Cut checks:

Randazza Legal Group
PO Box 5516
Gloucester, MA 01930

Memoline: Alkon LDF

If you buy the idea that "less than 1000 complaints" means "everything is hunky-dory", then you're not thinking.

Yes, you.

Because this means that if it doesn't happen a lot, it doesn't happen at all. Right?

It would be OK for police to shoot innocent bystanders, etc., so long as they don't do it a lot. Even if it's police policy that it's OK.
Because you have seen that it is the policy of the TSA to continue these searches.

This is not "somebody else's problem", because the law applies to everyone - just as much as the people who seek power say it does.

-----

It occurs to me that someone associated with Thedala Magee will read this. Well, good.

You at the TSA have jobs, when it's not all that common now according to popular wisdom. I understand that you might back each other up in cases like this - but that's called "collusion" when it conceals illicit activity. You in the TSA and their representatives need to realize that it is abundantly clear that you are not doing anything useful, because all you are doing is confiscating items which have flown on aircraft without incident for over 60 years. You are also not "protected", either ethically or legally, from prosecution for any illegal activity, no matter what you think about the exercise of such limited powers as you have been granted by a government official who has none of your duties, and who will continue in Federal employment after you are gone.

If you look around at the soft white underbelly of America, you'll recognize that your job is a government campaign to reduce your own liberty. You are aiding the cause of demeaning yourself, and you should stop.

Let me put it more clearly: to you, the TSA apologist, the ideal American drops their pants to be patted down simply because they want to fly somewhere on an airplane. And you're a sicko for thinking that.

I have a prediction:

Within 30 days, a TSA agent will find a simulated SEMTEX brick in an exercise, and this will be trumpeted far and wide to show that the program is both effective and necessary.

Be ready for this. No one will recognize that this does not show that the program is necessary, or that it really shows that someone with TSA credentials can place explosives anywhere they want at the airport.

(Time to point out the criminal activities of some agents. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)

No one will recognize that when an authority figure decides to place one device, that has no effect whatsoever on another agent's actions to place another one.

The sensational nature of such a story will be used to drown out all protests.

But who will guard the guardians, when so many clamor that they are perfect?

There's no free swim today but I'm gonna go ahead and not do laps and post off-topic cause thats just the kind of freaky rebel I am:

Private contractors dont'save money say the Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13contractor.html?_r=3&ref=us

Perhaps you would appreciate this comic, from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal...

(NSFW)

Your "scheme?" Scheme to what? Get on the plane without an impromptu gynocological exam?

Also, re: the TSA saying they aren't getting that many complaints, that's crap. I've read from a bunch of different sources that the various ways you can lodge a complaint with TSA are nearly impossible to use: the website forms don't work, or the phone complaint lines aren't answered, aren't correct, etc. Which I suspect isn't a coincidence.

My plan, if it happens to me, is to fake an orgasm.

I'm sure that there are more than 1000 complaints. McDonalds generates proportionally more complaints, and they're not probing anyone.

I'd had an interesting conversation w/ two young Marine vets that I shoot w/ in service rifle competitions. They're trying to determine what they want to get into now that they're back and of course people were recommending things like joining the police or private security. When someone mentioned the TSA, both of these guys were like NO WAY. Apparently they've been warned off of TSA jobs because of the reputation of people who work for the TSA. It's basically regarded as a bunch of bureaucrats overseeing a bunch of semi-literate thugs. This was coming from their officers.

I wonder if Vicki Roberts, of restmycase.com

http://www.restmycase.com/

called the TSA thingie, rather than the other way around. After all, Vicki was an uncredited guest at Michael Jackson's funeral! Can't get bigger than that!

After all, Vicki was an uncredited guest at Michael Jackson's funeral! Can't get bigger than that!

Oh, but she can! She's "the woman in the green dress" on the "now legendary video tape."

And she was "met with open arms from some of Hollywood's most household names...."

With her "typical low-key and sometimes Woody Allenesque humor and sharp wit..." she confirmed her Hollywood insider status by knowing who designed her dress and having her own jewelry.

What a tool.

>> My plan, if it happens to me, is to fake an orgasm.

God, that would be hillarious. Now I gotta see that Meg Ryan scene.

PS- Did you all see that pat-downs from the knees down and belt up are going to be mandatory at all NFL games? Some guy got into a game last week with a stun gun so...

http://m.yahoo.com/w/sports/home/blogs/article?offset=3&urn=urn%3Anewsml%3Asports.yahoo%2Cyhoo%3A20050301%3Anfl%2Carticle%2Cyhoo-ept_sports_nfl_experts-wp7243%3A1&.ts=1316184421&.ysid=TjZxskG.Kskk17bZ9OVG_Jqd&.intl=US&.lang=en

I am concerned--that the TSA agent did not verify that Alkon did have a bomb up her buttcheeks. Otherwise Alkon would be screaming "anal rape" also. So only the "vulva" was checked.

