TSA Sexual Assault

 

Is it legal to sexually harass someone as long as you're a TSA agent?

http://www.ourlittlechatterboxes.com/2010/11/tsa-sexual-assa...

TSA to investigate body scan resister
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/15/tsa-probe-sca...

If I understand this correctly, air travelers options are:
- expose ourselves to a small dose of radiation or
- be humiliated/sexually molested or
- be prosecuted and penalized for refusing to do either one

Is this still the land of the free?

3 4 5
<<Page 2>>

.

bilson wrote:
chewbacca wrote:
bilson wrote:

You now have two choices, be scanned or pat-down, or don't fly.

TSA won't let you off the hook that easy once you're at security checkpoint @ the airport.

Don't fly means take another mode of transportation! Da

So many are complaining that the government is taking away your freedom. I hate to differ with you but the gov. is trying to protect you from those who are trying to kill you. Complain to them.

Recap
The guy wants to fly because he wasn't aware of the new body scanner at San Diego airport (TSA website doesn't indicate there's one there). My understanding is that if he was aware of it, he wouldn't have bought a ticket. He finally decided to cancel his flight and go back home but the TSA wouldn't let go off him without threatening him with prosecution or penalty. There's no freedom to choose. That's what I wanted to point out.

You're entitled to your own opinion and I respect that. The new security approach only makes us "feel safe" but does little to none to protect us. It's a security theater at its best. That's my opinion.

Prevent, no. Reduce, probably

GadgetGuy2008 wrote:

If you believe for a second that the TSA's security measures would prevent a terrorist from blowing up a plane then I have some beach front property in Kansas to sell you.

What you (and others) seem to be saying is that, since security measures cannot prevent terrorists from blowing up an airplane, then any security measures will be in vain and therefore we should not even try.

I think back many years when fear of flying was driven by skyjacking. The TSA implemented a number of measures that have reduced skyjacking (but not eliminated it) - one of which was metal detectors.

When suicide bombers are willing to strap explosives to themselves and detonate them to make a point, new measures are required. Will all of them work? Obviously not. Should we try them? Obviously!

As has been suggested, profiling is one measure already in use. Luggage searches is another. Are they enough. Probably not. Seems to me that scanners are the best of the alternatives I have read about.

.

jgermann - so now that the terrorists have started to put explosives inside their body cavities, how exactly do you think the TSA should react? Require anal probes for all passengers???

The terrorists are actually accomplishing some of their goals because they have made people afraid to fly. And the irony is that our fear is being generated by the TSA more than the terrorists!!!!

TSA Scanning

Sean Hannity had a good idea on his show the other day. He thinks we ought to adopt the Israeli method. Basically, they profile. If people don't like it - tough. They could pull out the people meeting the profile criteria and give them a choice of the full body scan or a pat down. The rest of us could go through the existing detectors, which are not, in my opinion, an invasion of privacy. Meanwhile, I'm not going to fly anywhere, unless it becomes absolutely necessary.

When things like this:

When things like this: http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628 are happening changes need to happen. http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13526724 Is totally unacceptable.

No one should ever have to feel personally violated like this. There needs to be more sensitivity and compassion shown.

Miss POI

Fear vs. reality

jgermann wrote:

I think back many years when fear of flying was driven by skyjacking. The TSA implemented a number of measures that have reduced skyjacking (but not eliminated it) - one of which was metal detectors.

A few facts:
1. It was not the TSA.
2. The measures reduced the fear of skyjacking. On 9/11, the hijackers used boxcutters, which would have been detected by the existing screening process, but were permitted on board as they weren't considered a significant threat.
3. Despite being armed with permitted or forbidden weapons, on numerous occasions, other passengers have successfully thwarted attempted attacks.

Now, venturing into my opinions:
1. I believe the intent of TSA's search procedures is to assuage the fear of being harmed while traveling.
2. The current process of semi-random selection for further screening means that a well-organized group of would-be attackers could probably get several people through security.
3. Locking the cockpit was a good idea, and way overdue.
4. Homicidal people will still try to kill other people.
5. As passengers, we have the responsibility and ability to act to protect ourselves while underway.
6. TSA hides behind a cloak of secrecy whenever someone questions the purpose or expected extent of search procedures. This fosters grave abuse of authority.
7. The 4th Amendment asserts your right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Searches by law enforcement require a warrant or your explicit consent. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time during the search. Recent stories involving TSA show a blatant disregard for and an assumption of authority over these important rights.
8. Nobody touches my children or me without my explicit consent, and entering a security checkpoint does not itself constitute said consent.
9. We should be writing letters to Congress demanding that they exercise direct oversight of TSA.

