Violated At The Airport By TSA Thug Sharonda Juana Walker (not sure on the spelling of "Sharonda")
I'm calling on everyone to name the name of the TSA thug who violates your body and right to probable cause (as a reason for search).
There's not an ounce of probable cause to search me at the airport -- as I was today at LAX. To violate my body. To touch my breasts. To grope my hair. To have the blue latex-gloved hand of Sharonda Juana Walker, feel inside my turtleneck.
And no, I don't go through the scanners, and the metal detector line wasn't an option at just before 7 a.m., when I got to the airport to leave for...no, not an ISIS meet-and-greet but an evolutionary psychology conference in Boston. Apparently, the sparse traffic at the airport at this hour leaves them plenty of time to feel up travelers.
A NOTE: I'm not quite sure I got the spelling of "Sharonda" right because she first told me her name when she saw me looking at her nametag, but then when she was done pointlessly feeling me up, she refused to let me see her name or tell me it again.
Her "Walker" name bar pinned to her chest also said "lead," which I think means she's in charge of something. Maybe she's the head groper on the floor? And because I couldn't take a photo of myself and her as she was groping me, she's a big, tall, overweight black woman with odd ice cream scoops of hair billowing on her head.
Yes, the jobs program (and the payout program to the connected entitled like Michael Chertoff), aka the TSA, continues to grope citizens at the airport, sans probable cause.
The notion that anyone who has to work for the TSA to earn a living -- basically repurposed mall food court clerks, if that -- could catch a terrorist with an IQ over the highway speed limit is absurd.
The reality is, anyone smart enough to survive in this blog comments section could figure out a way to get an explosive device into the airport and onto a plane.
And the sad reality is, the TSA continues because so many Americans go through without complaint -- as their bodies and rights are violated in a pointless exercise, making a mockery of our constitutional right to probable cause: reasonable suspicion we've committed a crime before we are searched.
The despicable Sharonda Juana Walker's comment to me as she was groping my body: "You can always take the bus."
Showing how ignorant she is. She doesn't even know that the very agency she is a "lead" for detains and searches Americans sans probable cause at bus stations.
The tone of the "bus!" comment reinforces my suspicion that some of the TSA workers love groping people who get to fly places -- as a sort of revenge against them for their ability to travel and to afford travel, and as a way to have power over people they normally would have no contact with.
"Have an awesome flight!" she yelled to me.
Prostitution is a far more noble profession than working as a TSA thug. Not that I have a problem with prostitution. But to earn money for providing a service to a consenting adult is a moral thing to do, while to earn money to violate the bodies and constitutional rights of your fellow citizens is something that every TSA thug needs to be called on -- and vocally shamed for.
And a note on that. When you go through the TSA line and you are violated, name names. On blogs, on Facebook, on Twitter; anywhere you can.
It is reprehensible to violate the bodies and right to probable cause of fellow Americans for money, and anyone who does that should be called out for that.
As I have said before *probable cause* only applies to searches for evidence to be used in a criminal case. It does not apply to the TSA, or for that matter, the gate guards at a football stadium going through your backpack looking for booze.
No fan of the TSA, but US law, and the constitution find these searches perfectly ok, so the solution to this does no lie within the legal system.
Isab at April 8, 2015 8:40 AM
Unfortunately, until people decide to stop flying unless the TSA is stopped, it will remain.
And your recourse is not in the courts. Flying is not a protected right. The owner of the plane agrees to the rules, and we have no say on the subject. Buses and cars are also not protected. The state owns the road, and they can require licensing for it. As a matter of fact, the only rights of travel you have are by human or animal means.
Patrick at April 8, 2015 8:43 AM
Amy, posted at TSA News, with added links; will add picture later:
http://tsanewsblog.com/15734/news/violated-at-the-airport-by-tsa-thug-sharonda-juana-walker-not-sure-on-spelling-of-sharonda/
Lisa Simeone at April 8, 2015 8:53 AM
I'm curious about your take on the scanners. I've been opting out since they were first introduced, mainly because it seemed that they weren't entirely safe. It appears that now only "safer" types of scanners are in use and I'm wondering whether opting out for safety reasons is silly / not based on science (of course there are other reasons, but I'm mainly curious about the science of the health implications).
tsa sucks at April 8, 2015 8:54 AM
Responding to Patrick's comment about flying not being a protected right. The Supreme Court and loads of U.S. case law beg to differ. I'm not allowed to put multiple links in here or my comment will go to spam, so I'll just put a few sources in and anyone who wishes can go look them up:
First, Kent vs. Dulles.
