Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Do I have the right to refuse this search? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Do I have the right to refuse this search?
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Certainly some of them at least, the ones who don't conform to the proper interpretation of Christianity as determined by ... whomever. Did I miss something?

Apparently.

That was from a thread about a pretty deranged bunch of Christians producing a new version of the bible that removed its 'liberal bias'. It is poking fun at their objecting to 'forgiveness' as being liberal wishy-washy stuff that ought to be removed, while as Aris correctly points out, it is the single most important Christian doctrine, and the point of the whole thing.

He is objecting to the far right and out-and-out capitalists rewriting Christianity to reflect their own preferences. If he is demonising anyone, it is American free-marketeers and conservatives. He is defending Christianity as standing up for the rights of the poor, the slaves, the downtrodden, rather than being made in to a tool used by the rich and powerful to oppress others.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So about refusing that search:
quote:

WASHINGTON – As the government reviews how an alleged terrorist was able to bring a bomb onto a U.S.-bound plane and try to blow it up on Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration is going after bloggers who wrote about a directive to increase security after the incident.

TSA special agents served subpoenas to travel bloggers Steve Frischling and Chris Elliott, demanding that they reveal who leaked the security directive to them. The government says the directive was not supposed to be disclosed to the public.

Frischling said he met with two TSA special agents Tuesday night at his Connecticut home for about three hours and again on Wednesday morning when he was forced to hand over his lap top computer.

Frischling said the agents threatened to interfere with his contract to write a blog for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines if he didn't cooperate and provide the name of the person who leaked the memo. "It literally showed up in my box," Frischling told The Associated Press. "I do not know who it came from." He said he provided the agents a signed statement to that effect.

In a Dec. 29 posting on his blog, Elliott said he had told the TSA agents at his house that he would call his lawyer and get back to them. Elliott said late Wednesday he could not comment until the legal issues had been resolved.

The TSA declined to say how many people were subpoenaed.


BTW, "This is the second time in a month that the TSA has found some of its sensitive airline security documents on the Internet."

The TSA, incompetent and apparently pretty powerful. You guys better watch what you say about them or you're liable to get a visit too ...

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> vulture


> Apparently.

Oh. As long as he was fine with all non-Christians being doomed to an eternity in Hell, I guess that's cool then. Nothing discriminatory about that.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
> vulture


> Apparently.

Oh. As long as he was fine with all non-Christians being doomed to an eternity in Hell, I guess that's cool then. Nothing discriminatory about that.

I'm sure you can be more coherent than this. Firstly you complain that Aris is anti-Christian and defends Islam, saying

quote:

So it does seem like you are one of "those people" who will bust the balls of anyone who has anything but complimentary things to say about Islam but then you'll turn around and bash Christians.

And when the refutation of that is provided, you complain about evangelical Christian doctrine and attribute it to him. Which is it? Is he bad person because he is anti-Christian and pro-Islam, or a bad person because he is an evangelical Christian (and NB I have no idea what Aris's beliefs might be, although since he is Greek I'd hazard a guess at atheist or Eastern Orthodox Christian; in either case I think you've still managed to attribute wholly fictional (and mutually contradictory) attitudes to him two times in a row - so I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here).

[ December 31, 2009, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: vulture ]

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm agnostic, leaning to atheism. I was raised Greek Orthodox.

And I don't understand what hypocrisy Cherry is supposedly accusing me of, since unlike Cherry I've never wanted Christians barred from airplanes or anywhere else.

I do have a special hatred against the Greek Orthodox CHURCH, but that's because of their support of tyrants and genocidal killers, not because of their faith. I don't transfer the hatred of the organization to mere believers: I doubt Cherry has any Muslim friends (or that he would keep them if they knew he was saying such stuff), but I do have Christian friends and family.

[ December 31, 2009, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, we can't do "muslim free" flights obviously. What we should be doing is profiling. We can be pretty sure the white lady from Wisconsin with 2 kids is pretty low risk. We can be pretty sure the black guy with Platinum status from Chicago is low risk. Etc, etc, etc. What about the 20-40 year old ME male? Not all 20-40 year old ME males are terrorists but it seems almost all terrorists are 20-40 year old ME males. Maybe we should give every 20-40 year old ME male an little extra hard looking over before we let him board the flight?

