TexasCHLforum.com

mamabearCali

VoiceofReason wrote:
mamabearCali wrote:You are right it is not fair to yell and scream at a TSA agent. Let me say something that my father would have said "a fare is something you pay to ride a bus--life is not fair."

If a person is the willing agent of a organization quite literally assaulting thousands of people daily, then they are going to get the righteous wrath of the populace who do not appreciate their assistance to the gov't in this outrage. Does this accomplish anything on an organizational level--probably not. However, if a person just put their hands on my child's private parts without the child's or my consent (consent under duress is not consent) and I have no legal recourse to charge them with a criminal activity, no means to seek to be made whole from this assault, then people will do what they legally can do to let the person who just violated their child/wife/grandma know just how despicable they found that person's actions, that is if the person assaulted has some amount of control.

The TSA would like to say to us "Don't like our policies (which include the fondling of genitalia and illegal strip searches)--don't fly" I would like to say to those allowing the TSA head to assault people through their hands "Don't like the people's justifiable reaction to your assaults--get a new job." It is just a reasonable as what they ask us to do.
What really happens is that when you walk away one will turn to the other and say "what a jerk" and it will be forgotten. It may also take them longer to clear you.

That's the real world.

So what--they are callous, and don't give two chickens about what they have just done. I have heard that criminals get that way committing crimes. We just don't have a legal means to deal with the criminal searches that are being forced on law abiding citizens by the policies and people appointed not elected. If all they got as a dress down they got off much easier than they should have as the person just assaulted has to deal with the effects of that assault for a good bit of time to come.

mamabearCali

You are right it is not fair to yell and scream at a TSA agent. Let me say something that my father would have said "a fare is something you pay to ride a bus--life is not fair."

If a person is the willing agent of a organization quite literally assaulting thousands of people daily, then they are going to get the righteous wrath of the populace who do not appreciate their assistance to the gov't in this outrage. Does this accomplish anything on an organizational level--probably not. However, if a person just put their hands on my child's private parts without the child's or my consent (consent under duress is not consent) and I have no legal recourse to charge them with a criminal activity, no means to seek to be made whole from this assault, then people will do what they legally can do to let the person who just violated their child/wife/grandma know just how despicable they found that person's actions, that is if the person assaulted has some amount of control.

The TSA would like to say to us "Don't like our policies (which include the fondling of genitalia and illegal strip searches)--don't fly" I would like to say to those allowing the TSA head to assault people through their hands "Don't like the people's justifiable reaction to your assaults--get a new job." It is just a reasonable as what they ask us to do.

mamabearCali

schufflerbot wrote:
this thread has turned into me playing the role of devil's advocate which i have stated several times.

don't make it personal, i'm just indulging the masses while the work day drudges on.

Usually I am fine with people playing devils advocate. I think it is a nice mental exercise, and I have done it myself. In this case however it is not a theoretical person that this happened to. Someone on this boards wife was forced under threat of arrest to take off the majority of her clothes. Had she done anything wrong or illegal to deserve such treatment--no. Was she under arrest for anything--no. You have consistently said that you found the treatment of her acceptable. Perhaps you don't have a significant other, but this is quite disturbing to most people. If you don't want people to " make this personal" you might want to be a little less callous when dealing with people's real situations.

mamabearCali

You know we do have places in this country where searches like this one are routine and customary. Where saftey and security is observed first and foremost. They are called prisons. And they are for felons and people who have proven to be irresponsible and criminal. They are stripped of their civil rights. I, as a law abiding american, choose to be a little less safe and much more free. If I have to choose between saftey and freedom I choose freedom. So did all those that came to our country from around the globe.

mamabearCali

schufflerbot wrote:
mamabearCali wrote:
schufflerbot wrote:
mamabearCali wrote:
schufflerbot wrote:

then im glad you're not a TSA agent!! lol

you're literally writing that you would want a TSA agent to look at a woman and because they think, 'nah - she probably doesn't have any explosives, even though the alarm went off' just let her get on the plane?!?

that's incredible.