So, Alkon, having purposely avoided the regular nudie-scans (of which I heartily approve), could have had a stick of dynamite crammed up her rectum, and maybe taken down the plane. Obviously, Alkon's sphincter was fingered, or there would be major and long and repated posts about that as well.

Time for the TSA agents to start practicing "anal rape' also.

And remember: If TSA agents stop searching a particular type of person--tall redheads with big tits for example--then that is who the kook-terrorists will have carry bombs.

> My plan, if it happens to me, is to
> fake an orgasm.

Be sure and publish your itinerary first

I might be late on this and you may have already read it, but I read it this morning and thought of you right away. It's the first hand account from the woman who was cuffed and detained for having the audacity to be an Arab/Jewish woman flying on a plane on 9/11/11.

http://shebshi.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/some-real-shock-and-awe-racially-profiled-and-cuffed-in-detroit/

> Some guy got into a game last week with a
> stun gun so...

It's not that NFL patrons are especially clear-headed about the intrusiveness of it all... But they're coming to these places STRICTLY for entertainment, and paying big money to do it. And many will have been drinking, or eagerly preparing to drink. And they're big fans of violent interpersonal contacts.

It'll be fun to see how that one plays out.

If the TSA had fingered Alkon's anus, would this post be entitled, "The Sphincter Dialogues"?

The reason not everyone is sobbing is that people are acclimated to this kind of thing very early.

Modern parents are intrusive. They demand unrestricted access to their children at all times. Kids don't grow up playing and running around with other kids for hours without mom and dad knowing where they are. School is worse.
Schools require the children to divulge every bit of personal information to the guidance counselors they are required to speak to.
Lockers are searched without cause, and many children must pass through metal detectors and pat-downs every time they enter the school building. Children are not allowed their Constitutional Rights in school. And they certainly aren't taught them. They hear about freedom of speech through the filter of the kind of people who write speech codes to ban offensive (read: non-liberal) conversation.
When teens and young adults go out for their first job, they are required to submit to another round of completely unreasonable searches, as a matter of course. They are finger-printed, background-checked, and drug-tested. When they go to get on a plane for the first time, they have to take off their jackets, shoes, socks, watches, empty their pockets, have their possessions and themselves X-rayed. It's not a big jump from their to being physically manhandled and violated. They are inured to the horror of it.

Amy's lawyer says; "Your client aggressively pushed her fingers into my client's vulva." That is very different from Amy's statements. Amy has repeatedly claimed that the TSA agent stuck her latex-gloved hand sideways into her vagina four times. Amy, is your vagina really that loose and cavernous? She was able to fist you sideways? The TSA sucks but so do lying attention whores.

Nichole, when you fake your orgasm will you also complain? That would go a long way towards changing things. Because bitching and moaning about something is so effective.

I think I'll skip lunch today...

"If the TSA had fingered Alkon's anus, would this post be entitled, "The Sphincter Dialogues"?"

If the TSA had fingered BOTU's anus, would this post be entitled, "Old Friends Exchange Greetings"?

Idiot. This woman is actually fighting for your right to be presumed innocent, and you oppose that.

The searches are LEGAL under the Constitution to the extent that:

- Congress can pass federal laws
- They passed a law creating the TSA and putting it in charge of security screening

It is a long history, but metal detectors were allowed as a METHOD of a "reasonable" search and not a violation of the 4th amendment. They have classified an airport search as an administrative search, which is a "carve" out on searches the courts have made for several decades. Long story, short....a right to DO a security search is allowed and won't be declared illegal by the Supreme Court.

HOWEVER...What is NOT LEGAL is the HOW they perform the procedure. There is NO FEDERAL LAW saying "...you can take naked pictures of children and also touch the penises, testicles, and breasts."

So, states should arrest TSA employees for HOW they conduct their search, not for DOING a search. Specifically, and especially, unwanted touching of sexual organs by non-law enforcement.

Since the local police are wimpy about this for some unknown reason, we need states to reaffirm that their citizens cannot have unwanted touching of their bodies without it being assault (which is probably the way CA law reads). It is difficult to call it SEXUAL ASSAULT as the laws say the perpetrator's must have a purpose of "sexual gratification", which is very defensible by saying it is for security. Which it technically is, although 7 pedophiles have been arrested so far who have been TSA agents.

Amy, fight these losers! Thanks on behalf of all American citizens (the ones who are against molestation of themselves and their children at least....)

The less than 1000 complaints they say they receive vs. the 2 million passengers screened is a lot of misdirection anyway (as is, sadly, typical for the TSA). As much fewer passengers actually go for the patdown the actual percentage of complaints for patted-down passengers is much higher.

Don't forget to make that point, and ask for the actual number of patted down passengers so we get a proper idea of how many are complaining about them.

The less than 1000 complaints they say they receive per 2 million passengers screened is a lot of misdirection anyway (as is, sadly, typical for the TSA). As much fewer passengers actually go for the patdown the actual ratio of complaints for patted-down passengers is much higher.

