6 Year Old Girl Groped By TSA

[Pug]

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.

Now that I've seen this on Fox, CBS, the Communist News Network (alias, CNN) and USA Today, I'm all-the-more convinced that the TSA agent, polite though she may have been, was power-tripping on this. Absolutely unforgivable arrogant idiocy...

JMO and I'm stickin' to it...

[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.

Now that I've seen this on Fox, CBS, the Communist News Network (alias, CNN) and USA Today, I'm all-the-more convinced that the TSA agent, polite though she may have been, was power-tripping on this. Absolutely unforgivable arrogant idiocy...

JMO and I'm stickin' to it...

Well I guess the media is working then

[JP171]

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.

Now that I've seen this on Fox, CBS, the Communist News Network (alias, CNN) and USA Today, I'm all-the-more convinced that the TSA agent, polite though she may have been, was power-tripping on this. Absolutely unforgivable arrogant idiocy...

JMO and I'm stickin' to it...

with TSA its a common occurance, needs to stop, same as the stuff about interfering with a flight crew cause you look better than the flight attendants or because they don't want to do the job they were hired for but just want to get free flights all over

[Slowplay]

When I went in the Army there was always guys talking about Vietnam where little girls would run up to the soldiers with a basket of fruit only to have it blow up and kill them, maybe it was just urban legend I was not there I don't know.

It is not an urban legend.

I know of some army outposts that had to cut down small Arabic children that wouldn't turn around and stop walking towards the facility. Numerous stories of AQ using these little ones as suibombs.

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?

Those in power drawing such a ridiculous correlation in a threat assessment is precisely why the Constitution is supposed to protect us (the people) from a police state.

[Oldgringo]

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?

[handog]

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?

[chasfm11]

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.

[JP171]

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.

you despicable cynic you, you know the government only has your best interst at heart

[VMI77]

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.

[VMI77]

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.

[VMI77]

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.

[Oldgringo]

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.

[VMI77]

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.

[VMI77]

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.

[chasfm11]

you despicable cynic you, you know the government only has THEIR best interest at heart

Guilty as charged. And I fixed your statement for you