Ummm no what I said is that they should investigate what set off the alarm (the stroller)--and then when it proved innocuous move on. As for being a TSA agent. I am glad you aren't one either as you seem to have no sense of the Bill of Rights or human dignity or the level of risk a mom with an infant is. You would force everyone to endure unbelievable assaults on their bodies and "prove" that they are not a threat before boarding a plane because there are a few crazies out there. That has much more of a place in fascists society than what is supposed to be the land of the free.

mamabearCali

schufflerbot wrote:
mamabearCali wrote:
schufflerbot wrote: the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.
If they believed she had a bomb they should have called the bomb squad and the police. If they really thought that she could have had a bomb they acted in a criminally negligent manner. Unless their rooms are blast proof (and I highly doubt that) they were putting hundreds of people lives at risk.
how do you know they aren't bomb proof?

i would think that, with all the money TSA has invested throughout the years, there are some kind of measures in place to mitigate a bomb being detonated, or the blast it would create, while the person is being searched.

everyone keeps saying it's criminally negligent to 'stick their hands down their pants' but that's a gross misrepresentation of the search and secure process. yes, there is a potential threat when someone is identified as 'carrying contraband' but i dont see how TSA could handle it any different. isolate the threat, secure it and verify if it is or isnt a threat... what would you suggest they do with a person who has just set off an alarm indicating they're carrying explosive material?

I'd look the stroller over very carefully, and have the person wait over to the side being watched very carefully. I would not make a person take off their clothes when I had 0 reason to believe they had anything under them. Knowing the limitations of the test that I was running (and that it mistakes glycerin for something else) I would then move on with my day.

mamabearCali

schufflerbot wrote:
how many times has a security line been bombed?

one could consider that proof that the deterrence is working ;)

OR we could argue that the threat on domestic flights for bombs was never really that large anyway, as terrorists have been around for decades (centuries really) and very few are ever successful in their plots, and largely it is an international threat we face. Note the 9-11 attackers used what was legal to carry on a plane to perpetrate their attacks (not bombs)--now I have very limited sharpening skills but even I can think of things that are still legal to carry on planes that could be sharpened into a pointy object. Another 9-11 won't ever be allowed to happen because now the passengers know to fight back not acquiesce. It was our training to be sheeple for terrorists that allowed 9-11 to be as severe as it was.

schufflerbot wrote: and i think it's silly to ask a TSA agent to make an assessment on the spot when there are hundreds of lives on the line. to ask them to ignore a potential threat is just begging for a disaster. as i indicated in my 'what would you do?'post, i think TSA agents should be cold, unwavering and calculating in their duties. if one takes a job like that seriously, there should be NO room for human emotion.

Or human rights and dignity apparently. Why not just have everyone strip naked before they get into the airport, undergo cavity searches before boarding a plane and be handcuffed to their seats--afterall that would be keep everyone safe?

mamabearCali

schufflerbot wrote: the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.

If they believed she had a bomb they should have called the bomb squad and the police. If they really thought that she could have had a bomb they acted in a criminally negligent manner. Unless their rooms are blast proof (and I highly doubt that) they were putting hundreds of people lives at risk.

mamabearCali

schufflerbot wrote:
mamabearCali wrote:
schufflerbot wrote: my point is, you cannot assume that just because someone is an american they would never do harm to another american... as the quoted poster implies.

just as we have to lump all strangers into the 'potential threat until proven otherwise' category, TSA must assume that all flyers have bombs and guns until probed and proven otherwise.
No again. Security needs to be based on reality not some nonsense blanket approach. Even if I did live in such a condition where I was considering every person I saw a threat I would not be at liberty to make them "prove" that they were not a thread by strip searching every person I came into contact with. The TSA should not assume all flyers have bombs because that assumption would not be based on reality. The reality is that very very few people are insane enough to carry out a homicidal bombing. The reality is that most of these situations are detected by FBI and CIA types LONG before they are ever near implementation because it is hard to keep things like that 100% quiet. Even lone wolves have family that notice when they are out of sorts and are acting dangerously (fruit of kaboom bomber was ratted out by his father). So instead of trying to find terrorists we are assaulting millions of grandmas and toddlers. That is insanity and negligent if the TSA is really trying to stop terrorist attacks and not simply harass the American citizenry.
so, you're assuming the TSA agents are psychic?

not understanding your logic or perspective here, i guess. the 'reality based' assumptions that the agents are basing these searches on are their equipment. the OP stated that THE ALARM WENT OFF and the agent investigated accordingly. yes, very few people have the cojones to pull something like a bomb or hostile takeover... i'd rather someone be there to thwart as much of it as possible by way of deterrence, hence the TSA.

No I would hope that those actually in security would be able to understand that an alarm going off on a stroller means the stroller should be searched carefully--not the person. If a bomb sniffing dog hit on a person's crotch then and only then would there be any call for a strip search or pat down. Especially when I have been told by TSA agents that hand lotion is often mistaken for a bomb in those little test kits. They know their equipment is faulty and yet they use it as an excuse to force a woman to take her clothes off--nice.

