Groped Texas Official: "You're Punishing Me For Opting Out." TSA: "Yes, We Are."
Barry Smitherman, Chairman of the Texas Public Utilities Commission, and Texas State Rep. Barbara Nash tell about their experiences with "aggressive" TSA groping. State Rep. David Simpson discusses his bill to prohibit the TSA from groping innocent travelers without probable cause. Fox 7 Austin's Camille Williams reports.
Texas Lawmakers are regrouping on their bill to prohibit the TSA's sexual assaults on passengers in the name of "security." Bob Unruh writes at WND:
"Instead of threatening to shut down flights in Texas, why doesn't the TSA just show us their statutory authority to grope or ogle our private parts?" he asked. "All that HB 1937 does is require that the TSA abide by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."...Simpson said the federal government's characterization of the state protection wasn't accurate.
"We aren't even prohibiting the pat-downs, per se. We're just saying you can't go straight to third base. You have to have a reason - you have to have probable cause - before groping someone's sexual organs," he said.
Simpson has called on the spirit of President Reagan for people to continue the fight over what he called the "brazen show of disregard for the dignity and the constitutional rights of American citizens," saying, "If not us, who? And if not now, when?"
Simpson has accused the Obama administration of turning the nation into a police state with its invasive pat-down procedures at airports.
The Republican lawmaker criticized airport procedures that require travelers to either pass through a scanner that images the entire body or submit to an intrusive pat-down.
He said metal detectors are far more effective, noting instances in which the detectors caught banned objects while the body screeners missed them.
The Texas plan would classify any airport inspection that "touches the anus, sexual organ, buttocks or breast of another person including through the clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person" as an offense of sexual harassment under official oppression.
Transportation Security Administration agents could be charged with a misdemeanor crime, face a $4,000 fine and one year in jail under the measure.
(U.S. Attorney John E.) Murphy said that's unacceptable, arguing federal agents have to be able to touch sex organs as they please.
via Lisa Simeone
(U.S. Attorney John E.) Murphy said that's unacceptable, arguing federal agents have to be able to touch sex organs as they please.
As they please??? No guidelines or rules, just whatever pleases your possibly perved-out TSA agent. They should add this to their recruiting. "Shit pay, but unlimited groping!"
Matt at June 17, 2011 11:48 AM
Well this is interesting. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure this legislation would likely be preempted by federal law. However, the Fourth Amendment argument still persists.
Personal note: had my first enhanced pat-down last week at LAX. Lame, but not traumatic. Guard did slide hand up my leg till he met "resistance" (i.e. "junk"), but did not linger. The TSA guys were vocally NOT thrilled that I opted out ouf the backscatter. Heard more than once: "I'm not gonna pat him down; you?"
snakeman99 at June 17, 2011 12:41 PM
Husband and I were discussing the TSA threat to shut down the airports here- the threat that derailed the bill in the regular session. We don't think they could really do it... Well, they could technically do it, but can you imagine the interruption in commerce for the entire country? Realize how badly it's going to reflect on the current administration if they try to close the international airports in Houston and DFW... and that's without taking into account El Paso, San Antonio, and Austin.
The hangup right now is that we're in a special session... so the way it works is, Gov. Perry has to grant permission for the legislature to take up this particular issue. They can't take up issues other than what the governor dictates. Right now, those issues are school finance, congressional redistricting, and "sanctuary cities" bills (laws resembling what Alabama just passed). Perry will have to allow them to vote on this. I think he will, though... it would fit well with his "anti-Washington"/States Rights/anti-federal overreach stance. It'll also get him lots of support in his as-yet-unannouced bid for POTUS or VP.
ahw at June 17, 2011 1:05 PM
Thank you for trying Texas!
We used to visit the US at least a couple times a year for a family vacation -- spending money on hotels, food, drink, shopping and entertainment. And when we were on our way somewhere else, we'd stop in for a night or two.
Since these enhanced pat downs began, we've been vacationing elsewhere and sticking to direct flights.
I'd like to visit our neighbours to the south again -- most of them are quite nice. But the gatekeepers have become so rude. I guess the economy down there is so good they don't want any of my money!
Niki at June 17, 2011 1:20 PM
I would like to see the reaction of the anti-job administration upon Texas passing this law.
The State can be much more powerful in change than the individual in issues such as these.
And to think I left Texas because they elected Ma Richards.
Dave B at June 17, 2011 1:23 PM
I think it's interesting how republicans (at least the ones I know) were all for as much airport security as possible after 9/11. I got a lot of criticism for my "lack of patriotism" when I'd complain about how annoying if not pointless the extra measures were. But now, with the scanners and pat-downs, they're all like, "You're gonna touch my WHAT now? Oh helllll no!"
