View Full Version : The TSA touched my vagina
jester214
11-30-2010, 08:18 PM
^Seen that happen.
I actually "like" those machines as far as how invasive they are. They just need to warn people, and especially women, about whats going to happen.
pootcacti
11-30-2010, 08:27 PM
do you want TSA to tip you too?
DesuvsDeath
11-30-2010, 10:54 PM
Just gonna pop in a bit on the racial profiling.
My maiden name is Hassan. But the rest of my name is as american as Brittany or Jennifer. And to top it off, I look as white, girl-next-door as Jennifer Aniston half the time. But, I always got pulled aside for additional screening.
Then I got married and my name changed to Ritchie. Do I get pulled aside anymore? Hardly ever.
Am I still the same person? Look the same? Yes. Is that profiling? Totally.
I'd really like to know what they're using to select people for additional screening.
I've been pulled aside for additional screening... 4 out of 6 times the last few times I flew.
Curious as to what makes me so interesting.
Although the actual process doesn't bother me and I have had no unpleasant experiences with the women who've felt me up. It's like an extra 2-5 minutes out of a two hour process. And I never thought anything of it until this thread.
xxxchili
11-30-2010, 10:54 PM
Yea, that would have been nice to get a warning...at the very least.
jester214
12-01-2010, 12:25 AM
I'd really like to know what they're using to select people for additional screening.
I've been pulled aside for additional screening... 4 out of 6 times the last few times I flew.
Curious as to what makes me so interesting.
Although the actual process doesn't bother me and I have had no unpleasant experiences with the women who've felt me up. It's like an extra 2-5 minutes out of a two hour process. And I never thought anything of it until this thread.
I'm convinced there's not rhyme or reason to it... I seem to get bomb searched everytime I leave a country. Nothing invasive, they just rub a cloth on a stick over your clothes and put it in a machine.
It doesn't bother me but sometimes I think I must scream "bomb maker".
jester214
12-01-2010, 12:26 AM
Yea, that would have been nice to get a warning...at the very least.
Yeah, they told my ex to put her arms down over her dress or it would blow up.
nelly33
12-01-2010, 02:27 AM
oh my oh my...i couldn't even read the other posts past this one without stopping to reply. Shame Shame on you! It is truly un-American to hand over our security and liberty and freedom in the name of the ignorant fear of what might happen if we don't. Shame on you for saying such a thing as women should not bitch about feeling violated because it is for our own protection. Perhaps we should insist that police officers come door to door and check to make sure our neighbors aren't hiding explosives in their coochies as well. This is retarded! Maybe if you are so afraid of being attacked by the bad guys....maybe you should tell your government to stop going to wars on foreign soil and keep our brave home to protect us here. Maybe attacking other countries and policing people who never asked for it isn't a wise strategy of keeping others from wanting to attack us. But no you are probably right, let's just do whatever they tell us is in our best interest and bend over and take it up the ass to fight terror!
I hate when people call another persons opinions "un-American." If we dissent with the government we are patriots, but if we dissent with the dissenters we are trampling on our civil liberties and un-American. And what would bringing the troops home do to stop attacks in airports? If we have less soldiers overseas that should make us feel safer in airports?
Also, the comparison to police officers to go door to door to check for bombs is ludicrously different. An airport is privately owned property... it is very different than somebody coming into your home to search you. The comparison is ridiculous.
Also, the fear of terrorism is not ignorant fear, it is a real fear. Terrorism has happened in airports. Go to Italy or Israel... there are armed soldiers in airports... the US is not alone in these procedures. Weather the searches are reasonable or not is an argument, but the fact that terrorism is an ignorant fear? Now THAT is ignorant.
Autumn Lily
12-01-2010, 06:18 AM
All this security in airports... when really all it takes for another 9/11 is for a terrorist to wear a bomb strapped to his chest and set it off in the Underwater Tunnels in New York. The entire NY subway system. Gone.
Also, the TSA hasn't stopped shit when it comes to potential terrorist attacks. The underwear bomber still got through security. Any and all successfully-intercepted terrorist attacks were intercepted by the CIA, not the TSA.
Any and all successfully-intercepted terrorist attacks were intercepted by the CIA, not the TSA.
Exactly, Al Queada isn't going to be stopped by a bunch of glorified security guards on power trips.
CKXXX
12-01-2010, 07:25 AM
Civil liberties many times don't extend to optional areas of life, especially when other people's safety is involved. For example, if you want to drive legally, you HAVE to have a license and you HAVE to have insurance and your car HAS to be inspected. Driving is a luxury and not a right and as such in our society you have to adhere to specific rules to ensure the public safety as much as possible. If you don't want to bother with the hassle then you can use alternate modes of transportation, it's your call. Same goes for air-travel..
Having insurance is not a civil liberty. Do you even know what that means? Civil liberties include basic human rights...things like RIGHT TO PRIVACY..freedom from torture,(which to many people...being felt up and molested by strangers qualifies)
This is a huge step on the way to the US becoming an authoritarian state. Look it up. We DO NOT want that.
