2 by 2, hands of blue by piratenews

I want to make a t-shirt that says:

"May I respectfully request that I be pat down by a hot, female TSO?"

On the backside, it can say, "Please touch my junk."

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 4:07 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
We NEED to let the professionals do their job.

I've avoided comment on this issue because I was weighing the legitmate need to inspect passangers against the unreasonable nature of the search.

On one hand we have a Constitutional right to be safe from unreasonable searches. This search is by definition unreasonable. But there are circumstances in which the govt can act in contravention to your rights so long as Due Process is respected. For example, stop and frisk searches (brief pat-downs, very limited in nature and scope) are allowed in many situations in order to check for weapons. In those searches the procedure used is very specific, very limited and while intrusive the searches usually don't involve touching sensitive areas.

More intrusive searches can also be allowed in other situations. For example, a more detailed examination can occur before you are placed in a police car after being arrested or before you are placed in a jail cell. Police can also obtain a warrant or sometime by statute conduct further searches (like taking blood against your consent for a 3rd offense OVI her in Ohio).

The issue involved with these searches is not the intrusive nature, since intrusive searches have been found to be Constitutional.

The issue here is the lack of Due Process. If a police officer wants you to perform field sobriety tests he has to obtain your consent OR have reasonable articulable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances. Reasonable suspicion is the required starting point for every govt search and seizure and only a starting point, the more intrusive the search the greater the burdon on the police to justify it.

In this case there is no reasonable suspicion. These checks are random. They have, in effect, no suspicion of wrong doing. The TSA agents can't say anything more then 'he got picked' and then 'he opted out of the body scanner'. That is a lack of substantive due process and these searches should be halted immediately. In the alternative they could require them of everyone in which case its merely a condition of flying in which case they would be allowed (because flying is not a right).

There is also a lack of procedural due process since the decision of who to search is an administrative process. A person required to comply by an administrative decision must be allowed to appeal or contest that ruling in a full hearing before a person or persons acting as a finder of fact in an administrative law proceeding. For example, I sit on my City's Animal Appeal Board. If your dog is deemed vicious (cause it bit somebody) you can appeal that decision to my Board. There is a hearing, we deliberate and vote. Its recorded, a report is issued, and that in turn can be appealed into the Courts. I also prosecute zoning issues before the City Zoning Board. If you want to build a porch that is larger then allowed by the Code, you can appeal that decision to the Board who make a ruling which you can then further appeal into the Court system. No such mechinism is in place for these new searches.

Since these searches in their present form fail on Due Process issues, what then could they do? Start profiling. Stop searching little old white ladies from Montana and start searching 18 year-old Mohammed from Yemen with his beard, crazy eyes, and nervous behaivor (not to mention his 'Got Jihad?' button on his coat).

Why? Reasonable articulable suspision. The TSA agent could say he fits the profile: age, dress, country of origin, mannerisms, he is also displaying nervousness which could be a sign he's got a bomb in his pants. Give Mohammed an option to be heard by a supervisor (minimal procedural due process) and he can appeal this to the courts later to prevent future searches if he prevails (which he will not if they do things right at the first stage and document everything...I'd even have a camera record the whole thing).

So random is bad from a Constitutional standpoint, but profiling is not. What about Equal Protection says you? Its an argument but one that will ultimately be unsuccessful unless you can prove the profile is flawed.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 4:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Eff that, better idea - turn the beast against itself.

Copyright your body image and then sue the fuckers for infringement when they scan you.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:24 AM

CHRISISALL

Frem! That's GENIUS!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:25 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Stop searching little old white ladies from Montana and start searching 18 year-old Mohammed from Yemen with his beard, crazy eyes, and nervous behaivor (not to mention his 'Got Jihad?' button on his coat).

LOL, yer killin' me here, H.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Stop searching little old white ladies from Montana and start searching 18 year-old Mohammed from Yemen with his beard, crazy eyes, and nervous behaivor (not to mention his 'Got Jihad?' button on his coat).

Why? Reasonable articulable suspision.

First, thank you for a very well written argument re due process. I do have a couple of disagreements.

I am against racial profiling. I am for behavioral profiling. This is why.

1. False positives (not to mention unfair in principle). Racial profiling of all Yemenese and middle eastern looking persons, and all men with beards, will result in harassment of a lot of innocent people. That race or national origin or facial hair constitutes reasonable suspicion in and of itself will never be defensible.

