Disgusting, Pointless, Intense Ball-Groping -- More TSA Rights Abuse Porn
I'm not offended by traditional porn -- the kind with naked people and and kinky this and that (as long as it isn't kiddie porn).
What I am deeply offended by is the obscene constant daily violation by the TSA of Americans' Fourth Amendment right to not be searched without probable cause. There was yet another disgusting TSA-inflicted ball-grabbing -- that became an intense disgusting TSA-inflicted ball probing -- of the husband of conservative commentator Dana Loesch:
He was subjected to the standard pat-down: back of the hands, check your waistband, run hands up and down the inside of the leg stopping at the groin. When the agent went to check his gloves he claimed that something on his gloves "set off the alarm" at which point informed us that Chris would be subjected to another pat-down and his luggage searched.He was not given the choice as to whether or not he wanted a private or public screening for the second, more invasive pat-down.
At this point we were becoming annoyed as we'd been detained for around 25 minutes minutes already (the entire screening process took about 45 minutes) and were concerned that we would miss our flight. I flipped on my camera after we had been escorted into the private room and kept it vertical, rather than horizontal, to look less confrontational.
The TSA agent informed us, as he snapped on his blue latex gloves, that he would be performing another pat-down, this time using the front of his hands, and he would be touching Chris's "groin." It was at this point I began asking questions. He became aggravated and asked for me to turn off my camera. I asked once more about photos and video for clarification, and he stated that the reason I could not film them touching my husband's genitals through his shorts was due to "security reasons." The other agent in the room spoke into his shoulder walkie about security. I complied and turned off my phone. When I asked for the agent's name a second time, he informed me that if I would like, he would call security. The agent demanded that I put my phone away entirely and get it out of my hands and would not start the intrusive screening procedure until I had done so.
...He performed the pat-down which began as routine, except that he used the front of his hands. He then bent down and specifically targeted Chris's crotch. Using the front of his hands, he pressed against his genitals and swept his hands across the crotch three times across, and then pressed at the top of his genitals and wiped his hands down three times.
Make no mistake: outside of the airport this would be considered molestation.
And in the airport, it is considered molestation -- by any decent, rights-respecting, Constitution-loving person.
A commenter on her site posted this about the TSA's thuggish order that Loesch stop videotaping:
*UPDATE: Jimi971 notes this:TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors. While the TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances might.
I urge people to stand up to the TSA. Don't go quietly when your rights are taken from you. Don't let TSA workers walk past you in the airport without telling them that they are horrible people for taking money to violate Americans' rights daily. Take names of the TSA workers who violate you, and name them far and wide -- on blogs, on Twitter, and anywhere else you can. And speak up to everyone you can and in every venue you can about how dangerous it is that we are allowing this march to a police state we call "security" to continue.
Yes, that's right -- we are well on our way to becoming a police state, and this is not hyperbole. Just think back to 2000, and how you would have reacted if somebody told you that you had to have your genitals groped to get on an airplane. We're not safer because of this -- but Americans are being primed to be obedient little drones in the face of having their rights taken from them.
The videotape she did get:
I'd love to see her get and post far and wide the name of the government-employed thug who violated her husband's body and rights.
I try to avoid flying whenever pssible, and on the fe occasion I do I have NEVER seen a TSA agent change their gloves.
I wonder how many things that molester touched before he 'tested' them for bomb residue
lujlp at June 11, 2012 1:16 AM
Honest question: why don't people in this situation call 911 to report a sexual assault in progress?
Factual Interjection at June 11, 2012 8:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/11/disgusting_poin.html#comment-3228020">comment from Factual InterjectionI thought of that but I don't believe the police would take it seriously. Also, they strip you of your possessions -- someone else would have to call and they would likely be up for charges of filing a false report, and few people are likely willing to risk that.
We need to do something because the TSA, in all its $60-plus billion dollar uselessness, continues to grope us at the airport. It's a jobs program for unskilled workers, a way to train Americans to suck it up when their rights are yanked from them, and it's a way for the crony capitalists like Michael Chertoff to profit from their time in -- cough -- "public service."
Amy Alkon
at June 11, 2012 8:36 AM
@lujlp - You should have seen/heard the reaction from the TSA groper when I requested that she change her gloves before I had the [dis]pleasure of receiving a pat down. You would have thought I asked her to do something really distasteful like drown a puppy. Of course after requesting fresh gloves for my molestation, I was rewarded with having my hands swabbed for gun residue.
sara at June 11, 2012 9:36 AM
The gloves are there to protect the agent, not the public. It doesn't matter how contaminated they get, from person to person.
Changing gloves is a matter of personal comfort for the agent. It becomes too sweaty to wear them all the time.
This isn't a doctor's exam. It is a state search.
Motto: If you didn't want a pat down, you should not have acted suspiciously.
Andrew_M_Garland at June 11, 2012 10:56 AM
Sarcasm. I know, it is hard to tell these days.