Don't forget to make that point, and ask for the actual number of patted down passengers so you get a proper idea of how many passengers are complaining about the patdowns.

Your story is shocking, but the attitude of some people that you are over-complaining is even more shocking. Certainly you have a right to complain about being treated so callously.

Good luck!

I want to know: If next time the TSA "rapes" Alkon's anus, will she alter her story line to include anal rape in her complaints?

Also, why is the TSA raping only her vulva or vagina, and not her anus? Could not Alkon shove a dildo-bomb up her poopchute as well?

Amy, it looks like you have some TSA employees hanging around here.

Be honest Amy. You were seeking to start something up. It's unlikely this Magee lady was successful penetrating you with a sideways hand through your pants and panties on four quick sweeps of the area, and every time hitting home deep? C'mon, I smell bull poop.

I can understand your not wanting to be touched, but lying about what happened and hurting others all in the name of saving us from the government because we're mindless "sheeples" is a soap box you put yourself on. You chose this crusade, so frankly I hope you get your comeuppance.

Speaking of "rude people"....

"Knowing", you're doing a fine job sticking up for your masters.

"You chose this crusade, so frankly I hope you get your comeuppance."

First of all, that's wrong. All Amy wanted to do was travel on a plane. Government agents decided to impose a system that does nothing for security while demeaning people.

If you knew anything whatsoever about risks, terrorism, WMDs or any sort of urban warfare you would know that.

But. You do not.

How is it that you defend the presumption that you, yourself, are guilty of something for wanting to be an airline passenger?

Because that's what this amounts to. It's public policy to punish the law-abiding for the actions of criminals. And ignorant people defend this practice.

Count yourself among them.

"Knowing" is clearly a tool. Based upon your inane comment, if I could strip you of your US citizenship and banish you to Vietnam for life, I most certainly would. In what insane vision of America would these kinds of searches EVER be acceptable? Do you smoke crack? If not, what is your excuse? Do you posess any knowledge of basic civics at all?

possess

Amy, you need a different blog platform, accomodating complex threads. Look at Daily Kos (but not too hard) as an example.

I prefer this one, the problem with defined threads rather than one post platform is you have to keep scrolling back and forth on each of those threads evey time there is an update. And as most of thses never get past 50 comments it usually isnt much of a problem.

I think Amys larget comment count was at just over 600,but that devolved into litle more than an "I know you are but what am I contest" with a guy who had a fetish about labeling everyone a rape apologist

Interesting Amy. I notice you dodged the whole point of my post: That this is was an intentional fabrication on your part. So now you want to use another blogger's claims to justify your actions?

I'll one up you by showing you a legal example of why TSA searches are in compliance with the constitution. Read the 9th circuit ruling in the U.S. vs. Aukai case. Then come back and tell me how you are going to defend a pedophile.

To be clear, I don't think you're "rude" for speaking up for what you may believe in, I think you're rude for admonishing a woman publicly who was doing her job and that you're playing a martyr when clearly not much happened. You obviously are sensationalizing the whole thing.

I guess part of the problem with blogging these days is we're right back to the days of the "Minnesota Rag", where irresponsible people are able to hide behind our freedom of speech protections. For someone who believes they are a "journalist" you seem to forget that you have a responsibility to base your writing upon fact.

Despicable tone? Sorry, but have you read your own rambling above. What's despicable is you made something up and are trying to get money from people to help defend you because you've now found yourself in a legal situation. Forget the truth. But I see your "anti-government sheeples" are going along with you.

I think it's actually quite amusing that you can't even take on a screener who's probably making less than $35,000 a year when you are the all important "advice goddess" who is adored by millions and making large amounts of cake off her books. Sounds to me like you need other peoples' money to try to usurp the legal system because you know you messed up by making false charges.

I would challenge you to carry your own water in this and not accept outside funding to defend your frivolous allegations, but then we all know that won't happen.

Radwaste. First, it's legal and has been repeatedly upheld in court. You do not have a constitutional right to fly. The rules are to protect a multi-billion dollar industry that makes up a critical part of our transportation infrastructure. It's not all about you, or don't you get that?

You said: "First of all, that's wrong. All Amy wanted to do was travel on a plane. Government agents decided to impose a system that does nothing for security while demeaning people."

And you know this how? Do you work for TSA, or other government security agency?

Then you said: "If you knew anything whatsoever about risks, terrorism, WMDs or any sort of urban warfare you would know that."

"But. You do not."

Please share with me where you have obtained your vast experience, as well as, where you would get the assumption that I have none? Are you saying that there is "no risk" to having a plane be used in a terrorist act, is that really your expert assessment? I think the 3,000 plus who died on 9/11 and their families and friends would wholeheartedly disagree with you. Or how about those lost on Pan Am 103?

Sorry if my kids are on an airplane, I want to make sure all those nutjobs out there aren't carrying anything onboard.

Dervish. If you want to debate something then actually make a point. What next? Are you going to call me "racist"?