Then US Code:
Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. § 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." Also Supreme Court cases: U.S. v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966); Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969).
The “public right of freedom of transit” by air is guaranteed by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and the TSA is required by Federal law (49 USC § 40101) to consider this right when it issues regulations. Freedom of movement is required in order for us to exercise our right to assemble, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Freedom of movement is also guaranteed by Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a human rights treaty signed and ratified by the United States.
Quoting United States Code TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION > SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS > PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY >subpart i—general > CHAPTER 401—GENERAL PROVISIONS > § 40101. Policy:
(c) General Safety Considerations. — In carrying out subpart III of this part and those provisions of subpart IV applicable in carrying out subpart III, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall consider the following matters:
1.the requirements of national defense and commercial and general aviation.
2. the public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace.
Lisa Simeone at April 8, 2015 9:02 AM
I'm curious about your take on the scanners. I've been opting out since they were first introduced, mainly because it seemed that they weren't entirely safe. It appears that now only "safer" types of scanners are in use and I'm wondering whether opting out for safety reasons is silly / not based on science (of course there are other reasons, but I'm mainly curious about the science of the health implications).
Posted by: tsa sucks at April 8, 2015 8:54 AM
The scanners are now all MMW (millimeter wave), not BSX (backscatter, radiation-emitting); the latter were removed because they couldn't be tricked out with so-called privacy software. They still haven't been independently tested for safety. So if you want to get microwaved, have at it.
From my point of view, however, the main argument has always been about civil liberties, not safety. I don't care if they invent a 100% safe scanner. I object to having to stand in a position of surrender, thus submitting to a complete body search, without probable cause.
Furthermore, for those who don't give a shit about civil liberties, the scanners don't work. This has been amply documented. They are a billion-dollar boondoggle for L-3, Smiths, and other big manufacturers. We've written about this -- with sourced evidence -- countless times at TSA News. They have a 54% false positive rate. They alarm on pleats, on sweat. Then off you go to the glassed-in gulag for a grope.
They're junk. Junk that you and I are paying for to the tune of $150,000-$200,000 a pop.
Lisa Simeone at April 8, 2015 9:09 AM
@lisa Simone
The cases you cited don't mean what you think they mean.
Your *right* to fly is subject to all sorts of time/place/manner restrictions, and an administrative search prior to getting on that commercial carrier is one of those restrictions.
If you want no search, buy your own plane, or lease one from someone who doesn't require a search in the lease contract, which it would be perfectly legal for a plane leasing service to do. (Because they would be on the hook if you were using their plane to transport drugs for instance)
Nowhere has any court found administrative searches incidental to boarding a commercial carrier unconstitutional.
It will be a cold day in hell when they do, as this issue has been litigated many times.
Patrick is quite correct.
Isab at April 8, 2015 9:32 AM
Isab, that may well be. Regardless, I agree that the answer to this won't be found in the courts. It's a political creation, a political problem, and requires a political solution. Meaning people getting off theirs asses and objecting, not moving like zombies through the checkpoints and bending over and spreading.
I've written/called/visited in person my Senators and Reps multiple times, also participated in an official presentation on Capitol Hill. They told us that they ALL have received complaints from their constituents on the TSA. But they're too gutless to do anything. And receiving too much money from the "security" industry.
That's why I wish -- dearly, dearly wish -- for every single member of Congress and their family members to be abused at a checkpoint. Because only then will they wake up. I have several bottles of champagne at the ready. Sooner or later, it will happen. It’s already happened to Francisco Canseco, Claire McCaskill, Rand Paul, Jason Chaffetz, Chaffetz’s 15-year-old daughter, and Ralph Hall’s 17-year-old niece. But that’s not enough. It has to happen to more and more and more of them.
Lisa Simeone at April 8, 2015 9:40 AM
Lisa, you're confusing a "right" with a "liberty." Most people, myself included, use the terms interchangeably, but they're not the same.
Free speech is a liberty, not a right. It's constitutionally protected. Driving might be considered more of a "right" and it can be revoked or altered by statute. But the Constitution does not give you the "liberty" of driving.
More to the point, the planes are privately owned, and the owners agreed to the rules, so if you don't like TSA, that's tough cookies.
There are court cases galore, which indicate that regulation is perfectly within the rights of government. For instance, the Slaughterhouse cases will tell you that travel by train is not a liberty either.
