.."stop touching me!!"
Keeping America Safe. LOL
Bad timing: Video of TSA pat-down of 3-year-old girl resurfaces after two years
Keeping America Safe. LOL
Bad timing: Video of TSA pat-down of 3-year-old girl resurfaces after two years
3 YOTerror Suspect At US Airport Screams...
- Thread starter JBeee
- Start date
I completely agree.
They are always trying to catch the last guy........idiots.
Ask the Israelis how it is done......and get out of my pants.
They are always trying to catch the last guy........idiots.
Ask the Israelis how it is done......and get out of my pants.
'Porno Scanner' Scandal Shows the Idiocy of America's Zero Risk Culture
By Richard Forno, CounterPunch
November 18, 2010
Editor's Note: The TSA’s “porno scanners” are a gross invasion of privacy. After the House voted down invasive porno scanners, the TSA ignored the will of Congress and bought the machines anyway, wasting $25 million in stimulus funds to create just a single job.
The lede on the DRUDGEREPORT most of Monday showed a Catholic nun being patted down at an airport security checkpoint, with the caption starkly declaring that "THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON."
He's right.
Ten years after 9/11, Americans who fly are facing a Faustian choice between subjecting themselves to a virtual (and potentially medically damaging) strip search conducted in questionable machines run by federal employees or a psychologically damaging pat-down of their bodies. Osama bin Ladin must be giggling himself silly this week.
But what should we expect in a society that requires adults to wear bicycle helmets while pedaling in the park, provides disclaimers of liability on TV advertisements, or prints warnings on fast-food coffee cups? The name of the game is zero risk. Not risk mitigation, or accepting responsibility for one's actions, but risk aversion. It's a failure to acknowledge that we can't protect against everything bad that can happen to us, so we must protect against everything we think might -- might -- be harmful at some point.
It's living in fear.
TSA has established itself as the lead federal agency charged with perpetuating this risk-averse culture at airports around the country.
The proof is evident over the past ten years: Because of the Shoebomber, we have to remove our shoes. Thanks to the Christmas Crotchbomber, we are subjected to invasive scanning or government-mandated molestation. Because there's a potential for explosives in liquid or gel form, we've got the "Three Ounces in A Baggie" rule. Wearing a sweater or bulky fleece hoodie? Take it off (along with your shoes and belt) so it can be examined. Or frisking Granny, or asking toddlers to drink from their Sippy-cups to make sure it's really Mommy's milk inside. And let's not forget the thankfully defunct prohibitions on knitting needles, insulin syringes, matches, lighters, or standing during the last 30 minutes of flights to Washington, DC.
All in the name of protecting the homeland.
Given this latest round of homeland hysteria, I must ask again -- what happens after the next 'new' attempt to smuggle something onto a plane? Actually, we know the answer: another item will go on the Prohibited Items List and additional screenings of passengers will be conducted, followed by more patronising security-speak from our Department of Homeland Insecurity asking law abiding folks to give up more of their privacy and personal "space" in the interest of Homeland (er, "State") Security. Big Brother, meet Big Sister. With all her homeland security lobbyists along for the ride.
Where does it end?
Due to this nationalised risk aversion and a docile public, we're now living in a country that subordinates law abiding travelers to quasi-law-enforcement employees of a government agency empowered to make up the rules as it goes along and arrest/fine those who question, challenge, or refuse to comply with their demands while impeding their travel within this great country. What does all of this do to our nation? Our way of life? Our way of thinking as citizens?
Perhaps this is intentional, and we're being conditioned to accept the actions of TSA and embrace a zero-risk mentality on our society.
What else can explain the statement made earlier today by TSA Director John Pistole that citizens who protest what they see as government transgressions into their privacy are being "irresponsible"? Calling us irresponsible when protesting this latest round of TSA actions is no different than our being labelled unpatriotic when protesting or questioning some of the provisions in the controversial USA PATRIOT Act. Same stuff, different Administration.