You're entirely missing the point of Amy's column. It's about her allegations of "rape". Do you have a family member who has suffered from such an act? I do. Frankly, the whole reason I am challenging her blog/crusade is that I find it extremely offensive to those who have undergone such a physically and psychologically painful event.

Yes, I do know about "civics". So tell me, isn't it an individuals' privilege not to be raped, and isn't it society's obligation to protect people from being raped? And isn't diminishing the definition of the term "rape" by arguing "colloquial usage" an offensive sham to those who have experienced the true definition of "rape"? I think so.

Amy, you said: "I committed to living with integrity -- even when integrity is costly -- in my late 20s, and this incident happened exactly the way I say it did. (And when I say that I "committed to living with integrity," most people probably think of themselves as people of integrity, but what this means is that I made rules for myself to live by: living truthfully, living with integrity, not taking moral shortcuts, looking at my actions to see where I fall short (when I'm a jerk, or when I behave in a way that is not in keeping with the person I want to be)."

And you did this when you posted Ms. Magee's name all over the internet calling her a "rapist" when your true intention is to challenge administrative searches as not meeting a constitutional threshold? Was that the best way to demonstrate your "integrity" to the world? Directly putting another person up for public ridicule and admonishment because you don't like the rules. I'm fairly confident you have directly hurt Ms. Magee deeply, yet you tell me I am a "disappointment to humanity" for calling you on it?

Do you have proof that you aren't lying -- other than your claims of living a life of truthfulness? Is that why you are now hiding behind "colloquial usage"?

Here's the problem I have with your argument. You claim you were "raped" by definition. But the true focus of what you are doing is challenging administrative searches. Why are you not pursuing charges that you were "raped"? Could it be that you come nowhere close to being able to get charges of that nature into a court? Could it be you were never "raped"?

You made a bad decision. We all do. That's okay. Unfortunately, you are taking the low road in trying to justify it publicly. You are rationalizing your behavior in a series of leaps in reasoning that have nothing to do with how you claim you were harmed. To me, this reflects your true motives. Motives that have nothing to do with Ms. Magee, the person who was actually harmed in all of this.

You state: "They need to be challenged in court."

However, it seems to me you are being challenged in court for an irresponsible action -- whether you are guilty or not that is not for me to determine. You can wrap yourself in a constitutional flag if you want to, but don't pretend the shoe is on the other foot. We both know that's not what is at stake in this. All you're doing is shooting flak up into the sky hoping to change the discourse. It too bad not everyone is falling for the old bait and switch.

I may be an "asshole" -- but I am an honest and truthful asshole who carries himself with "integrity". You should try it sometime.

You cried "rape" You claim she performed a criminal act against you. Those are your words. Again, why have you not pressed charges?

If you aren't seeking notoriety about this, then why are you going on shows, why are you still posting about it? Why do you update your blog with new stories about it.

I didn't call you an "attention wh-re", but I have to admit it seems fitting. The truth is ugly, if that makes me an ugly person then so be it. Best of luck with your case.

I agree that TSA is going overboard with their searches. However, TSA screenings are NOT the equivalent of a violent rape. Not on the same page. Not even in the same book.

Is there any proof that pre-boarding screenings have stopped a terrorist? How about the xray machine, has that stopped any terrorists? If they have, I'm not completely against them, but if not, isn't it time to explore options that will work?

I'm not saying what happened to Amy was appropriate, but calling an outside-clothing pat down a brutal rape is insulting to survivors of violent sexual assaults.

I do not doubt Amy and many others were inappropriately touched, but a rape kit performed at a hospital immediately after the complaint would have cleared up the whole "rape" accusation on the spot. If I were sexually assaulted, I'd go immediately to the hospital, I would not be out in public or traveling.

The few times I've traveled since these new policies were incorporated, I had no permanent ill effects from the groping. It was uncomfortable, embarrassing, and was put out of my mind the second it was over.

I do hope the TSA Screener's frivolous lawsuit gets thrown out of court. If you make a mistake, have some pride, own up to it, and learn from it!

Okay, "Knowing" - let's see how ignorant you really are.

"First, it's legal and has been repeatedly upheld in court. You do not have a constitutional right to fly. The rules are to protect a multi-billion dollar industry that makes up a critical part of our transportation infrastructure. It's not all about you, or don't you get that?"

The affiant has the burden of proof. So far, you, as an apologist for those who reduce your own personal liberty, have not shown that the current arrangements increase your security in any way. I'm really interested in the "court" you mentioned, because the Lemuel Penn case established travel as a basic human right. Next?

About my: "First of all, that's wrong. All Amy wanted to do was travel on a plane. Government agents decided to impose a system that does nothing for security while demeaning people."

"And you know this how? Do you work for TSA, or other government security agency?"

Well, first of all, what do you think anybody who wants to get on a plane does?