Beyond that, vote on purpose, every time.

It's Bull Shit

bilson wrote:

Remember the six Muslim men that was taken off a US Airways flight last year in Minneapolis?

They refused to sit in their assigned seats. Instead, it is claimed that they fanned out in the cabin, sitting in pairs close to the front, middle, and rear exit rows. Two of them seated in Coach Row 9 requested seatbelt extensions (a strap with large metal buckles normally used by obese individuals to lengthen their seatbelts), even though flight staff say none seemed to need it. They then placed the extensions on the cabin floor in front of them, instead of attaching them to their seatbelts. Three of them traveled without any checked baggage, and on one-way tickets, and according to a nearby passenger who spoke Arabic, the two sitting in the back of the plane, while speaking to each other in Arabic, mentioned Osama bin Laden and condemned America for "killing Saddam".

Now at least I know that they have been scanned and the chances of them having explosives are pretty slim. No profiling needed, everyone gets the same treatment. Makes me feel a little safer.

You now have two choices, be scanned or pat-down, or don't fly.

By the way, those six muslims sued the airlines and some of the passengers. Here's the whole story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Imams_controversy

The Israelis don't use these ridiculous methods and they do not have a terrorist problem on their planes. Just use the methods they do.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Video

Not2Bright - speed limits

Now, all laws restrict your freedoms. Some laws we agree with, some we don't. Driving on the specified side of the highway seems a reasonable law to some, as do speed limits.
==
Sorry but all speed limits are not created equal. There are some that seem to be another way for the government to intrude on your space and time.

In particular, when you see a road at 30 or whatever and people can safely drive it at 40 or whatever, you should question why is the speed so low, and why is that officer pointing that speed measuring device at traffic.

As for TSA, it is a bit out of hand. More to our GPS issues, can anyone explain why the some of the boarder patrol act like (insert word of your choice) for US citizens returning home.

Strephon_Alkhalikoi - taking the bus, train or car

Sure unless you have to travel for work. A lot of people who travel for work cannot spend days getting from one location to another.

mdh31951 - What will we day

Friend, unfortunately some US citizens are aiding the bad guys.

lizlovesmustangs - placebo

+1

Profiling will not be limited to Muslims...

Timothy McVeigh...

Ted Kaczinski...

Eric Rudolph...

Bill Ayers...

Terry Nichols...

All bombers...

So, profile single white males?

Christians?

Environmentalists?

Ex-military?

I believe everything. And I believe nothing. I suspect everyone. And I suspect no one. I gather the facts, examine the clues...and before you know , the case is solved!
Inspector Clouseau, A Shot in the Dark (1964)

Just released - pilots are

Just released - pilots are no longer subject to pat downs or body scans.

Problem solves, just be a pilot and you can avoid what is considered "standard" in most of Europe.

more drivers on the road

jgermann wrote:

By the way, what does this subject have to do with GPS units?

i can think of is, more travelers may opt to drive instead of fly, so, likely to be more demands on GPSr as more drivers will hit the road.

I Agree With Chewbacca!

The new security approach only makes us "feel safe" but does little to none to protect us. It's a security theater at its best. That's my opinion.

As a Retired NYPD Officer, I can surely tell you at any given moment anyone can "get got"...meaning we are vulnerable at all times. These "safety measures" are laughable, providing a false sense of security. Most of the TSA "officers" and various other employees are poorly trained and lack adequate law enforcement skills.

There are so many holes in airport security its scary....I will not elaborate...but trust me.

--
My Toys: MacBook Pro Unibody, Nuvi 2589

Logical

abin wrote:
jgermann wrote:

By the way, what does this subject have to do with GPS units?

i can think of is, more travelers may opt to drive instead of fly, so, likely to be more demands on GPSr as more drivers will hit the road.