Andrew_M_Garland at June 11, 2012 10:57 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/11/disgusting_poin.html#comment-3228341">comment from Andrew_M_GarlandIt is a state search. Motto: If you didn't want a pat down, you should not have acted suspiciously.
...in other words, been in the airport while human and breathing.
Probable cause now comes down to that.
And soon it won't just be limited to the airport. That was just to get us ready to be nice, compliant, bend-right-over'y citizens. (The police state kapos like their orders obeyed without a peep when they give them.)
Amy Alkon
at June 11, 2012 2:00 PM
> constant daily violation by the TSA of Americans'
> Fourth Amendment right
You consistently state this. However, has any court ever ruled that this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Do you really think that the current US Supreme Court would find it a violation of the Fourth Amendment if the issue were before them?
Snoopy at June 11, 2012 3:04 PM
> has any court ever ruled that this is a
> violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Only 22 of 39 signatories to the Constitution were lawyers. Certainly the Amendments (after the Top Ten) were, by a large margin, offered and passed passed by people who weren't attorneys.
Do you really think that thing is just a legal memorandum?
...Or is it instruction to all Americans, including to the humblest, of their rights and responsibilities?
Immigrants are required to read the thing. Do you think citizens old or new, shouldn't bother?
Crid at June 11, 2012 3:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/11/disgusting_poin.html#comment-3228427">comment from CridJonathan Corbett (my green-haired friend now challenging the TSA up through the courts -- who just filed at the Supreme Court) has done very well being merely very interested in the law. He is not a lawyer. The notion that you cannot be a lawyer -- have the skills and knowledge to do so -- without passing the bar, without going to law school for years, is ridiculous.
Eugene Volokh gave me his book "The First Amendment" when I got into a little trouble a few years back. It's a law school book. If I had the rest of the volumes and read a lot and explored cases online, I could do well in court. As it is, as I wrote in I See Rude People, I took a big company to court -- Santa Monica Small Claims Court. They sent their lawyer -- their corporate counsel/VP of Legal Affairs -- and I wiped the floor with him.
Lazy ass brought one line from the TCPA of 1991, and when I saw it was one line on a sheet, I knew which one it was (I had already read the entire whatever it was...165 pages). I'd also done my homework, going comprehensively through the California Business & Professions Code, and printing up a color-tabbed, indexed, annotated document for the judge, detailing why they actually did owe me $3,762.67 (or something like that). And I was right -- though the judge only gave me $50 plus court costs. (They don't like when you challenge the telemarketing scumbags -- but I had posted prices on my site and I was entitled to the amount I'd asked for without any discount.) Still, the cool thing: I won -- and beat a lawyer in a really nice shirt, who'd flown in from Manhattan to sit in court with the people who hadn't paid their Payday Loans. Snicker.
Amy Alkon
at June 11, 2012 4:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/11/disgusting_poin.html#comment-3228458">comment from SnoopyFourth Amendment text:
Seems pretty clear to me.
Because the courts are not doing their job doesn't mean the Fourth Amendment isn't being violated.
Amy Alkon
at June 11, 2012 4:21 PM
Oh, good God, snoopy. Do you REALLY think that a government agent manhandling your nuts is NOT a 4th Amendment violation?!? Use your head, for God's sake!
mpetrie98 at June 11, 2012 5:59 PM
A the law stands, in many jurisdictions, during a "Terry Stop" you do not even have to give the police officer your name, let alone identification, unless the police can point to "specific and articulable facts" that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
An example is that if I live in an open carry state, I can walk down the street carrying a firearm in a holster on my side, and I don't even have to give my name. An example of that is shown in this video.
So please point out the "specific and articulable facts" that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed because I approached and entered an airport with the intent to fly from where I am to some other destination?
By your standards point out why they couldn't set a checkpoint at every on-ramp in the United States, because I want to drive down the highway? For that matter, surround every town and city with search checkpoints because I want to enter a city?
Giving up your Constitutional rights is not the answer.
Jim P. at June 11, 2012 7:07 PM
I guess it is time to post this again:
For all you regular readers of the Goddess' blog you can skip past this post. I'm going to post my regular rant about not needing the TSA. For all you new readers, please read it carefully and refute any statement or misstatement. ;-)
=================================================
The TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after Tower II was hit!
The paradigm, the norm, the expected, what everyone was taught to do was to sit down, shut up and wait for the plane to land and the negotiations happen. That was the model from Entebbe onward.
The passengers on board did not really know what was about to happen on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:30 when Flight 11 struck Tower I.
Even the passengers on Flight 175 probably didn't realize what was about to happen when they struck Tower II at 9:03:02.
The Pentagon crash of Flight 77 at 9:37:46 may have been still a matter of ignorance.
At 10:03:11 on September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after the brave souls counter-attacked and caused the hijackers to crash the plane.
