Really, just stop.

The Patdowns are invasive, excessive, and overzealous, but they are not being done for sexual satisfaction.

Is there a SINGLE case of a sex offender being found to be a TSA employee? Has there been a single sighting of a creepy smile crossing a TSA agent's face, or eyes rolling back in the head from ecstasy?

Is there ANY actual evidence that these kiddy-patdowns are anything other than people following out a series of ridiculous directives?

Argue their constituional illegality, bemoan the fact that it's the thin end of the wedge, but for gogtd's sake, do not turn an entire division of the government into de facto pedophiles.

If this very same conslusion jump was made against any other class of employees: changing room attendants, babysitters, party magicians, people would jump to their defense, declaring hysteria and claiming that we've gone too far in our desires to protect "The Children"

But since the TSA is a group we don't like,, apparently any argument is valid.

Do you not see the dichotomy?

Argue with facts, not emotions. Collect a list of ACTUAL indiscretions of TSA employees, not PERCIEVED ones. Show me videos of TSA agents yelling at passengers, treating them roughly, not the ones where the agents are being as professional as they can be in such an outlandish situation and the passengers are being belligerent.

The more outlandish claims made by opponents to a company/practice/whatever, the easier it is for said company to wave off ALL opposition by declaring them to be "more of those wackos".

The TSA is certainly going farther than they need to. The President of the United States thins so, or he wouldn't have cracked a joke about the patdowns in his State of the Union Address. There's no need to trump up stuff - it only weakens the argument.

Gotta agree with Vinnie on this one...

The Patdowns are invasive, excessive, and overzealous, but they are not being done for sexual satisfaction.

Sez you. Quoth the Goddess:

I was upset after she stuck her latex-gloved hand sideways into my vagina four times.

Once? happenstance. Twice? coincidence. Thrice? enemy action.

"Is there a SINGLE case of a sex offender being found to be a TSA employee?"

There's this guy:

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/04/tsa-screener-charged-with-distributing.html

"Federal agents also allege that TSA officer Thomas Gordon Jr, who routinely searched airline passengers, uploaded explicit pictures of young girls to an internet site on which he also posted a photograph of himself in his TSA uniform"

We should not have to feel violated in order to travel. If anyone touched my kids like that it would be the last time! I am not sure but I think maybe Vinnie doesn't fly much?

All right Vinnie, in your opinion, at what point does it become too much? The TSA are already invading train stations and bus stations. What's next, TSA agents at stopping people at state lines? How about county lines? How about we just make it easy on them and require that anyone, who goes anywhere outside of their own home is required to submit to a search? It would create a lot of new jobs and would make everyone so much safer.

Just because you want to give up your fourth amendment rights Vinnie, doesn't mean that we all do. The violation of our fourth amendment rights is an ACTUAL indiscretion.

So our president, the great hope giver, made a joke about the TSA pat downs. What has he done about them? Jack squat. What will he do about them? Jack squat.

This TSA "issue" has the feeling of an "issue" manufactured for the "dumb vote."

I can't imagine anyone really cares about this. You get patted down before boarding an airplane if you voluntarily don't go through the scanners, or if you set a scanner off. This is an issue? We have had people try to bring bombs onto airplanes.

Is getting patted down so terrible? I have been patted down with zero effect. It was necessary to enter a restricted area. BFD.

I suspect this is an appeal to the dumb vote, along with the gun nuts, anti-abortion, anti-CFL's, the anti-gay, the pro using public money to fund Christian groups, etc.

Right-wing jibber-jabber.

There are not enough plutocrats and militarists to put together a winning party, so the whole carnival of misfits has to be brought on board to seek that 51 percent.

Ask yourself this: If instead the USA had posted U.S. Army soldiers at airports, and they performed this function, do you think the right-wing would be braying about this, and accusing U.S. Soldiers of "groping" children?

I doubt it.

I just can't get a boner up for this "issue."

Yeah, I have to agree with Vinnie too.

I was wondering about putting the context of Mr. Bennett's post on Pediatricians. How do our kids doctors get away with violating the "no-touch" rule? Are we going to start busting our kid's doctors? Do we differentiate between a "good" pediatrician and a "bad" government TSA worker? Just wondering, all of you folks out there with NO KIDS, who seem to think you know all about this.