Good conclusion

GPS- TSA- E-Harmony

jgermann wrote:

By the way, what does this subject have to do with GPS units?

I guess the TSA is mapping your coordinates to become more familiar with you.

it is only a matter of time before they hook up with e-harmony to offer indepth info on your potential date.

--
Being ALL I can be for HIM! Jesus. Kenwood DNX9980HD Garmin 885t

Mr. Obvious Is Obvious

GN2 wrote:

Sure unless you have to travel for work. A lot of people who travel for work cannot spend days getting from one location to another.

Methinks you misread my question, though given how rapidly you posted your replies I almost thought you were simply trying to inflate a non-existent post count.

It asks "which would you rather do", thus allowing for a choice. If you don't have a choice in the matter, then I guess you can't answer the question.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

You are correct

RhythmTip wrote:

The new security approach only makes us "feel safe" but does little to none to protect us. It's a security theater at its best. That's my opinion.

As a Retired NYPD Officer, I can surely tell you at any given moment anyone can "get got"...meaning we are vulnerable at all times. These "safety measures" are laughable, providing a false sense of security. Most of the TSA "officers" and various other employees are poorly trained and lack adequate law enforcement skills.

There are so many holes in airport security its scary....I will not elaborate...but trust me.

That is why my first post is tittled "Bull Shit".

It is a total scam on the part of the government to make the public feel as if these measures will be adequate to protect them. IMHO it a program designed to move the public further down the road of accepting more compliance to what ever the government says is necessary. The current crop of TSA workers for the most part could never be trained to perform serious security checks as the Israelis do. In order to perform that kind of task, one must have a higher level of intelligence than the current TSA workers have, and a specific set social skills that the minimum wage workers that TSA uses do not have.

Flying has become such a miserable experience I only do it out of necessity. If I can drive where I want to go, that is what I do. In that regard the Islamic extremists have won.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Opt OUT??

So...you are willing to opt out AND MISS YOUR FLIGHT?
You and most other folks WILL MISS YOUR FLIGHTS by doing this. Yea, its a pain. But I remember Sept 11th vividly and if this is what it takes to prevent it I can PUT UP WITH BEING "scanned". If another U.S. airliner goes down, you will be the first to scream "WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING"? I investigate airline accidents, and the things I have seen would make you realize that the people trying to bring these aircraft down will do ANYTHING to make it happen!!
Happy Thanksgiving....

Right on!

miss poi wrote:

When things like this: http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628 are happening changes need to happen. http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13526724 Is totally unacceptable.

No one should ever have to feel personally violated like this. There needs to be more sensitivity and compassion shown.

Miss POI

From the OP's links and yours it is apparent some TSA agents are doing an unacceptable job. This is likely the fault of the training (or lack of it), not the individual agents. If it is the fault of the agents, they should be discharged, if the fault of the training: shame on TSA.

--
Ted in Ohio, c340, 1490T with lifetime maps

There is nothing to worry about -- Bull Shit -- read the link

dei08dei wrote:

So...you are willing to opt out AND MISS YOUR FLIGHT?
You and most other folks WILL MISS YOUR FLIGHTS by doing this. Yea, its a pain. But I remember Sept 11th vividly and if this is what it takes to prevent it I can PUT UP WITH BEING "scanned". If another U.S. airliner goes down, you will be the first to scream "WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING"? I investigate airline accidents, and the things I have seen would make you realize that the people trying to bring these aircraft down will do ANYTHING to make it happen!!
Happy Thanksgiving....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35498347/UCSF-letter-to-Holdren-co...

The warning letter was written by four highly qualified (one a Noble Prize Laureate)scientists. After reading the letter if you still believe that there is no risk please feel free to pass your young children and pregnant wife through the scanner.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Please remember to give thanks for what you have.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

Obama seeks less intrusive air security measures

--
All the worlds indeed a stage and we are merely players. Rush

See what infamous lawyer Gloria Allred had to say...

About her close encounter with the TSA:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/19/gloria_all...

Then, hope you can forget what you just saw...it should bury the needle on your "Yikes!!" meter.

