So now the intrusive body scans and "second base" pat downs feel ups don't apply to Islamic women wearing hijabs. So since the rules don't apply to the large majority of the people that may be terrorists, I'm bringing my gun on the plane. I'm also telling the TSA to go fuck itself, it's unconstitutional anyway. None of these searches are "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. And how can the government ban you from taking items on a private plane? The government doesn't own the fucking planes, and it doesn't run these companies (at least, not officially - clearly it has so much damn regulation that it really does).

Not flying again until this airport "security" bullshit goes away. Fuck the TSA, fuck Homeland "Security", and fuck Bush (and Obama for continuing/strengthening this farce). Yeah, you read that right.

Ooh, can I jump on the fuck-em-all train? Fuck the lobbyists who pushed for it, and the stupidly inflated homeland security budget that allows assholes like this to cash in hundreds of millions of dollars for machines that disgraces individual liberty AND fails to make us more safe.

Fuck these guys.

And fuck my life, since I have to fly to TX for Thanksgiving.

Kilt up and go commando.

Edit: Then remember to opt out of the scanners.

I just had a brainwave: paint "I really resent this" on my chest in some sort of day-glow paint that will clearly show up for my pervy inspectors.

It would need to be a high density "paint." You could probably use automotive/industrial solid/semi-solid lubricants to get it to show up i think.

That's funny, isn't the typical stand-up comedian joke that Muslem people are subject to more security checks than everyone else?

I'd say take flowers as a joke but you would probably get detained in suspicion of being a biological terrorist.

But I am a biological terrorist! Well, when I've eaten something with dairy in it anyway

Can I point out that just because CAIR makes a request or recommendation that Muslim women be exempt doesn't mean they will be? I work for the TSA and I've heard nothing about this.

I know there are a lot of things being said about the new pat-down procedures and such, but as usual the news media doesn't have a clue what the pat-down really entails and the statements from the public are highly exaggerated. You know, just like every other story the news media covers.

If you're serious about the GFY position, there's a website trying to organize a boycott on the full-body scanners on the day before Thanksgiving. The boycott also entails asking for a private screening when the alternative pat-down is given. I'm curious: how does everyone here feel about that?

I'm disgusted by the entire procedure. I haven't seen some of family in 2 years and I'm prepared to straight up and leave the airport if some security agent tries to touch me in any way whatsoever. To be frank, visiting my relatives isn't worth being fondled, and if I have a bad experience next week, I won't be flying again until the policy is changed.

Simply put, the airlines should be prepared to lose a chunk of their already dwindling business over this. I've felt incredibly uncomfortable during the security checkpoints over the last few years, and this new policy is finally "over the line" for me. No fucking way. I'm a US citizen with no criminal record: I refuse to let some guy touch my balls so I can board a domestic flight.

Honestly, I would rather be starving and unemployed if that meant TSA (or something like it) didn't need to exist.

(EDIT: I just want to point out that, at least at this point, the only people who have stored images are FAMs. TSA say they'll never do it, but there is no legislation in place requiring that that stay true. Write your congressman about it- I already have.)

I do think it's funny when people say that TSA hasn't stopped a single terrorist. Deterrence does count for something; would you say an electrified fence hadn't stopped anyone just because you never found a charred would-be interloper dead in front of it? If anything I'd say that the recent attacks on cargo planes indicate that terrorist groups think that commercial aircraft in America are no longer a viable target.

What are you expecting to see on the news? TSA agents tackling a guy with a bomb belt, restraining him while the American flag proudly waves in the background? We're not allowed to physically restrain anyone except in the case of self-defense- even in that case we have to be in reasonable fear of fatal or serious injury. In any case where a firearm or potential explosive device is discovered, TSA's immediate duty is to contact law enforcement, who then (rightfully) take credit for the discovery and the arrest.

I should also remind you that I- along with the TSOs you'll be encountering over the holidays- am just an officer. We don't make policy and we don't have the authority to ignore it. I made a promise to myself when I took this job that if TSA's policies ever got to the point that I found them immoral, I'd quit, and I stand by that. I'm not the only officer who did so. Try to keep that in mind before you scream "rape" and get some dude doing a thankless job that everyone hates him for doing arrested. Write your congressman, complain to the airlines, hell, come up with some ideas to make it better. As much as people are complaining about TSA, you guys do want to be safe, right? What do you expect us to do? And don't say "mirror Israel." If you think the ACLU is having a field-day now...

You have every right to opt out of a full-body scan. You have every right to a private screening. I think (don't quote me on this one) you have every right to have a witness present when you're being patted down. You have every right to stay with your child when they are being screened, if that becomes necessary. Ask to exercise those rights.

If it helps, when TSOs train to do the screening procedures, we test on each other. TSOs on duty at their own airports are regularly subjected to the exact same screening procedures passengers have to go through. When it comes down to it, we're just people trying to do our job- a job that, while not always perfectly executed, is at least on the individual level well-intentioned. I took the job because I want to serve the public. That may sound ridiculous, but it isn't, and it's not an uncommon motivation, at least not at my airport. If you don't trust DHS as a whole (and I can't entirely blame you for that), at least try to give individual TSOs the benefit of the doubt.

Elwin Ransom wrote:Can I point out that just because CAIR makes a request or recommendation that Muslim women be exempt doesn't mean they will be? I work for the TSA and I've heard nothing about this.

The Homeland "Security" Secretary didn't say they wouldn't make the exemption. Seems like a fairly easy answer to me.

I know there are a lot of things being said about the new pat-down procedures and such, but as usual the news media doesn't have a clue what the pat-down really entails and the statements from the public are highly exaggerated. You know, just like every other story the news media covers.

So, the video of the examiners running their hands underneath women's breasts and a hair's breadth away from the "junction of the legs" is an exaggeration? My own personal experiences with the bullshit the TSA pulls - even under the old rules - is invalid for me to make a determination about it?

The boycott also entails asking for a private screening when the alternative pat-down is given. I'm curious: how does everyone here feel about that?

Yeah, because I trust someone who is already violating my rights to not go even further if there are no witnesses? The scan - any scan - violates my Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. There is no "probable cause" here. Not even "reasonable suspicion".

To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. Why should the TSA be exempt from this requirement?

Plus, the whole thing is a farce. Security theater. A play by the government to seem like it is doing something - one that costs $6.8 billion a year in wasted money. It's the modern equivalent of the "duck and cover" response to an atomic detonation.

Lucksi wrote:When I flew last, security was passing a metal detector over me and asking me if I packed my bags myself (yes and I even dressed myself). The first time I was on a plane I got to see the cockpit. And terrorism was alive and well in those times as well. I want those times back. When it was still an accepted risk to get hurt or killed.

You know, the good old times. When it was "you touch-a my junk, I break-a your face"

Shit, I fully agree with Lucksi. Damn. Well, that's a sign of the apocalypse. We will know it really is here when Fuggle comes in and says the exact same thing. as Lucksi and I have.

Elwin Ransom wrote:Honestly, I would rather be starving and unemployed if that meant TSA (or something like it) didn't need to exist.

It doesn't. You can take your position at the stop sign outside of Wal-mart with your "Will work for food" sign now.

I do think it's funny when people say that TSA hasn't stopped a single terrorist. Deterrence does count for something; would you say an electrified fence hadn't stopped anyone just because you never found a charred would-be interloper dead in front of it?

When you find a guy on the inside of it, alive and working to accomplish his goal, then I would say it isn't working. Say, for example, the "Underwear Bomber".

We're not allowed to physically restrain anyone except in the case of self-defense- even in that case we have to be in reasonable fear of fatal or serious injury. In any case where a firearm or potential explosive device is discovered, TSA's immediate duty is to contact law enforcement, who then (rightfully) take credit for the discovery and the arrest.

Fuck, so they can't even do anything. Damn. It is that fucked up - the police using a proxy organization to conduct illegal searches.

I should also remind you that I- along with the TSOs you'll be encountering over the holidays- am just an officer. We don't make policy and we don't have the authority to ignore it.

"I'm just following orders" is not a legal defense.

I made a promise to myself when I took this job that if TSA's policies ever got to the point that I found them immoral, I'd quit, and I stand by that. I'm not the only officer who did so. Try to keep that in mind before you scream "rape" and get some dude doing a thankless job that everyone hates him for doing arrested. Write your congressman, complain to the airlines, hell, come up with some ideas to make it better.

Ok, here's an idea. Go back to the way it was before, and even allow the average citizen to be armed on planes, so they can defend themselves. Also arm the pilots and the other workers on the plane. Problem fucking solved.

As for your promise, you may not view the procedures as immoral - but they are illegal, merely by being in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As such, any TSA officer should be arrested for violating such a right, regardless of orders from DHS or Congress or whatever, and I really don't care that the job is "thankless" and everyone hates the guy.

As much as people are complaining about TSA, you guys do want to be safe, right?

Benjamin Franklin wrote:They who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

You have every right to opt out of a full-body scan. You have every right to a private screening. I think (don't quote me on this one) you have every right to have a witness present when you're being patted down. You have every right to stay with your child when they are being screened, if that becomes necessary. Ask to exercise those rights.

I have every right to exercise my right to travel on a commercial airplane without my Fourth Amendment rights being violated by illegal searches. I will ask to exercise this right. And, frankly, if I am in a position where I need to fly for any reason, I will demand that this right not be violated, to the point of pushing my way through the security checkpoint and being arrested if need be.

So because Napolitano didn't say she wouldn't make the exemption, and that means the exemption will be made? You... you might need firmer ground to stand on, dude.

As for my "how do you feel about it" question, it was poorly phrased. I meant to ask how potential travelers feel about the boycott itself. Private screenings take longer (not because TSA hates doing them, but because we have to make sure the passenger can maintain visual contact with their property, among other things), and would therefore result in either delayed flights or even non-boycotters missing flights that left on time.

People have made a lot of statements about the Fourth Amendment here. When I asked about the legality of the searches after being hired, then did my own research, it seems that there are implied consent issues in play here. The TSA search procedures are mandated by airlines and the federal government, and since the airlines own the planes, they can ask you to go through whatever search procedures they deem necessary before you board their craft. Short version is that there is no need for reasonable cause for baseline procedures. If reasonable suspicion of a threat is discovered, the police are then called. There are restrictions on us and what searches can be performed without suspicion, but I'm not allowed to share what the restrictions are. Useful information to be drawn from this is that you can make a difference by complaining to the airlines as well as the government.

I should also point out that general aviation is not subjected to these rules specifically because there is no Constitutional basis for it. I've actually heard a lot of very positive comments about general aviation lately from people who've switched to it. I don't really know anything about the costs in comparison to commercial, though.

The pat-downs involve patting down private areas, yes. It's not a grope. I can't speak for every TSO, but I certainly take no pleasure from it. And y'all might know this, but the screening is same-gender except in the case of infants, in which the gender of the parent holding the infant is the determining factor (barring a request by the parent, of course).

I'm not going to quit because the job irritates people, and I've done my due diligence in verifying that the job is constitutionally sound and necessary in some form for the protection of the public. I said immoral, not annoying. And you might be happy with a plane a month being blown up (though I doubt that would be true after two or three planes), but in my mind that is simply unacceptable. One of the duties of the government is to provide for the common defense. And whatever you might think about its effectiveness, TSA is intended to do that. In my opinion, it succeeds.

THE UNDERWEAR BOMBER WAS NEVER SCREENED BY THE TSA. THE UNDERWEAR BOMBER WAS NEVER SCREENED BY THE TSA. THE UNDERWEAR BOMBER WAS NEVER SCREENED BY THE TSA. Also, while the old procedures have been lampooned as incapable of catching him (which I wonder about), the new procedures would.

"I'm just following orders" is not a legal defense.

I don't need a legal defense, and if I did need one, I wouldn't use that. Given easily obtainable knowledge, I can make an informed decision about my actions. I don't need to hide behind the agency if I make a mistake.

Honestly? I wouldn't mind allowing passengers to fly armed, because a handgun isn't really a huge threat to the integrity of the aircraft (not that I'd just let a gun I discovered go due to that opinion, of course). If a passenger is carrying a gun, though, that does not mean they are capable of stopping a suicide bomber from detonating, seeing as how the guy is willing to die anyway. A better solution is to stop the bomb before it gets on the plane.

And, frankly, if I am in a position where I need to fly for any reason, I will demand that this right not be violated, to the point of pushing my way through the security checkpoint and being arrested if need be.

I find this attitude commendable. If you're willing to go that far to stand up for what you believe, good for you. In the same vein, I'll continue to do my job because I believe that it is the right thing to do, on the basis of the laws and duties of the government of this nation.

I might also state that although you have a Fourth Amendment right concerning unreasonable search and seizure, boarding a commercial flight is not a right. It's a privilege that you purchase when you purchase a ticket, and you accept all stipulations applied by the airline when you do so. The airlines own the craft, and it's in their best interests to protect the craft from damage, either by some nutjob with an explosive vest or a hijacker who really wants to go to Bogota.

I do have another question, though: It's all well and good to say that you'll stand up for your rights, and you'd rather have a plane a month go down (just for a stat, that's anywhere from 600-3600 people killed a year, assuming the aircraft aren't 747s or Cessna), but do you really think it's your right to demand that every other person in this country make that sacrifice as well? You'd really do away with all airport security that involves pat-downs and bag checks and open yourself up to that kind of a death toll, instead of coming up with a better way to screen for bombs and implementing that?

I... I don't think you and I are going to agree on... well, any of that.