How about changing a little wording: "We'll be driving--I'm not taking my kids to a place where a Pediatrician can and is likely to, for no good reason, lawfully feel them up." or: "But to the young child, there's no noticeable difference between being groped by a Pediatrician because mommy and daddy want to make certain he is healthy, and being groped by a stranger because that's how he gets his rocks off."

Oh right...thats different right??? Because it is a doctors JOB to grope us. Funny, its also TSA's job to grope us. And I doubt anyone is getting their rocks off doing it. What a horrible job to have to touch a bunch of mostly overweight, sweaty, and smelly passengers. Disgusting. I can't think of a worse job, except maybe as a Gynocologist.

@BOTU: "If instead the USA had posted U.S. Army soldiers at airports, and they performed this function, do you think the right-wing would be braying about this, and accusing U.S. Soldiers of 'groping' children?"

They'd be braying about soldiers being assigned duties outside their traditional roles and capabilities. Active duty military aren't supposed to be used for continuing internal security operations, which is essentially what the TSA is doing now.

On the other hand, I'll bet an average soldier has less job security and has better training and discipline than the average TSA screener, so maybe the troops would do the job better.

I just saw this and don't have time to review.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20079829-281/appeals-court-tsa-must-halt-airport-body-scanners/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Is this true? The TSA violated Federal law when installing the scanners? If so, what does it mean?

mike:

Oh right...thats different right??? Because it is a doctors JOB to grope us. Funny, its also TSA's job to grope us. And I doubt anyone is getting their rocks off doing it. What a horrible job to have to touch a bunch of mostly overweight, sweaty, and smelly passengers. Disgusting. I can't think of a worse job, except maybe as a Gynocologist.

My vote for ignoramus of the year here.

The Doctor is a professional. He spent a good part of his life training to treat human medical issues. He also is licensed, and required to uphold a professional code of conduct.

The TSA worker is a drone. Typically uneducated, they have no professional code of conduct, no method for reporting malpractice, no discipline to speak of, and have been given enormous power to boot.

The pediatrician cannot have you arrested if you refuse to have your child vaccinate against smallpox. The TSA agent can have you arrested for not submitting to having a hand jammed into your crotch repeatedly.

BOTU:

Ask yourself this: If instead the USA had posted U.S. Army soldiers at airports, and they performed this function, do you think the right-wing would be braying about this, and accusing U.S. Soldiers of "groping" children?

You're not very bright, are you? At least, you don't know your own beliefs very well. You're the one who wants to gut the military.

I know I would be screaming about it. We don't need to live in a paramilitary police state. We're damned close to that now with police checkpoints for drugs, alcohol, and seatbelts. What's next, checking for mascara?

I doubt it.

If you're to be consistent, you would be though.

I just can't get a boner up for this "issue."

I doubt you can get a boner up for anything.

I can't imagine anyone really cares about this.

Let me put my hands on your crotch, BOTU, and see if that changes your mind. Or perhaps you'd prefer the nudiescanner[*]? you know, the one the government has told us is safe. For reference, that's the same government that told us that Agent Orange was safe if used correctly.

[*] I propose instead of calling it the nudiescanner, it be rebranded as the WienerRoast in honor of the recently disgrace Rep. Anthony Wiener.

Christ almighty, I wish I'd seen this post yesterday. Vinnie presents a straw man -- or two or three -- luckily, I have a big matchbook.

Argue with facts, not emotions. Collect a list of ACTUAL indiscretions of TSA employees, not PERCIEVED ones. Show me videos of TSA agents yelling at passengers, treating them roughly, not the ones where the agents are being as professional as they can be in such an outlandish situation and the passengers are being belligerent.

I have collected those "ACTUAL indiscretions" (quel euphemism) as you put it. I've been covering TSA abuse for the past 18 months. I've posted hundreds of comments here and elsewhere in the blabbosphere, including newspapers, citing chapter and verse, names, places, dates, sources. Wanna see some of them? Look:

http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php?threads/master-lists-of-tsa-abuses-crimes.317/

And guess what? Reason doesn't work. Facts don't work. Risk assessment doesn't work. Empirical evidence doesn't work. Not for the sheeple. Because they find emotional fear-mongering more satisfying. So yes, I've taken to using the derisive term "sheeple" because I got sick and tired of having to respond to people who refuse to use the rational parts of their brains.