If you want to accept it...go right ahead. But you need to recognize that this is something the majority of people DO NOT WANT. And the US is SUPPOSED to be a democracy.
And not flying is not an option for some people. In past years...I would get a call saying they needed me for a shoot in 48 hrs....3000 miles away. I HAD to fly or not make it. Not making it meant jeopardizing the very way I kept my bills paid and food on the table. For others, timewise, financially, or other reasons...yes they have to fly. It is a public transportation. Therefore civil liberties absolutely apply.
jimboe7373
12-01-2010, 12:15 PM
Having insurance is not a civil liberty. Do you even know what that means? Civil liberties include basic human rights...things like RIGHT TO PRIVACY..freedom from torture,(which to many people...being felt up and molested by strangers qualifies)Your civil rights are in no way guarranteed in regards to air travel. The airport and the airlines are all private property. They are regulated by the Federal Gov't in aspects related to security etc. It is not "public transportation" as you posted further down. It's private transportation which you are PERMITTED to use if you follow the rules in place.
This is a huge step on the way to the US becoming an authoritarian state. Look it up. We DO NOT want that.Protecting people from a proven threat to their lives and the well being of the U.S. economy if they CHOOSE to fly is not a step to being an authoritarian state. The many laws passed during the Bush Administration shorty after 9/11 like suspending Habeas Corpus etc- that was a step to becoming an authoritarian state. The latest ruling from the Supreme Court allowing people and groups to donate unlimited amount of money to political campaigns without tracking the amount, source or identity of those donating is a step to becoming an authoritarian state- but nobody complains about that.
If you want to accept it...go right ahead. But you need to recognize that this is something the majority of people DO NOT WANT. And the US is SUPPOSED to be a democracy. Not only will I accept, I'm grateful for it. 1st off, I like my life so I'm happy to know they are addressing every recognized threat to the best of their ability, 2nd, I love to fly. If they allow gaps in security and let copycats bring down planes on a regular basis, there won't be ANYONE flying.
We have a representative democracy where we elect leaders who we feel represent our interests and then they vote for what they feel is best. If you don't like how they vote, you get new people in next time. The Founding Fathers set it up this way because they didn't trust the will of the mob or common man in important matters. Besides this about 98% of the people ACTUALLY flying and going through the scanners have no issues with it as was evidenced this past Thanksgiving which is the busiest travel period of the year.
And not flying is not an option for some people. In past years...I would get a call saying they needed me for a shoot in 48 hrs....3000 miles away. I HAD to fly or not make it. Not making it meant jeopardizing the very way I kept my bills paid and food on the table. For others, timewise, financially, or other reasons...yes they have to fly. It is a public transportation. Therefore civil liberties absolutely apply.
As mentioned before it is not "public transportation" and civil liberties do not apply as it pertains to public safety and the common good. You have a right to free speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. It's even more direct in this case as you don't have a "right" to fly. You have the luxury of flying.
If in the case of your booking, you have the option to fly and put up with whatever security and other restrictions are in place, you can choose not to put up with those restrictions and refuse the job or you can try to get them to move the schedule to accomodate your travel in another mode. Nobody HAS to fly, people may want to very badly or it may be inconvenient if they can't- but nobody has ever HAD to fly. Fly is there as an option and a luxury, if your desire or need to fly is greater than your perception of the hassle of the security check, you will fly- if it's not then you won't, it's your call.
jimboe7373
12-01-2010, 12:36 PM
All this security in airports... when really all it takes for another 9/11 is for a terrorist to wear a bomb strapped to his chest and set it off in the Underwater Tunnels in New York. The entire NY subway system. Gone.Yes, the tunnel will be gone, there will be a few hundred deaths and a few $billion in damage. The tunnel will be rebuilt and while that particular city may lose some money from a drop in tourism and business activity for the short term, that will likely be the extent of it. If the terrororists are able to bring down airplanes on a semi-regular basis, the airline industry will collapse, if the airline industry collapses the entire U.S. economy will collapse as well. You would likely be looking at 40-60% unemployment and the DOW losing about 80% of it's value. We have captured Al Qaeda manuals in our possession, their goal is not to randomly kill Americans, their strategy is to destroy the U.S. economy so that we can no longer influence in the Muslim world. The planes are in their mind, the number one way to destroy the U.S. economy and while they may blow up or bomb other stuff, their solid goal remains to destroy the airlines industry and thereafter our economy.
Also, the TSA hasn't stopped shit when it comes to potential terrorist attacks. The underwear bomber still got through security. Any and all successfully-intercepted terrorist attacks were intercepted by the CIA, not the TSA.The TSA doesn't have to stop "shit" when it comes to potential attacks, it does it by deterrent value. Millions of people have security alarms at their houses, do you know how many crooks set off those alarms?- almost none, the crooks go the houses without the alarm company sign in the front yard. It will be impossible to stop every terrorist who wants to bring down a plane, but the ones who try something new are very rare. If we don't cover up an exposed weakness we will get multiple copycatters who will continue and continue to exploit that weakness until it's fixed.
