You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
TSA: Once you set foot in security, you are ours. To do with as we please.
2010-11-15
Or at least that is what some TSA official said, and other nearby TSA officials and LEOs did not deny.

Check out this guy's blog. Scroll down and you will find three videos he managed to take as a precaution after he was directed through the full body scanner.

Please consider re-posting this elsewhere to raise awareness of this constitutional assault.

Note: This guy did everything in his power to avoid the scanner, including checking the TSA's website to make sure SAN didn't have one, but when it became apparent that he was going to go through one of the new grope-down searches, he turned on his phone as a precaution.

Basically the TSA's logic goes like this:

1) We posted on our (outdated) website which airports are using the new scanners.
2) Therefore you have been warned, even if the website is wrong.
3) Our website has our security policies on it.
4) Therefore you are informed and have given your undying consent to our polices.
5) That security policy states that once you set foot in security, we own you.
6) Even if the only recourse we both accept is that you don't board your flight, we still have the right to search you to our "heart's" content. Because you might have an incendiary device and are attempting to flee, of course.
7) This applies to your little children and little old ladies in wheelchairs.
8) We will sue you if you don't behave as we dictate, even if we are making it up on the spot out of ignorance.
9) Have a nice day, citizen. Hope you like the beginnings of the new order here, which will only get better.
10) Please don't bother us with The Constitution. We have orders from a higher authority.
Posted by:gorb

#32  Thanks Gorb for that Napolitano moment. I will have a lot of trouble getting that image out of my head.

Sorry 'bout that. Just try focusing on Aunt Bea and it won't be nearly as uncomfortable.
Posted by: gorb   2010-11-15 22:41  

#31  The point is just this. TSA says you must submit. Submission = Islam. Just prepping the sheeple for the coming Caliphate.
Posted by: Vespasian Smith 8945   2010-11-15 21:52  

#30  "Orgasmatron" - wasn't me, Besoeker. I stole it from Alaska Paul who no doubt saw the similarity to that Woody Allen movie gadget (back when Woody Allen was actually funny.)
Posted by: Glenmore   2010-11-15 20:12  

#29  The 'pat down' doesn't bother as much as flying Delta coach fare on a 737.

"Organsmatron".....whahahahaa Glenmore did it again.
Posted by: Besoeker   2010-11-15 19:53  

#28  If Muslim women in hijab are exempt from pat-down/body scan, it seems like a clear case of religious discrimination. Especially if Catholic nuns are not exempt. For that matter, if anyone is not exempt. Any lawyers out there want to start a class action suit based on religious discrimination?
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2010-11-15 18:43  

#27  #17 Coming soon: Moral outrage from fundamentalist Muslims about it violating the modesty required by their religion, followed by special exemption from both orgasmatron and groping.
Posted by Glenmore 2010-11-15 13:07|| 2010-11-15
Done:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/hamas-linked-cair-tsa-may-only-search-around-muslim-womens-head-neck.html
snip:The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel notice to Muslim airline passengers, warning them that new regulations from the Transportation Security Administration violate certain religious rules.
Oh here's Janet:
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/11/15/dhs-chief-napolitano-about-to-cave-to-cairs-demand-hijab-clad-women-be-exempt-from-full-body-pat-downs/
snip:(CNSNews.com) - When asked today if she will insist that Muslim women wearing hijabs must go through full body pat downs before boarding planes, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano did not say yes or no, but told CNSNews.com there will be “adjustments” and “more to come” on the issue.
Posted by: Lumpy Phaviger7307   2010-11-15 17:07  

#26  You'd let Janet touch your junk? How about Aunt Bea?

Thanks Gorb for that Napolitano moment. I will have a lot of trouble getting that image out of my head.
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-11-15 16:37  

#25  So, what if I opt out due to concerns about radiation, say I opt out out loud after the TSA agent does just to make sure everyone understands what he said, then when they get me into their back room I just go ahead and drop my pants, in the name of improving the process and to remove any lagging doubt on the part of the screener, of course, will I go to jail?

Just wondering.
Posted by: Kelly   2010-11-15 16:25  

#24  If Napolitano goes in front of me and offers to get groped, I'll follow her. I'll let my junk get touched.

You'd let Janet touch your junk? How about Aunt Bea?
Posted by: gorb   2010-11-15 16:21  

#23  I'd like to see an airline start up that isn't befouled by the TSA. It would just have reasonable security, meaning profiling and a full body scanner for high risks. The only difference would be no lawsuits from terrorist actions. And no disconnected idiots in charge of security.

It would be interesting to see how much business they would take away from our present system.
Posted by: gorb   2010-11-15 16:08  

#22  If Napolitano goes in front of me and offers to get groped, I'll follow her. I'll let my junk get touched.
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-11-15 15:46  

#21  I wonder why underwear wasn't banned after the undie-bomber.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2010-11-15 15:40  

#20  #13 You would think that they would consult with Israel which has been fairly successfully dealing with this kind of threat for decades - without the backscatter, public grope searches, and cavity searching.

Yup. A good place to start.

