6 Year Old Girl Groped By TSA

[jmra]

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.

[MasterOfNone]

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.

[Rebel]

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.

This is 100% true. Our consent was given by silence, not by verbal agreement.

To this day it still really bothers me, on many levels, such as I allowed it to happen, and that it happens everyday still and people see it and say nothing. Just as on that day in front of 100s of people that just watched.

[sjfcontrol]

There is already talk of putting the naked-scanners in other public venues. How would you like yourself or your children scanned/patted down to enter the following:

Political events (such as the Gabrielle Giffords speech)
A public school (already have metal detectors in many)
A sporting event (superbowl?)
A polling place
A mall
A church
Your place of business

[VMI77]

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.

[hombre gris]

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.

[PUCKER]

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).

[jmra]

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.

Since you edited your original response and the other conversation appeared to be going in circles I have decided to reply here (mostly because it's easier on my IPhone).

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.

[jmra]

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).

Why not be the first. Lead by example.

[WildBill]

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.

I think it would be more effective if people just cancelled all of their airline reservations. That way the airlines would either shut down, then you wouldn't need the TSA, or they would be forced to stand up to the TSA. Of course I realize that both of these ideas are pipedreams and are not likely to happen.

[PUCKER]

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).

Why not be the first. Lead by example.

I'm thinking of making a heaping batch of my "3 Burn Chili" the night before my next flight...gropers BEWARE!

[VMI77]

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.

[PUCKER]

If I (and my few co-workers, small company) didn't fly, it would be rather difficult for us to perform our jobs. Sometimes we can drive but most of the time it is not practical (ie - DFW to Japan, S. Korea, Sweden, Italy, Germany, etc....even CA, IL, MA...although I drive to Houston, that's easier/almost quicker than flying).

[WildBill]

If I (and my few co-workers, small company) didn't fly, it would be rather difficult for us to perform our jobs. Sometimes we can drive but most of the time it is not practical (ie - DFW to Japan, S. Korea, Sweden, Italy, Germany, etc....even CA, IL, MA...although I drive to Houston, that's easier/almost quicker than flying).

But at $0.55 a mile you could make some money on mileage.

[gigag04]

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.