The American public needs to recognise the nature of the terror threat and accept a certain level of risk in their lives and travels instead of kowtowing to every reactive security 'enhancement' proclaimed by TSA as necessary to protect the country. In terms of airport security, we are the laughing stock of the industrialised world, and an embarrassment to knowledgeable security professionals.
The tragedy of 9/11 wasn't the attacks of that day, but what has happened to America in the years since.
Which begs the question: who should we be afraid of, really -- "them" or "us?"
By Richard Forno, CounterPunch
November 18, 2010
Editor's Note: The TSA’s “porno scanners” are a gross invasion of privacy. After the House voted down invasive porno scanners, the TSA ignored the will of Congress and bought the machines anyway, wasting $25 million in stimulus funds to create just a single job.
The lede on the DRUDGEREPORT most of Monday showed a Catholic nun being patted down at an airport security checkpoint, with the caption starkly declaring that "THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON."
He's right.
Ten years after 9/11, Americans who fly are facing a Faustian choice between subjecting themselves to a virtual (and potentially medically damaging) strip search conducted in questionable machines run by federal employees or a psychologically damaging pat-down of their bodies. Osama bin Ladin must be giggling himself silly this week.
But what should we expect in a society that requires adults to wear bicycle helmets while pedaling in the park, provides disclaimers of liability on TV advertisements, or prints warnings on fast-food coffee cups? The name of the game is zero risk. Not risk mitigation, or accepting responsibility for one's actions, but risk aversion. It's a failure to acknowledge that we can't protect against everything bad that can happen to us, so we must protect against everything we think might -- might -- be harmful at some point.
It's living in fear.
TSA has established itself as the lead federal agency charged with perpetuating this risk-averse culture at airports around the country.
The proof is evident over the past ten years: Because of the Shoebomber, we have to remove our shoes. Thanks to the Christmas Crotchbomber, we are subjected to invasive scanning or government-mandated molestation. Because there's a potential for explosives in liquid or gel form, we've got the "Three Ounces in A Baggie" rule. Wearing a sweater or bulky fleece hoodie? Take it off (along with your shoes and belt) so it can be examined. Or frisking Granny, or asking toddlers to drink from their Sippy-cups to make sure it's really Mommy's milk inside. And let's not forget the thankfully defunct prohibitions on knitting needles, insulin syringes, matches, lighters, or standing during the last 30 minutes of flights to Washington, DC.
All in the name of protecting the homeland.
Given this latest round of homeland hysteria, I must ask again -- what happens after the next 'new' attempt to smuggle something onto a plane? Actually, we know the answer: another item will go on the Prohibited Items List and additional screenings of passengers will be conducted, followed by more patronising security-speak from our Department of Homeland Insecurity asking law abiding folks to give up more of their privacy and personal "space" in the interest of Homeland (er, "State") Security. Big Brother, meet Big Sister. With all her homeland security lobbyists along for the ride.
Where does it end?
Due to this nationalised risk aversion and a docile public, we're now living in a country that subordinates law abiding travelers to quasi-law-enforcement employees of a government agency empowered to make up the rules as it goes along and arrest/fine those who question, challenge, or refuse to comply with their demands while impeding their travel within this great country. What does all of this do to our nation? Our way of life? Our way of thinking as citizens?
Perhaps this is intentional, and we're being conditioned to accept the actions of TSA and embrace a zero-risk mentality on our society.
What else can explain the statement made earlier today by TSA Director John Pistole that citizens who protest what they see as government transgressions into their privacy are being "irresponsible"? Calling us irresponsible when protesting this latest round of TSA actions is no different than our being labelled unpatriotic when protesting or questioning some of the provisions in the controversial USA PATRIOT Act. Same stuff, different Administration.
The American public needs to recognise the nature of the terror threat and accept a certain level of risk in their lives and travels instead of kowtowing to every reactive security 'enhancement' proclaimed by TSA as necessary to protect the country. In terms of airport security, we are the laughing stock of the industrialised world, and an embarrassment to knowledgeable security professionals.
