TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

jmra wrote:We could just go back to the way things were on 9/10. Nay, to hard to get all that sand out of the ear holes.

Funny you say that, since the search regime you're excusing wouldn't have prevented 9/11. None of the hijackers were six year old American girls. None of the hijackers used big bottles of hand lotion or shampoo to take over the plane. None were old men in wheelchairs, grandmas, or Americans traveling with their children. All of them were young adult men, most of them from Saudi Arabia. When the passengers overwhelmed the last set of hijackers, that was the last 9/11. The tactic used on 9/11 can only work once, since now everyone knows what's going to happen if they don't take the plane back.

TSA passenger screening cannot possibly prevent another attack on an aircraft. And using limited resources to screen American grandmas and little girls make the odds of a terrorists getting through security greater, not less. Even if we assume the best, that they are 100% effective in screening passengers, they cannot prevent someone blowing up a bunch of passengers in the airport, or even from planting a bomb on a plane, since they're not screening ground crews or limiting access to planes except by card swipe.

It strikes me as a little odd that a guy who carries a gun seems to believe the TSA can make the world a safe place. Do you worry about little girls attacking you in the parking lot too or do you focus your attention on the more likely threats? After all, bad guys might hide a weapon on a little girl or lull you into a false sense of security by getting one to pretend she's in trouble. Do you worry that those little girls selling cookies are just trying to get you to open your door in advance of a home invasion? I think you don't because you don't consider those to be realistic threats, but they're just about as realistic as an America couple planting a bomb on their six year old daughter to bring down an airplane.

And if there was perfect security at airports and for airplanes, which there will never and can never be, terrorists will merely shift targets to buses, trains, subways, malls, etc. Then the same excuses will be used to justify frisking six year old girls on the subway and at the mall and we'll be told to just walk if we don't like it, or stay home.

chasfm11 wrote:

jmra wrote:We could just go back to the way things were on 9/10. Nay, to hard to get all that sand out of the ear holes.

The government seems to always have a similar argument. "You don't want bad things to happen to planes in the sky, do you?" No, of course I don't. At the same time, the threat of hijacking planes does not issue a license for the government to behave in anyway that it wants, including "enhanced" patdowns of 6 year old girls.

In context, TSA screening procedures are regularly being breached with far more deadly things than this 6 year old could have carried. TSA/ Comrade Napolitano doesn't want to make public how often this happens because it would be an invitation to terrorists. To me, however, the effort should be made to improve the security against real threats before we stoop to tactics like this.

One only has to look at the little girl's clothing on her slender frame to determine that should couldn't be carrying any quantity of anything. The fact that she was randomly selected among other passengers for this egregious search simply underscores the fact that TSA is targeting the wrong things. If I were just a bit more of cynical, I would suggest that incidents like this are contrived for the sole purpose of reminding the public of the awesome power of our governmental entities. It certainly serves no purpose for security.

jmra wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

jmra wrote:
You accept my concept of consent if you buy an airline ticket because it is part of the terms and conditions you legally agree to by purchasing the ticket - read the fine print.

I guess the rest we will have to agree to disagree.

I read the contract of carriage for all the major carriers and none of them require you to consent to a search. Only American says you may be denied boarding if you refuse complete the TSA security procedures.

It's on the actual tickets. Wife is flying later this month and it is clearly stated in the package she received.

ScottDLS wrote:

jmra wrote:
You accept my concept of consent if you buy an airline ticket because it is part of the terms and conditions you legally agree to by purchasing the ticket - read the fine print.

I guess the rest we will have to agree to disagree.

I read the contract of carriage for all the major carriers and none of them require you to consent to a search. Only American says you may be denied boarding if you refuse complete the TSA security procedures.

RoyGBiv wrote:The girl in the video was not assaulted...
If she had any worries, they could EASILY be handled by the tiniest bit of effective parenting.
If the parents had issues, they should keep them to themselves and not involve/overly concern their 6yo.
Airport screening is not a "surprise". Quit acting like it is.

No, I don't like it, but when I'm standing in the security line at the airport there is NOTHING I can do about it right there. The airport is not the right venue to change this bad policy. Any notion or behavior to the contrary at the airport shows a lack of maturity and I'll not have any sympathy for you. Call your Congressman, quit whining at the TSA agent, quit slowing down the line, I have a flight to catch.

I've opted for the pat-down recently. Just because I wanted to know for myself. I didn't like it. It wasn't the agent's fault. I certainly wasn't assaulted or anything close. http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=44053" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh... and... the "testing for drugs" thing... After the agent does the pat-down, they run their gloves (new gloves are used for each pat-down) through the explosive residue detector. The parents didn't understand what was being checked.

VMI77 wrote:

jmra wrote:First I will apologize for lumping you into the Brady bunch as it is counterproductive to civil discussion and my wife said I need to play nice.

I believe that whoever included "groped" in the YouTube title did it to intentionally incite an emotional response by suggesting that the girl had been somehow violated. It is this tactic that I was comparing to the tactics used by the Brady Bunch.

