TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:

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.

First of all I haven't excused anything. I don't agree with pat downs. Show me one time where I have defended pat downs. I have stated that I do not believe this girl was groped but I have never stated that I agreed with the policies of TSA. But because it suits your purpose you will take what I say out of context and put words in my mouth in order to make your illogical arguments sound credible.

My post that you replied to was simply a way of showing that although I don't agree with the current policies I also don't believe that we can pretend that 9/11 never happened. Some changes had to be made. Obviously what we have now is not the answer but what was in place prior to 9/11 is not either.

Funny, I've agreed with you on a point or two and conceded a point on terminology, and otherwise I've refuted every single argument you've presented. But instead of offering argument or evidence you continually assert, in one form or another, that I'm an idiot (illogical) and a liar (taking remarks out of context and putting words in someone's mouth to "suit a purpose" is form of lying).

This was the insulting first sentence of your first reply to me:

"Exactly the type of response I would expect from the Brady Bunch kids."

Next, you say, you haven't excused anything and then ask me to show you one time when you have defended pat downs. Not excusing "anything" is a bit broader than just opposing pat downs. I haven't accused you of defending pat downs; I said you were excusing the search regime. Most of your responses in this thread are about how the pat down wasn't so bad or unreasonable (it wasn't "groping" and it wasn't random --in your opinion, I refuted the claim that it wasn't random), and how purchasing an airline ticket amounts to "consent" for anything the government wants to do before you board a plane (and I've refuted the notion that "consent" can be coerced). So yeah, I freely admit you're not specifically defending pat downs, but the gist of your remarks sure sound like you're excusing the broader conduct since your contention that purchasing a ticket constitutes consent amounts to saying if you don't like it take the train, drive, or walk.

Oldgringo wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Slowplay wrote:
So, these examples justify the government in touching the "sensitive" areas of a 6 year old (the daughter of a doctor from Kentucky), traveling with her family?

Yes, yes they do. If the airport screening process is too offensive, there are alternate means of transport that do not involve being screened/touched by others. Additionally, there is the option of staying home?

Wow, what a condescending and smug reply. There are plenty of people who find themselves in circumstances where there is no such option. Some people's jobs require them to fly.

The "yes, yes they do" part amounts to the age old excuse of the opportunist: the ends justify the means. There's also a strain of collectivism in this logic: the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one (to quote Star Trek). Our Founders rejected these philosophies when they wrote the Bill of Rights. And there is a tinge of irony in the "go somewhere else or stay at home logic" since it can also be applied to campus carry or employer parking lots or 30.06 signs ---go somewhere else, get another job, or just stay home.

Yep, that's about the size of it. BTW, our founding fathers didn't have airplanes.

No, they had something even better: an understanding of history along with the psychology of people and government, and the intelligence and insight to create a system of government based on the concept of individual rights and liberty. I'm willing to do without airplanes too if it means I can also skip the collectivism.

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.

handog wrote:What’s next? manual body cavity searches? By the way, since the TSA has us all bunched up in line, what is stopping the terrorists from detonating a bomb at the airport? On busy travel days they could kill just as many people. What then?

Already happened in Russia.

chasfm11 wrote: 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.

One man's cynic is another man's realist. That's at least part of the reason.

Oldgringo wrote:

Slowplay wrote:
So, these examples justify the government in touching the "sensitive" areas of a 6 year old (the daughter of a doctor from Kentucky), traveling with her family?

Yes, yes they do. If the airport screening process is too offensive, there are alternate means of transport that do not involve being screened/touched by others. Additionally, there is the option of staying home?

Wow, what a condescending and smug reply. There are plenty of people who find themselves in circumstances where there is no such option. Some people's jobs require them to fly.

The "yes, yes they do" part amounts to the age old excuse of the opportunist: the ends justify the means. There's also a strain of collectivism in this logic: the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one (to quote Star Trek). Our Founders rejected these philosophies when they wrote the Bill of Rights. And there is a tinge of irony in the "go somewhere else or stay at home logic" since it can also be applied to campus carry or employer parking lots or 30.06 signs ---go somewhere else, get another job, or just stay home.