And what in god's name does "satisfaction" have to do with it? Who gives a shit if one of the smurfs gets satisfaction or not?? We're not claiming that the TSA employs more pedophiles or sex fiends than any other profession. That's not the point. The point is that they're groping people, often inappropriately, to the point of assaulting them.

Something else you might want to research -- I've only said it a thousand times, what's one more: Philip Zimbardo. Stanford Prison Experiment. Stanley Milgram. Milgram Experiment. Solomon Asch. Asch Paradigm.

You don't want to believe all these assaults are going on? Fine. Don't believe it. You don't give a shit about the 4th Amendment? Fine. Give it up for yourself. Bend over and spread 'em. But some of us out here see this "security" bullshit for what it is.

And whoever above said that there are all these people trying to bring bombs onto planes, YOU'RE WRONG. Another false statement, endlessly repeated.

FACT: no bombs were brought onto planes on 9/11. The planes themselves were commandeered, something that won't happen again because the cockpit doors have been secured, and because passengers will no longer silently submit (which is more than we can say for TSA apologists).

FACT: The last time a bomb was smuggled aboard an airplane in the USA was December 11, 1967. The plane landed safely; no fatalities, no injuries. Aviation Safety Network

FACT: The last time a bomb was smuggled aboard an aircraft in the US from which there were fatalities was May 22, 1962. Aviation Safety Network

Look it up yourselves. Comment rules here prevent me from publishing more than one link in a comment.

Sorry BOTU, but no, this is not conservative issue. This is a constitutional rights issue. I am a pretty liberal hippie type chick and this TSA b.s. pisses me off to no end.

Lisa Simeone, you are fucking awesome! You are added to my list of heroes.

I haven't commented about this issue much, because I'm not a big traveler. The last time I flew was 1998. Not because of fear of 9/11 or anything. That was just about the time when I started having kids and I agree with Amy about small kids on planes. But now my kids are older, and it breaks my heart that they may never have the opportunity to fly. We were considering a trip last year before all of the TSA garbage. I explained everything to my kids about the scanners and the pat downs, and they were horrified. They agreed that they would rather not fly then have anyone see them naked or touch them.

I know that Us soldiers are not supposed to be used for civilian purposes--although under the Bush Administration, in which the line between civilian and military security became so blurred, one could imagine US soldiers being quartered in airports--indeed some were directly after 9/11. I saw 'em.
One step from that is using soldiers to search people boarding airplanes. It never went that far, But that is a distinct issue.

I suspect if US soldiers searched people boarding airplanes the right-wing misfit crank-crowd would not dare accuse them of molesting children.

I actually agree with KarenW the hippie-chick, it is not a right-wing issue--rather, I am saying, the crank-wing of the GOP (the dominant wing now) is seizing upon the TSA "issue" to try to create a winning platform for 2012.

As for Brian, I hope police checkpoints do not seize your mascara. Let us know if and whan that outrage is perpetrated.

PS I am a 60-minute man, when aroused and using the V-pill.

My kids are grown, but I will have grandkids someday, and I know exactly how I would handle someone manhandling one of them. And it would end with me missing my flight at the very least. Behind bars at the worst. NO ONE touches my child with that attitude/roughness/callousness and gets away with it. Period.
So imagine, if you will, Granny telling the TSA to stick it where the sun don't shine as she's dragged off in handcuffs. After I've put my little one out of harms way. Oh, and maybe I'll strip, they seem to like nekkid old people.......

Meh, I'll just drive. There's nowhere I need to be that badly.

"You don't want to believe all these assaults are going on? Fine. Don't believe it. You don't give a shit about the 4th Amendment? Fine. Give it up for yourself. Bend over and spread 'em. But some of us out here see this "security" bullshit for what it is."

Wait, what?

Do you see the problem here? Because I don't think that pedophilia is a valid argument, I don't think the patdowns are outrageous? Are you trying to save money on your internet bill by only reading a certain percentage of my words?

The extra security IS bullshit. It is, on occasion, being done out of spite. It is excessive, and misplaced use of funds.

But to add the spectre of child molestation to it it hysteria, and another example of the kind of thing that derails so many arguments today. Too many have a binary mindset - you're either 100% in agreement or you're on the other side.

The patdowns are being done by barely-trained rent-a-cops who would have gotten jobs at Orange Julius if the line for application had been shorter. The entire process is facacta. There are SO many reasons to change it, we don't need to make more up.