What's a ME male look like? G2 thinks we can all figure that out. Yeah, we'll catch some none ME males in that, sure; sorry about that. But we'll not be wasting our time and money on the obviously low risk people like we do now and then hoping they jump into action when the detonator fails like we currently plan on ... Christ that's moronic.

Air marshals, one a flight on every flight within the US and inbound international flights. El Al does it, it works. Been almost a decade since 9/11 and we still don't have enough air marshals? That's bull****. El Al profiles too ...

Have some real and consistent requirements for TSA screeners and real training once they're hired. These guys are beyond a joke. College degrees (maybe just 2 year degree to get hired but 4 for any supervisory position) and at least bilingual (don't have to be fluent, just enough to do the job).

A bomb sniffing dog or two at every security checkpoint, they could easily scan a great deal of incoming carry-on luggage and people. Those dogs are pretty damn good.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Well, we can't do "muslim free" flights obviously. What we should be doing is profiling. We can be pretty sure the white lady from Wisconsin with 2 kids is pretty low risk. We can be pretty sure the black guy with Platinum status from Chicago is low risk. Etc, etc, etc. What about the 20-40 year old ME male? Not all 20-40 year old ME males are terrorists but it seems almost all terrorists are 20-40 year old ME males. Maybe we should give every 20-40 year old ME male an little extra hard looking over before we let him board the flight?"

We could probably do a lot better by just having a few undercover agents follow known terrorists onto planes; or observing them before they get on the plane.

Planes seem to be high risk for terrorist attacks. After all, if there are bombs all over the US, it might be a lot easier to just blow up a few busy bus terminals in NYC than trying to sneak a bomb onto an airplane.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have trouble feeling like the nation would be as upset about bombing of Port Authority as it is about a foiled terrorist plot on an airplane. I mean, think about it: who's in Port Authority? Poor people and black people. I mean, it's sad for them if they get blown up and all, but it's unlikely to change your average policy-maker's holiday plans to fly two thousand miles to see the grandbabies.
Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Have some real and consistent requirements for TSA screeners and real training once they're hired. These guys are beyond a joke.

Yes!!!

quote:
Originally posted by G2:
College degrees (maybe just 2 year degree to get hired but 4 for any supervisory position) and at least bilingual (don't have to be fluent, just enough to do the job).

No!!!

Under what set of circumstances do you need to have a college degree to be a good cop? I'm pretty sure any good Irish beat cop from the 1880's could do a much better job than the current TSA employee.

We don't need useless credentials, we need motivated cops with a credible plan and a direct mandate. Of course, most of the current problem is as much poor management as anything.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah well, I can only wish I were this funny so I'd be making those big bucks. I guess I'll just have to settle for being more beautiful:

http://www.anncoulter.org/

IVANA TRUMP ESCORTED OFF PLANE: NAPOLITANO DECLARES 'THE SYSTEM WORKED'
December 30, 2009

At least she explained why Janet didn't take the father's warning seriosly:

"(To be fair, the father's warning might have been taken more seriously if he had not simultaneously asked for the U.S. Embassy's Social Security number and bank routing number in order to convey a $28 million inheritance that was trapped in a Nigerian bank account.)"

I take her point also about the indignity of not being able to use the bathroom for over an hour. What's the government doing? Taking a stake in adult diaper companies?

TSA screener: "Excuse me sir, but that underwear looks very suspicious. What is that?"

Customer: "Depends. Just in case I have to go."

TSA Screener: "Oh, is that also why you have a parachute in your backpack?"

Customer: "Yeah, also in case I have to go. And because you guys are a joke."

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
College degrees (maybe just 2 year degree to get hired but 4 for any supervisory position) and at least bilingual (don't have to be fluent, just enough to do the job).

No!!!

Under what set of circumstances do you need to have a college degree to be a good cop? I'm pretty sure any good Irish beat cop from the 1880's could do a much better job than the current TSA employee.

We don't need useless credentials, we need motivated cops with a credible plan and a direct mandate. Of course, most of the current problem is as much poor management as anything.

The acquisition of a college degree indicates you have someone that has the tools to think. It's not 100% accurate of course but given what the average high school produces it simply is not a reliable source of talent for this type of security work. We need someone that has the tools to think logically and interpret the rules developed within events as they occur in real time.

We cannot develop rules for every eventuality, these people need to be able to "think on their feet". The vast majority of high school graduates have not been given the education to allow them to do that and instead we end up with blind adherence to rules where obviously safe people are scrutinized beyond rationality at the expense of everyone involved. When the unusual happens - when we need these guys most - they're befuddled and just as likely to let it pass as they are to check further.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Under what set of circumstances do you need to have a college degree to be a good cop?"