Dave2 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:The airport is not the right venue to change this bad policy.

Agreed, but what other venue is there? The people in charge of the TSA clearly aren't listening. Perhaps there is wisdom in letting this issue simmer long enough for "TSA Reform" to become a major election issue, but if it isn't already, I'm rather frightened to think of how bad they'll have to get. And if it's just "TSA Reform" we'd still be left with the underlying cause of our government not respecting the US Constitution and overstepping its bounds. (Of course, making a donkey of yourself at the airport doesn't solve this either, so maybe that's the proof that it's not worth doing.)

I found myself on the TSA blog site where TSA responds to this incident. There were over 300 comments and well over 90% of them were opposed to TSA policies and particularly frisking six year old American girls as was done in the search under discussion (446 comments now: http://blog.tsa.gov/) So TSA is well aware of how their policies are being received: they just don't care.

Now, when I say TSA doesn't care, I'm not necessarily talking about those on the front lines --I'm talking about Big Sis and her coterie of collectivists at the top. In fact, Big Sis says "toughen up" (IOW, suck it up): http://townhall.com/columnists/dianawes ... ghening_up

And note the little game she played with what are described as "conservative-mined journalists."

stevie_d_64 wrote:until the governemnt gets over the fear factor of racial and religious profiling, nothing will improve, if improvement is the only thing right now we need to get a grip on...

I don't believe there is any "fear" of it. The policy is the product of collectivist ideology. There is no desire to change it because TSA serves a host of political interests that are at least equal to the interest of security. That's why they were subjecting flight crews to the same screening before the pilots kicked up enough fuss to stop it, and why they disgracefully screen our troops on their way home from combat in Afghanistan.

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.

No, I don't. That's like saying if a thug gets the drop on me and is pointing a gun at my chest demanding my wallet, I agree with his concept of employment. What I accept is the practical reality that the government has the power to force me to do whatever it wants, but that doesn't mean I agree that they have the right to do so. I haven't flown since 9/11 and have no plans to do so, but circumstances may compel me to fly someday. If I do, I will have no choice but to submit: that's not consent, any more than handing my wallet to a gunman is consent to be robbed.

The federal government isn't going to suddenly stop violating the Constitution. It is going to keep expanding its power incrementally until the Bill of Rights is completely eviscerated. It's obvious to me at this point that most Americans don't care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and are willing to sacrifice their liberty to the twin illusions of safety and comfort. There may be a point when many of those people come to regret that sacrifice but by that time it will already be too late. I don't expect anything I say or do to change the path we're on. In the meantime I will do as I have always done and comply with the law even when I disagree with it.

WildBill wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Pug wrote:It appears to be little more than an arrogant employee, poorly trained, "exerting her authority" for the humiliation of the child, the provocation of the mother, and the attention of the camera. Absolutely unforgivable idiocy.

Couldn't disagree with you more. The TSA employee was courteous and explaining the procedure while doing her job. If the computer picked a 6 yo for a random pat search, than that's that. Change the process, but don't start coming after the lady for doing her job. She was professional and polite while caught in a potentially messy situation.

IMO, the child was not humiliated. In fact, she looked like she was enjoying the attention. FWIW, I did not see any "groping" going on.

According to the parents, she felt like she must have done something wrong to warrant being searched like that, and cried afterward.

If she did, I believe it was because of the parents reactions, not because of what the TSA employee did.

Have you ever seen a child who was playing and got hurt [not seriously injured] by falling down? They pick themselves up and they look around. It isn't until they get back to the parents that they start crying.

Of course, we can believe what we want, but since all we saw is a short video, and know virtually nothing else by which we can interpret the girl's reaction, during, or after, it is just that: a belief we choose to make based on our own background and personal assumptions. Yes, children can cry manipulatively, or their tears can be an honest expression of physical or emotional pain. At the risk of sounding sexist, I've heard from those with daughters that little girls can be particularly manipulative in this way. However, I don't interpret the video as you do, and I don't have enough information to make a judgment either way.

hombre gris 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.