2. False negatives. Ignoring little old ladies from Montana who have crazy eyes and nervous behavior is a mistake as well. It's a wide open security hole.

Better, just focus on profiling people with crazy eyes and nervous behavior, be they little old ladies from Montana or bearded men from Yemen. Less false negatives, less false positives.

Also re the "flying is not a right" argument. Well a lot of things are not a "right." But putting unreasonable restrictions on them are still oppressive. We do not have the right to go to work at a particular place of employment. We do not have the right to drive or ride on the bus or shop at the mall or go to the grocery store. We do not have the right to eat in restaurants or go to amusement parks. But if you institute screening requirements of every single person before being allowed to go to work, drive, shop, and attend public venues, our lives would become prohibitively oppressive.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:34 AM

I like it, Frem. But wouldn't they just argue you allowed them to scan--they had your consent? It would only be an infringement if they published the scan without your consent, right?

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 6:11 AM

Oh here we go.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/tsa-opt-out-day-no
w-with-a-superfantastic-new-twist/66545/

Opt out. Wearing a kilt. With no underpants.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 6:40 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Is it legally possible to sexually harass a TSA rentacop?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 6:45 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Stop searching little old white ladies from Montana and start searching 18 year-old Mohammed from Yemen with his beard, crazy eyes, and nervous behaivor (not to mention his 'Got Jihad?' button on his coat).

Why? Reasonable articulable suspision.

Except Muslims didn't do 9/11. That was Israeli Mossad jews dressed as Arabs who were arrested on 9/11/2001. Remember the Israeli navy/air force attack on USS Liberty to blame Arab patsies.

Also arrest all Pentagon/CIA types as they confessed to 9/11 in OPERATION NORTHWOODS, and invented AllCIAduh as a CIA database of CIA employees.

This is why govt "officials" fly private jets or USAF, to avoid arrest for their crimes.

Quote:
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks.”
—Usama bin Laden, CNN, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/obl_int.htm

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."
—Dick Cheney, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 6:49 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/tsa-opt-out-day-no
w-with-a-superfantastic-new-twist/66545/

Opt out. Wearing a kilt. With no underpants.

"By the way, it is the official position of Goldblog that everyday is opt-out day."

Roger that. And always give TSA a copy of OPERATION NORTHWOODS.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 6:50 AM

Maybe Hero can clarify, but as I understand it, sexual harassment is an issue of power. So a boss can harass an underling, but an underling cannot harass a boss (presumably because if the boss doesn't like it, he/she has options; the underling has fewer options). If you "sexually harass" the boss, you just get fired instead of sued.

In this situation, the TSO has more power than the passenger. If you "sexually harass" a TSO, you'l probably get arrested instead of sued. They can probably file the same kind of charges if you threatened them or were rude or abusive towards them. So I think, the sexual harassment issue can only work one way.

I may be wrong.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 7:04 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Stop searching little old white ladies from Montana and start searching 18 year-old Mohammed from Yemen with his beard, crazy eyes, and nervous behaivor (not to mention his 'Got Jihad?' button on his coat).

I agree.

Al Qeada Dictator Hussein Obama Bin Laden: "I'll touch your junk if you touch mine."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 7:29 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d-N5adYM7Kw

In perhaps his most impassioned and irate speech to date, Congressman Ron Paul unleashed a tirade of vilification at the TSA and their security procedures that have stoked nationwide outrage, stating “enough is enough” as he introduced new legislation to that would open the way for TSA employees to be sued for groping Americans or putting them through dangerous naked body scanners, preventing travelers ‘from being treated like cattle’.

During a speech on the House floor last night, Paul said that the treatment Americans were being subjected to at airports proved that the country as a whole needs to stand up and tell the federal government, “enough is enough”.

“Imagine if the political elites in our country were forced to endure the same conditions at the airport as business travelers, families, senior citizens, and the rest of us. Perhaps this problem could be quickly resolved if every cabinet secretary, every member of Congress, and every department head in the Obama administration were forced to submit to the same degrading screening process as the people who pay their salaries,” roared the Congressman.

“Something has to be done,” Paul implored. “Everybody’s fed up. The people are fed up. The pilots are fed up. I’m fed up.”

Visibly infuriated, Paul said the traveling public were being treated like farmyard animals.