BOTU, I hope you are right the GOP making the TSA their issue. I will be so grateful that I will vote for them, abd that will be the ONLY way I would vote Republican right now.

Pretty sure the troopps in airports directly after 9/11 were national guard and therefore under the command of govenors in a state of emergency situation and not under the command of the Army BOTU

BOTU, this is not a right versus left issue. This is a right versus wrong issue. It's wrong to force innocent people into non-consensual sexual contact. It's wrong to take naked pictures of children. It's wrong to expose pregnant women and toddlers to unnecessary X-ray radiation. It's wrong, wrong, wrong, to force Americans to hold still while strangers put their hands down people's pants. I have always been on the "left" side of things. I don't want a strange man ogling my naked body - that's a sexual intrusion on me regardless of whether he's rubbing his "resistance" in that private pornography booth while he's examining my genitals.

And Vinnie, yes, sexual assaults are on the menu at a checkpoint. A TSA screener inserted a foreign object (a metal detecting wand) in between my labia at BWI. She violated me in a truly disgusting and criminal manner, but even after numerous written complaints, no one ever even apologized to me. My attacker wasn't disciplined or even "retrained". The TSA sexually assaulted me and then pretended like it never happened. Your child could be next.

Lujlp: You might be right--seems to me at O'Hare I saw regular Army. A
Even so, U.S. civilians were routinely spied on my military agencies after 9/11 and still are, and the response to terrorists--once largely a civilian matter--has been militarized.

My main point remains this: If US Army soldiers were doing the pat-downs, the right-wing cranks would not dare accuse them of "groping."

But, it is federal civilian employees, so it is open season,

Old, old story. The GOP demonizes government, as a way to get lower tax rates for the rich.

I was wondering if all of you who are complaining about your rights being stomped on and who don't want to be "groped" have any kind of solution to offer in place of TSA patdowns? What about those of us who don't mind being patted down or "groped" at all? What kind of security do we get?

My girlfriend and I fly all the time, but hardly ever together. We both get patted down and see hundreds of people getting patted down every time, with no more than a yawn from any of them. We are both in the "who cares" category. As long as there is some miniscule chance that a patdown will find something, or will deter someone from bringing something on the plane, I say good work.

Once again, do any of you have any solutions to offer for those of us who prefer the extra security? I mean, if we are all working for equality then there must be some middle ground. Right?

Brian:

So, I guess if the TSA worker was a licensed professional with a professional degree and a code of conduct, it would not be groping right? What would you call it Brian? Would you be more ok with it if we had folks with Doctorates and Master's degrees working the TSA patdown lines?

Also, I was wondering where you got your facts about TSA workers. How in the world would you know if a TSA worker is uneducated, has no discipline, and has all of this so-called enormous power???

Why don't you try to walk past one of those uneducated TSA agents with a weapon Brian, and see how dumb they really are...

I think Vinnie makes a valid point. The problem is not that TSA is full of sex predators, and saying they are and hysterically shrieking "Vile!" and "But what about the chiillllldren?!" is not likely to make people take accusations against the TSA very seriously.

The problem is that TSA has gone too far, not that they are pervs. So it is important to have a rational discussion and figure out ways to curtail them.

One thing to consider is dilineating how this differs from other search situations... how many of us have been patted down when entering a concert or government building? How does this differ?

I think our top priority should be a way of making the employees accountable. The rest can follow from there.

When I was pregnant I didnt' go through the scanners btw. I was lightly patted down at Philly and Boston and Geneva airports.

Vinnie, Mike and BOTU would all vote to intern muslims/japanese (see US WW2 history)/group x in camps "As long as there is some miniscule chance that a patdown will find something, or will deter someone from bringing something on the plane,".

Of course, who's next to be tossed into camps (FEMA or otherwise)? Anyone the gov doesn't like at the moment. Habeas Corpus? Whats that? Bill of rights? Just paper.

Of course, it is just paper and it has to be defended by soap box, ballot box, jury box and if need be, ammo box. We're getting dangerously close to the last one.

Vinnie presents the same straw man I already burned down: "Because I don't think that pedophilia is a valid argument, I don't think the patdowns are outrageous?. . . But to add the spectre of child molestation to it it hysteria, and another example of the kind of thing that derails so many arguments today. Too many have a binary mindset - you're either 100% in agreement or you're on the other side."