The tragedy of 9/11 wasn't the attacks of that day, but what has happened to America in the years since.
Which begs the question: who should we be afraid of, really -- "them" or "us?"
Once again, an excellent post, dead on..........the "safe society" being one of my pet peeves....
Good stuff JBee.....my congrats....
(don't get used to it...lol)
Good stuff JBee.....my congrats....
(don't get used to it...lol)
the video below with the title "TSA molests 3yr old."
what? talk about going way over board!!
they did nothing of the sort, they are following standard procedures.
YES, true they do need to learn better communication skills and perhaps have handled that differently but they in no means molested her.
the kid got cranky because they took her bear away to have it scanned.
perhaps if the mother had explained to the kid that they need to see if "name of bear" is ok to fly, the kid might have been better and perhaps she wouldn't have lost her mind when the tsa agent started to pat her down.
I've been through the pat down when I flew to Cuba in 2008 and BIG DEAL?? oh my god no.
Then again I'm not some crazy lunatic who thinks that being patted down in an airport is absurd either.
what? talk about going way over board!!
they did nothing of the sort, they are following standard procedures.
YES, true they do need to learn better communication skills and perhaps have handled that differently but they in no means molested her.
the kid got cranky because they took her bear away to have it scanned.
perhaps if the mother had explained to the kid that they need to see if "name of bear" is ok to fly, the kid might have been better and perhaps she wouldn't have lost her mind when the tsa agent started to pat her down.
I've been through the pat down when I flew to Cuba in 2008 and BIG DEAL?? oh my god no.
Then again I'm not some crazy lunatic who thinks that being patted down in an airport is absurd either.
Our resident TSA sympathizer and ultra right-wing alarmist, EagleSnack, routinely uses...well, the only example he has of Canadian airport police over-reacting (BC incident I believe?) ...to EVERY paranoid act by US officals. lol
*edit*...won`t be long though given how we Canadians strive to emulate our neighbours to the south to no end. *rolls eyes*
*edit*...won`t be long though given how we Canadians strive to emulate our neighbours to the south to no end. *rolls eyes*
Since I retired, and time is not so much of a factor, I decided that that the hassle at airports is not worth the time saved, when comparing driving to flying.
And the most galling and frustrating aspect of the persecution one must suffer at airports is that the people who grab your crutch, order you to remove your shoes, humiliate you any and all ways possible, are the ones who would never pass any examination if sanity prevailed and proper profiling was instituted, as it is - with great success - in Israel.
So, my motto is if I can drive there, I will drive there. One can reach just about anywhere from anywhere in North America in about three, four days, by driving a decent vehicle. Not to mention that one can see the country, see and talk to people, and have peace of mind and freedom of movement.
So, flying is for the birds.
And the most galling and frustrating aspect of the persecution one must suffer at airports is that the people who grab your crutch, order you to remove your shoes, humiliate you any and all ways possible, are the ones who would never pass any examination if sanity prevailed and proper profiling was instituted, as it is - with great success - in Israel.
So, my motto is if I can drive there, I will drive there. One can reach just about anywhere from anywhere in North America in about three, four days, by driving a decent vehicle. Not to mention that one can see the country, see and talk to people, and have peace of mind and freedom of movement.
So, flying is for the birds.
Wow! This is one of the few threads where the Obama haters have yet to find a way to blame Obama for still another mess created by Bush.
Keeping America Safe
Airport Pat-down Leaves Traveller Covered in Urine
A TRAVELLER has been left humiliated, crying and covered in his own urine following an "invasive" pat-down airport search.
Thomas Sayer, from Michigan, US, was travelling to a wedding in Florida earlier this month when the incident occurred.
Mr Sayer, 61, was selected for the enhanced search after going through a scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.
A bladder cancer survivor, Mr Sayer says the scanner must have picked up his urostomy bag - which collects his urine from an opening in his stomach.
“I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes” Mr Sayer told MSNBC.