Patrick at April 8, 2015 9:46 AM
Lisa Simeone: I agree that the answer to this won't be found in the courts. It's a political creation, a political problem, and requires a political solution. Meaning people getting off theirs asses and objecting, not moving like zombies through the checkpoints and bending over and spreading.
And with that, I definitely agree.
Patrick at April 8, 2015 9:50 AM
Patrick, understood.
I've been advocating from the beginning -- meaning since October 1, 2010, when the Reign of Molestation was implemented -- for people to boycott flying. Those who can do so; I realize some people are forced to fly for work or medical emergencies. But that's not the majority of people who fly.
If people would be willing to make the smallest sacrifice, we'd bring the airlines to their knees. Three weeks max. Look what happened after 9/11. Christ, the airlines were going broke within 10 days! If people would be willing to do this, things would change so fast our heads would spin. MLK wrote that economic boycotts, or, as he called them, “campaigns of economic withdrawal,” were “nonviolence at its peak of power.”
Anyway, that ain't gonna happen, and I know it. I've boycotted flying since Oct 2010 and it's taken a toll. I've always considered travel a huge part of my life. But there are still other ways to resist, and resistance is the point. I wrote about different ways here:
http://tsanewsblog.com/5431/news/de-profundis-clamavi-or-why-we-can-talk-till-were-blue-in-the-face-but-until-we-put-our-money-where-our-mouth-is-we-wont-get-rid-of-the-tsa/
Lisa Simeone at April 8, 2015 9:55 AM
Lisa, thanks for sharing your essay. It was very well-written. I laughed at the "Do not go gentle into that good grope."
Patrick at April 8, 2015 10:00 AM
Just finished reading Jon Ronson's new book 'So You've Been Publicly Shamed', which has some excellent case histories of people who have had their lives totally ruined by a successful campaign of public shaming on the Internet.
Suggest there may well be some excellent pointers there on how to make working for the TSA an unattractive career choice.
llater,
llamas
llamas at April 8, 2015 10:22 AM
Lisa Simeone: "That's why I wish -- dearly, dearly wish -- for every single member of Congress and their family members to be abused at a checkpoint."
Their response would be to simply make an exception for themselves. They wouldn't even have to pass a law. They would just collude with HSA bureaucrats to tweak their practices a little to accommodate them.
Ken R at April 8, 2015 10:57 AM
No fan of the TSA, but US law, and the constitution find these searches perfectly ok, so the solution to this does no lie within the legal system.
Sure it does. Now, granted, it is an Article V of the Constition process, but it can be done. And very big hill to climb.
But probably more easily done than disbanding the TSA.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 8, 2015 11:02 AM
But the Constitution does not give you the "liberty" of driving.
Ummm...9th amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and 10th:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I realize that the Federal government likes to pretend those two do not exist, but there they are. The Constitution is a limiting document. Limits on the government, not the people.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 8, 2015 11:07 AM
"Their response would be to simply make an exception for themselves. They wouldn't even have to pass a law. They would just collude with HSA bureaucrats to tweak their practices a little to accommodate them."
Sigh. You're probably right. But that woudn't exempt their family members. Oh, well. A gal can dream.
Lisa Simeone at April 8, 2015 11:11 AM
I R A Darth Aggie, that doesn't give you the liberty of driving. As anyone with a driver's license knows, the states regulate driving. The fact that the federal government does not regulate driving doesn't make it a liberty. As you just quoted in the Tenth, those powers not claimed by the federal government through the Constitution can go to the states. And in the case of driving, they do.
Patrick at April 8, 2015 11:14 AM
I am so GLAD to be informed that all I have to do to be presumed guilty is get some official to call the search, "administrative".
Do you people even read what the fuck you're saying?
Do you really lust for watching others submit endlessly to these insults? Is it because you enjoy watching others put in their place? Is this such a turn-on that you cannot recognize your own diminution by backing policies like this?
Scroll on down and back your intimate buddy, "Knowing", as he screws you on the taxpayer's dime.
Radwaste at April 8, 2015 11:19 AM
People beg for handcuffs, because they imagine handcuffs only fit "other people".
The latest is a push for body cameras for police, because some cops have shot people.
Those people have no idea what they are really asking for, as they imagine safety will be theirs if they can only hand it off to someone far enough away.
That someone has lots of time, a book on what constitutes an offense, and not a care in the world who they are identifying for arrest or fining.