Your argument of deterrence disappears as soon as a person of a higher IQ than 80 decides to be a suicide bomber--they will simply bomb the security line not the plane. Then what? Deterrance obviously did not work at your High School with the lowlifes there, do you think it will work with the lowest of the low? I doubt that.

mamabearCali

schufflerbot wrote:
mamabearCali wrote:
schufflerbot wrote: there isn't a single thing in this life that you HAVE to do... EVERYTHING you do is the result of a choice. i wholeheartedly applaud your enthusiasm and if you really want to change these things, then write your representative or run for office!

until then, you're just going to have to put up with it...

or not. ;)

Ummm-no. There are many things we have to do. We have to have shelter, food, clothing, to live and in this country we have to work for currency to obtain said needed items. Unless you are planning to be a hobo and live out in the woods someone catching squirrels and eating dandelions, and not have a wife or children, there are things we HAVE to do. Many people have jobs that require air-travel they simply MUST fly--no choice or their children starve/go on gov't assistance. We also have to be able to obtain said food, clothing, and shelter. If the gov't can mandate these things for airports, how long till they do so for other soft targets malls, conventions, grocery stores. Now I am a good gardener and I can grow some amazing tomatoes but I can't subsist on my garden so in order for my family to live I have to be able to obtain currency and exchange said currency for items needed for life.

As for your school. The school I went to had 0 metal detectors. I am sure people had knives, but in my four years of school there was exactly one incident where a knife came into play. One incident and it did not even result in an injury. So I see metal detectors at ordinary schools as wastes of $$ and ridiculous. Another way to train people to accept gov't intrusion into their lives.

That said I have written and called my representatives, my governor, my state representative and even the local board of commerce. Multiple times. So far I have gotten the polite shrug off. TX tried to stop the TSA from groping it's citizens--what did the TSA do. They threatened to shut down every airport in TX, the representatives caved (nice tyranny there). So it is not as cut and dry as you put it.

i can walk out of this office right now and never return to my job, home, wife or child. it is my CHOICE to be here and do these things as it is anyones choice to live the way they want to live.

you dont HAVE to have a job, you dont HAVE to have a wife... your survival does not depend on any of those things.

and you think the metal detectors that caught countless weapons at my school was a waste of money?? sounds like your school was a great place to be - mine had several drive by shootings while i was there, several stabbings and a row of trees planted in the front to memorialize the students who died violent deaths while on school property.

You have an interesting idea of what choice is in life. I don't have to have a job--and how pray tell do I get food, shelter and clothing? Our country was made so that people could live how they wanted to free of tyrannical gov't intrusion. Not so that they could be strip searched at the local market. Perhaps you are ok with being a hermit in the woods to avoid gov't intrusion, but most people aren't. We should not have to accept sexual assault by the authorities as a part of every day life.

It sounds like the metal detectors at your school did precious little to help the students. Another example of it is not the item you need to worry about, but the person. A sharp pencil can do just as much damage as a knife--never mind the compasses in math class or the forks in the cafeteria.

mamabearCali

schufflerbot wrote: my point is, you cannot assume that just because someone is an american they would never do harm to another american... as the quoted poster implies.

just as we have to lump all strangers into the 'potential threat until proven otherwise' category, TSA must assume that all flyers have bombs and guns until probed and proven otherwise.

No again. Security needs to be based on reality not some nonsense blanket approach. Even if I did live in such a condition where I was considering every person I saw a threat I would not be at liberty to make them "prove" that they were not a thread by strip searching every person I came into contact with. The TSA should not assume all flyers have bombs because that assumption would not be based on reality. The reality is that very very few people are insane enough to carry out a homicidal bombing. The reality is that most of these situations are detected by FBI and CIA types LONG before they are ever near implementation because it is hard to keep things like that 100% quiet. Even lone wolves have family that notice when they are out of sorts and are acting dangerously (fruit of kaboom bomber was ratted out by his father). So instead of trying to find terrorists we are assaulting millions of grandmas and toddlers. That is insanity and negligent if the TSA is really trying to stop terrorist attacks and not simply harass the American citizenry.

mamabearCali

schufflerbot wrote:
Timothy McVeigh was an american

Timothy McVeigh also did not strap a bomb to HIS own child or grandma. He didn't even have the guts to be a suicide bomber. He planned to live after his bombing. Another big cultural difference. Also that happened once in what 25 years or so. So yes lets remove everyone's civil rights for a once in a 25 year occurrence.

mamabearCali

schufflerbot wrote: there isn't a single thing in this life that you HAVE to do... EVERYTHING you do is the result of a choice. i wholeheartedly applaud your enthusiasm and if you really want to change these things, then write your representative or run for office!

until then, you're just going to have to put up with it...

or not. ;)

Ummm-no. There are many things we have to do. We have to have shelter, food, clothing, to live and in this country we have to work for currency to obtain said needed items. Unless you are planning to be a hobo and live out in the woods someone catching squirrels and eating dandelions, and not have a wife or children, there are things we HAVE to do. Many people have jobs that require air-travel they simply MUST fly--no choice or their children starve/go on gov't assistance. We also have to be able to obtain said food, clothing, and shelter. If the gov't can mandate these things for airports, how long till they do so for other soft targets malls, conventions, grocery stores. Now I am a good gardener and I can grow some amazing tomatoes but I can't subsist on my garden so in order for my family to live I have to be able to obtain currency and exchange said currency for items needed for life.