Actually - after pointing out that you have now invoked a fallacy called "appeal to authority" - I do work in a secured environment today and have been part of a security force in the Navy, actually carrying automatic weapons. A personal acquaintance actually operates a minefield in Edgefield County, SC, and has every non-nuclear chemical and explosives handling permit there is, in order to teach SWAT teams nationwide about IEDs. I have held a security clearance higher than any airport employee since 1980. You have been totally fooled by security THEATER that has actually done only two things: displaced the ideal venue for terror attack into the concourse, since you've packed people in lines, and accustomed unthinking people to submission to police. Again - who guards the guardians? Not you.

But this does not actually require employment in the field to realize. Get your head out of the -- into the sunlight and look around. The evidence is everywhere, and it does not care where you work or what your job is.

"Please share with me where you have obtained your vast experience, as well as, where you would get the assumption that I have none?"

I can state with confidence that you have no experience, merely a vested interest in the status quo, because you've not a word for either personal liberty or the actual threats and countermeasures necessary in an industrial society.

("Industrial society" means that WMDs are available to anyone who can hijack a truck or order chemicals to be delivered to their address.)

It would not surprise me to find out you're a TSA employee, where I would pity you for two reasons: 1) You're actually not gaining any "security" experience whatsoever, and 2) the policies a TSA agent is forced to follow don't affect TSA management or any of the bourgeouisie at all. Ms. Napolitano will maintain a distance from the animal herders at the airport.

"Are you saying that there is "no risk" to having a plane be used in a terrorist act, is that really your expert assessment? I think the 3,000 plus who died on 9/11 and their families and friends would wholeheartedly disagree with you. Or how about those lost on Pan Am 103?"

I had a teacher back in the day who made the observation, "Ignorance must be heard." Here you not only have not addressed what the countermeasures now used address, you fail to realize that TSA STILL does not search cargo. That's where the bomb was planted in Maid of the Mist. Don't believe me? Ask The Pilot. See Patrick Smith's columns for Salon.com, where he addresses these things repeatedly.

Didn't you miss where Ms. Napolitano claimed "The system worked" when her agents actually let the shoe bomber on board? That affected anyone's paycheck how?

Do you actually think this bureaucrat has your welfare in mind? Hey, you've asked about MY experience. Why don't you ask TSA agents and managers what their credentials are?

"Sorry if my kids are on an airplane, I want to make sure all those nutjobs out there aren't carrying anything onboard."

And, of course, you've missed the most elementary observation, one that a baked potato could figure out: All of the items now confiscated from passengers have actually - not theoretically, actually - flown on passenger aircraft for more than 60 years.

You're being a useful idiot. You should stop, because actual terrorists are now being smarter than you are and you're outclassed here by several people.

Please excuse my error above. The 747 bombed over Lockerbie was named "Clipper Maid of the Seas".

So I bought a motor home to travel in and stopped flying, and won't fly again until this stupidity goes away, even though it is much more expensive and time consuming. But this intrusiveness isn't confined to flying. Try to enter any government facility, even a tourist site like the Smithsonian.

Not that this was in the same league with Amy's experience but last week we toured the Shasta Dam and I was asked repeatedly if my camera was a movie camera or not. For some reason a movie camera is not allowed but a still picture camera is. No one could explain why. Also couldn't use my collapsible walking stick but a cane was OK. I had to cling to the railing while going up and down stairs because of my bad knee.

"Knowing" - do you really want to keep that moniker while you accuse Amy of lying, and do other things to discredit her, without evidence of your own? It's not really representative of what you do.

Do you really want people to read what you've written and associate that with support of the TSA, and of Thedala Magee?

I'm suggesting that when I point you out as representative of the kind of person who supports patting down Americans, you're a wonderful example of a stellar reason to shut down the TSA and actually arrest agents: people like you approve!

The public would never tolerate a deputy sheriff as abusive - and ignorant - as yourself.

Clean up your act, because you are going to be quoted.

Knowing, in case you haven't figured it out by now: when you challenge Amy's knowledge, you challenge the knowledge of all of the regular commenters here. We have a damn good and knowledgeable cadre here; for almost any subject that comes up, we have someone here who has good knowledge of it. And we argue like banshees among ourselves over the finest points of evidence, so anyone who comes along who has nothing going for them beyond narcissistic cluelessness gets cut to ribbons.

As Raddy has pointed out... let's just say that there are some people here who are very plugged in on the subject of airport and airplane security, m'kay? As far as what happened to Amy, we could perhaps quibble about whether it meets the legal definition of the word rape, although I will not do so since (1) I've been here for several years and I've found Amy to be a reasonable and trustworthy person, and (2) she was there and I was not. However, we fully agree that there has been nothing that has happened, was happening at the time, or likely will happen that justifies even the TSA person having the *opportunity* to violate Amy or anyone else in that way, much less to actually do it.