Mr Sayer said that the security officials ignored him when he tried to tell them about his medical condition until they removed his top and his urostomy bag became visible.
“One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me.
"Sure enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants.”
Mr Sayer said he was told to go and that he was not offered an apology or assistance.
He was left to walk through the airport soaked in urine, and it wasn't until his plane had taken off that he was able to clean up.
“I am totally appalled by the fact that agents that are performing these pat-downs have so little concern for people with medical conditions,” Mr Sawyer said.
He plans to file a formal complaint.
"No one living with an ostomy should be afraid of flying because they’re afraid of being humiliated at the checkpoint,” Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network Executive Director Claire Saxton said.
Mr Sayer's claims come after another cancer survivor says she was asked to remove her prosthetic breast and show it to airport security during an "enhanced'' pat-down.
Cathy Bossi, a flight attendant for three decades, told WBTV television in Charlotte, North Carolina, that she was selected by a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agent to go through a full-body scanner, and then was sent to be patted down.
Passengers and airline crew members are being randomly selected to pass through new scanners being deployed at airports as part of stepped-up security measures.
They are supposed to be given an "enhanced'' pat-down, which includes a frisk of their private parts, if they refuse to go through the X-ray machines or if the scanner shows something suspicious.
Bossi said the TSA agent who patted her down "put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What's this?'
"I said, 'It's a prosthesis because I have breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll have to show me that,''' Bossi said.
"I did not take the name of the person at the time because it was just so horrific of an experience that it just blew my mind. I couldn't believe someone had done that to me,'' she said.
Bossi reportedly sought legal advice after the incident. It was unclear if she removed her prosthetic breast to show the TSA agent.
The TSA told WBTV in an email that its agents are "allowed to ask to see and touch prosthetics'' but are not allowed to remove them.
The TSA followed up with another message sent to WBTV, saying it would look into Bossi's case.
Airport Pat-down Leaves Traveller Covered in Urine
- Staff writers with AFP
- From: AFP, news.com.au
- November 22, 2010 12:06PM
A TRAVELLER has been left humiliated, crying and covered in his own urine following an "invasive" pat-down airport search.
Thomas Sayer, from Michigan, US, was travelling to a wedding in Florida earlier this month when the incident occurred.
Mr Sayer, 61, was selected for the enhanced search after going through a scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.
A bladder cancer survivor, Mr Sayer says the scanner must have picked up his urostomy bag - which collects his urine from an opening in his stomach.
“I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes” Mr Sayer told MSNBC.
Mr Sayer said that the security officials ignored him when he tried to tell them about his medical condition until they removed his top and his urostomy bag became visible.
“One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me.
"Sure enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants.”
Mr Sayer said he was told to go and that he was not offered an apology or assistance.
He was left to walk through the airport soaked in urine, and it wasn't until his plane had taken off that he was able to clean up.
“I am totally appalled by the fact that agents that are performing these pat-downs have so little concern for people with medical conditions,” Mr Sawyer said.
He plans to file a formal complaint.
"No one living with an ostomy should be afraid of flying because they’re afraid of being humiliated at the checkpoint,” Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network Executive Director Claire Saxton said.
Mr Sayer's claims come after another cancer survivor says she was asked to remove her prosthetic breast and show it to airport security during an "enhanced'' pat-down.
Cathy Bossi, a flight attendant for three decades, told WBTV television in Charlotte, North Carolina, that she was selected by a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agent to go through a full-body scanner, and then was sent to be patted down.
Passengers and airline crew members are being randomly selected to pass through new scanners being deployed at airports as part of stepped-up security measures.
They are supposed to be given an "enhanced'' pat-down, which includes a frisk of their private parts, if they refuse to go through the X-ray machines or if the scanner shows something suspicious.
Bossi said the TSA agent who patted her down "put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What's this?'
"I said, 'It's a prosthesis because I have breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll have to show me that,''' Bossi said.
"I did not take the name of the person at the time because it was just so horrific of an experience that it just blew my mind. I couldn't believe someone had done that to me,'' she said.