Do I like the pat downs? No. However, by purchase of the plane tickets, the parents of this child consented to this behavior before they ever arrived at the airport.

Would I like to see changes? You bet! But I would like to see those changes made without resorting to the methods used by the person who posted the video on YouTube - with a misleading title and what I consider the intential use of a scare tactic to incite a virtual mob.

I guess I find the Brady Bunch remark more amusing in this context than insulting; especially since you've explained the basis for the remark and I don't deny that the term "groped" has the connotation you say it does. Like I said, I considered not using it for that reason, but ultimately decided the term is not entirely without merit when applied to a search conducted in this manner on a six year old child. The distinction you're making is unlikely to be understood by a six year old, or a four year old.

I'm not even arguing against pat downs, if they make sense, but this particular search is obviously pointless. No one can credibly contend that this little girl is a security threat. What's at work here is left-wing ideology, not security. Ascribing the best possible motives to the TSA the search is purely intended to serve the political purpose of demonstrating that everyone is considered to be an equal security threat, and that is both stupid and counterproductive. But I'm not inclined to ascribe the best motives. I think that at the highest level the implementation of this search regime is also a deliberate attempt at conditioning. The evidence for this is circumstantial, but as they keep expanding these searches to other venues and expressing their intention to expand them ever further, it's difficult for me to believe that conditioning isn't one of the motives.

As I address in another comment, I don't accept your concept of consent. I may be compelled to fly for any number of reasons. By your concept of consent, if the government said it feared terrorist attacks on grocery stores and required people entering them to accept random searches, I'd be giving my consent by purchasing food, since I could order it from Amazon, or eat at Taco Bell, or grow my own, if I don't want to be frisked. The big problem with this concept is that the logic that justifies these searches can be extended to justify searching just about anyone, anyplace, and anytime. The Constitution, by contrast, limits searches based on the concept of probable cause. Airports have escaped this standard with what I consider to be a bogus exception, but now that they're conducting these searches in train stations, it should be obvious that the Fourth Amendment is under attack.

Finally, as I said before, I don't know that I can consider the terminology a "scare tactic" even if I concede it is inaccurate or inflammatory. I can handle a pat down even if I don't like it but I'd be afraid to fly if I had my six year old child with me. I'm afraid to fly with my wife. My wife is a very private person. She doesn't even like being examined by the doctor, in private. I can easily conceive of circumstances that might cause her to react to being frisked in a way that forces me to her defense. Think about it --stressful circumstances, insensitive remarks by TSA personnel (not exactly unknown), vigorous public pat down that she finds humiliating, ensuing verbal exchange, escalation, and my intervention on behalf of my life's partner. If we had a six year old child or grandchild with us that was subjected to a search like this and started crying or screaming for mommy I can predict that my wife's reaction is unlikely to be calm, and hence, I would probably find myself quickly in trouble.

Maybe nothing would happen, my wife might be in the best possible mood, and the TSA personnel might be respectful and professional. However, how people react to things like this can be unpredictable and the consequences of the wrong reaction could be life altering, so yeah, I am scared to fly with small children or my wife, and I intend to stay away from air travel unless I have no other choice.

PUCKER wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Rebel wrote:My Wife and I were shocked at what was going on, but unfortunately I was more sheep back then. When it happens it completely throws you for a loop, you don't know what to do. Your afraid to say anything because the next thing you know your whole family is being pulled aside and searched or even arrested, and your just on a family trip, so you comply.

This is good example of how these searches are coerced, and why the contention that they are done with consent is disingenuous.

My (maybe simple-minded?) thoughts on this - when/if enough of us stand up and say NO! as a unified voice/force, then it will stop. Imagine the next time you are standing in line at the TSA grab-n-grope and you see something like this going on...if the whole crowd of folks in line would all at once just say "ENOUGH, move aside TSA" well....you, we, I, they, etc....would have a MESS on their hands....I imagine the whole terminal/airport would probably be shut down/evacuated....but I guess you get my point, when enough people stand up and say ENOUGH is ENOUGH....it just might get the point across. But then again, I may be delusional? I dunno....either way, I've been flying about every other week for the last few months and have a few more to go.... I do not like what I see (but I'm sure the naughty-scanner folks do).

VMI77 wrote:

jmra wrote:I may not agree with the pat downs but I also did not see how anyone could say that the girl was "groped". Pat downs are wrong, but saying this girl was groped is no different than the Brady Bunch calling an AR an automatic assault rifle. It simply isn't true.

Let's make sure we aren't using the same scare tactics that we accuse others of using.