I repeat, the argument isn't now and has never been about pedophilia. You're the one inserting that bit of "hysteria" into the conversation. As I already said, no one is claiming that the TSA employs more pedophiles or sex fiends than any other profession. Wash, rinse, repeat. What thousands of TSA agents are doing amounts to sexual assault. Molestation. You don't want to face that fact.

Did you look at those Master Lists of TSA crimes and abuses? Are all those people lying? What, they just woke up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and decided to make shit up?

And how did this woman just get arrested and charged with a felony count of sexual abuse for doing to the TSA agent precisely what the TSA agent was doing to her? Lemme guess -- she wasn't "authorized." She wasn't "trained."
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/phoenix/woman-arrested-for-groping-tsa-agent-07152011

Mike writes: "I was wondering if all of you who are complaining about your rights being stomped on and who don't want to be "groped" have any kind of solution to offer in place of TSA patdowns? What about those of us who don't mind being patted down or "groped" at all? What kind of security do we get? My girlfriend and I fly all the time, but hardly ever together. We both get patted down and see hundreds of people getting patted down every time, with no more than a yawn from any of them. We are both in the "who cares" category. As long as there is some miniscule chance that a patdown will find something, or will deter someone from bringing something on the plane, I say good work."

I've addressed this countless times, but here goes again: First, your chance of being involved in a terrorist attack on a plane is minuscule. Did you look at the facts about aviation history I presented above? You're more likely to drown in your bathtub. You're more likely to get struck by lightning (odds are 1 in 500,000). 43,000 traffic fatalities EVERY YEAR in this country. Every year. Slightly over 3,000 deaths from terrorism in almost 50 years. Are you going to give up driving? Better yet, do you talk on your cellphone while driving? That'll get you killed a lot quicker than some bogeyman terrorist will. Oops -- there goes the argument that you're concerned about safety.

Risk assessment -- that's rational. Letting fear dictate your and a society's every move isn't. But as I already stated, too many people don't want rational arguments. They prefer emotional fear-mongering.

Second, you ask what security measures could we possibly have? What did we have before 9/11, when no bombs were going off on planes, on 9/11 itself, when no bombs went off on planes, after 9/11, when no bombs have been going off on planes? Gee, how is it possible we all haven't been blown out of the sky by now??

Police work. Intelligence. The same things that have always been used to fight crime. That's what security is. Ask a cop. Ask a law enforcement officer. Ask an FBI agent -- I've interviewed them. They despise the TSA. More than I do, if that's possible. Why, if the TSA is so "well trained" and if they're doing such a great job?

Your statement that you and girlfriend travel all the time and you've never been privy to abuse is perhaps my favorite of all. I love hearing this ethically indefensible argument. "It's never happened to me, therefore it doesn't happen!"

Q.E.D.

Again I refer you to the thousands of accounts of abuse a colleague and I have compiled at the link in my first comment. Read through them. They're all sourced. See if you think they're credible.

But hey, no problem -- as long as you and your girlfriend don't get the shit, it's okay that other people do. Kinda like, nobody's stopping those black people from sitting at the back of the bus, it's not like they have to walk, why can't they just shut up and do what they're told?

And no, I've never made an argument based on class in this issue. I don't denigrate TSA workers as "burger-flippers," "janitors," "Walmart wannabes," or any other derisive terms that are thrown about and that serve only to insult people and cloud the argument. I don't care how "well educated" they are. There are plenty of educated assholes in this world and plenty of uneducated menschen. How is it any better if an "educated" goon gropes me rather than an "uneducated" one? A thug is still a thug.

And no, OF COURSE not all TSA agents are thugs. Of fucking course. The point is that thousands are abusing their power. It's a sad fact that human beings -- most, not all, human beings -- are prone to abusing their power. Again, Zimbardo. Milgram. Asch. I'm not the one making binary arguments here.

NicoleK writes: "I think Vinnie makes a valid point. The problem is not that TSA is full of sex predators, and saying they are and hysterically shrieking "Vile!" and "But what about the chiillllldren?!" is not likely to make people take accusations against the TSA very seriously."

No fucking kidding. Already addressed, numerous times.

And: "One thing to consider is dilineating how this differs from other search situations... how many of us have been patted down when entering a concert or government building? How does this differ?"