CNN reported this morning that the girl went through the X-ray back scatter machine and it showed some anomaly, hence the pat down. I'll give the TSA agent credit, she explained the process to the mother, made sure she was in a position to observe and explained what she was doing throughout the process. I can't imagine that was a very pleasant experience for her either.

I don't like the screening and believe it is all security theater, but I'm not going to bash those how have to carry out their job. I find myself having to do things I find unpleasant and don't agree with in my job at least weekly.

May be true. But it also may be an excuse the higher ups concocted after it went public to justify what is obviously absurd. I'm highly suspicious when people with an incentive to lie use terms like "some anomaly."

WildBill wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Pug wrote:It appears to be little more than an arrogant employee, poorly trained, "exerting her authority" for the humiliation of the child, the provocation of the mother, and the attention of the camera. Absolutely unforgivable idiocy.

Couldn't disagree with you more. The TSA employee was courteous and explaining the procedure while doing her job. If the computer picked a 6 yo for a random pat search, than that's that. Change the process, but don't start coming after the lady for doing her job. She was professional and polite while caught in a potentially messy situation.

IMO, the child was not humiliated. In fact, she looked like she was enjoying the attention. FWIW, I did not see any "groping" going on.

According to the parents, she felt like she must have done something wrong to warrant being searched like that, and cried afterward.

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.

MasterOfNone wrote:I suspect many of the arguments that these searches are consensual are based on the fact that anybody who is traveling should know that they may be searched. Knowing that, they still show up at the airport. Having been given advance warning, they choose to subject themselves to the possibility of being searched.

That rationale is based on a a few faulty premises: 1) that a person so traveling has a choice to travel by some other method. I basically choose not to fly, and haven't since the expansion of security theater subsequent to 9/11, but I could posit a number of scenarios where I would not have such a choice. The most obvious one is being compelled to fly as a condition of employment. In my previous job my position required me to fly several times a year; 2) that air travel is so inherently more susceptible to destructive terrorist attacks than other modes of travel that searches which would otherwise be unconstitutional are justified; and 3) that people are really fully informed about the likelihood and nature of the searches that may be conducted (someone who has never flown, or hasn't flown in the last 10 years, may not realize just how intrusive a search may be, or may believe that since they're obviously not "terrorists" such searches won't apply to them --and there may be other situations I won't go into in the interest of brevity).

The TSA is already in the process of invalidating both #1 and #2 by conducting random searches at train stations, and they have expressed the intention to expand these searches to bus depots. Why not subways then? Malls? Grocery stores? Movie theaters? You can argue that if a person can't take a bus, train, ship, or plane they can still walk --that is similar to the argument often made that driving isn't a "right." However, people do have a right to travel, and I'd argue that imposing unconstitutional conditions on any mode of travel is an abridgment of liberty.

In the case of airport searches I'd also argue that liberty is traded for the mere pretense of security. If you really believe that six year old American girls are transporting weapons or bombs then you have to believe that circumstances in the US have deteriorated to the point where parents are ready to blow up their own children in retaliation for something --though I don't know what that would be, and I don't see any evidence for it. And to the degree these searches actually work, a dubious proposition to begin with, all they can do is prevent someone intending to bring down a plane from accessing the plane via the passenger security checkpoint --which is arguably now the least likely method of access.

jmra wrote:

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.

Unfortunately this format makes it very difficult to respond using my IPhone. I will respond this evening when I can sit at a real computer.

I responded the way you did, thinking that was your preferred method of response. And I should add, that in the case of an employment physical, as you cited above, the exam may result in a benefit --employment-- to the person examined. There is no benefit to a person being searched, only negative consequences ranging from inconvenience, embarrassment, delay, and additional expense, all the way to scenarios that could result in fines, physical injury, or imprisonment.