“If this doesn’t change, I see what has happened to the American people is we have accepted the notion that we should be treated like cattle. Make us safe, make us secure, put us in the barbed wire, feed us, fatten us up, and then they’ll eat us. And we are a bunch of cattle and we have to wake up and say we’ve had it…. It’s time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airport,” he raged, encouraging people to support the national opt out day planned for November 24.

Paul’s legislation, the “American Traveler Dignity Act,” is expertly crafted because it gives the feds no room to maneuver. If he had merely called for an end to certain pat down techniques, the government could have weasled out of it by invoking terror threats or changing semantics. However, once it is established that TSA employees are not immune to assault and harassment lawsuits, they will avoid groping Americans for fear of being sued. Numerous lawsuits of this nature are already in motion.

Paul also addresses the use of naked body scanners, similarly opening the way for the TSA to be directly sued for producing images that are tantamount to pornography, and pedophilia in the case of children.

The bill is brief and gets straight to the point.

A BILL To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.

No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual’s body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual’s parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.

Indeed, the district attorney’s office in San Mateo County, California has already promised to pursue charges against TSA employees whose behavior equates to sexual battery.

“If it is skin to skin, if someone were to take their hand and put it underneath somebody’s blouse and touch someone inappropriately and go skin to skin, that’s a felony, and if it’s done simply over the clothing, according to California law, that’s a misdemeanor,” said DA Steve Wagstaffe.

As we documented in the case of radio host Owen JJ Stone, the TSA is now ordering its workers to stick their hands down people’s pants and touch genitalia. In another case, TSA agents pulled down a 21-year-old woman’s blouse and started laughing and joking about her exposed breasts while other TSA workers expressed their wish to obtain video of the incident, presumably so they could masturbate over the naked woman.

TSA abuse is now so wildly out of control that new cases are emerging on a daily basis. In the latest example, a woman from Ohio had her breasts and vagina aggressively groped by a TSA worker at Dayton International Airport last week. Read about her experience here and watch the video below.

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-unleashes-on-tsa-enough-is-enough/

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Jm9_Pt0fO_g

TSA - Sexual Assault

I have an incident to share that occurred late Friday afternoon, November 12, 2010, around 5:15 in the Dayton International Airport.

I realize the publishing this publically on the internet puts me into a delicate situation, given that I am a high profile blogger and author. This is a difficult incident to share, but it needs to be said...Because I will not be a silent victim.
I will share the facts of the incident in as a matter of fact manner as I can.

I checked into my flight and had a boarding pass printed that included “plus infant.” My baby and I were flying from Dayton, OH, to San Antonio, TX, so I could run in the San Antonio Half Marathon. I was taking my baby along because he is still breastfeeding for part of the day.

I entered the security line, removed the special formula that I had with me for the baby, as well as my quart size baggie with my other liquids. I went through the x-ray machine and metal detector, carrying the baby, with no incident.

Because I was traveling with baby formula, I knew to expect that they would test it with the paper circles for explosives. The TSA agent took all of my belongings over to the table in the center of the explosive screening tables. She asked me, “Are you aware of the NEW policies for carrying liquids through security that were instated 4 years ago?” (capitalized to show the emphasis that she placed on that word.)

I replied, “Yes, I fly with him every several weeks.”

She scanned the formula, then turned to me and said, “Remove your shoes and stand on that black mat for a patdown.”

I said, “OK, what do I do with the baby?”

“You cannot be holding him.” (I am traveling alone.)

So I placed him into his stroller. She instructed me, “Spread your feet apart and hold your arms out to the side.” I obliged.

She patted my left arm, my right arm, my upper back and my lower back. She then said, “I need to reach in and feel along the inside of your waistband.”

She felt along my waistline, moved behind me, then proceeded to feel both of my buttocks. She reached from behind in the middle of my buttocks towards my vagina area.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my buttocks, or reach forward to my vagina area.

She then moved in front of my and touched the top and underneath portions of both of my breasts.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my breasts.

She then felt around my waist. She then moved to the bottoms of my legs.

She then felt my inner thighs and my vagina area, touching both of my labia.

She did not tell me that she was going to touch my vagina area or my labia.

She then told me that I could put my shoes on and I asked if I could pick up the baby, she replied Yes.

She then moved back to my belongings to finish scanning them with the paper discs for explosives. When she finished she said I was free to go.

I stood there holding my baby in shock. I did not move for almost a minute.

I stood there, an American citizen, a mom traveling with a baby with special needs formula, sexually assaulted by a government official. I began shaking and felt completely violated, abused and assaulted by the TSA agent. I shook for several hours, and woke up the next day shaking.

