More inexcuseable horror from Fatherland Security's TSA.
Interesting factoid:
Once you have entered the screening queue area, you are legally required to pass through screening. In other words, you cannot refuse to pass through and just leave once you are in line. This is one of the TSA rules.
Next right you will lose at the 'screening' queues will be the Freedom of Speech one, as it's already happening.

But hey, this is all necessary to protect us from 'terrorists' right?

I wonder - is it really "legally" required...or is that just another stupid rule that has the same effect as law?

I don't dispute the fact that this is required, but if it's not really a law, it might be slightly easier to rescind (if only slightly).

>> I just didn’t understand why these agents were so insensitive to the situation.

Because the sort of people who would be compassionate in this situation would never take that job. Instead we're dealing with the sort who can repeatedly violate and humiliate people because they don't feel any compunction or remorse. Many of them are probably mentally ill with sociopathic and sadistic tendencies.

I've come to the conclusion that there is no legal means to resist the TSA and so only viable response will have to be extra-legal. For example, we can track these agents down and visit them in their homes and neighborhoods. Or organize flash mobs to overrun the checkpoints and destroy their equipment. I'm not advocating violence, but we've reached the point that it is morally justified and need to deal with this situation now before people start getting killed.

Well reading through the the John Tyner (Don't touch my junk) blog and the TSA documents it appears that 3(E) might apply.

3(E) Entering or being present within a secured area, AOA, SIDA, or sterile area without complying with the systems, measures, or procedures being applied to control access to, or presence or movement in, such areas -- $500-$3,000

But the fine would be maxed at $3000. He was complying with the security. It was the porno-scanner, a groin grab, or don't fly. He chose option three.

I can't see any way they can fine you for refusing a pat down and leaving.

johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html
www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/enforcement_sanction_guidance_policy.pdf
www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/49_USC_Chapters_401_to_501.pdf

Don't feel bad about the mainstream media not wanting your op-ed. They don't seem to want anything to do with the Wall Street protests either (unless they can spin it).

Amy, I agree absolutely that the separation of belongings is a control mechanism. Furthermore, every wonder why everyone must remove their shoes? Sure, TSA claims they need to be screened. Well, OK, but there is no possible way to put enough explosives in the sole of a shoe that would bring down an airliner. If you don't have your shoes, you are less likely to leave the area until they are done with you.

And as for security cameras watching your stuff? I've requested videotape of a recent incident involving myself and overzealous screeners. I have been told that the area in question (which includes the end of the baggage screening belt, the very area that we are told is under video surveillance)is not under video surveillance. Well, now that's interesting.

I fear karl that you are right. Its do as youre told or be fined/arrested, have your stuff stolen, be labeled a terrorist (and assassinated). Its not blackmail, its plea bargaining!

I think its not far before they actually pass some sort of kin liability type law or sippenhaft. They already do that all the time in plea deals. Take the deal or we'll charge your spouse/family with whatever.

I have to say this runs completely counter to my many trips through security (I fly once or twice a month), both with back-scatter scanners and without. I have never had a problem with mastectomy scars (or any other kind) and the one time that a body scanner picked up my breast prosthesis, I simply told the agent that I had one. She said, "Me too" and let me through without a pat-down. (She said she'd a botched breast reduction surgery.)

I oppose the vast waste of time and resources represented by security theater, as well as the infringement on our freedom, but there is, unfortunately, a large public demand for such nonsense--all those "anything for safety" types who fly only at Thanksgiving and are comforted by the ritual of taking off their shoes. In my very frequent experience in air travel, however, the security agents are not petty tyrants. They are for the most part perfectly pleasant people trying to do a tedious job with a minimum of hassle for all concerned. Their interest in the job has more to do with the fact that it is a job than with any great desire to boss people around.

The vast number of travelers going through airports means that by the law of large numbers some of them will have bad experiences. (The same is true of Walmart.) I'm sure this view won't win me any friends here, but IMHO exaggerating the frequency of such experiences tends to make the case against security theater less credible and persuasive.

"I'm sure this view won't win me any friends here, but IMHO exaggerating the frequency of such experiences tends to make the case against security theater less credible and persuasive."

If I only killed you, then, because so few are killed, it's OK.

Right?

The situation at the airline gates is a symptom, not the disease gripping America.

It's the idea that giving power to people who then have no concern other than keeping that power is a "good thing" - however justified.

"If it only saves one child!" "If it will keep me safe!"

That's the advertisement.

It's false.

Just as with "gun control" laws, the State promises you a degree of safety it CANNOT provide, DOES NOT provide, and then PROHIBITS YOU from taking any measure they do not approve.

You're wearing handcuffs. That they are comfortable now, or for most people, does not remove them!

Amy: Just a few days ago, I had to go through O'Hare. Mindful of your experience, I deliberately raised my middle index fingers on both hands when forced into the scanner. Immediately, a swarm of TSA agents, supervisors, etc. surrounded me.