You don't. College grads aren't trained to have the discipline for 9-5 analysis of this sort or for search and seizure. Security, military or police training are better than a BA in English. Then specialized training and testing on the specifics and OTJ supervised training for all hirees.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Wessex:
"Under what set of circumstances do you need to have a college degree to be a good cop?"

You don't. College grads aren't trained to have the discipline for 9-5 analysis of this sort or for search and seizure. Security, military or police training are better than a BA in English. Then specialized training and testing on the specifics and OTJ supervised training for all hirees.

A bachelor degree alone and then off to the front lines of security is not what G2 is saying - they would still require considerable training just as any other security/LEO. G2 has consulted with about 2 dozen police departments over the past decade or so. As best G2 can tell, they all require a bachelor's degree now. The last hold out on that made the transition last year and no longer hires those without 4 year degrees. Those already hired are frozen in their career and cannot be promoted until they get one (not sure how others grandfathered in). It's not just my anecdotal experience:
quote:
The majority of police departments require applicants to be 20 years old, a U.S. citizen, GED or equivalent and many now require an associate’s degree or bachelor’s degree to become a police officer. State and Federal agency jobs require applicants to possess a 4-year college degree. Being able to speak a second language fluently is a definite plus for applicants.
Those police departments not requiring at least a 2 year degree are usually sheriff's departments in G2's experience - not knocking the sheriff's department but it's a different beast than your average big city police department.

So why do you think State and Federal agency jobs (which the TSA is) require applicants to possess a 4-year college degree? Why is the TSA not held to that standard?

[ January 04, 2010, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can't hurt to have a BA, but I read your comment as saying that was the basic requirement for the job. Thanks for clarifying.

" It's not just my anecdotal experience: "

Is it also G2's experience?

[ January 04, 2010, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL] , it is indeed also G2's experience. Man, that 3rd person thing is hard until you get into the swing of it. G2 appreciates the reminder!

[ January 04, 2010, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We say "you're welcome", and would point out that a first-person multiple-personality persona would be easier to carry off. At least, we think so (don't we, guys?).

[ January 04, 2010, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Al Wessex ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The amount of time it would take to properly screen airline passengers, using extant technology, would create such crowd in airports that the crowds would themselves be the targets of suicide bombers.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
The amount of time it would take to properly screen airline passengers, using extant technology, would create such crowd in airports that the crowds would themselves be the targets of suicide bombers.

Yes indeed. Shudder.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by vulture:
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
> vulture


> Apparently.

Oh. As long as he was fine with all non-Christians being doomed to an eternity in Hell, I guess that's cool then. Nothing discriminatory about that.

I'm sure you can be more coherent than this. Firstly you complain that Aris is anti-Christian and defends Islam, saying

quote:

So it does seem like you are one of "those people" who will bust the balls of anyone who has anything but complimentary things to say about Islam but then you'll turn around and bash Christians.


Cherry doesn't have to like or even to respect Christianity in order to get sick of people who bitch incessantly about it. There's nothing incoherent about that.

I haven't observed Aris to be one of such persons, and don't think Cherry's comment was fair to Aris, but just replying to Vulture's comment that it was incoherent.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stayne
Member
Member # 1944

 - posted      Profile for stayne   Email stayne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
The amount of time it would take to properly screen airline passengers, using extant technology, would create such crowd in airports that the crowds would themselves be the targets of suicide bombers.

+1, Insightful.
Posts: 594 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Cherry doesn't have to like or even to respect Christianity in order to get sick of people who bitch incessantly about it. There's nothing incoherent about that.

I haven't observed Aris to be one of such persons, and don't think Cherry's comment was fair to Aris, but just replying to Vulture's comment that it was incoherent. "

So... cherry was wrong to randomly accuse Aris of attacking Christians, but its okay because people do attack Christians too much, and so cherry was right to randomly attack Aris for things he doesn't do?, and it was wrong for vulture to point out that cherry randomly attacked aris for something he didn't do because other people do do it sometimes, so uninvolved observers may feel the need to get involved? I'm getting a headache

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"+1, Insightful'

It's the "sight", is all. Saw the story on morning news, saw the huge crowds created, the rest was obvious since the fundamental topic was People Who Explode Bombs in Large Clusters of Innocent Civilians.