I will say this again: I have been frisked by the police. What the TSA does isn't frisking. The police aren't allowed by law to do what the TSA does. Again, ask one of them. Yes, of course, some police abuse their power. Yes, yes, yes. But they know that they're not permitted by law to grope and fondle. They're looking for metal, which they can feel by barely a glancing touch, not by crotch-grabbing and breast-cupping.

I'd like to say it's amazing the lengths to which people will go to refuse to acknowledge what's right in front of them. But I'm not amazed anymore. A past monster said it best:

"The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it."
-Josef Mengele

More rational risk assessment. But what the hell. We've only posted this a dozen times by now. It won't make a dent:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/beyond_security.html

And meh, Nuremberg Schmuremberg. What the hell did he know:

The Fourth Amendment is weaker than it was 50 years ago, and this should worry everyone. “Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government,” Justice Robert H. Jackson, the former chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, wrote in 1949. “Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual, and putting terror in every heart.”

And who gives a shit anyway? After all, the Constitution is such a quaint little document.

More risk assessment, rational that is:

Transportation Economics by Mark Bennett

Suppose that it’s 1 January 2001, and you know that at some point in the next 12 months terrorists will take down four airplanes, killing more than 500 passengers. You have a job that requires you to travel from Houston to Newark at least once and up to twelve times. By road, you live 20 miles from the Houston airport and work 10 miles from the Newark airport.

Which would be the safer travel plan?:

To drive once; or
To fly twelve times?

(Never mind the added danger of being murdered in Newark, or of slipping and falling in an unfamiliar hotel tub. We’re just talking transportation safety.)

In 2001, by far the most dangerous year in recent history for U.S. commercial aviation, there were 0.85 fatalities per million passenger emplanements and .0096 fatalities per million highway passenger miles.

It’s a 3,242 mile driving round trip. So each time you drive you’ve got a 31-in-a-million (3,242 × .0096) chance of dying on the highway.

If you decide to fly, you still have to take highways to and from the airport. For each flying trip you will have had a 0.58-in-a-million (60 × .0096) chance of dying on way to or from airport, and a 1.7-in-a-million chance (2 × .85) of dying on a flight, for a total 2.3-in-a-million chance of dying on each trip.

So driving between Houston and Newark is statistically 13 times as dangerous, even in 2001, as flying. Yet Americans are content with the state of getting on the freeway, and happy to give up our privacy and our dignity if we think it’ll make flying safer.

As long, I suppose, as there’s no math.

(Statistics from various sources: fatalities per 100 million vehicles;highway passenger loads; passenger emplanements; aviation fatality statistics.)

http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2010/11/transportation-economics.html

Lisa - while the statistics are interesting, they share something in common: both are so unlikely as to be noise.

The problem has always been that people were trained to go along with hijackers, and we'll try to prevent them getting on the plane. After 9/11, the response is now to detain or kill the hijackers on the plane.

Hijackers/bombers are no longer a threat.

I was wondering if all of you who are complaining about your rights being stomped on and who don't want to be "groped" have any kind of solution to offer in place of TSA patdowns? What about those of us who don't mind being patted down or "groped" at all? What kind of security do we get?

So to answer mike, what would I do? I'd ditch the TSA security apparatus entirely. Get on the plane, fly, get off. Someone pulls a knife, gun, bomb, he's not long for this world anyhow.

So, I guess if the TSA worker was a licensed professional with a professional degree and a code of conduct, it would not be groping right?

No, it wouldn't be happening.

Why don't you try to walk past one of those uneducated TSA agents with a weapon Brian, and see how dumb they really are...

Been there, done that. On an international flight, no less.

You argue like a child. You must be an Obama voter.

Yeah, statistics, empirical evidence, risk assessment -- all the arguments of a child.

"Hijackers/bombers are no longer a threat. . . . I'd ditch the TSA security apparatus entirely. Get on the plane, fly, get off. Someone pulls a knife, gun, bomb, he's not long for this world anyhow.

No kidding. I've only been saying this for years.

And I guess the signature on my email reads "Buck Ofama" cause I'm such an Obama supporter.

New Port Richey couple says TSA search went too far

Both of them are in wheelchairs.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/200788/250/New-Port-Richey-couple-says-TSA-search-went-too-far

Yeah, statistics, empirical evidence, risk assessment -- all the arguments of a child.

