Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - A pat down that ended my wife up in the ER

My wife and I had a horrific experience traveling out of FLL yesterday.

Five years ago, she was violently sexually assaulted by three men and was threatened with death. She made it, and tried to bury it for three years. After nightmares, flashbacks, and cutting she told me everything two years ago, and since then has been seeing professional counseling and taking medication. The incident happened in FL, but we now live elsewhere.

We were back in FL due to a death in the family - whenever we're there, she's always on edge (understandably). The security checkpoint had a backscatter and a metal detector active. I always opt-out, and unfortunately I was chosen to go through the metal detector instead of her. My wife was sent towards the backscatter, and told the TSO she didn't want to go through that. I then overheard the TSO graphically describing that "they will need to touch your privates..." (I know TSOs routinely scare people into going through the nude-o-scopes.) That just about did it for my wife, and she started shaking, sweating, and ended up going through the backscatter.

And then they discovered an "anomaly" in her bra, so she needed to be patted down on her breasts. This freaked her out even more. She asked for a private room and for me to be there, and it was obvious that this pissed off the female assist TSO. As she started shaking and sobbing in the room as the TSO began to touch her breasts, I gently touched her arm. Big mistake - the TSO yelled that I couldn't touch her and that I'd need to go through screening again.

I was furious, but my wife wanted to just get out of the checkpoint and to our gate. She popped some pills and was hoping it would all go away... But it didn't. Once we got to our home airport, she vomited in the bathroom and asked me to take her to the ER. Last night she checked into our local hospital, and they're wanting to transfer her to a psychiatric ward for a few days until she stabilizes.

Is this worth it? Had she been permitted to go through the metal detector, she would have been fine. But the language of the TSOs and lack of sympathy towards anyone with mental health issues is repulsive. Every mental health professional we've talked to despises what the TSA is doing.

Do rape victims or other people suffering with PTSD have any rights, or is it the usual "if you don't like it, don't fly!" bull?

Time to cause a fuss about this.

All I can say is I am so sorry for your wife and so ashamed of what our country is doing to those who simply wish to travel.

Time to cause a fuss about this.

... by doing more than just filing a complaint with the TSA. Also filing complaints with local, state and federal elected officials asking for this kind of situation to be addressed.

Media attention would probably make a big difference faster, but understandably a lot of persons who have been assaulted in such a manner may have no desire to become the public face of what the TSA's ways mean for them and other sex crime victims.

What the TSA has done to this country is so messed up on so many levels.

Makes me wonder if there was ever a time when common sense was common......I really don't know what to say here. I hope your wife gets the help she needs and can have a quick and full recovery.

I am appalled and outraged to hear about how the TSA assaulted and harmed your wife. Please convey my sincere concern to her. I want to reassure her that what happened at the checkpoint that day was absolutely not her fault and that her reaction was perfectly normal and understandable. The thugs who attacked her at FLL are immoral and violent sociopaths, indifferent to human suffering, as you witnessed.

I am also dealing with PTSD after the TSA sexually assaulted me, and I have had very similar experiences at various airports. I never checked in to a hospital, but I have certainly spent countless hours crying myself sick after these rapists in blue shirts attacked me.

I will never, ever allow them to touch me again. This means that if the TSA ever threatens to come near my body, I will refuse screening and demand that the police escort me out of the checkpoint. I have done this successfully before - the story is at http://tsanewsblog.com/76/news/how-stand-up-to-the-tsa-and-say-no/ and http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/1281500-double-opt-out-dulles-morning-barred-my-flight.html

The answer to your question is, no, the TSA doesn't consider the impact of its assaults on rape victims or people sufferering with PTSD. The TSA doesn't care that your wife ended up in the hospital after they abused her. I called the "TSA Cares" helpline to tell them I'd been sexually assaulted and needed to know for certain whether they intended to touch my genitals in a patdown, and the answer was this: "I can't tell you where they will touch you. They'll tell you at the airport as they are doing it. Once you're there, you can't say no and you can't leave. You'll have to let them do it." Shocking, isn't it?

All I can recommend is what has worked fairly well for me - avoid checkpoints with body scanners. You can get an idea of what's where by visiting tsastatus.net

My best wishes to you and to your wife as she works to recover.

The CDC estimates that 1.3 million women were raped and 12.6 million men and women were victims of sexual assault in 2010. These numbers are estimates since not every assault is reported.

Roughly 2 million people fly every day in the United States. If one draws a Venn diagram, it's easy to see that those who have been raped and assaulted are going to pass through TSA checkpoints.