Here is why I was sexually assaulted. She never told me the new body search policy. She never told me that she was going to touch my private parts. She never told me when or where she was going to touch me. She did not inform me that a private screening was available. She did not inform me of my rights that were a part of these new enhanced patdown procedures.

When I booked my ticket, I was given no information that the TSA had changed their wand and unintrusive patdown procedures to “enhanced” patdown procedures that involved the touching of all parts of your body, including breasts and vagina on women and testicles and penis on men. I was not informed by any signs on the front side of security about the new procedures. I had not seen any media coverage about the issue, so I had no idea that this was a new government sanctioned policy.

Another important piece in this story, the Dayton airport does not have the new body scanners. I was not given any other search options. It was enhanced patdown, or nothing. (And I would have opted for the body scanner, if I were going to be subject to a sexual assault.)

I asked to speak to a supervisor immediately. I had a very unpleasant conversation with him that lasted 20 minutes. I moved to the back of the security area, made a few phone calls, including to my lawyer. He did some quick research, and learned that I had indeed been sexually assaulted because she did not follow the SOP (standard operating procedure) for the new search.

During our first conversation, the TSA acting manager of the shift told me that the TSA agent who sexually assaulted me was supposed to inform me about the new search procedure and tell me when and where she was going to touch me. He also apologized on behalf of himself and on behalf of the agent who sexually assaulted me. I was not allowed to speak to the agent who sexually assaulted me, nor did the acting manager provide me with her name. (I did not have the presence of mind to look at her nameplate, as I was in shock.)

I also spoke with the Dayton police, the Dayton airport police, and left a message for the TSA manager for the Dayton airport. I intend to request the TSA to arrange for counseling services to be provided to me, so I can deal with the aftermath of the sexual assault that took place, caused by the specific touching actions and failure to inform me of the policies by the TSA agent.

I am speaking out against the TSA and share my sexual assault case to ensure that this does not happen to anyone else, anywhere.

I will not be a silent victim of sexual assault by a TSA agent. Total Sexual Assault.

I am calling for immediate change to this new enhanced body patdown search.

I am calling for the TSA agent who sexually assaulted me to be fired.

I am calling for you, a fellow American, to stand up against these new enhanced full body patdown search procedures of the TSA.

Please note: I do plan on flying back to Ohio on Monday, because it will take me too long to drive home from Texas. I do not however intend to fly again until this search policy of sexual molestation is revoked by the TSA.

I will leave you with this thought: “It is acceptable and encouraged that a TSA government official can do something to an American citizen that US military personnel cannot do to a member of the Taliban.”

*UPDATE: Thank you all for the links and information about where and with whom I can share this. I am continuing to take action. Please feel free to leave other helpful information you find. I will be turning on comment moderation for the remainder of the day.

**UPDATE #2: I am in no way trying to belittle the experiences of sexual assault experienced by others. I hurt and ache for others who have been sexually assaulted.

**UPDATE #3: If you are interested in me sharing my story on your radio or news program, please email tsasexualassault (at) gmail.

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:04 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Except Muslims didn't do 9/11. That was Israeli Mossad jews dressed as Arabs who were arrested on 9/11/2001.

You make a good point. The TSA should search PN as invasively as possible without any regard to his rights. In order to make the process more efficient I think TSA should go ahead and conduct daily searches of you at your house on the off chance you might board a plane sometime that day.

I can set that up for you...what size AnalProbe do you prefer? No, never mind I'll put you down for the biggest they have...cause I think we can all agree there is no bigger ass around...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:10 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Maybe Hero can clarify, but as I understand it, sexual harassment is an issue of power.

There are many forms of sexual harrassment, but I don't think you can sexually harass a TSO or any other law enforcement officer. Keep in mind that harrassing behaivor might violate some other law (so if you grab the hot TSO's 'assets' you could get arrested for Gross Sexual Imposition).

Also keep in mind the sexual assault and sexual harrassment argument is a non-starter. Invasive searches can and are regularly conducted by law enforcement in a variety of other settings. I think you would have to prove they did it for a sexual purpose...which since their job requires it...would be exceptionally difficult to prove unless they violate procedure.