CKXXX
12-01-2010, 02:13 PM
Actually yes, civil liberties DO apply.
If you want to give up yours and thank them for it..go right ahead.
Many of us however, continue to be incensed by it.
rickdugan
12-01-2010, 02:25 PM
There are several difference between all your examples and security concerning airlines. For one, we can absorb tens of thousands of deaths from drunk driving. Besides the very unfortunate people who are killed or injured there is little extenuating fallout. There are lawsuits and insurance payouts, but those are already factored into premiums and therefore do not have too much of an impact.
The airline industry is so vital to our economy that, if terrorists were able to exploit a gap in our defense MULTIPLE times over a period of time and we were unable to stop them from doing it- the airline business would collapse and take a good portion if not our entire economy with it.
Another difference is that while lots of people may hem and haw about these issues, it's very likely that the insurures of the airlines or the airlines themselves would not let the planes fly if "every" precaution to a "known" threat were not employed. Lastly, the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA, have as their most important mission protecting U.S. citizens from harm. In their point of view, people being offended, embarrassed or upset about these scans and searches takes a backseat to people being blown out of the sky 100-300 at a time. Also from their perspective is the fact that IF a terrorist strike did occur and the method was a KNOWN threat that they didn't act on- they would be liable for huge amounts of financial damages and other sever repurcussions. I also have very little doubt that should that ever take place, many of the most vocal critics of these policies would then be accusing them of incompetence and failing to protect us etc.
That response was 8 parts speculation to 2 parts histrionics.
It has been a year since the underwear bomber yet another one has not emerged, even though most airports have not had these scanners for that year. An I've been on several planes myself over the past year and can attest that nobody has grabbed my crotch to check for bombs either. It must be a miracle that planes have not been falling from the skies. And shame on those airlines and insurance companies for letting planes fly without TSA checking everyone's underwear or taking naked scans. ::)
The airline industry is not going to shut itself down in the absence of naked scans or crotch grabbing.
As I said before, a balance needs to be struck between safety and personal liberty. And it is irrelevant whether I am flying (what a luxury), water skiing or buying groceries, my right not to undergo unreasonable search and seizure is not dictated by my actions (unless i am doing something illegal), but rather stands on its own. And as athena pointed out, what happens when some enterprising terrorist shoves a bomb up his ass? Would targeted cavity searches also be acceptable to you?
And as far as your wildly melodramatic and off-base theories regarding the viability of the airline industry in the absence of naked scans and crotch grabbing, are you contending that we only have personal liberties when it is economically convenient?
Is there any limit to your need to give up your personal liberties in your pursuit of supposed absolute safety?
As I believe you were the one who said you left the country just because you didn't like the last President, I have my suspicions as to the answer to my last question, but I'll leave it to you to confirm those suspicions. ;)
jimboe7373
12-01-2010, 02:52 PM
Actually yes, civil liberties DO apply.
If you want to give up yours and thank them for it..go right ahead.
Many of us however, continue to be incensed by it.Here are a list of your civil liberties, please explain which one is being violated when you CHOOSE to fly on a commercial airliner and must comply with security restrictions that are in place for your protection:
"Civil liberties are rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) and freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom) that provide an individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual) specific rights such as the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and the right to marry and have a family."
I will take people being incensed, embarassed, upset any day over the possibility of people getting killed and the airlines being shut down.
Because of liability issues, insurance regulations, the financial interests of the airlines and common sense, these practices are not going to be ending anytime soon. If you are so incensed and angry, use some of that energy to rail against the causes of terrorism. Until that has been eliminated to the degree that we don't have well financed, well organized groups committed to destroying us, you are only going to have more and more of these types of regulations and not less.
jimboe7373
12-01-2010, 03:47 PM
That response was 8 parts speculation to 2 parts histrionics.
It has been a year since the underwear bomber yet another one has not emerged, even though most airports have not had these scanners for that year.As I've already posted elswhere in this thread, Al Qeada typically plans an operation for a minimum of 14 months. We watch half hour sitcoms and have a short attention span, they do not. They bombed the World Trade Towers in '93 and then not again till '01. Did the fact that they didn't bomb us there in '94 and '95 diminish in anyway the risk or damage they were able to inflict?. The homegrown crazies like Timothy McVeigh, likely don't have that kind of sophisticated explosives yet and/or no one in their orginization had the thought to take down a plane in that manner. Do you want to gamble on neither one of those situations changing either?.
The airline industry is not going to shut itself down in the absence of naked scans or crotch grabbing.The companies that provide insurance for the airlines and will have to pay out $billions in the event of a successful terrorist attack, may refuse to provide coverage if all possible security measures aren't implemented. If they refuse coverage, the airline isn't flying. The airline likewise may not want to risk their $30,000,000 airplanes with a credible terrorist threat and security measures being only partially enforced.