Radwaste at April 8, 2015 11:26 AM
Lisa, thanks so much for your comments here. I took Scopolamine to get to Boston without tossing my cookies, and it makes me seriously groggy.
Basically, I'm with Lisa on everything she says. And by the way, every single right we let be yanked from us with ease makes it that much easier to yank the next and the next.
Amy Alkon at April 8, 2015 12:20 PM
Patrick, the government is not given the power to claim anything by the constitution. Humans have all the rights one can think of by virtue of birth on this planet. Governments try and restrict and/or eliminate these rights by claiming powers they are not delegated. Walter E. Williams gives a good example in this short article (from this link http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/00/billofrights.html )
Was A Bill of Rights Necessary?
As we celebrate the 4th of July, let's ask the question: Did the Framers make a mistake by amending the Constitution with the Bill of Rights? Would Americans have more liberty today had there not been a Bill of Rights? You say, "Williams, what's wrong with you? America without the Bill of Rights is unthinkable!" Let's look at it.
After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. It wasn't because they had little concern with liberty guarantees. Quite to the contrary they were concerned about the loss of liberties.
Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in Federalist Paper No. 84, "[B]ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?" Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution specifically gives it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the people and the states. Another way of putting Hamilton's concern: why have an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to play hopscotch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe upon our hopscotch rights in the first place.
Alexander Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would "contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more [powers] than were granted. . . . [it] would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Going back to our hopscotch example, those who would usurp our God-given liberties might enact a law banning our playing hide-and-seek. They'd justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there a guaranteed right to play hide-and-seek. They'd say, "hopscotch yes, but hide-and-seek, no."
To mollify Alexander Hamilton's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a pretext to infringe on human rights, the Framers added the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Boiled down to its basics, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list all of our God-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed doesn't mean it can be infringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress. Applying the Ninth Amendment to our example: just because playing hopscotch is listed and hide-and-seek is not doesn't mean that we don't have a right to play hide-and-seek.
How do courts see the Ninth Amendment today? It's more than a safe bet to say that courts, as well as lawyers, treat the Ninth Amendment with the deepest of contempt. In fact, I believe, that if any appellant's lawyer argued Ninth Amendment protections on behalf of his client, he would be thrown out of court if not disbarred. That's what the Ninth Amendment has come to mean today. I believe we all have a right to privacy, but how do you think a Ninth Amendment argument claiming privacy rights would fly with information gathering agencies like the Internal Revenue Service? Try to assert your rights to privacy in dealing with the IRS and other government agencies and I'll send you cigarettes and candy while you're in jail.
Walter E. Williams
c20-00
June 30, 2000
Jay J. Hector at April 8, 2015 1:01 PM
No fan of the TSA, but US law, and the constitution find these searches perfectly ok, so the solution to this does no lie within the legal system.
Sure it does. Now, granted, it is an Article V of the Constition process, but it can be done. And very big hill to climb.
But probably more easily done than disbanding the TSA.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at April 8, 2015 11:02 AM
This doesn't fall under the Judicial branch of government or the courts.
It is a legislative function, remember the three branches of government thingie from 8th grade civics?
Isab at April 8, 2015 2:21 PM
I am so GLAD to be informed that all I have to do to be presumed guilty is get some official to call the search, "administrative".
Wish it were that easy. There are literally hundreds of court cases on the difference between an administrative search, a probable cause search and when you need a warrant.
I don't understand all this hyperbole about a presumption of guilt.
This is a concept that only applies to our legal system and standards of proof when you are charged with a crime.
The only presumption I am going to make it that if you try and take a Glock 19 and a pound of Hashish through a TSA check point, you have got to be an utter moron.
You *know* you are going to be searched as a condition of buying a ticket. How much more notice does anyone other than a complete imbecile need?
If you don't like it, don't fly, or throw a tantrum with the TSA. Whatever makes you happy, although as Lisa says, a boycott would probably work better.
Isab at April 8, 2015 2:38 PM
Jay J. Hector: Patrick, the government is not given the power to claim anything by the constitution.
I suggest you read it again. The powers of various branches of government are enumerated in the Constitution. The government claims many powers under the Constitution, such as the declaration of war, the right to print money, the right of taxation and the list goes on.
Patrick at April 8, 2015 2:42 PM
And - Isab: the possession of these things is prosecuted as a crime. The patdown beforehand presumes you, as a class, will violate the law prohibiting that possession. Ipso facto, presumption of guilt.
