Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed'

[vz71]

That’s not whining, that is a legitimate complaint.

I’m talking about the thousands of people on blogs and news sites, Facebook (and yes, message forums) who are crabbing about all this but will still get on a plane and fly. Again I say, if you don’t like it, don’t fly.

~Liza

I have no plans on ever flying again.
But I know people that do not have a choice in the matter.

Their rights should not be violated.

 

[pnewton]

I can see you are not being serious. The rest of your post is just a divorced from reality as this dishonest garbage. 4th amendments rights still apply.

Really? Then can you, or anyone explain to me why there is no requirement of probable cause for a more intrusive search. The protection against unreasonable search and seizures centers around the word “unreasonable” meaning without a reason. Random selection has never been considered a reason. Would you think it reasonable if the local police decided to break in your door to search your house just because you were the one in a hundred randomly chosen to crack down on meth labs? Of course not. Yet that is exactly what we are doing, only more so, as there are far more meth labs than bombers. I notice that there is a civil penalty for leaving that has never been applied. I believe this to be precisely because the Administration knows its policies would be struck down as unconstitutional if put to the test.

Nobody is being sexually assaulted.

Correct. The sort of fondling that is being done is simple assault it Texas, not sexual assault. There is currently a bill in Congress to remove exemption from prosecution for TSA employees in these cases. Several DA’s have already said they would take cases on local charges for this sort of touching.

Let me through out one more point of insanity. If a juvenile or adult is arrested in Texas, even then probable cause is required to search them more than a simple pat down. Even in jail, a strip search can not be performed until after they have had a chance to make bail and until they enter the general inmate population. This is a direct result of the courts considering such searches unreasonable and unwarranted. Yes, I have little doubt which way this mess will shake out in court. I for one hope it is soon so I don’t have to drive every summer on vacation. I will not fly Gestapo Air.

 

[torch621]

Until the morons rescind this stupid and unnecessary invasion of privacy, I’m taking the train when I use public transportation.

I’m sure Amtrak will love me for it.

 

[pnewton]

What’s next - internal passports to allow to travel within the country?

There will be Americans even in that situation that will submit to a Totalitarian state in the name of security. For many, fear is a stronger motivation than freedom.

 

[StTommyMore]

I for one don’t believe all these “cat in the microwave” type stories for one second.

Flying is a privilege and not a right. No one is forcing people to get on planes. If you don’t want to be treated this way, then don’t fly. It’s really pretty simple.

Do I like the idea of the scans and the searches, no. But I like it a lot better than some guy with a plastic bomb in his crotch blowing himself up over my city.

~Liza

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.–Ben Franklin

 

[Charlotte408]

I for one don’t believe all these “cat in the microwave” type stories for one second.

**Flying is a privilege and not a right. No one is forcing people to get on planes. If you don’t want to be treated this way, then don’t fly. It’s really pretty simple.

Do I like the idea of the scans and the searches, no. But I like it a lot better than some guy with a plastic bomb in his crotch blowing himself up over my city. **

~Liza

Thank you liza. There’s this old african proverb (lol don’t ask I think I saw it on here as someone’s signature actually) and it goes ‘before you tear down a fence, first find out why it was put there’.

It seems like everyone’s forgetting WHY the pat-downs, body scanners are there. Like its just some hassle for no reason. And yeah, in most of our cases, there is no reason - but there is a darn good reason for them having these security procedures in general…

I recognize the need for advanced security at the airports, accept the body scanners because some people might be in a rush and don’t have the ‘modesty’ problem I have (I would never personally use them) and accept the pat downs as an alternative.

Lets keep it real. Police frisk you the same way. Bouncers at night clubs frisk you the same way. Heck security guards at concerts frisk you the same way. Your given options, take one or find another way to travel.

 

[pnewton]

Thank you liza. There’s this old african proverb (lol don’t ask I think I saw it on here as someone’s signature actually) and it goes ‘before you tear down a fence, first find out why it was put there’.

Except this is a new fence that the TSA just erected the last couple of weeks.