As I said before, a balance needs to be struck between safety and personal liberty. And it is irrelevant whether I am flying (what a luxury), water skiing or buying groceries, my right not to undergo unreasonable search and seizure is not dictated by my actions (unless i am doing something illegal), but rather stands on its own.According to the law, civil liberties can be altered or suspended when it comes to matters pertaining to the the public good. You have the right to free speech, but you can't yell "fire" in a movie theatre. A few years ago a Muslim woman sued the state because she wanted to wear a veil in her drivers license photo and was not permitted to do so. She claimed it violated her right to practice her religion. The ruling was, as she had an option to drive and not a right, she could avoid driving and in no way affect the practice of her religion. Same applies here, you will not be patted down or scanned unless you CHOOSE to attempt to get on an airplane. You may want to fly, you may need to fly but you do not have a RIGHT to fly. That is not guaranteed anywhere.
And as athena pointed out, what happens when some enterprising terrorist shoves a bomb up his ass? Would targeted cavity searches also be acceptable to you?What will happen is pretty obvious, they are not going to let a potential security breach continue to be permitted. They will either get x-ray equipment that will take a quick shot of your poopper or they will give you a free prostrate exam. I'd be fine with the x-ray and probably wouldn't fly until they figured something out besides the anal exam. Either way, it's the airlines right to insist on what security they feel is necessary to protect their assets and business and it's the TSA's responsibility to protect the public and do everything in it's power to keep planes from falling out of the sky.
And as far as your wildly melodramatic and off-base theories regarding the viability of the airline industry in the absence of naked scans and crotch grabbing, are you contending that we only have personal liberties when it is economically convenient?My theories were neither melodramatic or off base. There was no air travel for 4 days after 9/11 and the airlines took an incredible financial hit that lasted years. The only reason they did not go out of business is because there were no follow-up attacks and they were able to give the people a "sense" of safety about air travel
Is there any limit to your need to give up your personal liberties in your pursuit of supposed absolute safety?I don't have any need or desire to give up personal liberties. Part of my civil liberties is for the right to security. Had the TSA not implemented these techniques, I could argue that I was being deprived of my right in that regard. These aren't threats they are making up out of the air and I don't have a big issue with the scanner, there is more radiation leaked from the granite in Grand Central Terminal in NYC in 3 hours than there is coming off this machine. If they are going to scan, let them scan as thoroughly as they can. For sure have severe punishments in place if there is any abuse of the system or images etc.
I am not at all interested in "absolute" security. That will not happen. There will be a terrorist who will suceed in blowing up an airplane in the future. It will likely be through a new method that we don't have security in place for currently (unless they repeal current strategies and leave openings). The difference is whether it is a one time event and a safegaurd is put in place, or if it becomes an every few month thing that we are unable or unwilling to stop. If it's the latter the airlines will refuse to risk their airlplanes, the insurers will refuse to insure the airlines and almost all the passengers will refuse to fly. That's not an "off-base theory", that is right from the Al Qeada playbook as well as U.S. government and Airline industry reports.
As I believe you were the one who said you left the country just because you didn't like the last President, I have my suspicions as to the answer to my last question, but I'll leave it to you to confirm those suspecions. ;)I didn't like the last President but that's not why I left the country, I left the country because I felt his policies where going to cause very large financial problems and I was sick to my stomach about what was happening domestically and abroad as a result of the lying, arrogant policies that were taking place. I have absolutely no problem going through a scanner that's in place for my protection.
rickdugan
12-01-2010, 04:00 PM
Here are a list of your civil liberties, please explain which one is being violated when you CHOOSE to fly on a commercial airliner and must comply with security restrictions that are in place for your protection:
"Civil liberties are rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights) and freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom) that provide an individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual) specific rights such as the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, and the right to marry and have a family."
I will take people being incensed, embarassed, upset any day over the possibility of people getting killed and the airlines being shut down.
Because of liability issues, insurance regulations, the financial interests of the airlines and common sense, these practices are not going to be ending anytime soon. If you are so incensed and angry, use some of that energy to rail against the causes of terrorism. Until that has been eliminated to the degree that we don't have well financed, well organized groups committed to destroying us, you are only going to have more and more of these types of regulations and not less.
Actually jimbo, there is another important right that comes to mind:
Fourth Amendment (http://forum.stripperweb.com/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure (http://forum.stripperweb.com/wiki/Search_and_seizure).
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants (http://forum.stripperweb.com/wiki/Warrant_(law)) shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Damned pesky Constitution. Challenges to naked scanning and aggressive patdowns have not made it to the Surpreme Court yet, but the TSA has been sued already, so no doubt that the Supreme Court will be involved soon enough.
And no jimboe, we are NOT going to have "more and more" of these types of regulation because we have a Constitution that limits the rights of our government to search, seize and/or monitor us. And just in case you are confused about this, those protections are a good thing. ;)
jimboe7373
12-01-2010, 04:37 PM
Actually jimbo, there is another important right that comes to mind:
Fourth Amendment (http://forum.stripperweb.com/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure (http://forum.stripperweb.com/wiki/Search_and_seizure).