Bossi reportedly sought legal advice after the incident. It was unclear if she removed her prosthetic breast to show the TSA agent.
The TSA told WBTV in an email that its agents are "allowed to ask to see and touch prosthetics'' but are not allowed to remove them.
The TSA followed up with another message sent to WBTV, saying it would look into Bossi's case.
By Gene Healy
Nov 23 2010
Gene Healy: Conservatives share blame for TSA's 'freedom fondle'
Last fall, flying out of Chicago O'Hare, I ran into that rarest of breeds: a Transportation Security Administration agent with a sense of humor. In her "Da Bears" accent, she moved the line along with a good-natured, "awright: who's my next victim?"
At least they're allowed to joke about it. If a rubber-gloved fed cups your -- er, I prefer the term "treasures" -- just turn your head and cough politely. Don't dare try to ease the awkwardness with a wisecrack, lest you get arrested under the TSA's no-joking policy.
Sometimes, when I manage to pull my eyes away from my twinkly smartphone and look around, I think, "Wow, if you squint a little, this could be a sci-fi dystopia!" (It happened again just recently, as I was passing through the gates at my local Metro station, and Janet Napolitano's voice boomed ominously from the loudspeakers, ordering me to say something if I see something.)
Thankfully, the growing anti-TSA backlash shows that for many Americans, there isn't a Soma dose high enough to get them to grin and bear the bureaucratic feel-up.
In fact, even some of our most rabid terror-warriors, like former Sen. Rick Santorum and neocon stalwart Charles Krauthammer, now say they've had enough.
Santorum and Krauthammer blame a politically correct mentality that prevents profiling. But the Christmas bomber was Nigerian; the shoebomber, a Brit with a Jamaican father. Should we just give the "freedom fondle" to anyone vaguely swarthy?
I have a different explanation for how we got here.
For nearly a decade, Krauthammer, Santorum and too many others on the Right have relentlessly hyped and politicized the terrorist threat. But when every bungled attack -- no matter how inept -- gets the screeching siren treatment on Drudge, what do you expect that political dynamic to produce? Sober, sensible policy?
Conservatives could stand to think more clearly about ideas and consequences, cause and effect. Take last week's comments from Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., a congressional father of the agency: "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy."
Really, who could have known?
And when prominent conservatives brush off constitutional concerns with the bromide "the Constitution is not a suicide pact," (or, as Mitt Romney put it in 2007, "Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive") is it so surprising that liberty and dignity get sent to the back of the line?
Like it or not, we live in the world the alarmists have made.
Yet, in reality, we're remarkably safe. In 2009, terrorists caused just 25 U.S. noncombatant fatalities worldwide. That's 25 too many, but "existential," it's not.
My colleague Jim Harper points out that, since 9/11, "in 99 million domestic flights, transporting 7 billion people, precisely zero domestic travelers have snuck an underpants bomb onto a plane. (The one that we have seen -- which did not work -- came from overseas.)"
Surely the existence of the TSA -- hapless and bureaucratic as they are -- deters some potential bombers. Even so, the agency won't -- likely can't -- identify a single genuine terrorist they've caught, and it's not at all clear, according to the Government Accountability Office, that even the nude machine would have exposed the Christmas bomber.
We're safe -- but not perfectly safe. Hyping and politicizing the terrorist threat won't deliver us perfect safety. Nothing can. But, as we're learning, it can put us on the path toward a society that no longer looks like America -- one where you're endlessly prodded and poked -- and ordered not to joke about the poking.
That's something worth being alarmed about.
Nov 23 2010
Gene Healy: Conservatives share blame for TSA's 'freedom fondle'
Last fall, flying out of Chicago O'Hare, I ran into that rarest of breeds: a Transportation Security Administration agent with a sense of humor. In her "Da Bears" accent, she moved the line along with a good-natured, "awright: who's my next victim?"