Lets keep it real. Police frisk you the same way. Bouncers at night clubs frisk you the same way. Heck security guards at concerts frisk you the same way.

No, not the same way. I do not think many complained to the old pat downs. It is the groin searches that is causing problems.

Your given options, take one or find another way to travel.

This is getting a little old, and I notice every time there is always an option deliberately omitted. The third option is to fight for change. There has already legislation introduced to force change. There is a reasonable possibility that a drop in sales will cause the airlines to petition for change.

 

[Charlotte408]

Except this is a new fence that the TSA just erected the last couple of weeks.

Yes, and again, why was that fence erected? Do we really want to take it down?

No, not the same way. I do not think many complained to the old pat downs. It is the groin searches that is causing problems.

Yes. The same way. Have you been to a club lately? lol, heck, have you been to OAKLAND lately?? lol…‘pat down’…please. Police will jiggle your goodies to make sure stuff don’t fall out - huney, I know this first hand.

This is getting a little old, and I notice every time there is always an option deliberately omitted. The third option is to fight for change. There has already legislation introduced to force change. There is a reasonable possibility that a drop in sales will cause the airlines to petition for change.

So what kind of change do you think would be appropriate?

They started with ‘basic pat downs’ which took foreverrrr and didnt really work.

So they made the scanners, cuts down on time and its very effective. And for those who are uncomfortable due to modesty, they can still do the pat down, but it’s a tad more thorough…

What would you propose? Only scanners? So there’s no ‘hands on’? I don’t understand, its like there’s an option for both travelers, one for people who don’t want to be touched, and one for people who don’t want to be seen naked. The only other option I see is no security check at all. And why would you want that given you KNOW people are trying to get in there and blow themselves up?

 

[Listen_to_This]

Who decides the risk level that they are using to justify the increased scrutiny? What incident sparked the increased risk level they are citing as justification for these intensive searches? Who decides what kind of search is reasonable with the risk level?

Is it Congress? Did they really pass a law that details all of that? Or did they give it to the TSA and Homeland Security to sort out, with unelected bureaucrats deciding risk levels and what is reasonable?

What about TSA officials outright telling people that they left their rights at the door? Americans have rights everywhere except in airport terminals and on airplanes. If I want to fly, I must relinquish my rights and give permission for a government employee to grope me intimately in public, or to be stripped naked in a scanner?

How can a right be inalienable if it can be suspended by the government ín certain circumstances?

If the airline requires this as a condition for boarding their aircraft, it is one thing. This is the Government imposing this and suspending citizens’ rights in the name of public safety.

Where else is going to be exempted from following the Constitution in the name of public safety? Shopping malls, subway stations? These also are targets. Can we expect to be stopped and body searched by the police at random in a shopping mall or subway because there might be a threat from a terrorist? I think we’d find this unreasonable, just as it is unreasonable to do it to airline passengers.

The only heightened risk I am aware of in recent months is from parcels and cargo, not from passengers. Increasing scrutiny of passengers in the wake of a heightened risk from cargo is unreasonable. The previous search methods have been effective and I see no reason to have changed them.

The 4th amendment has not been suspended. These searches are subject to the 4th amendment regardless of any statements by TSA officials. Did read the case I linked to earlier? Here is again:

ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/0430243.pdf

I’ve been body searched before. That was in Bahrain in 1970 when the PFLP hijacked several planes and took them to the desert in Jordan. I missed being on one of the hijacked planes by one day. Course, I wasn’t expecting any rights in Bahrain but at least the Bahrainis were considerate enough to have screened booths for the body search and didn’t make you stand out there in front of God and everybody while being groped.

A person selected for a pat-down can have the pat-down performed in a private room. He can even have the pat-down witnessed by a person of his choice. Maybe instead of fear mongering and spreading false information, you should look up the actual facts.

tsa.gov/travelers/pat_downs.shtm

 

[Listen_to_This]

Maybe its not sexual assault by the strict legal definition of Texas state law. It is wrong for them to behave in such a manner and I would expect you to agree with the rest of us on that. Laughing at exposed women, does not help to protect an airplane from a terrorist attack.