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

Legislation comes from Congress

d-moo70 wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/11/20/obama-flight-security-screening.html?ref=fh,eagle.ca

Makes a good sound byte for the President but only Congressman Ron Paul is doing anything about it: The American Traveler Dignity Act (http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...)

Obama may seek

And the other party may talk..
But Paul acts.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-11-17/ron-paul-to-tsa-stop-radia...

If you want TSA to stop, and force them to focus on actually finding ways to make flying secure, then contact your reps & ask them to support HR 6416 in the House, and get it into the Senate and passed.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/congress.php
The beauty of that Rep lookup link is it also shows your Rep's track record on key liberty issues.

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

?

chewbacca wrote:
bilson wrote:
chewbacca wrote:
bilson wrote:

You now have two choices, be scanned or pat-down, or don't fly.

TSA won't let you off the hook that easy once you're at security checkpoint @ the airport.

Don't fly means take another mode of transportation! Da

So many are complaining that the government is taking away your freedom. I hate to differ with you but the gov. is trying to protect you from those who are trying to kill you. Complain to them.

Recap
The guy wants to fly because he wasn't aware of the new body scanner at San Diego airport (TSA website doesn't indicate there's one there). My understanding is that if he was aware of it, he wouldn't have bought a ticket. He finally decided to cancel his flight and go back home but the TSA wouldn't let go off him without threatening him with prosecution or penalty. There's no freedom to choose. That's what I wanted to point out.

You're entitled to your own opinion and I respect that. The new security approach only makes us "feel safe" but does little to none to protect us. It's a security theater at its best. That's my opinion.

If I understand this correctly, air travelers options are:
- expose ourselves to a small dose of radiation or
- be humiliated/sexually molested or
- be prosecuted and penalized for refusing to do either one

What is it you don't understand? Two Choices; Fly with TSA or Don't Fly! If you are all ready at the Airport, than you decided to fly.

--
Looking for a place to go this summer? Try Oshkosh, WI, July 20-26, 2015. The largest gathering of aircraft in the world. http://www.airventure.org/index.html

"They who can give up

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Whatevs'

Let the government check out my junk if it wants.

I'm not sure what the alternative is . . .

A few people here suggested profiling, but profiling only gets you so far. Timothy McVeigh was not a Muslim radical but managed to, almost single-handedly, commit the largest terrorist attack on US soil, when it occurred some fifteen years ago.

Truth is that there are any number of random nutjobs who want to do us harm and trying to pick those people out of a crowd is an exercise in futility, IMHO.

Truer Words Have Never Been Spoken

ricardo1594 wrote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

I've posted this quote before. But oh how true it is.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Alert - New TSA Rule

The TSA now bans you from packing your printer cartridges in your luggage.

--
Looking for a place to go this summer? Try Oshkosh, WI, July 20-26, 2015. The largest gathering of aircraft in the world. http://www.airventure.org/index.html

The effect

My wife heard about the rules and was disturbed by them. Then our neighbor came home from a trip and relayed how he had been molested. She canceled our annual winter Florida trip, at least by air. She won't subject our kids to the scanner and she won't allow them to be molested. Apparently, unless there's a significant rules change we're done flying to vacation destinations.

Word to the wise from my neighbor. Unless you're fine with the cancer scanner, don't travel in sweat pants! If you do, your molestation will be significantly worse (they reached in and grabbed his junk!). The TSA has also created the ultimate dream job for pedophiles who don't have existing police records.

--
Lost on LI

It's not racial profiling

scott_dog wrote:

Let the government check out my junk if it wants.

I'm not sure what the alternative is . . .

A few people here suggested profiling, but profiling only gets you so far. Timothy McVeigh was not a Muslim radical but managed to, almost single-handedly, commit the largest terrorist attack on US soil, when it occurred some fifteen years ago.

Truth is that there are any number of random nutjobs who want to do us harm and trying to pick those people out of a crowd is an exercise in futility, IMHO.

The Israelis do not use racial profiling. They use a very sophisticated method of psychological profiling to pull people out of line for an in depth interview.
People that are up to no good have certain involuntary ways of acting that can be detected by trained observers. It is these people that are asked to leave the line and are questioned in greater detail. If they do not satisfy the questioner, the interview gets more intense and physiological pressure is exerted until the security people are satisfied that the person is either a threat or not. To the best of my knowledge people are subjected to radiological scans.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

TSA - Sterile Gloves ...