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants (http://forum.stripperweb.com/wiki/Warrant_(law)) shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.For the 3rd time now, that doesn't apply when it's an optional activity. You are protected in your home and on the street by that provision, if you ELECT to fly on an airplane, you are going to have to adhere to the approved rules of the airport, airlines and TSA. If you are deliberately putting yourself into a environment in which you know you will be searched and you decide to willingly enter that environment, your rights to unlawful search and seizure have not been violated.
And no jimboe, we are NOT going to have "more and more" of these types of regulation because we have a Constitution that limits the rights of our government to search, seize and/or monitor us. And just in case you are confused about this, those protections are a good thing. ;)If there are continued attacks, you will most certainly have more restrictive policies put in place. Do you get the fact that even if the TSA wasn't involved the airlines and their insurers and stock-holders would be demanding that these and other procedures would be put in place. What are you going to do, force private industry to fly the planes without security they see as necessary in the face of ACTUAL threats?. That sounds very bright and very Constitutional.
Yes, Constitutional protections are a good thing, not getting blown up on a plane is a good thing too. The two or not mutually exclusive. Even if it was unconstitutional to search you before getting on a plane (it's not) you can simply avoid it by not flying if it's that big of an issue to you. You can go by car, train or boat or not go at all and not have any issues occur to you.
If you are so hopped up on Constitutional rights, where are or where your protests regarding the Patriot Act. You lost REAL rights with that document, lots of them. Stuff that's not optional or a luxury- stuff that you did ACTUALLY have a right to that was taken away.
rickdugan
12-01-2010, 05:32 PM
And who says I'm a fan of the Patriot Act either? :)
But you've had to say it three times now because you've been inaccurate all three times.
The concept you are talking about is "implied consent." In the case of airports the courts have ruled that, by entering the airport and preparing to board a plane, you have consented to a search. But the implied consent provision is not limitless. TSA agents are only allowed ot conduct searches that reasonably necessary to find bombs and weapons.
We are still protected from unreasonable searches, and many would argue that naked pictures and groping of genitals is excessive. The TSA has already exempted pilots and children 12 and under from these procedures, so clearly they don't view these procedures as universally necessary. And have they really exhausted all of their technological and other options here?
I am looking forward to this making its way to the Supreme Court and fervently hope that the justices use a semblance of rational thinking.
jimboe7373
12-01-2010, 07:04 PM
^^^I didn't say you were a fan of the Patriot Act, I was just curious why there was no posting or protesting regarding legitmate, non-optional rights being taken away. If you were as concerned as you seem to be with this I would think you would be railing many times louder against what was and remains taken by that act previously.
Pilots are already screened pretty heavily when they are hired, but there is still a small risk with them. Not screening children under 12 disturbs me as something can be planted on them. From everything I read, the under 12 year old's get a modified pat down if they refuse the scanner.
Seriously though, everything else aside. What is it you are in favor of them doing?, would you like them to just cease and disist from taking the current scans and leave a glaring hole in security for the masses?. Would you then just hope that no terrorists would seek to take advantage of this well publicized gap in our security?. Not a wise-ass question, just genuinely curious.
Also, even if this is repealed, the airlines as private companies have the right to refuse service to anyone they see fit as long as it's not based on color, sex or religion. What do you do if they refuse to admit anyone that doesn't adhere to the curret screening methods?.
I also stand by my previous statments regarding civil or constitutional rights being violated.
With airport searches, the current and obvious safety need is preventing terrorists from blowing up airliners and killing innocent people. In the early 1970s, the safety need was preventing hijackers from commandeering planes. As far back as 1973, courts have backed pre-boarding screenings conducted in the name of safety. In 2007, the full, 15-member 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - whose judges rarely agree collectively on anything - ruled unanimously that people who refuse a secondary security check cannot leave the airport.
xxxchili
12-01-2010, 07:38 PM
Ok, so one of my friends on facebook posted this and I thought I would share :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a8jGVXOMsw&feature=player_embedded
jester214
12-01-2010, 07:47 PM
Exactly, Al Queada isn't going to be stopped by a bunch of glorified security guards on power trips.
That's not a justification for getting rid of them...
jester214
12-01-2010, 07:49 PM
Actually jimbo, there is another important right that comes to mind:
Fourth Amendment (http://forum.stripperweb.com/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure (http://forum.stripperweb.com/wiki/Search_and_seizure).
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants (http://forum.stripperweb.com/wiki/Warrant_(law)) shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Damned pesky Constitution. Challenges to naked scanning and aggressive patdowns have not made it to the Surpreme Court yet, but the TSA has been sued already, so no doubt that the Supreme Court will be involved soon enough.