When Janet Napolitano (who, like many government employees, never has to go through a TSA checkpoint) claimed in the case of the shoe bomber "the system worked", she was right... except that she was talking about the wrong system. The system that worked was the unorganized militia of the United States, which successfully defeated the attack. This long-dormant unit was reactivated on 9/11, and in the space of about an hour, it gathered intel and successfully devised a tactic which defeated the fourth hijacking team and will defeat all future attacks of that type. Our military is often accused of "fighting the last war", but it is the TSA that is still (using the most charitable assumptions) trying to address a tactic that will never work again.

Ok Knowing you want ways to bypass the TSA?

Break downagun into its various peices - the TSA consitently fail such testsby the FBI.

Carry a fully assembled gun thru the nudie scanner - the TSA routinely fails such checksby the FBI

Make sandles out of Semtex, or flipflops out of C4

Get a job as a baggae handler

Get a job with a company supplying water, soda, and food or crap to the various shops beyond security,thay have these nifty little doors beyond the TSA checkpoints where people come and go all day long never being checked.

Build a rocket launcher(its scary how easy that is to do) and take shots at planes from long term parking.

Turn a van into a car bomb and drive onto the tarmac - do you have any idea how unsecured most airstrips at major airports really are?

You want some more examples? Cause I'm sure I could think of more than a dozen more

Radwaste, you make this too easy for me. First, Richard "the shoebomber" Reid tried to commit his act in December of 2001 -- before TSA even existed. Second, he boarded that plane in Paris heading to Miami -- so he never underwent screening in the U.S. Since TSA didn't exist -- Napolitano surely wasn't in charge.

Okay, now to enlighten you on who you are trying to refer to. Napolitano's comments were regarding the "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Adulmutallab. Guess where he boarded that plane -- hint: not the U.S. -- in Amsterdam. Again he was never screened by the TSA. But being a self proclaimed security expert, you should have known that.

Regarding clearances, most of the TSA people I know are long time law enforcement professionals from the Secret Service, police forces, military, etc. and are required to hold S and TS clearances at their airports -- all since 1980....

Regarding air cargo. You're clearly unaware that TSA imposed 100% screening of all air cargo long ago. I guess you misssed the news on that.

And you say I'm the "useful idiot"? Your lack of knowledge just shot down your own buddies argument. Please see my next response....

Cousin Dave. So by challenging Amy I am challenging you all and your collective knowledge -- including as you cite Mr. Radwaste.

Ummm, okay then. See my response to him above and tell me if this illustrates your point regarding the "collective knowledge" of experts in airport security on this site. Is it just me, or did he miss the boat entirely on nearly everything he said? It seems I can find out more from the everyday news than Radwaste with his security clearance.

Well,gee wiz,you sure shut the fuck up real fast. Hope you didnt chip a tooth

lujlp. And yet no one has done those things since TSA has been in existence. Right? So is it really as easy as you seem to think? Obviously there are those wanting to cause us harm out there each and every day. There's also a lot of agencies and police forces linked together providing a defense against that -- including TSA. Yet your assumption is that you could easily perform these acts. I myself doubt you can because no one else has.

So when did the FBI begin testing TSA screening? Or are you too mistaken in your facts?

p.s. TSA is responsible for keeping dangerous items off planes, not hunting down terrorists with rocket launchers in parking garages.

I think people have different definitions of "rape." To each their own, I suppose.

To me, being touched on the outside of my clothes would not constitute rape. If the TSA agent put her hands into your underwear and into your vagina, here in my state I think it would be called "unlawful penetration," if you were a minor. I think it's called "assault" otherwise. But I am not a expert so I don't claim to know the legal definition, just my own.

I'm surprised that as a victim of rape, you think TSA groping is on the same level. Different people have different levels of emotional stability. If I were assaulted or raped, I'd be pretty hysterical during and afterwards, but during the TSA gropings I experienced, it was just embarrassing/uncomfortable. I have been accused of being too stoic.

You are correct in saying that I don't think about it. I am a peaceful "go with the flow" type. We can't all be instigators.

Regarding going to the hospital. I think this is very helpful in the definition of rape. Rape would require medical treatment. Groping or being touched outside of clothing might require a trip to a psychologist instead. For me, "rape" refers to a specific act, not the broad way you use it.

I agree with you that the government is not here protect us. They exist to fill their pockets for sure. That doesn't mean everyone is meant to go to war with them.

I have had my identity stolen. I'm still paying off the IRS, who doesn't care that I've never even lived in Utah, let alone worked there. Fortunately, I'm not attractive to thieves, I don't place any value on "things" so I don't have anything worth stealing.

I am ignorant about what makes people want to fight each other. But what and how I think is not up to you. You don't get to decide how I feel about the constitution. I don't even remember any changes to it, obscene or otherwise. If that makes me ignorant, so be it. I'll take peace instead.

We are already a police state. If I were to jump up and down on a soap box wildly waving my arms, it would not change that.

You are right that I don't care about what's going on at the airport. As I said, I'm not much of the traveler. This does not make me negligent. How boring would the world be if we all had the same passion? I support your right to fight if that is what you choose. I find it sad that people don't also support peace.

