little, any, all.

If individual airlines had to do their own screening (or make a deal for someone else to do it for them), we could let the market show for us what we consider reasonable and unreasonable. You don't want to have the hassle of security, and think that the risk is worth it? Fly X airlines. You want to feel safe from getting your breasts grabbed? Fly Y airlines.

This one-size-fits-none doesn't work so well. It insists upon the One True Security Solution: which has to be enough to satisfy the security cravings of the vocal population. Same thing with going armed on a *private* plane: some would allow it, some wouldn't. At least then there would be change that wouldn't have to satisfy every yahoo with a bullhorn.

I know the argument that a plane full of people is more than just a risk to the people, but so's a Ryder truck.

(My secret hope would be that, over time, at least one airline would go over to looking for *intent* like they do in Israel and in parts of England, and they would let the permittance of passengers to go armed take care of the rest of security. Hey, a man can dream, can't he?)

FeebMaster
November 2, 2004, 04:03 AM
c_yeager: What kind of idiot tries to board a plane this day in age with expired ID? You get what you get when you do stupid things.

Obviously she wasn't who she used to be before her Driver's License expired. She's lucky she wasn't driving with that Driver's License.



Finch: One lady get's a stick up he arse, decideds to plead to the media, and WOAH, the government is tromping on our freedoms.

Sweet Land of Liberty!

CZ 75 BD
November 2, 2004, 07:42 AM
said she is now packing Zale's Jewelers gift certificates in order to save time for the screeners.

Lone_Gunman
November 2, 2004, 08:21 AM
I've flown several times since 9/11 and think the screening is a joke.

I know in this day and age that "profiling" is not allowed, but in all honesty, when was the last time a plane was hi-jacked by a woman with a child?

Or a gray-haired old man wearing a Congressional Medal of Honor?

All common sense has been lost with airport screening.

The last time my wife and I flew, we flew on seperate flights. We had one bag each to check. My flight was first, and I wanted to check both bags on my flight, so I could go get them at baggage claim while I was waiting on my wife's flight to arrive. The person behind the counter told me I could not do that, I could only check my bag. I told her we were married and our stuff was packed up into both bags, some of mine was in hers, and vice versa, and that neither of them was "mine", they were both "ours". The lady became very confused by this. I don't advise playing this game with airport screeners, for fear it will blow their mind.

CatsDieNow
November 2, 2004, 09:01 AM
wprebeck,

While that was an interesting post, the distinction here is that I am going to Atlanta, not to prison. There is no acceptable reason to do this "good search".

I fly in 3 weeks and I am afraid that some TSA goon is going to want to frisk to me and I will have to refuse the search. :(

riverdog
November 2, 2004, 09:22 AM
Ft Worth to Atlanta=816 miles. That's a one day drive. You can take your guns and ammo, pack more stuff and you don't need a rental car when you get there. Why fly?

RW_Reagan
November 2, 2004, 10:07 AM
in regards to:

"For everyone who asks the "...how would you like..." question, answer me this: How would you like five to ten percent of the people you deal with in your jobs to have a screaming hissy fit when you attempted to perform your job?"


I'm an IT administrator, if I only have 5-10% of my users giving me a hissy fit for doing what they asked me to and not liking the results that would be a GOOD day.

CatsDieNow
November 2, 2004, 10:23 AM
riverdog,

Its a business trip. Not my money that paid for the tickets.

GhostRider-Nine
November 2, 2004, 10:31 AM
OK, I'll play devil's advocate here and ask: how exactly is the TSA supposed to find explaosives hidden in intimate areas w/o this type of invasice screening?

Maybe I would feel just a little better about being and seeing people getting felt up, if there was just a little common since involved. This past July I had to cross the country to go to my mothers funeral. I myself was chosen for the "extra screening." Along with me was a little old lady who looked like my grandmother used to look like. We got the extra security while a young middle eastern man just walked right on into to the plane without so much as a by your leave. Yeah, me and the little old lady were the real threat. Also I might add that I had very carefully packed my carry on. It had items from my moms estate that were very dear to me. The apes took it all out, and repacked it in such a way that tape had to be wrapped around the case because they could not get it closed....and when I got home I found that one item had been damaged by them. I think the next time I have to fly I will just wear my speedo to the airport.....trust me, that would be VERY scarry.

