Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Getting Familiar With All-Too-Intimate Pat-Downs (Airline screeners accost passengers)
NY Times ^ | 11/9/04 | SHARKEY

Posted on 11/10/2004 12:52:17 PM PST by icecold

Last week, I wrote about Rhonda L. Gaynier, a lawyer who said she was groped by a female Transportation Security Administration screener - given a breast exam is how she put it - at Tampa International Airport during one of those dreaded secondary screenings and pat-downs. On my desk right now are printouts of about 150 e-mail messages that arrived in response to that column.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/10/2004 12:52:18 PM PST by icecold
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: icecold

"On my desk right now are printouts of about 150 e-mail messages that arrived in response to that column."

Requesting photos, no doubt.


2 posted on 11/10/2004 12:53:41 PM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icecold
Go to www.BugMeNot.com if you don't want to register.
3 posted on 11/10/2004 12:53:56 PM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

great link


4 posted on 11/10/2004 12:54:41 PM PST by icecold
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: icecold

Male screeners are not permitted to do pat-downs on female passengers -- and vice-versa. Anybody who says differently is lying -- and therefore has an ideological agenda.


5 posted on 11/10/2004 1:00:31 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icecold

That is why I no longer fly anywhere --- if someone tried that on me I would have them on the ground wondering how they got there.

I REFUSE to give up my Constitutional Rights for morons and their ignorant masters.


6 posted on 11/10/2004 1:00:57 PM PST by steplock (http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000

I'd rather have a woman pat me down than a dude.


7 posted on 11/10/2004 1:01:14 PM PST by Bikers4Bush (Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Vote for true conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bikers4Bush

Point taken.


8 posted on 11/10/2004 1:06:03 PM PST by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: steplock
It's the one-free-grope rule. Just be thankful that you don't work for this guy:

Business Owner Arrested After Allegedly Spanking Two Employees

9 posted on 11/10/2004 1:07:39 PM PST by Grit (Nov. 2nd, 2004: Get out the Vote! Nov. 3rd, 2004 : Get out the Gloat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

Thank you, that's a keeper.


10 posted on 11/10/2004 1:07:43 PM PST by magslinger (Happiness depends on being free, and freedom depends on being courageous. Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F

I feel safe knowing the TSA is on the job. How about you?


11 posted on 11/10/2004 1:09:28 PM PST by snopercod (Bigger government means clinton won. Less freedom means Osama won. Get it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icecold

See post #5 or drive a car, instead.


12 posted on 11/10/2004 1:09:45 PM PST by xrp (Executing assigned posting duties flawlessly -- ZERO mistakes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Male screeners are not permitted to do pat-downs on female passengers -- and vice-versa. Anybody who says differently is lying -- and therefore has an ideological agenda.

Rosie O'Donnel's next career?

13 posted on 11/10/2004 1:21:52 PM PST by frithguild (Election 2004 - Many Nights of the Broken Glass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Male screeners are not permitted to do pat-downs on female passengers -- and vice-versa.

Actually, I personally know of an instance at a really small airport where it was done due to the lack of a female screener. The pat-down was done by a supervisor and could hardly be described as groping (the backs of the hands were used).

I'm not sure that I would feel comfortable giving or recieving such a pat down. I do fly though, and would prefer the present security to no security at all.

It isn't a brave act to fly an airplane into a skyscraper or to attack churches, schools and hospitals.

14 posted on 11/10/2004 1:56:00 PM PST by Tom Bombadil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tom Bombadil
Frankly, I avoid flying these days as much as possible because:
1. The current system is designed primarily to cause enough irritation and show to make the flying public think that Mineta's Mismanagement Corps is doing something useful and only secondarily is it designed to keep weapons and terrorists off of airplanes.
2. Mineta's Mismanagement Corps won't provide me and my fellow passengers the means by which we can "gently dissuade" any "socially disenchanted, suicidally inclined victims of society" from "persuading" a flight crew to deviate from their flight plan.

Frankly, I hope that the see-thru-the-clothes device they're testing in the UK gets fielded most skosh. When I HAVE to fly, I'd much prefer that someone sees me in the virtual altogether than have to give a pervert the opportunity to see how I like a pat-down!

Yes, I KNOW that the majority of airport screeners are normal folks just trying to do their job. They don't bother me, it's the one percent or whatever who really ENJOY their pat-down job that gives me the dry heaves!
15 posted on 11/10/2004 2:46:34 PM PST by lechtellhavel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Male screeners are not permitted to do pat-downs on female passengers -- and vice-versa. Anybody who says differently is lying -- and therefore has an ideological agenda.