This whole thing is a joke. (The War on Terror, airport security, et al) Both sides -- al-qaeda, USA -- are waving bogeymen around to distract their respective populaces from more meaningful and crucial realities.

I so look forward to the day the Next Big Thing happens and 400 million heads swivel in unison to obsess on it for a decade.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This whole thing is a joke. (The War on Terror, airport security, et al) Both sides -- al-qaeda, USA -- are waving bogeymen around to distract their respective populaces from more meaningful and crucial realities.

Careful there ken...you're starting to sound like me...

[LOL]

I believe this latest incident was deliberately MIHOP or LIHOP to simply justify ratcheting up the police state measures on the American populace.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I sounded like you on this long before you did, D. I recall when you defended our invasion of Iraq via War on Terror notions.

I'm the guy who was even against invading Afghanistan.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:
I sounded like you on this long before you did, D. I recall when you defended our invasion of Iraq via War on Terror notions.

I'm the guy who was even against invading Afghanistan.

Does that mean I'm now sounding like you? [DOH] [Razz] [LOL]
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't insult you that deeply, D.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alrighty, G2 has just returned from his first flight of the year which was indeed a international hop. It was every bit the show G2 expected from security theater. Going out of the country, not much different than it's been the last few years although the customs guys were pretty pissy for some reason.

Coming back was a whole new show.
  • Documentation check at the ticket counter (normal).
  • Documentation check just past the ticket counter (normal but redundant).
  • Documentation check at the entrance to customs (first time G2 ever had 3 doc checks). The real doc check occurs when you get in front of the customs agent (that means a total of 4 doc checks!)
  • Deposit checked luggage (not examined by anyone as far as I know) on the conveyor belt for loading on the plane.
  • Now the first security hurdle, empty all pockets and turn inside out, remove shoes, remove belt, open carry-on bag for inspection , walk through metal detector. Turning pockets out and going through the carry on was new. None of this was optional and I don't care what scenario you think of - I saw them all tried.
  • Proceed to secondary screening where your carry-on is unpacked, *all* electronics turned on and off then you get to repack everything.
  • During secondary screening, you get a *extreme* pat down (separate lines for men and women), must have been a warning about armpit bombs that day based on the amount of time spent checking G2's pits. G2's inspector also appeared to have a collar fetish. Shoes are also re-examined at this time with what amounted to an acupressure massage. Pockets must again be emptied.

G2 was thus cleared for a return to the US. Total time from ticket counter to get past final inspection, about 2 hours. The lines were massive. This was about 8 AM so as the travel day spun up, G2 is sure it got worse.

Did this make the flight any more secure? Of course not. G2 flies about 100K miles a year both domestic and international, G2 is not on any watch list, G2 has no criminal record, G2 is not a muslim nor is ever he going to be mistaken for someone from the ME. That describes the vast majority of G2's co-passengers except for maybe the mileage although more than a few were frequent fliers. This flight was never in any danger from the passengers and everyone knew it. But how much time, energy and money is being wasted on this?

[ January 11, 2010, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But how much time, energy and money is being wasted on this?
Quite a lot. As you point out, it's all "security theater." There's no need for any of it.

Of course, I don't believe there's any need for profiling, either.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Al Wessex
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, but G2 refers to himself in the 3rd person. That is most suspicious, even moreso if done in the security line. If you can't dial it all the way back to "I", at least try "we".
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From the article in the OP:
quote:
What happened to me in Albany was not the promised “pat-down.” It was a full search conducted in full public view. It was also one of the most flawed searches I have ever witnessed.

From the outset, it was very clear that the screener would have preferred to be anywhere else. She acted as if she was afraid of me, though given that I had set myself apart as apparently crazy, perhaps I cannot blame her. With rubber-gloved hands she checked my head, my arms, my legs, my buttocks (and discovered a pen that had fallen into one of my pockets) and even the bottom of my feet. Perhaps in a nod to decorum, she did not check my crotch, my armpits or either breast area.

Here was a big problem: an effective search cannot nod to decorum.

These three areas on a woman, and the crotch area of men, offer the greatest opportunity to seclude weapons and contraband. Bad guys and girls rely on the type of reluctance displayed by this screener to get weapons and drugs past the authorities.