I just copied the title from the Youtube video. There were several versions, all of which used "groped." I considered whether or not I should change it, but then I thought if one of us ordinary citizens did to a stranger's six year old daughter exactly what was done in the video, and even for the same reason, how would it be described when the charges are filed? Children are taught not to let strangers touch them in this way. Furthermore, when you look up how "grope" is defined, the sexual connotation goes with the 3rd or 4th definition. Here's from the "Free Dictionary":

1. (intr; usually foll by for) to feel or search about uncertainly (for something) with the hands
2. (intr; usually foll by for or after) to search uncertainly or with difficulty (for a solution, answer, etc.)
3. (tr) to find or make (one's way) by groping
4. (tr) Slang to feel or fondle the body of (someone) for sexual gratification

I'd say the girl was being searched uncertainly with the hands. I'm willing to concede that use of the term is debatable, but not that use of the term constitutes a "scare tactic." I don't fly because I don't like flying and I'm not willing to put up with the phony security theater; and because I'm just not sure how I'd react if my wife has a problem with a pat down. The father apparently was disturbed enough by this incident to video it. I'm not sure if I would have been able to keep my wits about me in those circumstances. If I had a young child this kind of stuff would most definitely scare me away from flying because I'd be afraid I might end up in jail.

VMI77 wrote:

jmra wrote:VMI77 wrote:
Well, you caught my response before I reconsidered and edited it. Still, I don't think your analogy works. For one thing, a doctor can't coerce you into undergoing an exam. We can argue about the degree of coercion, but a search like this is a "coerced" search by any reasonable definition.
Let me try it this way then. My employer required me to take a physical exam before hiring me. This exam involved things I will not go into here. Was I coerced? Did I have to consent? Only if I wanted the job.
Apples and oranges. You haven't joined the Brady Bunch have you? I said the search was "coerced." Your employer can't legally coerce you to undergo a physical. If you refuse the physical you won't be charged with a crime, detained, arrested, or tried. The TSA says they can arrest and fine you for refusing a search (http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... 1-000-fine)
For another, a child is incapable of granting consent.
Parent gave consent
Under coercion --see above. Coerced consent isn't true consent. Also, the parent was disturbed enough to video it and complain about it on national television.
Furthermore, doctors don't administer exams at random. If a doctor stopped your wife at the entrance to a hospital and told her she had to consent to an exam I doubt she'd cooperate.
I do not believe you can assume that this was a random search. I bet mom refused the scanner. It was also not done on the street.
Again, a coerced search. A Hobson's choice. An exam administered at random on entering a hospital also wouldn't be on the "street." The search is random even if the mother refused the scanner, because the scanner search itself is random: it is not based on probable cause. Finally, the search essentially is "on the street," since it was conducted in full public view. When the TSA starts doing this at shopping malls will you still be making excuses for it?
A stupid policy does not constitute a "reason" for a search. The Israelis live in far more danger than we do --you think they frisk little six year old Israeli girls like this?
Yes I do believe the Israelis do exactly that. In fact they have been doing it for many years. I saw it with my own eyes in the 80's.
Well, I'll have to defer to what you've seen with your own eyes. However, your response is a bit disingenuous, because the Israelis use profiling, so if they did frisk a six year old girl they'd have a reason for it and it wouldn't be random. The Israelis focus on people there is some logical basis to believe are a potential threat. I could be wrong, but for example, I highly doubt they screen their own IDF members the way we screen our military personnel --which in some cases I've read about is a travesty.
You seem to be saying that if the government does something as a matter of policy, or just defines for itself a function or set of duties, an act is transformed from unacceptable to acceptable.
No, I am saying that what may not be appropriate in one set of circumstances may be appropriate in another set of circumstances.
Ok, so you believe frisking six year old girls like this is appropriate, I simply don't.
This goes too far for me. How far is too far for you? reconsidered and edited it. Still, I don't think your analogy works.
Nor do I believe that you can draw the parallel of an airport security guard conducting a search with a perfect stranger stopping a kid on the street and conducting the same act.
I already showed how the definition of "grope" can be applied to such a search without any sexual connotation. Yes, to the extent that someone connects "grope" with touching for sexual purposes, the acts are different. However, not so different in the case of a child as in the case of an adult, since the child has much less of a basis for distinguishing the difference between what touching is and is not appropriate. If a child is condition to believe that they can be touched like this by one type of adult, another adult may be able to exploit such conditioning for an evil purpose. Based on this response I assume you're ok with a mall security guard conducting the same kind of search, or a security guard at any public place. After all, a parent may strap a bomb on their six year old in order to kill a bunch of people at the mall, or in a movie theater. I think the notion that Americans are strapping bombs and weapons on their children in order to take down airplanes is absurd. There's certainly no evidence for it. You also may believe this security theater can prevent a terrorist attack: I don't. I see no need to delve into it again here, but just a little thought leads to any number of ways terrorists can carry out attacks that this pretend security will not even detect, much less stop.

VMI77 wrote:

jmra wrote:I may not agree with the pat downs but I also did not see how anyone could say that the girl was "groped". Pat downs are wrong, but saying this girl was groped is no different than the Brady Bunch calling an AR an automatic assault rifle. It simply isn't true.

Let's make sure we aren't using the same scare tactics that we accuse others of using.

Ok then, you do exactly what was done in the video to a stranger's six year old daughter and see how it is described when the charges are filed.