Sorry, that wasn't aimed at you - it was aimed at mike. I neglected to put his name before his quotes.

Mike's the one using reductio ad shithead as an argument technique. You have been eloquent and informative.

"Vinnie (et al) would all vote to intern muslims/japanese (see US WW2 history)/group x in camps"

Do NOT lump me in that group. Indeed, I don't think there's anyone on here who's in that camp (you should pardon the expression) - that's another overexaggeration that makes people roll their eyes and walk away from the argument, guaranteeing all stays as it is.

I have said all along that the TSA is doing things wrong, doing more things as opposed to doing things smarter. I agree with the oft-argued idea that Israel has it right when they look for terrorists with well-trained people, as opposed to blithely searching everyone, or nearly everyone. The issue that makes that far more difficult here is the massive difference in scale (I'm veering off course with this, so I'll keep it brief)

"As long as there is some miniscule chance that a patdown will find something, or will deter someone from bringing something on the plane,".

The problem with this mindset is that the amount of work (and expense) can eventually reach the point that it doesn't equal the amount of safety achieved. Plus, all it takes is one mistake (which we've already have) to have people claim we're STILL not doing (spending) enough.

Work smarter, which will mean you can work cheaper. Is usually cheaper in the long run to train one person really well and pay them accordingly than to have X-number of minimum-wage clods do the same job.

"I repeat, the argument isn't now and has never been about pedophilia"

Which is why the title of this column is "Make Your Child Pedophile-Ready", right?

There always were footnotes. Pat-downs are not limited to TSA. There have always been diaper changes, doctors' offices, security getting into govt buildings and concerts.

Which is not to say that TSA isn't awful and overstepping its bounds. I just think the pedophile angle is likely to make people brush off your message rather than embrace it. Which would be awful, because something needs to be done about TSA.

In 2001, by far the most dangerous year in recent history for U.S. commercial aviation, there were 0.85 fatalities per million passenger emplanements and .0096 fatalities per million highway passenger miles.

***

Lisa... are those numbers backwards? Because .85 is a lot more than .0096, and you seem to be arguing that planes are safer, which wouldn't be the case if there is a .85 chance on the plane?

Look, Vinnie, I admire your approach that talking in hyperbole usually doesn't win any arguments.

"But to add the spectre of child molestation to it it hysteria,"

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know your history. Here's mine: I WAS sexually molested as a child. I have received 3 of TSA "new and improved" pat downs. Of those, 2 were identical to the rubbing I received as a child.

To better understand this point, you need to understand that molestation is NOT about sexual gratification, it IS about control over another person's body. When my father used to rub my legs and come into contact with my resistance, he never once "rolled his eyes back in ecstasy" nor did he get off or ejaculate.

The TSAs new search regime is both ineffective and offensive. As a matter of fact, it is indeed sexual molestation. Period.

I am pleased that so many have now recognized that TSA is simply an expensive farce that substitutes harassment of passengers for airline security. Many experts have stated that there has been no increase in aircraft exposure since 2002.
Congress has permitted TSA to promote an agenda of passenger-focused paranoia without consideration for the realities or costs of airline safety.
In the past eight months, TSA has been plagued by reports of agent thefts, sex crimes, assaults, drug trafficking, security breaches, drug use and dereliction of duty. Over sixty screeners have been implicated in that brief time without one notable success to offset this abysmal record. There is something fundamentally wrong when an organization posts this level of criminal conduct.
This ineffective focus on passengers has become both excessive and dangerous. Once cockpit doors were reinforced and pilots armed a terrorist could not gain control of a plane a repeat of 9/11 became impossible. A human is physically incapable of concealing enough explosive to bring down an airliner yet the focus of TSA remains on passengers while allowing 60% of cargo on airliners to go unscreened and remaining oblivious to threat of a ground based attack.
Over a million Americans have died in defense of our Constitutional liberties and it is shameful that the fearful and cowardly among us would squander those rights for the miniscule degree of security that TSA provides.
TSA is far too broken to be reformed and must be closed. There needs to be a grand jury investigation of the agency and its leadership for corruption and mismanagement.
http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php?threads/master-lists-of-tsa-abuses-crimes.317/

'I suspect if US soldiers searched people boarding airplanes the right-wing misfit crank-crowd would not dare accuse them of molesting children. '

I would less suspect someone in the military not because I'm a right-winger, but because the training of the military far outweighs that of the TSA.