Shovelhead
November 2, 2004, 10:39 AM
The problem seems to be that if they choose the "Middle Eastern Looking" man,.....THAT would be "Racial Profiling".:banghead:

Cosmoline
November 2, 2004, 12:42 PM
What kind of idiot tries to board a plane this day in age with expired ID? You get what you get when you do stupid things.

There was a day when a driver license was just that--a license to drive. It's morphed into "ID", just as SSN's have gone from "oh, we promise we'll never use those for anything but social security" to a de facto national ID number.

The stupid thing was to let the problem get this far to begin with.

sendec
November 2, 2004, 06:22 PM
I have alot more experience working drugs than terrorism, but women with kids and seniors are in high demand as drug mules. Some of the seniors do it for money, others dont even realize what they are involved in.

If you think that the normal profile of a terr looks a certain way, you've already lost.

RevDisk
November 3, 2004, 02:25 AM
how exactly is the TSA supposed to find explaosives hidden in intimate areas w/o this type of invasice screening?

Bomb dogs, trace particle analysis, X-ray machine, etc. Don't forget metal detectors. You need more than just semtex to make a bomb. You need a mechanism to set it off.



I don't like flying commercial. I take maybe one commercial flight per year, coast to coast. I'm probably going to cut it to zero. It's not worth dealing with the airports and airlines.

America's question is, how much freedom are you willing to give for the illusion of safety? Most of America will say, all of it.

Coronach
November 3, 2004, 03:28 AM
The constitutional arguments about searches, in this instance, are not relevant. Why? Because consent of the person being searched allows the State to skip constitutional safeguards. You can consent to let a cop in your house without a warrant. You can consent to let a TSA guard grope you.

By buying a ticket to fly, you are giving consent.

Don't want to give consent? Don't buy a ticket.

We can argue all day about where this falls on the cost-benefits scale, or whether it is a good idea to do it at all. I'm all on board with that debate. But don't try to make this a constitutional argument. You're consenting to the search.

Mike

hammer4nc
November 3, 2004, 07:06 AM
Coronach:

You seem to have good knowledge of the specific facts relating to this contract with the travelling public...please tell us on what date, exactly, the contract was instituted. When planes were invented? When civilian passenger service began? During the 1970's? After 9/11? When TSA federalized airline security?

You say that all passengers consented. Sounds like it was unanimous. On the day this so-called contract was instituted, how many people did not agree to the provisions suspending the fourth amendment? You see, one of the requirements for a legally binding contract (among others) is that it not be coerced. So, with your knowledge of this subject, please fill in the details.

If such details are not available, sounds to me like its not a legal contract. Oh, you say that airlines are just a private vendors, setting the terms of service? How come violators of this private agreement are being carted off to jail? Is this a case of the government wanting to have it both ways?

Thanks in advance.

Cellar Dweller
November 3, 2004, 07:38 AM
You seem to have good knowledge of the specific facts relating to this contract with the travelling public...please tell us on what date, exactly, the contract was instituted. When planes were invented? When civilian passenger service began? During the 1970's? After 9/11? When TSA federalized airline security?

Sometime between the 70's and 9/11. I don't remember airport security being much of a presence in the late 80's, but when I flew regularly 1999-2000 if I wanted to get on the plane, I had to go through the security checkpoint.

There are signs posted that if you wish to enter the secure area, you are consenting to a search. You are implying your consent when your stuff touches the xray belt or you enter the metal detector, if you have no stuff or are too dense to take the $100 in change out of your pockets.

If TSA was re-privatized today, would you have a problem being checked? Or is the real issue being government drones doing security for private industry?

Private security does the same function at sporting events; isn't it unconstitutional because you can't bring in your own beer and food? Don't women get groped? Don't they seize knives and call the cops if you try to carry a weapon in or get unruly with the procedure? (Private security at a public owned facility, specifically Soldier Field which is owned by the Chicago Park District)

As a sometimes contractor Gov't/military security won't allow me to carry weapons on bases, isn't that unconstitutional? And I'm subject to search at any time after I enter, even without PC? I didn't sign anything, nobody told me, waaah waaah...Oh yeah, it's POSTED at the entrance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Appalling new TSA screening procedure" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!