So again Amy.... This is about fighting the cause for civil liberties and not about rape. Your stated intentions and arguments clearly cast suspicion upon whether things happened the way you describe them. You obviously have a motive for embellishing your story far beyond what occurred.

You also said: "On deadline, so I can't participate much in these attempts by "Knowing" to show how "superior" he is to everyone (the glaring need to be, of course, says it all)."

You crack me up. Your friends wanted to tag team me on your behalf, unfortunately their arguments weren't based in fact. So by injecting fact into a debate I am guilty of wanting to establish myself as "superior". Are those my motives as you ascibe them to me?

Nope, I was simply pointing out that you have an agenda, you made a bad choice in trying to promote that agenda, and you attacked and hurt an innocent person in pursuing your course of action to force a dialog on your agenda.

Just remember, when I suggest you may be lying, it's only in the colloquil sense. :-)

"You're clearly unaware that TSA imposed 100% screening of all air cargo long ago. I guess you misssed the news on that.

And you say I'm the "useful idiot"? Your lack of knowledge just shot down your own buddies argument. Please see my next response.... "

False.

You don't even know what "100% screening" means.

Just go watch the plane being loaded. Just go Ask The Pilot.

News to you: If I falsify a shipping label (such labels are produced in the building next to mine, at my Federal facility), I can put what I want on any plane. There's too much volume to check to see if every box of soap powder is really soap.

And be sure to ignore the continued inability of TSA and their managers to prepare for threats. Ignore the scrambling of fighter aircraft due to passenger argument - or, even diarrhea.

Oh. Those gaffes - made by supposed security professionals you are defending so they can put their hands on Amy whenever they want - don't count, right?

Have you even thought about just what a fighter escort is supposed to do? It's there because we know searching passengers fails.

While you celebrate resources being squandered on checking underwear for pocketknives, these materials are shipped by the hundreds of thousands of tons nationwide. That's a PDF of the Emergency Response Guidebook. That's reality, not opinion. America is UNPROTECTED by TSA.

But why should anyone have any interest in what you have to say? After all, you're arguing for your own presumption of guilt for wanting to get on an airplane - in the middle of making a bunch of noises that mean, "No, I have no experience."

Admit it. You're intent on seeing that Americans submit, submit and submit again to "authority", even when it isn't doing the job it claims.

Yes, I have also been accused of being silly. Laughter is good medicine. :)

I bring home a net salary of around $1100 a month, working full time. I'm very resourceful and have never been homeless, but some would consider me penniless. I am educated and used to have a high-paying career but it didn't suit me so I left. Some people are not motivated by money. I tend to look on the bright side of everything and you are not the first person to be annoyed by it. I still have my teeth and I'm grateful for that too.

I have not heard of David Buss or ever attended a psych ed conference. I have not had the opportunity to read his book as I am sight impaired and I doubt it's available in large print. In fact, while shopping Amy's mall, I found many books of interest but none available in large print. :(

(For anyone who needs to know, pressing CTRL + will increase the size of any web page.)

I have been called "intimidating" (at all of almost 5' tall.) Ironically it was by a 6'+ tall man who didn't like a little boss woman telling him to work.

I suppose the "victims walk" analogy makes sense since I haven't been a victim of a physical crime, but you seem to be a strong willed woman that wouldn't have a victims sort of walk either.

If someone assaulted me I think I would stop whatever I was doing and call 911 immediately. If I felt a crime were committed I think I would not shrug it off. But the average customer in a grocery store is not an agent of the federal government. Maybe if I were assaulted I'd be an emotional wreck, incapable of seeking assistance at that time. Not having had that experience, I shouldn't say I'm sure I'd respond in a certain way. I guess it's a good thing that I'm not slender and pretty, so it's highly unlikely that I'd be molested while shopping. (There I go, looking on the bright side again!)

Only you can decide how this incident makes you feel. I don't begrudge your feelings. I'm pointing out that I didn't feel the same in a similar situation. I do think some people are spiteful and ornery and that TSA is an attractive career choice for power hungry types who may very well want to punish people like you for being successful. Not being noticeable has it's advantages.

What I do about our police state is on a much more local and personalized level. I volunteer to promote renters rights and fair housing. I am active leader in local and online communities providing advice to landlords and tenants. I am a member of a local crime prevention forum, and I am a part of a labor policy committee to help my employer keep up with BOLI requirements. In my industry there is much gray area. Laws and rules are not black and white. This has a big effect on my life and on how I form my opinions.

We disagree on many issues, but I'm not your enemy Amy. I enjoy your column. It's enlightening to see different viewpoints. My work is so industry specific that I rarely have the opportunity to learn about other topics.

I think it's good for your column that people like me voice their different opinions, because that's how opinions are changed. Someone may decide to become a warrior against all things government to join you in your fight. That makes me part of the solution.

"Knowing" - here's a few more things about "terrorism" you're pointedly ignoring, or about which you're clueless.