I was told that this was not the "correct" position to stand in via the scanner, and whether I wanted a pat down instead. I informed them that since they supposedly were trying to see what was underneath my clothes, I could arrange my hands however I liked, and then they could try to justify a further "search" of my bare hands if they had probable cause or a warrant. Supervisor #1 threatened to call in Chicago police. I asked him if he was seriously threatening to detain me for engaging in political speech. He informed me that my hand positioning was not political speech. I informed him otherwise. He suggested that the Chicago Police might tell me I was wrong. Supervisor #2 then came over and said he was "asking" me to cooperate. I stated that I would be perfectly fine with going through the metal detector, as half the other travelers were doing. He refused. Then I informed him I maintained my position. He grabbed my boarding pass, and warned me that if I didn't cooperate, I was likely to miss my flight. I asked if I was being detained. He again said I should just cooperate. I said I was fully entitled to engage in political speech. He asked if I wanted a pat-down. I refused. After going around and around for another 10 minutes, he finally had me step into the scanner. They deliberately scanned me three times. Another TSA agent kept me standing in the scanner, and then as I went to exit, told me that the scan was "no good" and they had to do it over. I told him that the light had gone on and off three times, and, realizing he was caught in a lie, let me step out of the scanner. I was told to stand outside the scanner. I was left standing there for 15 minutes. I asked repeatedly if I was being detained. No TSA person would respond to me, except to say that they couldn't let me move until their supervisor said so. Supervisor #2 had deliberately moved to a different part of the scanning area so as to be out of visual or hearing contact. None of the TSA agents would give me their name or his. All were clearly pissed off that I wanted to give them the finger while being forced into their nude scanning machine. In the interim, five more people went through the scanner and were passed on their merry way.

As soon as the boarding time on my flight arrived, Supervisor #2 magically reappeared and indicated to the minions that I could leave.

So there you have it, folks. TSA agents knew that they had absolutely no good justification to detain me. But they went out of their way to push the limits while maintaining plausible deniability. TSA can't take any criticism, and are going out of their way to punish those who seek to engage in one of the most mild, yet classic, ways of conveying to authority, fuck off. They were actually offended that I was upset with THEM. Ummm, THEY are the ones that demand as a condition of my travel (necessary for work) that I either get a radiation scan and nude exposure, or a sexual assualt. They should hang their heads in shame every day they go to work. If they actually had balls, they'd quit.

The TSA was no longer needed 70 minutes after Flight 175 hit Tower II. That was when Flight 93 went down in outside of Shanksville.

Hey Give TSA,

Go for it. I just simply don't fly anymore. But I don't have too, luckily. Do it every time. Good luck.

"the one time that a body scanner picked up my breast prosthesis, I simply told the agent that I had one. She said, "Me too" and let me through without a pat-down."

This is one of my problems with the TSA and the way they currently operate. One woman get through security with a simple explanation and no pat-down, and another is denigrated and humiliated. The lack of consistency means that there is broad leeway for abuses to occur, whether they occur with a great percentage of frequency or not.

And if the vast majority of "officers" are not power hungry, or manipulative, then punitive action against the few and far between who are needs to be more readily accessible. As of now, it is nearly, if not completely, impossible to bring sexual assault charges against an individual "officer". If the problem truly is a few individuals abusing their power, then why is the TSA as a whole standing behind them, claiming that they are only doing their jobs? Was the woman who waved Virginia through without an enhanced pat-down not doing her job, then?

I have extensive abdominal scarring from surgeries that had to heal "by secondary intention" (i.e. from the inside out - leaving wide, thick scars). I also have a gastric band with the adjustment port under the skin in the middle abdomen. I have had to be "checked" in the area several times after TSA backscatter X-ray scanning.

It occurred to me as I watched fellow travelers practically undressing in line that when I was young (I am 52), I was taught that I never undid or even adjusted my belt in public, I took off my shoes only at home, the beach or the swimming pool, and I was *never* to allow a stranger to touch me anywhere between chin and knees.

My how our society has changed.

I flew a few weeks ago. On my return trip, originating at a Southern California airport, most of the pax were only going through metal detectors, but certain ones were being selected for scanning and pat-downs (both). I couldn't help but notice that these unfortunates were mostly cute young women. I kind of took my time putting my shoes back on so that I could observe this for a few minutes, and it seemed to be a consistent pattern. There was a very obvious contrast between the "selectees" and the general public being sent through the metal detectors and then on their way.

For those of you who think it's no problemo to go through a body scanner or to have a patdown, let me drop a hint that all TSA at all airports are absolutely not the same in their demeanor. The TSA in Portland is far more well-adjusted and pleasant than the minimum wage servants comprising the TSA team at SFO who are barely eking out a living in crime-ridden locales like East Oakland and Hunter's Point. The TSA at San Francisco Airport very much have a huge chip on their shoulder and they are having a great time powertripping on innocent Americans. You will meet the bad TSA agents one of these days, that's inevitable, so don't count your blessings yet.

Amy, regarding keeping your belongings in your control, a person who calls himself SATTSO at FlyerTalk says that the TSA is no longer required to allow passengers to do that, in spite of what the TSA website states. Now is this person right or wrong? Who knows? He's the same one who wrote many months ago that one gallon baggies are allowable - and no one that I know has had any luck getting through security with a one gallon bag.

For Ms. Dorn, I am sure she would have been required to remove her clothing if she had gone for the private room inspection, but to have a soulless TSA goon prod her breast area is unforgivable. Do you supposed this agent will be "retrained?"