That has been fixed with the new enhanced pat down procedures. How "enhanced" are they? Let's see what Celeste, a rape victim, has to say:
quote:
Celeste is a seasoned air traveler. She estimates that she flies upwards of 60 times a year for her job and she knows all the ins and outs of most airports in the USA. Want to know which airport has the best sushi? Celeste can tell you. What she, and most other people didn’t know, was that on October 29th the TSA changed their security guidelines. “I flew to Chicago with no problems. Everything was the same as before. It was when I attempted to fly back to Minnesota that I found out about TSA’s new rules. What they did to me, in full view of everyone else in line, was like being sexually assaulted all over again. I was in shock. I hate myself that I allowed them to do this to me. I haven’t been able to stop crying since.”

<snip>

Coming back from Chicago, Celeste, like increasing numbers of travelers, was forced to make a difficult choice – either allow strangers to see her naked or allow strangers to touch and squeeze her breasts and groin in full view of other travels and TSA agents. “This was a nightmare come to life,” Celeste says, “I said I didn’t want them to see me naked and the agent started yelling Opt out- we have an opt here. Another agent took me aside and said they would have to pat me down. He told me he was going to touch my genitals and asked if I wouldn’t rather just go through the scanner, that it would be less humiliating for me. I was in shock. I couldn’t believe this was happening. I kept saying I don’t want any of this to happen. I was whispering please don’t do this, please, please.”

Since Celeste didn’t agree to go through the scanner, the enhanced pat down began. “He started at one leg and then ran his hand up to my crotch. He cupped and patted my crotch with his palm. Other flyers were watching this happen to me. At that point I closed my eyes and started praying to the Goddess for strength. He also cupped and then squeezed my breasts. That wasn’t the worst part. He touched my face, he touched my hair, stroking me. That’s when I started crying. It was so intimate, so horrible. I feel like I was being raped. There’s no way I can fly again. I can’t do it.”

Celeste’s experience is not an isolated or even unusual one.

Do you have the right to refuse this search? Sure you do. At that point law enforcement will escort you out of the airport. At least you better hope that's all that happens. In at least one case, they will call your employer and get you fired.

[ November 11, 2010, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've got an idea. It would require passengers who don't want to go through the machines to come in an extra forty minutes or so early though and cost forty dollars more (that includes the tip).

They should take you into a dimly lit back room with a massage table and have a masseuse of the gender of your choice give you a thirty minute massage. You’re practically getting one anyway, though you may prefer sports style or shiatsu or four-hands Swedish (costs extra) over TSA soft touch.

The masseuses are also trained and qualified TSA screeners, and they can have your clothes checked while you're on the table.

This way it could provide a happy ending for everyone. No, not THAT kind!

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
I've got an idea. It would require passengers who don't want to go through the machines to come in an extra forty minutes or so early though and cost forty dollars more (that includes the tip).

They should take you into a dimly lit back room with a massage table and have a masseuse of the gender of your choice give you a thirty minute massage. You’re practically getting one anyway, though you may prefer sports style or shiatsu or four-hands Swedish (costs extra) over TSA soft touch.

The masseuses are also trained and qualified TSA screeners, and they can have your clothes checked while you're on the table.

That would be absolutely genius!
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yet more thread necromancy -- though the actual ADDITION to the thread is interesting enough that it could make a fine new thread on it own, I almost didn't reach to reading it, because for some reason it was seen fit to be squeezed into the 2nd page of an old dead thread.

This continuing constant necromancy is seriously deteriorating my reading experience in this forum.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why? It's directly relates to the topic - TSA searches, your right to refuse them and how invasive they are. I even quote from the OP and show you just how perfectly the latest developments relate to past actions.

Yes, the actual ADDITION to the thread is interesting enough that it could make a fine new thread on it own but to look back and have the entire context of it built up around these new developments gives the new stuff a depth that simply dumping it on yet another thread can't. If I had simply dumped it as you suggest, would you have known that an expert in this area had already conclusively shown that previous pat down procedures were ineffective? Doesn't knowing that make you think at least a little differently about Celeste's trauma at reliving her sexual assault by essentially being assaulted again by a TSA agent? Does looking back and seeing the litany of TSA failures at even the most basic levels change the way you see these new, invasive and potentially illegal and unsafe procedures lead you to think this is a good idea or bad? You wouldn't have any of that context without this thread.