Read the story before you post, professor. Who has tried to tell you different? This particular gropings were delivered to females by females. One of them, described in detail in the story, was a punishment for the lady being unwilling to take her blouse off in public.

Is it supposed to make it cool that she got groped and humiliated (quite deliberately, by the sound of it) by one of the TSA's Lynndie Englands instead of by a guy?

Everyone in the industry has seen how the TSA works -- hire the scum of the earth, and give them their head -- and knows it's one more version of the universal equation: A little man and a little power does not equal a big man. Or broad, as the case may be.

As far as safety -- these screenings do zero for safety, unless you count providing a fig-leaf, or illusion or safety, as the real thing. Any C student in terrorist school could still find six ways to wreck that aircraft (after which the short-school-bus and early-retired officers of the TSA will set up new restrictions that inconvenience everybody, cost money, and cost lives, and only prevent the terrorists from doing exactly the same thing exactly the same way -- as if they were as dumb as, for instance, the TSA).

And yes, this costs money, jobs (real jobs, not handouts for the welfareniks the TSA supports), and lives. Because every time the mongoloids at the TSA throw more restrictions on, more people say, "screw it, I'll drive" -- which is a thousand times more dangerous. By 2006-2007 the TSA will have killed as many people this was as Osama did.

The first head that HAS to roll is Mineta's. He's not really running the department, he's too senile, but he and the flunkies that bring him paper are all Clintonista holdouts who think nothing can be done unless the Government does it. That's how you have a two-year-old agency spending half a million dollars (!) on an awards ceremony where they gave one of the gropers a "lifetime achievement" award (remember, for this bureaucracy "lifetime" began in 2002). The agency has no idea what it's doing, no positive impact on the GWOT, and the fiscal discipline of a cokehead who just realised the car full of money he just stole belongs to the local Godfather.

This is the same crack outfit that found out that Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens), Hamas suicide-bombing financier, was going to board a plane to the US -- while the whackjob was somewhere over Iceland already. Millions for tensile-testing teats, but not one cent for giving traveling jihadis the hairy eyeball. You Aunt Harriet could run a better agency, and you don't even have an Aunt Harriet!

These creeps have nothing to do with terrorism, apart from using it as an excuse to bloat their bureaucracy, and sucking up money that could be used by those actually fighting terrorism.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

16 posted on 11/10/2004 7:34:00 PM PST by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
I feel safe knowing the TSA is on the job. How about you?

THE CHIEF: Her fingers were cold, the victim said. You know what this means?

AGENT 99 (earnestly): It could only be one KAOS agent, Chief.

AGENT 86: Chief, please don't tell me it's the --

THE CHIEF (resigned): Yes, Max. It's the dreaded EL KA-BOOB.

AGENT 86 (wincing): I told you not to tell me that.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

17 posted on 11/10/2004 7:42:44 PM PST by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tom Bombadil

If you think that we have any better security at airports now than before 9-11, can I interest you in some seashore property in South Dakota?

What a delusion you have!


18 posted on 11/10/2004 7:48:55 PM PST by rollin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
I don't fly commercial any more either, unless it's for a funeral more than two day's drive away.

But last spring, I had to.

On the way back, the TSA drones found something "suspicious" in my checked baggage and made me stand there while they opened up. The two cans of Las Palmas Red Chili Sauce that my sister-in-law had given me set of some kind of alarm.

So after dumping my stuff all over their table, they looked at the two cans, said "OK", and sent the luggage on it's way.

I was wondering how they knew what the contents of the two cans were. Anybody can put anything they want in a can and put a label on it.

If I can think of a lot of ways to do harm to an airliner and still get through security, and I'm sure others can, too.

19 posted on 11/11/2004 3:18:01 AM PST by snopercod (Bigger government means clinton won. Less freedom means Osama won. Get it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rollin
What a delusion you have!

Maybe.

Given two different airplanes with seperate boarding lines, one being unscreened and the other being screened, I would still opt for the screened airplane.

I also would welcome the low power X-ray that would "strip" me of my clothes. It is too bad that we have Bozo's in this world who think it is cool to kill innocent people...without them there would be no need for any of this.

20 posted on 11/11/2004 3:59:40 AM PST by Tom Bombadil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson