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?