How about stripping nekked and skip all this B.S. Flying naked through the unfriendly skies.
Posted by: JohnQC   2010-11-15 14:55  

#19  These are the same guys that are suing the State of Arizona because asking for i d is harassing people.Looking to save money thru budget cuts? Start here.
Posted by: john morrissey   2010-11-15 13:32  

#18  Or a boxcutter? To a point random searches work because it increases the odds of getting caught. When searches become likely to certain is when the innovative hiding kicks in.

And the innovation is well documented. Not terrorism, drug running. So yes I comprendo both the reason and reaction. And if the policy is to search then everyone must be open to search: sikh, muslim, amish, glee club, mimes, old white men returning from asia, everyone.

However, being phukingdics puts a checkmark onto the problem side of the chart - kinda like red light cameras. It is fostering conflict/aggrivation. What they should want is cooperation so the next time some TSA leaves their handgun in the bathroom it gets returned.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2010-11-15 13:12  

#17  Coming soon: Moral outrage from fundamentalist Muslims about it violating the modesty required by their religion, followed by special exemption from both orgasmatron and groping.
Posted by: Glenmore   2010-11-15 13:07  

#16  The big lassie with the butch haircut is waiting for you, Deacon, heh.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2010-11-15 12:31  

#15  Do I get to choose who pats me down? I might not mind.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2010-11-15 12:25  

#14  Went through Denver airport TSA (thousands standing around) and avoided the Orgasmatron. I agree that a good place to start for airport security is looking at the Israeli model.

The latest directive on printer toner packages is a classic case of reactive policy, rather than going on the offensive. Got to go to the source first and deal with it.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2010-11-15 12:10  

#13  Random searching is like trying to solve a crime by going out and picking up 20 random people at the local mall and interrogating them. You only look like your doing something.

No real terrorist is going to go through backscatter with a real gun, knife, or bomb strapped to them. They will conceal - even in a body cavity.

You would think that they would consult with Israel which has been fairly successfully dealing with this kind of threat for decades - without the backscatter, public grope searches, and cavity searching.

But I guess actually solving the problem isn't the goal.....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-11-15 11:08  

#12  This is a very big deal.

Especially if 11/24 becomes national opt-out day.

The problem with the Vietnam war began with the expansion of the draft. It represented the government taking action against individual Americans, and they resented it.

Now the government is being seen to be taking actions against Americans for the first time in this war. As far as I am concerned this has been true since the TSA was started, but a significant number of Americans did not agree until now.

So let's review the bidding. Great Society program passed, check. Money supply exploded to pay for it, check. Tax reduction of prior administration reversed for rich via surtax, check. Military related action affects Americans daily lives, check. President faces primary challenge from own party, check. President withdraws from campaigning, TBD.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2010-11-15 10:45  

#11  Per the video below - the TSA even grope-searching 3-year-old children.

And an interesting tip at the end - when you get your ticket you can ask if your child has been selected for the 'random' search and if so - you can have them 'deselected'.

Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-11-15 10:43  

#10  Right Glenmore - someone has to provide employment for sexual perverts who like to pat people down - I guess TSA is up to the task.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2010-11-15 10:36  

#9  TSA is more than Security Theatre. It's a big government 'make work' employment program. Here are tens of thousands of people 'earning' a living far above what virtually all of them would ever earn in the real world. Modern WPA or CCC.
Posted by: Glenmore   2010-11-15 08:21  

#8  Well you may look for guns and big knives. That has worked pretty well.

Passengers will handle the rest.

If we are to be worried about exploding toothpaste we can as well give up flying (or driving to the airport which is MUCH MORE dangerous, let alone that shower you take before you leave home.

Absolute security doesn't exist. We don't expect it when we drive, so we shouldn't expect it when we fly.

We don't catch terrorist at the gate, we need to catch them well before.
Posted by: European Conservative   2010-11-15 06:34  

#7  #3 So how many terrorists has TSA caught yet? Posted by European Conservative

At TSA, the terrorists is us.
Posted by: Besoeker   2010-11-15 06:08  

#6  Maybe a free beer before boarding to wash down the complementary ham sandwich?
Posted by: Skidmark   2010-11-15 03:03  

#5  How about - nobody in islamic garb flies.
Sounds like a fine first step before this bs.
Then --- Nobody with passports from Islamic nations flies.
Then -- Nobody with the first name of "Mo..." flys.
Posted by: Water Modem   2010-11-15 01:51  

#4  Lamp post shortage in 3-2-1...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2010-11-15 00:42  

#3  So how many terrorists has TSA caught yet?
Posted by: European Conservative   2010-11-15 00:33  

#2  Just more Security Theater. Every time the jihadis make another run, the security restrictions tighten. What are they going to do after Mahmoud shows up with an ass-bomb? (don't laugh. it already has been tried, rather unsuccessfully, to whack some Saudi prince)

You can't win a war by playing defense.
Posted by: SteveS   2010-11-15 00:27  

#1  HMMMM, HMMMM, FTLG i don't know whetehr to yell
"W-O-L-V-E-R-I-N-E-S" ala 1980's RED DAWN = future "AMERICAN/GLOBAL DANW" ....

versies

A sexy "OOOOOOO YEAH, BABY, HURT ME HURT ME REAL BAD"!

Heehee.

[MOUD/AL "SORTA WANT" BUNDY here].
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2010-11-15 00:14  

00:00