Due to institutionalized paranoia, political motivation, and mismanagement, the TSA continues its own institutionalized assault. It starts with the "barking," then it can be the "unwanted gaze" of viewing your body naked, a surprise frisk even though you have not set off a metal detector alarm, a naked scan and a surprise frisk, and often an inappropriate and unnecessarily rough and detailed frisking. Above all, this happens in view of the public, and it can happen again at the gate, where one can be humiliated and pulled out of line to be frisked in public (with threats that a "private screening" would lead to missing the flight.)

We've all seen quotes from passengers and crew: "they treated my like a criminal." Survivors of sexual assault have spoken up. But their voices are unheard. The TSA is just here to keep us safe. Keep us safe by irradiating us, stealing our belongings, and committing government-sanctioned sexual assault.

A psychologist colleague and I often talk about how the checkpoints inadvertently use language and symbols of the Holocaust. Terms like "Selectee" and "special" are euphemisms. One cannot ignore the image of a person standing in front of a massive group of travelers "selecting" which line to which they will be assigned. Please don't misconstrue this for me to say that TSA staff are connected to genocide; they're just inadvertently making references that strike fear into us.

Oddly, a psychiatrist just went on a rant about how he didn't mind being pulled out of line to be frisked because it "kept him safe." I rolled my eyes at his insensitivity.

If your wife is willing to talk about her experience, I don't suggest an "op ed" or news interview. It will just end up with a lot of reader comments about how the TSA is keeping us safe and "anything for security." The TSA will just respond that they have new technology that is less humiliating or PreCheck (which can only be used on rare occasions.)

If you are your wife are willing to come forward, talk to your Congressional representative or Senator. I mean that you should ask for a meeting--even by phone. A letter won't do it. Then contact your other Senator. If you're looking for a more powerful lobby, you could try the ACLU, but you may have more luck with ProPublica (they've already taken on the scanners, so they might be more interested.)

Speaking out is one way to overcome pain and to help others. I am saddened to think of how many other women (and men) who fly every day confront their past in silence.

If you are your wife are willing to come forward, talk to your Congressional representative or Senator.

OP-VERY sorry for your issues.

I think the above comment is very sound. As a lobbyist (err...consultant :D) I must say that more people should get involved w/their elected officials. Many times, the appointments will be with staffers, but if one continues, you can see "the person" in person! And they are-for the most part-very sympathetic to their voters feelings.

Try it-it might just give some push to get Congress to act!

Yet another disgraceful episode.

OP can complain and publicize as much as he wants (and he should), but the pessimist in me says that nothing will be done, nothing will change. It won't until someone in authority with the will and the power to put and end to this emerges. Hasn't happened in 11 years and I see no candidates on the horizon.

Pitiful.

What a terrible experience for you and especially your wife. Words don't describe.

I wish I had an easy answer like "write your Congresscritter," "Speak out and become a public face and force them to look you in the eye," etc. but I am not so sanguine that this advice is particularly good or useful. I think it is given to make the person giving the advice feel better, not because it would help you or your wife.

The problem I see here is that there are, literally, millions of survivors who have terrible stories and who may react to seemingly minor triggers. I don't think we can seriously ask the TSA or any other gov't agency to say, "Well, use your common sense, and excuse everyone from touching, secondary screening, etc who has a sad story." Most people with serious mental illness are of no harm to anyone but themselves. Still, we must use our common sense and defend against the tiny percentage who are both suicidal and willing to take out a lot of other people when they go. If someone has an extreme reaction of nerves and a terrible story, then I don't see how the TSA can do other than look at that person more closely.

"Don't fly" seems to me in your wife's case a more practical piece of advice. The family member who has passed wouldn't know she isn't at the funeral, and the family members who want to gossip or misunderstand because she's protective of her own mental health...I would say eff em. Protect your wife. Clearly it was too soon for her to ask her to return to Florida, and it may always be too soon. Blaming the TSA is just a bright shiny distraction. If she ends up in the ER over a patdown of her bra, then she can't fly, not really. It is asking too much to subject her to a known trigger of her illness.

The backscatter devices are worthless junk, I think we can all agree on that. They find the rubber band in my ponytail on virtually every trip -- something anyone with eyes in their head could have found without a million dollar machine. I think they should be removed, and the money wasted on them returned to the taxpayer for better funding/better training of live TSA agents. But I don't think this (which won't happen anyway) would help your wife. She was not assaulted by equipment, she was assaulted by people, and that I suspect is the real trigger.

better training of live TSA agents

How do you propose "better training" for the untrainable?

I am so sorry for what your wife had to go through. At any point did she state that she was a victim of sexual assault and ask if she could go through the medical detector?

Personally, I would have refused to go through without discussing this with authorities first.