> Just how often do they change gloves?

Infrequently.

> How many people get fondled by the same pair of
> gloves?

Their SOPs require that the wear new/fresh gloves for
every pat-down.

I opt out of the Nudie-Scopes. I have had three
pat-downs. In all three instances, I had to request
(insist) on fresh/sterile gloves (not gloves from
their pockets). I was also asked to state an
acceptable reason.

> Do they understand the concept of cross-
> contamination?

No. TSO's are not trained about the risks (to
themselves, the public or their families.)

What are the risks? On average, in the USA, ~16% of
the populace has an active STD. Teen girls? ~25%.
Black males? ~40%.

I'm compiling a list of "appropriate" songs re: the
latest TSA nonsense:

www.tsagreatesthits.com

--
I spend 80% of my money on airplanes & beer. The rest is wasted.

Half of them could not hold a real job

rainsux wrote:

> Just how often do they change gloves?

Infrequently.

> How many people get fondled by the same pair of
> gloves?

Their SOPs require that the wear new/fresh gloves for
every pat-down.

I opt out of the Nudie-Scopes. I have had three
pat-downs. In all three instances, I had to request
(insist) on fresh/sterile gloves (not gloves from
their pockets). I was also asked to state an
acceptable reason.

> Do they understand the concept of cross-
> contamination?

No. TSO's are not trained about the risks (to
themselves, the public or their families.)

What are the risks? On average, in the USA, ~16% of
the populace has an active STD. Teen girls? ~25%.
Black males? ~40%.

I'm compiling a list of "appropriate" songs re: the
latest TSA nonsense:

www.tsagreatesthits.com

It is my carefully considered opinion that half or more of the TSA workers are ex-long term unemployed that have no qualifications for a "real" job. I have had enough contact with TSA personnel to form an opinion that a great number of them are uneducated and could not function in the private sector where performance standards of a reasonable level are established. Please read between the lines to understand my meaning.

--
"Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

security and searches

"expose ourselves to a small dose of radiation"

The TSA indicates about equivalent of 2 minutes of radiation when flying at altitude (which would typically be 30-40k feet). Assuming this is correct, my reaction is "so what?"

"humiliated/sexually molested"

This gets into someone's subjective reaction to being touched. I come originally from Northern Ireland where full body pat downs when entering buildings (and certainly airports/aircraft) were a fact of everyday life. Extraordinary security procedures sometimes extended to mainland Britain. It was a necessary evil. In general people realized that and got on with life. The complainers in my opinion were those allied to terrorists and whose political objective was to create mischief. Now in the current context of the U.S. situation in airports, if there are *genuine* cases of people being groped or molested, then there are policies and paths of legal recourse to address that. Give the process a chance to run its course.

"prosecuted and penalized for refusing to do either one"

Prosecuted? I can only imagine if you assault an officer and/or are carrying illegal items. Penalized? OK, if you refuse to be searched, then your option is to turn around and go home. Sorry, but tough s**t.

"Is this still the land of the free?"

You have realize that if there terrorist incidents, the inevitable result will be even more draconian security measures than you have today. Your freedoms will be abridged even further. The TSA has a tough job - they are trying to keep people safe amidst hostility from the vocal portions of the public. People need to consider the lesser of of two evils - accepting some level of intrusiveness, including touching your body, or get ready to live in an outright police state if terrorists succeed. A good analogy is cancer - to keep it from spreading, most people elect go through usually painful, agonizing treatments. The alternative is you die. That is not an option here.

Made up stats?!!!

rainsux wrote:

What are the risks?
On average, in the USA, ~16% of the populace has an active STD.
Teen girls? ~25%.
Black males? ~40%.

WTH? where are these stats from?

--
My Toys: MacBook Pro Unibody, Nuvi 2589

the flip side

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:
ricardo1594 wrote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

I've posted this quote before. But oh how true it is.

This is a quote used by several people in discussions concerning government actions with which people disagree. I have never understood how it applied.

The fact that there is someone who disgrees with any government action is something everyone should consider and try to resolve the implications in their own mind.