I haven't the slightest clue why someone would pine for the good old days when it was easier to get a bomb on a plane. I mean that sincerely; that point of view is totally incomprehensible to me. This is America, dammit- people shouldn't have to be afraid to fly. However, this is America, dammit- you can't expect the federal government to implement... well, anything, without getting on your nerves in some way.

Let me put my questions another way: If these procedures were more subtle, would you still object? For example, if the TSA worked by observation of behavior, or CCTV systems with heuristic behavioral analysis software like in Vegas, or extensive background databases like in Israel, would that be okay? Is it the fact that there is extensive airport security that's all up in your business that's bothering you, or is it that it's an inconvenience? These procedures are going to change as new technology becomes available. They always have and always will- TSA isn't even a decade old yet.

And I promise consistency in my arguments, Lucksi- in fifteen years, when better, less-obtrusive procedures are in place and getting through the airport isn't a two-hour ordeal, I promise not to pine for the good old days when you had to submit to a pat-down every time you got on a plane. Fair enough?

Elwin Ransom wrote:So because Napolitano didn't say she wouldn't make the exemption, and that means the exemption will be made? You... you might need firmer ground to stand on, dude.

No, that means it could happen. The obvious response should have been "That's ridiculous." It wasn't. Thus, there is room to question this nonsense.

People have made a lot of statements about the Fourth Amendment here. When I asked about the legality of the searches after being hired, then did my own research, it seems that there are implied consent issues in play here. The TSA search procedures are mandated by airlines and the federal government, and since the airlines own the planes, they can ask you to go through whatever search procedures they deem necessary before you board their craft.

TSA search procedures are not mandated by the airlines. That's ridiculous. They are mandated by the federal government, and included in that mandate is that airlines comply with not letting people fly without the searches.

Short version is that there is no need for reasonable cause for baseline procedures.

Bullshit.

Useful information to be drawn from this is that you can make a difference by complaining to the airlines as well as the government.

The airlines would only listen if they are willing to go out of business by not complying with federal mandates on the industry. Unconstitutional mandates, but still, what company is going to risk fighting that when the feds also subsidize the industry.

I should also point out that general aviation is not subjected to these rules specifically because there is no Constitutional basis for it.

There is no Constitutional basis for these rules on any form of aviation.

The pat-downs involve patting down private areas, yes. It's not a grope. I can't speak for every TSO, but I certainly take no pleasure from it.

Oh, well, by all means. Sexual assault is fine as long as you "don't take pleasure from it"? Your hands shouldn't be on me searching for anything unless I explicitly give consent or you can articulate

I've done my due diligence in verifying that the job is constitutionally sound and necessary in some form for the protection of the public.

You are going to quite a stretch to justify this nonsense.

One of the duties of the government is to provide for the common defense. And whatever you might think about its effectiveness, TSA is intended to do that. In my opinion, it succeeds.

The TSA is intended to give the illusion of security, at the price of essential liberty. Patting down three year olds does not protect anyone. Bomb components are far more likely to be hidden in areas inside the body, where all the screening in the world won't find it. Also, the liberty taken is steadily increasing as it becomes harder and harder to find the threats.

THE UNDERWEAR BOMBER WAS NEVER SCREENED BY THE TSA. THE UNDERWEAR BOMBER WAS NEVER SCREENED BY THE TSA. THE UNDERWEAR BOMBER WAS NEVER SCREENED BY THE TSA. Also, while the old procedures have been lampooned as incapable of catching him (which I wonder about), the new procedures would.

Showing yet another reason why the TSA is a form of security theater - international flights aren't screened by them, yet it is far more likely that the terrorists fly from outside the US.

I might also state that although you have a Fourth Amendment right concerning unreasonable search and seizure, boarding a commercial flight is not a right. It's a privilege that you purchase when you purchase a ticket, and you accept all stipulations applied by the airline when you do so. The airlines own the craft, and it's in their best interests to protect the craft from damage, either by some nutjob with an explosive vest or a hijacker who really wants to go to Bogota.

The airline is not the problem, and if an airline employee told me that I could not fly without the search, I would not fly. The government has forced these unreasonable searches on both the consumer and the airline company. As such, my rights are applicable and presently being violated.

I do have another question, though: It's all well and good to say that you'll stand up for your rights, and you'd rather have a plane a month go down (just for a stat, that's anywhere from 600-3600 people killed a year, assuming the aircraft aren't 747s or Cessna), but do you really think it's your right to demand that every other person in this country make that sacrifice as well? You'd really do away with all airport security that involves pat-downs and bag checks and open yourself up to that kind of a death toll, instead of coming up with a better way to screen for bombs and implementing that?

The sacrifice of liberty is never acceptable for safety. Regardless of the consequences.