Not sure how they could make this a require,ent though.

I hope she will be ok. Prayers to the both of you.

I had the same experience with a pat down by the TSA that left me in a full-blown panic attack. It took me hours to recover. The next time I'm selected for an assault, I'm making them do in front of everyone and will request that law enforcement witness it. I will make them announce exactly what they are planning to grope and I will repeat it loudly.

If I become panicked and am unable to continue to board my flight, I will request to speak with the station manager of the airline I'm flying.

Also, continue to write your Congressman and Senators.

I do not need an extra dose of radiation and I don't think my choices should be a clumsy sexual assault or radiation.

The problem I see here is that there are, literally, millions of survivors who have terrible stories and who may react to seemingly minor triggers.


I have to say, I still fail to understand how anyone could classify strangers pressuring you to let them rub their hands on your sexual parts as a "minor trigger". I even know people personally who will tell me forcing sexual contact on someone through their clothing is no big deal, but as long as I live I will never comprehend that statement at all. Who you choose to allow to touch your sex organs isn't a big deal? On what planet?


The backscatter devices are worthless junk, I think we can all agree on that. They find the rubber band in my ponytail on virtually every trip -- something anyone with eyes in their head could have found without a million dollar machine. I think they should be removed, and the money wasted on them returned to the taxpayer for better funding/better training of live TSA agents. But I don't think this (which won't happen anyway) would help your wife. She was not assaulted by equipment, she was assaulted by people, and that I suspect is the real trigger.

She would not have been patted down if she'd gone through a metal detector. In her case, yes, it was the fault of the body scanner that she was physically assaulted. Without the body scanners under current TSA practices, most but not all of the physical contact between screeners and passengers would go away.

What a terrible experience for you and especially your wife. Words don't describe.

[snipped blame-the-victim drivel]

.

Holy, cow. I'm embarrassed for you that you posted this in a public forum. Your first sentence was where you should have stopped typing.

My wife and I had a horrific experience traveling out of FLL yesterday.

Sympathies to your wife and you and best wishes for the future.

It's yet another example that subjecting yourself to the X-Ray scanner isn't a free ticket to avoid the invasive search.

We fly a lot and Mrs. Fredd in particular is finding the search more and more distasteful each time we undergo it.

Let me remind everybody that it isn't a "pat down," despite the TSA's appropriating that term. It's more of an invasive custodial-style search.

It's possible your wife could have dealt with the type of brief secondary pat-down wanding used in other countries.

I hope you can think of some positive way to address this, for example by writing your federal representatives, without experiencing any further sense of loss-of-privacy violations.

If the TSA were to "pat down" someone outside of an airport it would be classified as a sexual assault. I don't get why they away with it in an airport.

I am sure TSA apologists will say OP's wife is to blame for not alerting the TSA to her previous assault, but my opinion is that this entire security theater has gone on far enough.

I think it's absolutely terrible she was put in a situation such as the one mentioned in the first post.

I wish her a speedy recovery.

A psychologist colleague and I often talk about how the checkpoints inadvertently use language and symbols of the Holocaust. Terms like "Selectee" and "special" are euphemisms. One cannot ignore the image of a person standing in front of a massive group of travelers "selecting" which line to which they will be assigned. Please don't misconstrue this for me to say that TSA staff are connected to genocide; they're just inadvertently making references that strike fear into us.



It's not inadvertent. These terms/euphemisms are chosen with a purpose. And it's not a coincidence that there are many similarities.

I am sure TSA apologists will say OP's wife is to blame for not alerting the TSA to her previous assault...Which would have achieved nothing at all except a DYW2FT lecture. Or maybe an extra-attentive grope.

If the TSA were to "pat down" someone outside of an airport it would be classified as a sexual assault. I don't get why they away with it in an airport.

And in a past circumstance when a passenger going through security 'demonstrated' the grope they received by doing it back to the TSA employee, they were arrested for assault. Oh the pathetic irony.

The OP and his wife certainly have my sympathies, and it is yet another example that going through the body scanners DOES NOT guarantee that you won't receive a patdown at the hands of the TSA. I've had this talk with so many people who end up saying they'd just go through a body scanner because they wanted avoid being felt up. But guess what, that is no guarantee. These faulty machines can show god knows what as an 'anomally' and force a secondary search. Far too many people think that they are actually safe by going through the body scanners.

Wow I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said but my sympathies to your wife and hope she'd able to recover as much as possible from this horrific incident.

Oh, my word! OP, your post literally has me in tears. I go through the pat down every single time I travel within the US (I am in a wheelchair), and while it does not trigger anything emotional for me (I treat it like a dentist appointment, and try to think of something else), I cannot imagine what the experience is like for a survivor of a violent sexual attack. My best wishes to you and especially to your wife.