I find threads that are brought back with the most recent news to be among the most informative and thought provoking on the forum as we see our opinions recast in the light of current events and can do a little hindsight check on what we were told then vs. now.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As we think about Celeste, think about this one:
quote:
The middle-aged man in the blue shirt spoke gently, but directly, to Tabitha, as if he had done this a thousand times before with 12-year-old girls like her. In words tailored to her understanding, and designed to make what he was about to do seem normal, not creepy, the man in the blue shirt made it clear that if she didn’t do as he instructed she would not get to go to Disneyland. He merely wanted to show another man what was under Tabitha’s blouse and panties. Her refusal was so firm, and her face so alarmed, that he backed off and tried another tactic. If Tabitha would merely stand still while one of the man’s friends touched her body all over (caressing her in ways that no one ever had) then that would be the end of it, and she could go to Disneyland.
That's an intentionally provocative fictional dramatization of the new airline security protocol used by the TSA. But could it be true? Why yes, it most certainly could. From Reuters yesterday:
quote:
Some travelers are also livid about how children are being screened. During a trip last Sunday by a father and son through Orlando airport in Florida, the 8-year-old boy was selected for extra screening by TSA after going through the metal detector.

The father said the officer described the procedure before conducting it. Then he patted down the boy in the open security area, using the backside of his hands to check his genital area, he said.

"I didn't think it was going to be as horrible as he was describing," said the boy's father, Bill, who works as a lobbyist in Washington and did not want his full name used.

"We spend my child's whole life telling him that only mom, dad and a doctor can touch you in your private area, and now we have to add TSA agent and that's just wrong," he told Reuters

As Micheal Roberts put it:
quote:
After the shoe-bomber attempt, we had to remove our shoes. After the underpants bomber, we had to be electronically strip searched and groped.

What will happen, he asks, after the first time a terrorist smuggles a bomb on a plane inside his rectum or in a breast implant?

We're probably going to find out:
quote:
... Fadhel al-Maliki, a 35-year old Iraqi national, attempted to board an early morning, cross-country, US Airways flight out of Los Angeles International Airport. Hidden in his rectum was a device containing electrical wires, chewing gum and a rock. An airport screener noticed that al-Maliki was acting suspiciously. "He was nervous and sweating," I was told by the FBI.

Al-Maliki was asked to step aside and answer a few questions. Also according to my interview with the FBI, only after some heavy questioning about his odd behavior, and after being repeatedly asked by federal agents why he was sweating, did the former security guard admit to the untoward items hidden inside his lower body cavity.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And the one guy caught was caught without using any of the security-theater options, but based on normal, effective investigative techniques.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The defininitve answer on your right to refuse to be searched:
quote:
"Advanced imaging technology screening is optional for all passengers," TSA said in a statement released Monday. "Passengers who opt out of [advanced imaging] screening will receive alternative screening, including a physical pat-down."

But anyone who refuses to complete the screening process will be denied access to airport secure areas and could be subject to civil penalties, the administration said, citing a federal appeals court ruling in support of the rule.

The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, says that "requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by 'electing not to fly' on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found."

Refusal may result in being subjected to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This just shows we're rattling their cage, so they are upping the pressure.

Can't wait for the first lawsuit on that one. Show me the law I broke and who/where/when it was passed.

While the ACLU probably wouldn't touch it (they might, but are biased in what they support), some of the liberty non-profits will jump all over this one.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm so sick of the "post-9/11 world" arguments. They're complete crap. I studied terrorism in college in the mid-1990s. By the time of 9/11, most of the terrorist groups I studied were gone or seriously undermined. Terrorism has been on the decline worldwide for quite a while. And yet, Americans are so completely freaked by 9/11 that we hyperventilate and overreact in the stupidest possible ways.

The lesson? America is very easily shaken and manipulated by terror. Whatever moral and philosophical spine we have has seriously atrophied.

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drew, you miss the point. This is not about terrorism and security - it's about getting the public to kowtow to totalitarian actions by federal officials. Every “real” security in the world looks at this theater and laughs – it’s ridiculous. If it was really about terrorism and making us safe, they wouldn’t be feeling up grandma and your kids.

A full blog post on that 10k fine garbage: http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

The main thing to remember/know, if you elect to go this protest route, is to be perfectly calm and reasonable but know your right for what constitutes being detained. Ask if you are being detained, if they answer anything other than yes, then you state "since I am not being detained, I am leaving" and then leave. Even filling out the paperwork that very well is, technically speaking, "voluntary". If they are not going to detain you, then you are free to go.

Civil disobedience, but you absolutely must remain calm and polite at all times.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1