At least they're allowed to joke about it. If a rubber-gloved fed cups your -- er, I prefer the term "treasures" -- just turn your head and cough politely. Don't dare try to ease the awkwardness with a wisecrack, lest you get arrested under the TSA's no-joking policy.
Sometimes, when I manage to pull my eyes away from my twinkly smartphone and look around, I think, "Wow, if you squint a little, this could be a sci-fi dystopia!" (It happened again just recently, as I was passing through the gates at my local Metro station, and Janet Napolitano's voice boomed ominously from the loudspeakers, ordering me to say something if I see something.)
Thankfully, the growing anti-TSA backlash shows that for many Americans, there isn't a Soma dose high enough to get them to grin and bear the bureaucratic feel-up.
In fact, even some of our most rabid terror-warriors, like former Sen. Rick Santorum and neocon stalwart Charles Krauthammer, now say they've had enough.
Santorum and Krauthammer blame a politically correct mentality that prevents profiling. But the Christmas bomber was Nigerian; the shoebomber, a Brit with a Jamaican father. Should we just give the "freedom fondle" to anyone vaguely swarthy?
I have a different explanation for how we got here.
For nearly a decade, Krauthammer, Santorum and too many others on the Right have relentlessly hyped and politicized the terrorist threat. But when every bungled attack -- no matter how inept -- gets the screeching siren treatment on Drudge, what do you expect that political dynamic to produce? Sober, sensible policy?
Conservatives could stand to think more clearly about ideas and consequences, cause and effect. Take last week's comments from Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., a congressional father of the agency: "When the TSA was established, it was never envisioned that it would become a huge, unwieldy bureaucracy."
Really, who could have known?
And when prominent conservatives brush off constitutional concerns with the bromide "the Constitution is not a suicide pact," (or, as Mitt Romney put it in 2007, "Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive") is it so surprising that liberty and dignity get sent to the back of the line?
Like it or not, we live in the world the alarmists have made.
Yet, in reality, we're remarkably safe. In 2009, terrorists caused just 25 U.S. noncombatant fatalities worldwide. That's 25 too many, but "existential," it's not.
My colleague Jim Harper points out that, since 9/11, "in 99 million domestic flights, transporting 7 billion people, precisely zero domestic travelers have snuck an underpants bomb onto a plane. (The one that we have seen -- which did not work -- came from overseas.)"
Surely the existence of the TSA -- hapless and bureaucratic as they are -- deters some potential bombers. Even so, the agency won't -- likely can't -- identify a single genuine terrorist they've caught, and it's not at all clear, according to the Government Accountability Office, that even the nude machine would have exposed the Christmas bomber.
We're safe -- but not perfectly safe. Hyping and politicizing the terrorist threat won't deliver us perfect safety. Nothing can. But, as we're learning, it can put us on the path toward a society that no longer looks like America -- one where you're endlessly prodded and poked -- and ordered not to joke about the poking.
That's something worth being alarmed about.
Coming soon, to an airport near you.....
OTTAWA — Canada’s border guards could soon get new powers to strip search employees in airport and ports across Canada in a bid to crack down on the smuggling of illegal drugs, such as marijuana, ecstasy and cocaine.
CBSA officers also would be allowed to frisk employees and to use various types of scanners and detectors to examine goods in their possession.
The proposed regulations, which do not have to be passed by Parliament, are in a CBSA posting in the Canada Gazette. Interested parties have 30 days to give feedback.
Canadian airport, port workers soon may have to take it all off
OTTAWA — Canada’s border guards could soon get new powers to strip search employees in airport and ports across Canada in a bid to crack down on the smuggling of illegal drugs, such as marijuana, ecstasy and cocaine.
CBSA officers also would be allowed to frisk employees and to use various types of scanners and detectors to examine goods in their possession.
The proposed regulations, which do not have to be passed by Parliament, are in a CBSA posting in the Canada Gazette. Interested parties have 30 days to give feedback.
Canadian airport, port workers soon may have to take it all off
Well, it's sure is easier than those damn sneaky terrorists. Man those guys are sneaky!