Sympathies to your wife and you and best wishes for the future.

It's yet another example that subjecting yourself to the X-Ray scanner isn't a free ticket to avoid the invasive search.

We fly a lot and Mrs. Fredd in particular is finding the search more and more distasteful each time we undergo it.

Let me remind everybody that it isn't a "pat down," despite the TSA's appropriating that term. It's more of an invasive custodial-style search.

It's possible your wife could have dealt with the type of brief secondary pat-down wanding used in other countries.

I hope you can think of some positive way to address this, for example by writing your federal representatives, without experiencing any further sense of loss-of-privacy violations.

I always describe it as a "full-body rubdown with genital contact."

Friends and family who don't fly much and haven't experienced or witnessed an Enhanced Pat Down scoff when I show my contempt for the procedure... until I describe it in detail, after which some of them simply refuse to believe that such a thing could ever be done, and most of the rest are horrified.

Personally, I will never, ever allow it to be perpetrated upon me. I have that luxury because I only fly 2-4 segments per year, and my home airport has MMW with ATR so I have no worries about radiation or perv exposure. But, as many have said, going through the AIT is no guarantee that I will never be selected for a "random" sexual assault, or that a false-alarm anomaly on the AIT won't steer me into one. I will refuse, absolutely, categorically. I will never allow myself to be sexually assaulted.

OP, you and your wife have my deepest sympathy for your horrible experience.

I can only echo what another poster write:
If you are your wife are willing to come forward, talk to your Congressional representative or Senator. I mean that you should ask for a meeting--even by phone. A letter won't do it. Then contact your other Senator. If you're looking for a more powerful lobby, you could try the ACLU, but you may have more luck with ProPublica (they've already taken on the scanners, so they might be more interested.)

which feels like a puny response to a horrible incident.

Good luck to you and your wife in deciding what to do next and wishing her some peace and calm after this awful experience.

Let's face facts, even unhappy facts -- the TSA is not about to go away.

Why?

1. It does serve a purpose in that it gives the Kettles a sense of security -- be it a false sense or not. I believe that without it, fewer people would fly and the airlines would be in serious trouble. (I have even heard Richard Anderson, the CEO of Delta, praise the TSA -- and he is smart enough to realize that it is not real security, just the illusion of it.)

2. Any politician, be it the president or a member of Congress, who approved the dismantling of the TSA would be putting himself in an extremely precarious position. Today, if there is an attack which involves a terrorist aboard an airplane, the government can say, "We tried everything possible to prevent this." If the TSA is dismantled and there is such an attack, the voters would turn on the politicians who shut it down. It is a very rare politician who will put himself in that position.

3. The TSA was recently allowed to unionize. It is hard enough to fire one federal employee -- short of a union calling an illegal strike (as the air traffic controllers once did), it would be almost impossible to fire the whole union.

It is even extremely unlikely that the TSA will reform itself. It has to be seen as doing something and it is not about to admit that it made millions of Americans go through the dog and pony show when it was actually worthless.

Okay. Those are the (sad) facts of life. Given that, what should flyers do?

1. They can accept the x-ray machines (knowing it might also lead to a patdown).
2. They can opt out and take the patdown.
3. They can choose not to fly.

Each person has to make that decision for himself/herself. Yes, there will unquestionably be people who will choose number 3. Even some people who have no problem with the TSA choose not to fly because they have mental/emotional problems about air travel. Their problems may be different than those of the OP's wife, but they are just as real.

Is this a happy situation? Of course not. Reality, however, cannot be ignored. The airports are not what we would like them to be but they are what they are.

It is, perhaps, easier for me to say this than it is for others. Most of my flights involve foreign airports which do not have these machines (but patdowns are becoming much more common in Europe). I fly to the US two or three times each year and go through the TSA routine perhaps 4 or 5 times on each itinerary. That exposes me to much less radiation than US-based road warriors.

The patdowns also do not bother me. In fact, I usually joke about them while going through them.

Still, I am in the same situation as everyone else. If I felt that the radiation was too dangerous, I could choose the patdowns. If I found the patdowns unbearable, I could choose not to fly. If I found neither unbearable, but had a disabling fear of heights, I could also choose not to fly.

(My problem is extreme boredom on long flights -- which reduces sharply how often I come to the States.)

Just as I cannot ignore my own reality, neither can someone who finds the TSA unbearable.

Today, if there is an attack which involves a terrorist aboard an airplane, the government can say, "We tried everything possible to prevent this."