Realize how badly it's going to reflect on the current administration if they try to close the international airports in Houston and DFW... and that's without taking into account El Paso, San Antonio, and Austin.
Yeah, even if this legislation is futile, TX does have a lot of clout in this fight. And I say, good for it. Besides, I like flying out of Austin because they don't have the body scanners yet, the TSA are Austinites (so they're all cool), and they've got live music in the terminal.
sofar at June 17, 2011 1:28 PM
I suspect this issue is just another diversion--a way for plutocrats and their catamites in the media to try to get votes.
Getting patted down, and then only after you refuse to go through a scanner, and then only because you are flying on an commercial airliner....surely, there are more important issues.
BOTU at June 17, 2011 1:35 PM
OF COURSE there are more important issues, Butthole. Like, don't you think Mitt Romney looks a little like Roger Sterling in Mad Men?
ahw at June 17, 2011 2:06 PM
It will probably be pre-empted by federal law... however, the path to that happening will involve months after months of publicity-drawing federal court cases in which the TSA will repeatedly claim that it has the privilege of fondling you any damn time and way that it pleases. There will be the inevitable comparisons to the old legend about how the lord of the manor possessed the privilege of having his way with any woman in his holdings. And eventually the Supreme Court will have to rule on it.
The issue will get lots of attention. And the more attention it gets, the more uncomfortable it's going to make the Feds.
Cousin Dave at June 17, 2011 4:24 PM
@CDave - I hope you're right. I've posted about this before, but the sickest thing about the TSA regulations is that their implementation is opaque. In every other area of law, rule promulgation requires notice and the opportunity to respond. Even the most arcane industry-specific IRS regulations will be published months (sometimes years) before being implemented so that affected parties may have a chance to comment. With TSA, its "these are the rules because we say they are." Scary.
snakeman99 at June 17, 2011 4:28 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/17/groped_texas_of.html#comment-2278498">comment from snakeman99Absolutely, Snake.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2011 4:37 PM
The Obama Administration did all this?
Please, the $200 billion-a-year Grifters and Homeland Security Boondoggle is a R-Party invention.
Note, no R-Partiers questions the $200 billion pricetag: They just don't want to get felt up. Why, they are important, and don;t deserve to be felt up. Even though you are getting on an airplane and willfully refusing to go through standard security measures.
Obama deserves to be blamed for not shutting down the Homeland Security Grifter's Ball and the Defense Department taxpayer gangbang.
But these body pats? This is what is important?
BOTU at June 17, 2011 5:54 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/17/groped_texas_of.html#comment-2278691">comment from BOTUThe Democrats are WUNNDERFUL and REPUBLICANS are scum (or vice versa) game is just silly. Chances are, any politician is at least some lobbyist's bitch, and chances are, they vote for those bills that give the appearance of health, safety, security, something, but really compromise our rights and more.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2011 6:21 PM
"But now, with the scanners and pat-downs, they're all like, "You're gonna touch my WHAT now? Oh helllll no!""
Just why, considering that the public does this, do you have the idea that legislators actually know what they are enacting?
No, your neighbors are not interested in a law that affects them. You cannot tell them it does. You have to show them - and then, they will be totally surprised, because laws are for other people.
Radwaste at June 17, 2011 6:56 PM
But these body pats? This is what is important?
Posted by: BOTU
Look BOTU just because you like a large number of people to fondle you junk and asshole doesnt mean the rest of do, or think that our tax dollars should go to pay for the experiance
lujlp at June 17, 2011 10:01 PM
I'm seeing a pattern here.
Whichever party is IN power, proposes more and more invasive searches.
Whichever party is OUT of power protests loudly against the searches.
NicoleK at June 18, 2011 9:42 AM
Both parties want the government to have the invasive power to do these searches, but both parties also want to look like they are against them.
NicoleK at June 18, 2011 9:42 AM
Spot on, NicoleK, Obama could shut down the groping and send the TSA to Israeli security training any time. Learn how the pros do it.
Bush's abomination is not a Constitutional requirement and Obama doesn't have to keep it.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 18, 2011 11:56 AM
so... I thought the TSA AREN'T actually Federal Agents, the way say, the FBI or Marshals are... or am I mis-remebering?
SwissArmyD at June 18, 2011 8:35 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/17/groped_texas_of.html#comment-2283210">comment from SwissArmyDThat's correct. They're not actually officers.
Amy Alkon at June 18, 2011 8:52 PM
Leave a comment