The fact that the quote is from one of the "founding fathers" and seems to support agruments that red ligh cameras (and now TSA scanners) are taking away our "freedoms". When some give the quote, they substitute "safety" with "freedom".

I have not been able to find out what prompted Franklin to pen the above. However, it might be helpful to look at the words and see if they apply to the situations at hand.

What might "essential liberty" and "temporary freedom" mean. Surely none of the users of this quote would think that getting a ticket from Automated Traffic Enforcement was an "essential liberty". Is thinking that there should be laws intended to reduce the likelihood that one will not be broadsided by someone running a red light to be equated to wanting "temporary safety"

Is there some "essential liberty" that says that one should be able to take a gun or explosives onto a plane or into a courtroom. No one would say that, I hope.

One of the definitions is "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases". That is what Timothy McVeigh did. Does anyone think that he should have had the "liberty" to do that? Laws are the mechanisms by which a civilized society decide how much "freedom" should be ceded to individual choices.

And yet, Timothy McVeigh's "liberty" is the probably unintended "flip side" of the Franklin quote.

It would be better to push for effective ways of accomplishing a goal of keeping terrorists or Timothy McVeigh off airplanes. As it is, many people are reacting to well intentioned methods with the claim that the government is "sexually assualting" its citizens.

I doubt that any of those who have bought into the "sexually assualting" concept have ever given a second thought to the fact that police officers "pat down" suspects before putting them into the police car. The argument will be that is different - those people are suspects. Yet, there is the presumption used by many posters that we are presumed to be "innocent until proven guilty". And yes, it does seem very silly to subject children to pat downs.

Are all the laws intended to promote long term safety appropriate. I would say not because unintended consequences can occur. There are opposing camps about the amount of radiation absorbed by the body. Surely this needs more study to determine the true effect as has been pointed out in posts above.

It is interesting how debates get framed. In this case chewbacca did so by saying

Quote:

Is it legal to sexually harass someone as long as you're a TSA agent?

Would any Grand Jury charge some TSA employee with "sexual assualt"? Certainly not, but the debate was framed.

Some have tried to make the discussion useful by pointing out that profiling (as practiced by Israel) is very effective. Others have responded that there are plenty of white males who have committed atrocities.

I think the answer will be some effective way to mechanically "sniff" explosive materials coupled with metal detectors for people and xrays for carry on luggage.

Unreasonable Search

To my mind, the "enhanced" pat-down falls under unreasonable search and seizure.

Franklin was quoted as saying those famous words in 1775, as shown in the book Memoirs of the Life of Benjamin Franklin, Page 270. He wrote the words as part of his response to a proposal in the Pennsylvania Colonial Government to plead with the King to repeal the Intolerable Acts (Coercive Acts of 1774). In his response he makes brief comments in response to certain articles in the aforementioned proposal. He makes a longer comment about the Boston Port Act, which closed Boston until the tea lost in the Boston Tea Party was paid for. In that comment he mentions that the colonists were wrong in dumping the tea and should pay for it. At the same time he believes the damage done to Boston by the port act should be repaired.

Franklin's quote was in direct response to the Massachusetts Government Act, which changed the government of Massachusetts to bring it under British control, and the Administration of Justice Act, which allowed the governor of Massachusetts to move trials of royal officials to other colonies or even Great Britain itself.

The quote applies because the Intolerable Acts were seen by the colonists as a violation of their constitutional rights, natural rights, and the colonial charters. The TSA is Great Britain, violating human rights in the name of security.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

more fuel to the fire

The government doesn’t want to profile because it may be interpreted as discriminating against Islamic people, if you think that may be insulting to them ask yourself, a religion that wants their women covered from head to toe and persecute homosexuals, how do you think they feel about the machine where she be shown on her birthday suit, or have their women subjected by a pat down by another woman who may or not be homosexual?

Does the TSA practice don’t ask don’t tell?

--
Garmin 38 - Magellan Gold - Garmin Yellow eTrex - Nuvi 260 - Nuvi 2460LMT - Google Nexus 7 - Toyota Entune NAV

A Community

jgermann wrote:

By the way, what does this subject have to do with GPS units?

I don't think there are any off limit topics. We've become more than a POI/GPS site, it's a community.

What would be nice would be a way to filter which unread threads we get.