We do not know if the woman’s allegations are accurate.

 

[Listen_to_This]

Really? Then can you, or anyone explain to me why there is no requirement of probable cause for a more intrusive search. The protection against unreasonable search and seizures centers around the word “unreasonable” meaning without a reason. Random selection has never been considered a reason.

Did you read the case I posted and the other cases cited in that opinion? Obviously not. You have no understanding of the the 4th amendment. Why don’t you read the case law and do some research on the 4th amendment. If you look into the law, you will why your post and the inane scenarios in it only show a total ignorance of the law.

Edit - Here is the case again. ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/07/0430243.pdf

 

[bbarrick8383]

So what kind of change do you think would be appropriate?

A complete separation of passengers who will enter a terminal based on certain personal and flight characteristics rather than what airline they are flying. Each terminal would have different security protocols. Almost like a prison, from min to max security.

 

[pnewton]

You have no understanding of the the 4th amendment. Why don’t you read the case law and do some research on the 4th amendment. If you look into the law, you will why your post and the inane scenarios in it only show a total ignorance of the law.

If my scenario is “inane”, perhaps you can explain the actual difference, using logic instead of insults. It is easy to say one situation is not the same thing as another. It is more meaningful if you can actually say why.

Your case link was for a wand scan, which have been used for decades in public settings. It was not for an “enhanced” pat-down or a naked scanner. Also, that decision was limited in scope to the Ninth District, probably the most frequently over-turned court of appeals there is.

 

[Listen_to_This]

If my scenario is “inane”, perhaps you can explain the actual difference, using logic instead of insults. It is easy to say one situation is not the same thing as another. It is more meaningful if you can actually say why.

Your case link was for a wand scan, which have been used for decades in public settings. It was not for an “enhanced” pat-down or a naked scanner.

Read the case law for the its general principles, not nitpicking details.

 

[Listen_to_This]

A complete separation of passengers who will enter a terminal based on certain personal and flight characteristics rather than what airline they are flying. Each terminal would have different security protocols. Almost like a prison, from min to max security.

Keep in mind that under the law those characteristics cannot include:

* Race - Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866
* Color - Civil Rights Act of 1964
* Religion - Civil Rights Act of 1964
* National origin - Civil Rights Act of 1964
* Sex - Civil Rights Act of 1964

 

[pnewton]

What would you propose?

This.

A complete separation of passengers who will enter a terminal based on certain personal and flight characteristics rather than what airline they are flying. Each terminal would have different security protocols. Almost like a prison, from min to max security.

It would be simple enough to develop a protocol of risk starting the moment a ticket is bought based on criminal history, national origin, age, gender, flight-type, frequency of flying, and any other demographic shown to be associated with those who bomb airplanes. The flight risk could be encoded on the ticket. Screening could then be done with at least a reason, instead of random.

 

[Listen_to_This]

Your case link was for a wand scan, which have been used for decades in public settings. It was not for an “enhanced” pat-down or a naked scanner. Also, that decision was limited in scope to the Ninth District, probably the most frequently over-turned court of appeals there is.

Did the TSA agents in that case have probable cause before selecting the individual who wand scanned?

 

[canadianguy1143]

Read the case law.

This isn’t the lawyers forum. This isn’t the law forum. This is Catholic Answers Forum. The law can be corrupt as abortion is legal so spare us on trying to merge our morality with US laws.

I would like to ask you again if you think its okay to laugh at a woman who has her breasts exposed?

 

[pnewton]

Read the case law for the its general principles, not nitpicking details.

Are you telling me to scan it and avoid the details. You are funny!

My congressman is attempting to stop this madness in the legislature. I guess yours can represent you.

 

[Listen_to_This]

This.

It would be simple enough to develop a protocol of risk starting the moment a ticket is bought based on criminal history, national origin, age, gender, flight-type, frequency of flying, and any other demographic shown to be associated with those who bomb airplanes. The flight risk could be encoded on the ticket. Screening could then be done with at least a reason, instead of random.

Both of the ones in bold are illegal. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964.