As for your school. The school I went to had 0 metal detectors. I am sure people had knives, but in my four years of school there was exactly one incident where a knife came into play. One incident and it did not even result in an injury. So I see metal detectors at ordinary schools as wastes of $$ and ridiculous. Another way to train people to accept gov't intrusion into their lives.

That said I have written and called my representatives, my governor, my state representative and even the local board of commerce. Multiple times. So far I have gotten the polite shrug off. TX tried to stop the TSA from groping it's citizens--what did the TSA do. They threatened to shut down every airport in TX, the representatives caved (nice tyranny there). So it is not as cut and dry as you put it.

mamabearCali

schufflerbot wrote:
honestly?...

from the perspective of the airline itself, or TSA as a whole: i would treat it as a privilege to fly on my airline, not a right. i would spend the money to go above and beyond current requirements - i would post xray machines at every single entrance and before you could ever step foot in my 'lobby' you would be separated from your baggage, scanned and verified as 100% clean. wanna throw a fit about standing there with your arms on your head so i can look through your clothes and make sure you aren't carrying a weapon, or drugs? fine! get the heck out of my facility and go take a bus. i would have at LEAST 25 sniffing dog/officer teams roaming the halls and terminals at all times, as well as two sniffing the plane; one before customers board and another after. any indication of anything remotely dangerous and you're headed to the land of strip/cavity searches in shiny bracelets. i would make sure that each and every person that passes through my airport(s) has been scanned, molested, re-scanned, ticked off and ejected if they even utter a single complaining word about security measures.

At every entrance, just below a picture of grandma in a wheelchair with 10 huge guys wearing rubber gloves behind her, there will be these simple words:

"don't like my rules? stay out of my airplane."

"how could one possibly endure such cruelty," you may ask?

simple... DON'T.

as others have said on here, folks - if you don't like the food, eat at another restaurant.

if none of the food out there suits you, cook it yourself.

everyone is up at arms and ready to boycott when a restaurant 'unconstitutionally' posts a 30.06 sign. what makes the airlines any different? what makes it different is your level of comfort. when that isn't impacted to a high enough degree, it's ok to do without when something violates your rights. however, when it creates an inconvenience that you consider to be too much, the system needs to change... not you.

It would be an interesting exercise in free market thinking to see how that would work. Tell you what abolish the TSA and let it be so. Well set up schufflerbot airline with the above restrictions, and mamabearCali airline with a hardened cockpit doors, armed pilots, a mild interview as you pick up your airline ticket, bomb sniffing dogs that patrol the bags and people, some amount of intelligence, a light security screening (pre TSA days style) and a disclaimer that in leiu of violating your constitutional rights we request of our passengers that you be a part of your personal saftey and to acknowledge that nothing in life is 100% safe. I wonder which would be a more pleasant flying experience and which one would have more customers. Hmmmmm would be interesting for sure.

mamabearCali

You know there is a really serious difference between a cashier charging me for gas, or a toll collector collecting tolls and an official from the gov't that with no probable cause is putting their hands on another person or forcing them to disrobe. Neither the toll collector nor the cashier is doing something illegal. The gov't official is. I don't care how many times people say "Don't like it don't fly" that does not change what is being done. Grandmothers, children, men and women are being touched and handled inappropriately and are being forced to disrobe either by back scatter radiation or in actuality. This is bad, and whether it is being done under color of law (TSA procedure-not congressional law) or not it is at minimum immoral and in any other time would be considered HIGHLY illegal.

A right is called a right because you cannot be forced to surrender it, otherwise it becomes a privilege that those in authority decide when and where you have the privilege of remaining secure in your person. Remember that if receiving a service that you have paid for is not a right then going to a the grocery store is not a "right" going to the mall is not a "right" going anywhere is not a "right." So be careful when you say that you give up your rights the moment you set foot in a airport because it is not a far step from that to "You gave up your right to be free of search and seizure the moment you stepped out your door." If those in authority can remove rights in one situation they can and will remove them in many others.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 17 matches

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

Re: PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It