And no jimboe, we are NOT going to have "more and more" of these types of regulation because we have a Constitution that limits the rights of our government to search, seize and/or monitor us. And just in case you are confused about this, those protections are a good thing. ;)
We've been dealing with patdowns and scans for years... Metal detector, the one that uses blown air... And patdowns aren't a new thing either. I personally have been bomb searched more than once and in more than one country.
How is it that now these things are unreasonable?
There are only two answers:
1. Americans don't like the naked images. Understandable.
2. The media decided to give this one attention.
JordanTaylor
12-02-2010, 09:24 AM
I don't understand how people can see this as protection when not everyone is getting checked. These searches are random so that means that hundreds of fully capable culprits are "slipping by." really you don't even need a bomb or gun to hijack a plane. Sure that would probably be easier but I could imagine that a well built man (or woman) could takeover a plane in a matter of minutes with a few kickboxing classes, a heavy carry-on, & champagne bottle from first class. We are not safe from all that much when you think about it. As far as the scans & pat downs go, they really are more of a violation than a protection. I believe the intentions are good but the solution is poor. Just my opinion tho.
jester214
12-02-2010, 11:03 AM
Sure that would probably be easier but I could imagine that a well built man (or woman) could takeover a plane in a matter of minutes with a few kickboxing classes, a heavy carry-on, & champagne bottle from first class.
LOL.
:D
I'm sorry but that sounds like a bad episode of the A-Team. :P
jennsweet
12-02-2010, 11:03 AM
it reall is a waste of time imo also.... different people can bring seperate things onto a plane that seem harmless.... until they are assembled. bwahahaha....
AudrinaN
12-02-2010, 01:27 PM
I'm sorry but I can't feel bad for you. They are doing this to protect us! Unfortunately the way the world is today, we have to go to extreme measures to prevent another 9/11... I am so sick of hearing people bitch about this! If they didn't do this and you got on a plane and it was taken over by a terrorist and your plane was heading for a building, then I bet all the people that complained about security measures would be begging to go back in time and get searched. It's better to be safe than sorry.
Well said. These are just the times. Deal with it or drive. It wouldnt bother me... its not like they wake up in the morning and say HEY I CANT WAIT TO VIOLATE SOMEONE TODAY! Im sure they dont like performing this aggressive search anymore than we do. But, its keeping us alive...so let em do what they gotta do.
kaiarose
12-02-2010, 01:37 PM
Well said. These are just the times. Deal with it or drive. It wouldnt bother me... its not like they wake up in the morning and say HEY I CANT WAIT TO VIOLATE SOMEONE TODAY! Im sure they dont like performing this aggressive search anymore than we do. But, its keeping us alive...so let em do what they gotta do.
Thanks :) But be forewarned, you're going to get alot of shit for agreeing with me ;) LOL
AudrinaN
12-02-2010, 02:20 PM
Oh well. Ill survive. I just think people have a complaint for everything. Its public safety for God's sake. We're in 2010, people are crazy. So we gotta have crazy measurements!
JordanTaylor
12-02-2010, 04:37 PM
LOL.
:D
I'm sorry but that sounds like a bad episode of the A-Team. :P
never heard of it. still, cheezy or not its a real possibility. prisoners kill each other with shanks made of ink pens! if someone is determined to kill or terrorize they will, period.
I'm not saying they shouldn't do screenings, because they definitely SHOULD. I'm just saying find a better method.
rickdugan
12-02-2010, 06:42 PM
...Seriously though, everything else aside. What is it you are in favor of them doing?, would you like them to just cease and disist from taking the current scans and leave a glaring hole in security for the masses?. Would you then just hope that no terrorists would seek to take advantage of this well publicized gap in our security?. Not a wise-ass question, just genuinely curious.
Also, even if this is repealed, the airlines as private companies have the right to refuse service to anyone they see fit as long as it's not based on color, sex or religion. What do you do if they refuse to admit anyone that doesn't adhere to the curret screening methods?.
I also stand by my previous statments regarding civil or constitutional rights being violated.
With airport searches, the current and obvious safety need is preventing terrorists from blowing up airliners and killing innocent people. In the early 1970s, the safety need was preventing hijackers from commandeering planes. As far back as 1973, courts have backed pre-boarding screenings conducted in the name of safety. In 2007, the full, 15-member 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - whose judges rarely agree collectively on anything - ruled unanimously that people who refuse a secondary security check cannot leave the airport.
What I would like is for the rampant melodrama and umitigated paranoia to stop and for some semblance of reasonableness to come into the equation. What I would also like is for the TSA to find alternative ways to test for explosive elements without the need for naked scans and crotch grabbing. Like I said before, I cannot believe that alternative technologies do not exist.
What happens when some enterprising terrorist hides an explosive device inside a body cavity? Or when someone figures out how to place a timed device inside someone's stomach? Or when someone figures out how to make artificial skin that can fool the scanners?
What's next? When does it stop? How safe do you want to be, and how much freedom and dignity are you willing to give up for it? Is absolute safety the only goal, at any price?