You might be carrying a weapon on the street. I'll call it an "administrative" search, because you COULD get on a bus or train to go commit a crime in another state, or crash them into a building - and pat you down. You think that's perfectly OK by the examples cited.
This is why I ask, "What manner of travel is your right?" Apparently, for several here and millions in meatspace, nothing - until they are personally inconvenienced. Then, of course, an entrenched bureaucracy can do the Goebbels trick to preserve their scheme. That works. Just not for you.
"Free speech is a liberty, not a right. It's constitutionally protected."
Which is why this is called, "The Bill of Liberties" (not).
Nope. You DON'T read what you write, and you can't get your pants off fast enough to submit to some authority figure.
Radwaste at April 9, 2015 5:01 AM
"And - Isab: the possession of these things is prosecuted as a crime. The patdown beforehand presumes you, as a class, will violate the law prohibiting that possession. Ipso facto, presumption of guilt."
Actually it is not, if the item isn't illegal in and of itself. The TSA has been confiscating lots of Marajuana at DIA, but there are no prosecutions because it isn't illegal in Colorado.(and if you pack it in your checked luggage with your ammo and your gun it will most likely sail on theough) Ditto for the Glock 19. Assuming you are not ineligible for ownership of a firearm.
There is no criminal prosecution which is why you don't understand the distinction between an administrative search and a probable cause search.
You simple don't know the law or criminal proceedure well enough to make statements like this.
Isab at April 9, 2015 8:48 AM
Nope. You DON'T read what you write, and you can't get your pants off fast enough to submit to some authority figure.
Posted by: Radwaste at April 9, 2015 5:01 AM
As I stated before, bucking the drones at the TSA, and missing my non refundable flight to Japan, isn't the hill I want to die on, but if it is yours, feel free to chain yourself to the metal detector.
Isab at April 9, 2015 8:54 AM
To clarify, a Lead is sort of like a shift leader.
The ranking start as TSO (officers) who man the floor. The next step up is a lead, who does the same work but directs also others, such as deciding for 2 hours Larry will work X-Ray then switch with Rhonda and move to being a floater.
The next step up from that is a supervisor, who in larger airports may or may not do floor work (they also do scheduling and other administrative work). In smaller airports they will also work the floor. Above that is manager. Then there are regional managers, etc.
Zoogie2 at April 9, 2015 6:26 PM
"You simple don't know the law or criminal procedure well enough to make statements like this.
I'm not a jockey, either, but I can tell when Glue Stick is losing the race.
Call it procedure, call it administrative - but the America you are defending now is the Soviet Union we jeered at 30 years ago.
Radwaste at April 10, 2015 6:16 AM
Isab: You simple don't know the law or criminal proceedure well enough to make statements like this.
You're talking to Radwaste, something I try to avoid doing. He frequently talks over his own head. I don't know if he has expertise in anything (he hasn't shown any yet), but he tends to embarrass himself with his assertions. He claims things are true, even when they're not. And you could even post court case after court case to show him, but he simply ignores what he doesn't want to be true.
Patrick at April 10, 2015 6:32 AM
I see Patrick is still upset at being asked whether he agreed with a reference he posted. Wasn't that, umm, two or more years ago?
That's the whole reason for concentrating on me rather than the issues. A link to a comic? That's pretty juvenile, an example of why Crid says he's nine years old.
Meanwhile, I have mentioned my profession here and on my blog. I have yet to discover if Patrick is employed, and his claim of embarassment is probably projection, as he cannot recognize the fallacies he frequently employs, despite my having linked to a suitable tutorial.
To clarify: I presently perform inspections of nuclear waste facilities at Savannah River Site. Prior to this, I reviewed regulatory-level documents, engineering documents and procedures for accuracy, in some cases causing changes to process equipment installation (This is where the handle "Radwaste" comes from: it's what I do). In the past, I was a Navy nuc, on the staff at Nuclear Field "A" School.
Now - let us not be elementary-school children about this. I understand that the law has procedure, precedent, etc., but it is clear that its goals are not the same as the common citizen - the law is being used as one way to justify the existence of an agency which is basically seeking to prohibit passengers carrying items onto a plane which had previously flown on them every day for at least 50 years.
I am biased against the fallacy, "appeal to prior practice" represented by the status quo, however useful precedent is in law, and I detest "Newspeak" offered to justify restrictions on people (I'm pretty sure you see "detainee" in the news - as if someone is less of a prisoner because a different word is used!).
Radwaste at April 10, 2015 6:59 AM
Leave a comment