To be honost I can't imagine the TSOs are happy about this...even an innocent/accidental violation of procedure can have huge consequences for them. If they are like other police officers I know, there is a fear of getting sued in the back of the heads with every public encounter.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I think you would have to prove they did it for a sexual purpose...which since their job requires it...would be exceptionally difficult to prove unless they violate procedure.

Take this story for example:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1147497-tso-sayi
ng-heads-up-got-cutie-you.html

Quote:
Last week, one of my flying partners (Captain with Skywest) was going through security at DEN with his 18 year daughter. As his daughter approached the detector, the TSO working the NoS said on his headset, "heads up, got a cutie for you." He then confronted the TSA clerk with what he said and that neither of us are going through the NoS. The TSA clerk said you must have misunderstood me.

If this story were true and can be corroborated (say with a cell phone recording), I think it would be a clear case of sexual harassment, no?

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 8:06 PM

From Danica McKellar:

'...Managed to end up in the non-backscatter machine at LAX today, so I didn't need to "opt out." But, wearing a long skirt, I was still flagged for one of their famous-of-late "pat-downs." The TSA agent said, "Sorry, it's the skirt." And how surprised were they when I said, "No problem, hang on," and whipped off my skirt, revealing skin-tight leggings! No more need for a pat-down. Oh, I felt like a superhero.'

Looks like one , too. Whoa , howdy ! This is a smart lady !

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 8:13 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Except Muslims didn't do 9/11. That was Israeli Mossad jews dressed as Arabs who were arrested on 9/11/2001.

You make a good point. The TSA should search PN as invasively as possible without any regard to his rights. In order to make the process more efficient I think TSA should go ahead and conduct daily searches of you at your house on the off chance you might board a plane sometime that day.

I can set that up for you...what size AnalProbe do you prefer? No, never mind I'll put you down for the biggest they have...cause I think we can all agree there is no bigger ass around...

POLL

Hero is a:

1. coward
2. idiot
3. traitor
4. mossad agent
5. dick-sucking shit-eating faggot
6. all of the above

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 9:01 PM

Several thoughts:

1) I read that TSA had been hiring ex-cons in a "get them back to work" humanitarian program, and when asked if a passenger could be assured that their TSA worker was not a registered sex offender, they were told no. My mom sent the article I should dig it up

2) This was the subject of my limited hangout thread, I should have posted it here. "Leaked images" look like ex-rays, bad ones, not like nude pics, so that we wouldn't think this was porn.

3) I expected some airport strippers as protests. I guess it's also an effective means of getting through.

4) This is clearly an intimidation scheme, and the end goal is to end mass transit, which has been on the agenda since 2001. Lesser goal is to force people into a subordinate role.

5) If this had happened under Bush, no one would hesitate to blame the Bush admin, or Bush himself, so I'm forced to blame Obama for this. These are the actions of Janet Napolitano, an Obama appointee.

6) Aptly named Rapiscan is clearly some of our old friends, Chertoff and Soros. There's no need for this technology, infrared would be less dangerous and more effective.

7) Airplane hijackings could be ended by sealing the cockpit, at least so only the pilot could open it. Also, a firewall between the passenger and luggage compartment wouldn't be a bad idea. Not to mention putting fuel tanks at the ends of wings like Rutan's badboy there.

8) I think cutie means invasive, not evasive.

9) Expect nudity at "Don't touch my junk" protests.

10) This is a pretty clear distraction. Sometimes they ramp up the fear, sometimes they just abuse the citizens. What with wikileaks and all, people had begun talking about the war again. Anything to keep people from talking about the war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 3:15 AM

Sometimes they don't have any common sense.

Check this out:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/

Quote:
So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

Nail clippers? Really? To our soldiers coming back home? Really?

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 6:47 AM

I took four flights where things like nail clippers were confiscated, while carrying a paring knife which wasn't. Paring knife is high on the list of knives which can do you in, and I was carrying one because I was insane, and an artist, and a pencil sharpener just doesn't give the point you want from a drawing pencil. Homeland security types in 3 countries never confiscated the knife because they weren't looking for it. I remember the German air security seizing a small nail file, and me not remembering the knife until I was on the plane, and at that point, glad I hadn't mentioned it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 7:27 AM

Here are some alternative Israeli security toys, for those who like to trust gadgets.

http://www.israel21c.org/201003157781/technology/sraels-top-10-airport
-security-technologies

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 10:55 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 11:07 AM

Soon there'll be a sign for those who opt out , and it will say , "This way to the showers".

http://www.sl-webs.com/deesillustration/artwork.asp?item=145&cat=polit
ics

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 11:23 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

Gotta say, though it is a very powerful image...I really dont like that shot with the Bill of Rights on the Towers...partly because of the magnitude of the tragedy, and partly because it hits FAAAR too close to home

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace:
Gotta say, though it is a very powerful image...I really dont like that shot with the Bill of Rights on the Towers...partly because of the magnitude of the tragedy, and partly because it hits FAAAR too close to home

Okay , not such a big advocate of the 1st Amendment , then ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 11:29 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE

Ummm, actually Im a huge advocate for it.