And before you answer that, consider that naked scanners are also being tested for by U.S. Marshalls for federal courthouses. Also consider that the theory of "implied consent" is now being considered by certain cities for application to subways and other mass transit systems.
I do not want my children to grow up in a world where they are molested every time they go into an airport, subway or bus terminal. As I've said before, when we do this to our own people then the terrorists have already won.
nicole84
12-02-2010, 07:52 PM
i have no issue with the screening. hell, i could do a really good argument about why it is totally within the current understanding/interpretation of the 4th amendment (law school third year...took criminal procedure this semester...covering 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments).
I also just dont care. ive been selected for extra screening before, and i just dont care. yeah, it takes a few extra minutes, but whatever.
Plus, half the issues people have with it where they claim all sorts of "facts" are total bull.
however, what i want to know is this...
one of the things israel does to bags you have checked, is before they go on the plane, they are put through a chamber that replicates the pressures experienced by bags in flight. So, if you have soething that is pressure sensitive to blow up, it will do so on the ground in the chamber.
this is not terribly complicated. why are we not doing something like it?
Honestly, I think americans tend to be a bunch of whiners. they want everything for nothing.
i am not in favor of letting tyrants rule. after all, a tyranny of the minority is still a tyranny, but i do think people need to accept that if it is not a "right" that you might have to be inconvenienced to be allowed to do it.
And yes, the TSA finds it as annoying as you do.
KS_Stevia
12-02-2010, 08:14 PM
^Seen that happen.
I actually "like" those machines as far as how invasive they are. They just need to warn people, and especially women, about whats going to happen.
Yup. They didn't warn me about the air, and I was holding a frightened animal in my hands. Next thing you know, I am dripping blood all over the terminal floor. Nice ladies are coming up trying to help and the TSA bitches are screaming at them to get away while making me hold onto an animal who has his claws dug about 2 inches into my titflesh.
No joke, no apology. I was in too much shock to do anything but buy aid at the store and fix myself up.
ashiepants
12-03-2010, 08:22 AM
Meh, I kinda see why they're necessary, and aside from the extreme cases (like making people undress publically, or people being sexually harassed), I think that most people are overreacting. No offense to the OP, or anything like that, but I've been patted down by male security guards at concert venues, theme parks and other places you wouldn't deem to be a security threat. As long as its done professionally, I don't see a problem. If my snatch was setting off some alarm because of a piercing, or they needed to clarify what was under my clothes that was setting off an alarm, I have NO qualms about going into the back room to show them whats going on. And if they need to do a quick patdown, so be it. Its their job to make sure people are safe and if they're being professional about it, it shouldn't be a big deal.However, I think people are too afraid of the terrorists, and should be more afraid of their pilots being underslept or uneducated about the equipment, or be more concerned with the upkeep of the planes they're flying on. You have a MUCH greater chance of dying on an airplane due to pilot or mechanical failure than you do from some asshat blowing up your plane. I'm flying next week, first time flying into the US since this TSA crap started getting all crazy and I"m looking forward to seeing how bad it is lol.
WorkerBee
12-06-2010, 07:56 PM
Will travel by greyhound from now on.
michele11
12-07-2010, 12:48 PM
I havent read the whole thread but I fly at least once a month and on my recent trip was picked to be scanned, then was forced to stand there while noone told me anything and I worried about the cash in my purse. A female came over and said she had to do a pat down search I was like I just did the scan and she was like they saw something in your clothing.All this bullshit and I went straight to the airport from work since my flight was at 6am. Anyways she was really cool and didnt touch me inappropriately. She did run her hands from just at the crotch down look in my waist ban and ran her hand under my breasts ( ha, ha I had no bra on) but anyways she was cool and when she was done she was like my goal is to get my tummy as flat as yours. If your a dancer and offended by this thats ridiculous! Its for our safety and they only do it to 2% of travelers and hey with as much as I travel I would rather be safe than sorry!
Djoser
12-08-2010, 03:55 PM
Will travel by greyhound from now on.
I have mixed feelings about this issue, but none at all when it comes to Greyhound.
Greyhound is total last resort, desperate to get the hell out of town transportation. So desperate that you will endure sitting next to smelly, nasty, weird people for more than twice as long as it would take you to drive. We all bitch about airline seats, but bus seats make them look like giant massaging LA-z-Boys. I'd rather get frisked for 30 seconds by some leering perv, I suspect, than ride packed like sardines for 40 hours with 50 of the worst cross-section of humanity available in that area, and beyond--but that's easy for me to say right now.