In addition to diverting some of the material in the ERG I linked to last, terror attacks in the US aren't confined to aircraft - they were just convenient, and careful thinkers realized they could place America in a panic and keep it there indefinitely, aided by the powers of government.

Here's a few things TSA can't stop:

Access to the aircraft by service crew. The plane has to be serviced. Just as the Miami PD has found repeatedly that it's impossible to keep local detectives covered when a few thousand dollars to a clerk will buy their personnel file, it's a cinch to buy access to a plane. An IED can be loaded on board, or applied to the aircraft skin, or loaded in a wheelwell while it's on the ramp.
This sort of thing would be aided where the TSA agents are already involved in crime. Wait - they already have been. I wonder how many of those had the clearances you've mentioned, "Knowing"? Gonna stick up for them?

Attack at the gate. The lengthy wait for TSA agents to feel the passengers (do they change their gloves yet?) produces a tasty bottleneck, into which a bomb can easily be placed. And this actually doesn't have to be real to be effective! Just have your guy drop a backpack on the floor and run off shouting something (I have to go!! Don't move my bag!!). As he runs into the Men's Room because he has an urgent issue, the airport will lock down.
Of course, if it goes off, carnage. And no one at TSA will lose their job. "Knowing" will still be here calling Amy names for not wanting to be groped.

Attack from outside the gate. Although a look at the Joint Air Crash Data Evaluation Center Web site will show that a) NO commercial airliner has EVER been downed by small-arms fire to the airframe, and b) several airliners have survived explosions or SAM strikes - one man with a rifle at the airport fence can prevent as many airliners as he can hit from flying. Just hit tailfins. It's property damage, too, not terrorism - until the clamor arises.

Attack from general aviation aircraft. Damn, damn, damn those freedom-loving Americans anyway! They own thousands of private aircraft! We must ban them all! They can be used to strike a commercial airliner on takeoff, causing it to crash. Hey, it's not as easy as flying into a building, but it's 'way more immune to fighter intercept.

But wait - what about cropdusters?

Oh, yeah. We can't ban them. Agriculture depends on them. Even though one lap of Michigan's crowded football stadium with the pesticide could... hmmm.

The antidote to most of this is FBI work, with informants. None of it is accomplished by fondling passengers. And that's the key: if a determined enemy were a) actually out there, and b) another agency was not stopping them, this sort of stuff would happen.

But it doesn't. There's no enemy, or the FBI, etc., is stopping them, and rubbing Amy isn't good for anything but getting human scum off.

Maybe they'll stick around, so I can show others what kind of person thinks groping Americans is a good thing!

Hey, one more thing for "Knowing": UPS lets me ship ammunition by air.

Do you want to tell me again about cargo screening? How about how to distinguish a case of 7.62x51mm tracers from one full of sawdust and two pounds of SEMTEX in a block of plastic?

The only way for TSA to keep this off the plane is to steal it. Sadly, theft from passenger baggage and cargo has been documented on numerous occasions.

You know, it's a sign of the times... I wonder if some twisted goon will come visit me now for expressing what any smart 12-year-old knows about aircraft and airports...

...yet is curiously beyond the comprehension of some.

I know people in the business who know these things, though - and they wonder why there even IS a TSA, other than the pure exercise of power.

"You're clearly unaware that TSA imposed 100% screening of all air cargo long ago"

Just one US airport, Memphis International, handled 3,916,811 metric tonnes of cargo last year:

http://www.airports.org/cda/aci_common/display/main/aci_content07_c.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-54-4819_666_2_

And every ounce of that cargo was thoroughly & professionally inspected by the likes of Thedala Magee.

Right.

I should have known the TSA would send a troll over here to splatter shit all over Amy's blog like a goat with diarrhea.

Hah. TSA screens cargo?

No, baggage. Well, not really.

"100%", "Knowing"?

As you can see: wrong!

Call me a bloody foreigner if you like, but what amazes me is how many of the commenters here clearly cannot see that TSA screening has absolutely sweet FA (=zero) nothing, nada, zilch to do with screening for safety and everything to do with the Powers-That-Be forcing their evil control up all of US.

Until We the People realize this elementary fact of what passes for politically-dominating life in the US of A, your TSA true-terrorists will find ever more public locations to force their groping hands into as many millions of private parts as they can possibly get it off with.

If you guys continue to just stand there and allow it to happen, d'ya really reckon you ever deserved the freedoms you are giving up?

BTW Amy, you are one awesome goddess ;-)

Possibly "Knowing" has realized how ridiculous that screen-name is and is re-grouping.

But don't miss a key point: if you think that groping airpline passengers is the only thing you have to do, because terrorists have NO other avenue of attack and therefore this STOPS them, you're being astoundingly, awesomely stupid!

For those who may see this without the background:

As it turns out, "Knowing" was outed as a Federal employee with the Department of Homeland Security, operating from the Ronald Reagan Executive Building.

Make of that and his disgusting behavior what you will. Apparently, some Americans - in Federal employ, nonetheless - gleefully don brown shirts.