I was using it to express that I dont care for how you used it.

Isn't that the essence of free speach?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 3:51 PM

Simple no nonsense approach to this one was solved in the 19th c. with railroad crime: Compartment. If each party travels in their own compartment, they can not be so easily robbed by bandits. These days, compartments would need firewalls, and the entire vessel would need a ventilation system for dealing with the explosion. For the cost of a modern aircraft you could actually build a plane that would leave the passengers unaffected by an explosion in one compartment even if it was a nuclear bomb.

The truth is, these guys don't want solutions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Okay , not such a big advocate of the 1st Amendment , then ?

How does not liking a picture mean he's not a big advocate of the First Amendment?

Do you like every political statement or picture you see?

CTS

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 3:59 PM

Looks like they have caved in to a little common sense, finally.

Pilots are now exempt from the AIT scan/pat down nightmare.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101119/ap_on_bi_ge/us_airport_security_pi
lots;_ylt=Aom4_DC_MdmJ8Galo8N0zERbbBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTNwbmNwbGJiBGFzc2V0Ay9zL2FwLzIwMTAxMTE5L2FwX29uX2JpX2dlL3VzX2FpcnBvcnRfc2VjdXJpdHlfcGlsb3RzBGNjb2RlA2dtcHJkZQRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawN0c2FwaWxvdHN0b2I-

CTS

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 7:10 PM

WISHIMAY

I was just wondering if anyone has been reading the articles about the new scanners and tampons and mastectomy bras??? I swear if they make anyone remove either of those "for security reasons" I'm gonna

How is that one for a violation of personal rights?!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Okay , not such a big advocate of the 1st Amendment , then ?
How does not liking a picture mean he's not a big advocate of the First Amendment?

Do you like every political statement or picture you see?

CTS

Don't be schtoopit ! It was intended as 'a joke'. Clearly , one which BHM 'got' , but you permaybehaps didn't...

Odd that you get the 'evil' emoticon , but you're not conversant with the 'wink' one , innit ?

Lotsa irony in my original comment , and your inappropriate reaction , as well...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Looks like they have caved in to a little common sense, finally.

What a concept !

Might try some similar caving-in , yourself...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2010 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

The truth is, these guys don't want solutions.

Apparently , what they want is to create 'crisis' , then to profit from it :

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/security/tsa-revolt-body-sc
anning-for-profit.html

Shouldn't Chertoff be President-For-Life of the Evil League Of Evil ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2010 2:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Odd that you get the 'evil' emoticon , but you're not conversant with the 'wink' one , innit ?

My apologies. I did completely miss the wink.

Can't Take Sky
----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Personal intrusion is a GROWTH INDUSTRY!

Apparently, it is.

Cancer surviving flight attendant forced to remove prosthetic breast.
http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:52 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Personal intrusion is a GROWTH INDUSTRY!
Apparently, it is.

Cancer surviving flight attendant forced to remove prosthetic breast.
http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13534628

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

Man, that is funny. The post connection to "Growth industry" not the breast remove.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2010 4:05 AM

It's a game.

This game has many points:

1) Create a state of fear. This is the goal of almost every govt. action

2) Toss out the ball and make people chase it.

3) Someone is going to make a profit off it somewhere

4) Human behavior is altered to make them more docile, in this case, submitting to authority is dehumanizing, but that's the minor one, the major one is people not flying.

The goal of stopping human transportation was the real motivator of 9-11. If it hadn't been, they would have used something other than airplanes. They would have just used bombs, since it wasn't going to be scientifically plausible that the planes would destroy the buildings, they knew that no one of a scientific bent would buy it. It helped weaken their credibility. It would have been far more credible to cook up a story of terrorists with trucks like the Oklahoma City bombing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2010 4:29 PM

Video raises some of your points , and concurs :

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/983.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 21, 2010 5:55 AM