I read a few years ago about the training that airport employees get. The Japanese screeners got at that time 110 hours of training, American screeners got 20. TSA may get more training, who knows, but I've seen enough ignorance and sloth, screeners hardly looking at the baggage X-ray screen while laughing and joking about last weekend's party, to think not.

They are evidently given no training in how to handle passenger's belongings properly, as I've had a musical instrument broken twice, in two different airports. I've had a TSA screener nag me the entire trip through the line about not letting my husband "get away with" adding his shoes to my shoe tray (it was seen as domineering behavior by her, and should give him what for) My mother had a jar of apricot jam taken away in the interest of national security. Impressive!

We're a laughing stock, both for allowing this to pass for professional security, and for keeping our mouths shut about it.

I fly with my young son often enough for him to be Elite. But I've never encountered conduct like the feel-em-ups. I have seen people searched in TSA theatre on people who don't look like they fly much but they never ask us and quickly wave is through each time. I'm not sure if it's because he looks like he'll bite them if they get fresh or that when the whole family looks like we know how to go through security so they don't try to get their power woody off on us and save it for the "amateurs."

eek bad editing... But I think it's 'cause they're scared of him.

Yes, Amy, a 78-year-old great-grandmother (as of June) has her jam taken away. And they broke the zipper of her carry-on bag doing it. Doesn't it make you feel safe?

In 2011 American screeners were given 20 hours of training, much less than other countries. According to the TSA's site, they now get 180. rIt doesn't seem to be helping...

@crella -

I don't care how much training you give a room-temperature IQ mouth-breather. They aren't going to learn.

There's a reason they're doing that job: they aren't fit for anything else.

"I repeat, the argument isn't now and has never been about pedophilia"
Which is why the title of this column is "Make Your Child Pedophile-Ready", right?
Posted by: Vinnie Bartilucci at July 16, 2011 8:55 AM

It's not my title, Vinnie, and it's not my column.

And you're still missing the point. If you read the original essay to which Amy linked, by defense lawyer Mark Bennett, perhaps you'll see why she chose to title her column this way.

In 2001, by far the most dangerous year in recent history for U.S. commercial aviation, there were 0.85 fatalities per million passenger emplanements and .0096 fatalities per million highway passenger miles.
***
Lisa... are those numbers backwards? Because .85 is a lot more than .0096, and you seem to be arguing that planes are safer, which wouldn't be the case if there is a .85 chance on the plane?

Nicole, check Mark's site at the link. He said in a comment he made some calculation errors and then corrected them. I just did a copy & paste of the original. Check the link.

(We can always get Sommer Gentry, who is a math professor at the U.S. Naval Academy, and who has posted prolifically about her sexual assault by the TSA, to check the math.)

In 2001, by far the most dangerous year in recent history for U.S. commercial aviation, there were 0.85 fatalities per million passenger emplanements and .0096 fatalities per million highway passenger miles.

Lisa... are those numbers backwards? Because .85 is a lot more than .0096, and you seem to be arguing that planes are safer, which wouldn't be the case if there is a .85 chance on the plane?

So the denominators are different: the airline fatality denominator is "million passenger emplanements" (miles are not a factor) and the highway denominator is "million highway passenger miles" (or passenger-miles, if you like: passengers times miles).

So flying anywhere in the US in 2001 you would have had a .85-in-a-million chance of dying; driving only a hundred miles on the highway you would have had a .96 (.0096 * 100)-in-a-million chance of dying.

Our 6,000-mile family highway odyssey this summer (Amy, we didn't skip the Girls' Leadership Institute, but just the flights to and from Massachusetts) was equivalent in danger to 67 commercial airline flights in 2001 (disregarding the danger of driving to and from airports for those flights).

Where the only difference between sexual abuse and lawful conduct is the actor's mental state, the object of the conduct probably can't tell the difference between them. A bad-touch sexual assault might look and feel the same to a child as a good-touch medical exam. We punish people for the former, but we subject our children to the latter, and we're justified in doing so. Why? Because we reasonably expect enough of a benefit from the medical exam to make it worthwhile.

The statistics show that we can't reasonably expect a significant benefit from TSA's security kabuki. The risks of air travel are so minuscule that even eliminating them entirely would not justify subjecting our children to unwelcome touching.