The time difference is 60 minutes and 9 seconds from Tower II being struck to the crash of Flight 93. The shoe bomber and panty bomber were taken down by fellow passengers as well. Recently, JetBlue's Flight 191 pilot was taken down by the passengers once he was out of the cockpit. Additionally how many times have you heard of passengers' concerns and diverted flights?
The TSA is and has always been a joke, no make that a total stupidity, that has wasted our country's fortune going down a rabbit hole.
If you don't believe me look at the 9/11 timeline.
There will never be another 9/11 style attack unless the attackers can arrange planes full of geriatrics, and even then it would be doubtful.
=================================================
If I'm getting this wrong, please let me know.
Jim P. at June 11, 2012 7:31 PM
"Has any court ever ruled that this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment?"
Immaterial. The Founders probably thought it was preposterous that some day, all three branches of government would agree that various parts of the Constitution do not mean what they very plainly say. Yet it has happened. Jim P asked about the TSA setting up checkpoints at every interstate highway on-ramp, but guess what: The TSA is of the opinion that they can in fact do this. And in a few places, they have done it, as on I-40 in Tennessee a couple of months ago. The TSA contends that you surrender your Fourth Amendment rights when you step out of your front door.
The bit in the Fourth Amendment about being "secure in your person" is clearly a dead letter if one cannot go about anywhere in public without being subject to search and seizure without cause. If a court rules otherwise, then the court is wrong. Period.
Cousin Dave at June 11, 2012 7:55 PM
So... the answer to both my questions is no. And blog commenters here understand the Constitution better than US Supreme Court Justices. Got it!
Snoopy at June 12, 2012 6:31 AM
> Got it!
Sarcasm, right?
We've noted that your questions are not on point. A lawyer, or even a petty legalistic mind, would be expected NOT to then reject the discussion with such a transparently defensive reflex.
Crid at June 12, 2012 6:47 AM
> Sarcasm, right?
Because you've never used sarcasm on this blog before...
> We've noted that your questions are not on point
All I'm trying to do is find out whether Amy's claim that this is unconstitutional is true or not. So I ask whether any judge in the country has found this to be the case or whether the US Supreme Court is likely to find that this is the case.
I really can't see how these questions are not on point. Something can't be unconstitutional if no judge finds it unconstitutional.
Unconstitutionality is determined in a court of law, not on a blog, no matter how good the arguments on the blog are.
Snoopy at June 12, 2012 8:02 AM
"All I'm trying to do is find out whether Amy's claim that this is unconstitutional is true or not."
OK, speaking strictly from a legalistic standpoint, your point is true; it's constitutional. But you know what? That sort of reasoning is why people hate lawyers. It's clearly a power grab, and the fact that all three branches of government are willing to play along does not make it right. Government should never, ever have the power (maybe in the most dire of emergency situations) to simply randomly stop people and feel them up and subject them to invasive technological searches and seize their possessions without due process. The Framers never intended that government should have this power, and our current government's assertion that it does have this power has rendered the Fourth Amendment moot. I content that 90% of people who understand the implications will agree with this assertion, and the other 10% ought to be lined up and shot.
Cousin Dave at June 12, 2012 6:54 PM
Thanks Cousin Dave! Very good points, I appreciate what you are saying.
Snoopy at June 12, 2012 7:06 PM
I was going to answer Snoopy's question, but Cousin Dave got to it first. The only thing I would add to CD's comments is, in response to Snoopy's comment: "And blog commenters here understand the Constitution better than US Supreme Court Justices."
The US Supreme Court Justices have not given an opinion on this … yet. Therefore, you just don't know what the SCOTUS understands.
In any case, the courts have ruled that using airlines for travel is implied consent. If you don't want to be searched, don't fly.
(Now, watch as some of the less astute commenters [read: morons] start arguing with me personally, as if this were my opinion, quite oblivious to the fact that I merely posted the courts' opinions, not claimed them as my own.)
Patrick at June 13, 2012 12:34 AM
"In any case, the courts have ruled that using airlines for travel is implied consent. If you don't want to be searched, don't fly."
But wasn't that in relation to the contract of carriage in the pre-TSA days? If you're talking about what I think it is, the courts rules that the airlines could impose the requirement to submit to a search as a condition attached to the ticket purchase. That probably hasn't changed, but now the search is being done by a government agency. I think that creates a different situation. I think Patrick is correct in that the SCOTUS has not ruled on the current security regime. In fact, I don't think any case has worked its way that far up the chain yet.
I content that the Fourth Amendment is hanging by a thread right now. Courts have sanctioned a whole host of abuses: asset forfeiture without due process, widespread abuse of traffic and Terry stops ("I smelled marijuana"), the Kelo decision, transaction tracking laws, and the entire regulatory agency administrative-law process. There's still a lot of people who would like to suppress political speech that they don't approve of. And now we have a President who contends that citizens suspected of terroristic activities can be put to death without being tried or even charged. As much of a national-security guy as I am, even I can't condone that one.
Cousin Dave at June 14, 2012 12:49 PM
Leave a comment