--
The Wizard of Ahhhhhhhs - Earned my Windmill 4/12/2010

.

flaco wrote:
GadgetGuy2008 wrote:

If you believe for a second that the TSA's security measures would prevent a terrorist from blowing up a plane then I have some beach front property in Kansas to sell you.

So far TSA is 0 for 3, the shoe bomber got on board and shoe failed to detonate, underwear bomber also on board and bomb did not go off as intended, packages shipped from overseas did not go off.

We are not getting good at catching terrorist before boarding, just being lucky.

I have to disagree. All we know is we got lucky three times, three they didn't catch. We have no idea how many didn't try because of TSA presence. We have no idea how many have been caught, because that is usually kept secret lest we potentially realize how many attempts are made and we bankrupt our airlines by not flying. We have no idea how many never make it to the TSA line because other agencies intercept attempts before they even get to the airports.

That all said, I don't and won't fly if I have any other choice because I agree, we're fast approaching police state status.

The downside is, were there no TSA, we probably would have lost flights to bombers or hijackers once again... and the solution to that is to supplant governments that protect terrorists.

Of course, that means we will be the bullies of the world... but that's really not a change.

We've only gone to war against a specific government, defending outselves, twice. (Three times if you include Iraq-2.) WWII and The War of 1812. All other wars, we've aggressed, involved ourselves as third parties, or "made up" facts that implied we'd been attacked.

There!! That should start an interesting argument. wink

--
The Wizard of Ahhhhhhhs - Earned my Windmill 4/12/2010

Thanks for the Info

Strephon_Alkhalikoi wrote:

To my mind, the "enhanced" pat-down falls under unreasonable search and seizure.
...
The quote applies because the Intolerable Acts were seen by the colonists as a violation of their constitutional rights, natural rights, and the colonial charters. The TSA is Great Britain, violating human rights in the name of security.

I have often wondered where the quote came from and appreciate the background information. I have saved your explanation.

Now, whether the the scanners rise to the level of "intolerable" is something reasonable persons can disagree on. I would not say that constitutional rights or natural rights are being violated. Some TSA employees have done some stupid things clearly, especially in the case of the young girl being patted down. However, "violating human rights" is in the eye of the beholder in this particular circumstance.

To all those who want to opt out

I say go ahead. But don't do a half a**ed job!

Opt out completely and STAY AWAY from the airport!

If you don't wish to submit to the required security procedures, then don't fly. It's as simple as that. Nobody is forcing you to fly, and there is no right to fly that you are being denied. If you choose to fly, there are certain rules that you must abide by.

This same rule applies to all aspects of life. Whatever I choose to do, there are certain rules presented by the society that I live in, that I must abide by. Those rules constrain me in ways that I may not like, but I must submit to be part of society.

oops.

oops.

touchy....

this is a sensative topic to discuss. really don't know what I'd do if I were in the situation.

I love this Farm!

Some sheep find a hole in the fence.
Some become dinner for the wolf.
Some lunge at the dog before moving on.
Some live out their lives happily making warm clothing material.
And some are destined to be covered in mint sauce.

--
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.

No matter how you feel about this

--
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else. - Yogi Berra

TSA Can Kiss My Ass

jgermann wrote:

However, "violating human rights" is in the eye of the beholder in this particular circumstance.

We are not cattle, but human beings. We have the inalienable human right to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of race, religious inclination, or gender. Yet whenever people go through airport screenings, whether radiation scanner or "enhanced" pat-down, they are treated as if they are nothing more than cattle. They are NOT treated with dignity nor respect. Worse, while it would be denied, subconsciously the TSA DOES profile. If you look like you're from the Middle East, whether you're wearing a head scarf or not, you're more likely to get the TSA's special treatment. If your religion is Islam, you're more likely to get the TSA's special treatment. If you're a woman, then you will probably get the special treatment if you don't look butt ugly.

The point here is that the TSA, in pursuing its mandate, has proven itself no better than governments that routinely persecute their citizens because they look different, don't believe in the same god the government does, or are of the wrong gender. The TSA would have you believe they respect your rights, but if they did then they wouldn't be groping for your junk, would they.

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams
3 4 5
<<Page 2>>