KS_Stevia, you were holding your cat when you went through a blower thing?? How did you not scream bloody murder when she clawed you?? I cannot stop from screaming loud as fuck (and usually the word "FUCK!!!", and I am really, really loud) when I get viciously clawed, especially by my own cat for whatever reason (bathtime, huge dogs, bizarre machinery in airports). They probably would have arrested me if I were you!
nelly33
12-09-2010, 03:31 PM
I think everyone who is either for profiling or against enhanced airline security for everyone would do well to look at the case of Anne Mary Murphy, a pregnant Irish woman. She had an explosive planted in her luggage by a third party, and with a combination of an extensive interview and technology, it was discovered she had a bomb, even though she didnt know it. The Israeli's seem to have it right. Here in America, people are used to support the technology we have to make us feel safer. In Israel, the technology is used to support the very capsble security agents. Of course, they have to show up earlier to their flights, but I feel that is very acceptable when there are a number of other countries and organizations that hate you and want to harm you. If you have an issue with showing up early to fly, then don't.
KS_Stevia
12-09-2010, 08:19 PM
KS_Stevia, you were holding your cat when you went through a blower thing?? How did you not scream bloody murder when she clawed you?? I cannot stop from screaming loud as fuck (and usually the word "FUCK!!!", and I am really, really loud) when I get viciously clawed, especially by my own cat for whatever reason (bathtime, huge dogs, bizarre machinery in airports). They probably would have arrested me if I were you!
Call me sometime, I'll tell you the story. Its kind of funny but also extremely wrong. Why didn't I file that complaint? Oh well, fuckup #9586306 to reflect upon in life, lol
Optimist
12-10-2010, 01:57 AM
If your a dancer and offended by this thats ridiculous! Its for our safety and they only do it to 2% of travelers and hey with as much as I travel I would rather be safe than sorry!
That sounds like what a guy says after he grabs your crotch or your tit at the club. You're a dancer so you have no right to set limits to access to your body. Absurd.::)
loren
12-10-2010, 11:23 PM
Thank you Michele.2 I love your link. I will spread the word on facebook. :)
michele11
12-14-2010, 04:58 PM
Optomist, Sorry but its not the same as getting groped by a guy in a strip club! Lol not even close. You people must not travel out of the states because like others have said you would be use to it. I bet most the people complaining dont even fly, if once a year or ever lol.
_Avery_
12-15-2010, 10:42 AM
Was browsing a tshirt site to find some shirts for my husband, came across these, thought they'd fit well in this thread. :P
http://www.roadkilltshirts.com/Assets/ProductImages/TSA_AGENT.jpg
http://www.roadkilltshirts.com/Assets/ProductImages/TSA_TOUCHIN_REV.jpg
http://www.roadkilltshirts.com/Assets/ProductImages/TSA_UNDERPANTS.jpg
Almost Jaded
03-19-2011, 08:48 AM
I'll solve airline safety right here, right now, for a one-time cost of under $200 per plane.
Under every seat on the plane, complete with instructions on how to use it, we place a tubesock with cue ball in it.
Done. 8)
A friend of mine has a lawsuit against the TSA right now. He received the search, and not only did they grope his genitals, they groped his genitals for a solid 20 seconds and then the guy commented on how big his dick felt.
This needs to stop.
Roxychu
03-19-2011, 09:18 AM
-----
Amy Lee
03-19-2011, 09:33 AM
I fly a lot and I know what you mean...
But it is sort of the lesser of two evils. If you want to fly these days, you have to get pat down or have radiation on your body (those machines are BS and I will NEVER go inside of one).
They never took into account that people have been sexually abused, assaulted, raped, or just feel VERY violated.
Honestly that isn't going to stop terrorist, they are ALREADY HERE and have been...plus they ship things in cargo, an area that the US and the presidents over the past decade seem to keep under the rug...
It is such bullshit.
AngelCummings
03-20-2011, 01:01 AM
To someone who has actually been raped, I find this thread insulting. And the fact that it was a woman shouldn't make you more upset, would you have rather it been a man touching your pussy? /:O
Almost Jaded
03-20-2011, 03:28 AM
I don't think anyone would say that your experience is in the same league, or make light of it at all. The fact that people have a problem with getting their privates groped inappropriately in the name of a completely ineffective security measure has nothing to do with rape victims. As such a victim, I would think you would be more sensitive to the issue..?
AngelCummings
03-20-2011, 03:40 AM
I don't think anyone would say that your experience is in the same league, or make light of it at all. The fact that people have a problem with getting their privates groped inappropriately in the name of a completely ineffective security measure has nothing to do with rape victims. As such a victim, I would think you would be more sensitive to the issue..?
On the contrary. I would have more sympathy perhaps if the TSA was using this for their own sexual pleasure, or to purposely degrade whoever is being touched, but that's not the case at all, at least imo. The fact that some individuals in this thread are calling this "molestation" and "sexual abuse" is infuriating. But, like I've said before, I'm not going to flame the OP since everyone has a right to how they feel I guess, and I'm not her so I'm not going to try to categorize her experience. That's all I have to say though, I'm incredibly exhausted right now and can barely think straight, perhaps that's the true underlying reason that I find this thread a compilation of ignorance and sheer ridiculousness.
daniella_maria
03-20-2011, 04:05 AM
I got a pat down two weeks ago at LAX. It was a pice of cake, and not even invasive. lets see what happens when I fly out of PDX.