With respect:

1) One can never "try everything". Someone can always invent some other security procedure. Heck, we're nowhere close to the real-life "Con Air (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Prisoner_and_Alien_Transportation_System)"; that's a whole bunch of procedures we haven't tried yet on commercial airline traffic.

2) Not everything is worth doing. We in the US had a marvelous Constitutional experiment with banning alcoholic beverages, for all sorts of good and noble reasons --- that ended up backfiring horribly.

3) Doing more stuff is no substitute for doing the right stuff. Whether or not TSA has chosen to do the right stuff ... well, that's obviously a matter of debate. But more isn't always better than less.

3) Doing more stuff is no substitute for doing the right stuff. Whether or not TSA has chosen to do the right stuff ... well, that's obviously a matter of debate. But more isn't always better than less.

Doing the "right stuff" is politically impossible in the U.S. It is the Israeli system and it involves looking for terrorists, not looking for weapons.

Some of it involves profiling, which is a dirty word in the States, while more of it involves behavioral detection -- not the amateurish SPOT type, but the real thing conducted by very well-trained professionals.

This requires passengers to answer questions, often very personal ones, until such point as the interviewer is satisfied. Americans would revolt if subjected to it. Of course, it means that my shoes and belt can be kept on and Israeli security doesn't care a fig about how much liquid you bring to the plane.

Americans would revolt if subjected to it...

What we're subjected to now is IMHO pretty revolting (or should I say revolt-worthy) but it continues to amaze me the extent to which people tolerate it. :rolleyes:

I'm definitely no expert in airport security, but I wonder why do they not use the puffer machine on airports instead of the nude-o-scope? I'd imagine less people would be strongly against going through that, and you'd think that plus a "traditional" metal detector (make it the hand held model if you need to do a secondary) would achieve the same level of security they have today.

Of course you can never eliminate the need for a pat down totally if there is a proper reason to suspect you are actually carrying something illegal, but you'd think something like that would eliminate the need for the vast majority of the passengers.

I'm definitely no expert in airport security, but I wonder why do they not use the puffer machine on airports instead of the nude-o-scope? I'd imagine less people would be strongly against going through that, and you'd think that plus a "traditional" metal detector (make it the hand held model if you need to do a secondary) would achieve the same level of security they have today.

Of course you can never eliminate the need for a pat down totally if there is a proper reason to suspect you are actually carrying something illegal, but you'd think something like that would eliminate the need for the vast majority of the passengers.

What I've read on FT is that the puffer portals tended to malfunction because their filters needed regular maintenance - which was not performed by TSA, thus the machines didn't work properly and they were abandoned.

Likewise, the handheld metal detector wands were retired in October 2010 when the AIT and Enhanced Pat Downs were rolled out, probably as an intentional method of making a full-body rubdown with genital contact the ONLY possible way to resolve anomalies in WTMD and AIT scans.

Complain to TSA here: http://www.tsa.gov/contact/index.shtm

Also complain to your congressman, both your senators, the White House and the airport administration every time TSA tries to force you through a naked body scanner or punishes you for refusing by subjecting you to the groping.

This is our only option for fighting back against an agency that is way out of control.

Likewise, the handheld metal detector wands were retired in October 2010 when the AIT and Enhanced Pat Downs were rolled out, probably as an intentional method of making a full-body rubdown with genital contact the ONLY possible way to resolve anomalies in WTMD and AIT scans.
Or possibly because the emphasis changed from weapons (which are mostly metal) to IED to components (which are most non-metalic).

What we're subjected to now is IMHO pretty revolting (or should I say revolt-worthy) but it continues to amaze me the extent to which people tolerate it. :rolleyes:

"We" tolerate it as we have become a society, for whatever reason, that is no longer a "we" society. There are exceptions, but we no longer think as "we the people" we think in terms of "I the person." What is best for me? How can I gain advantage upon another? The concept of "we can survive this if we work together" is disappearing. It's every man for himself.

The evidence is everywhere. Talking in the theater. Getting cut off in traffic. Families that walk side by side at a snails pace while others are trying to get around them. People that stop in the jetway rather than waiting until they get in the open area of the waiting area to put on a jacket or adjust their luggage.

We have become the society of the oblivious. The only world that exists is ours.

This extends to the CP. Let's face it, for the vast majority of travelers, some that even post here, the only thing that matters it that they get through the CP and get to their flight, so they will not be late. Everyone else? The heck with them, they just need to suck it up and handle it.

The TSA recognizes this and perpetuates systems that individualize us so that we lose sympathy for those around us. They may not do it purposefully, or maybe they do, it does not matter. It is what their system does.

Here is the oddity. We were only founded as a country by coming together in a common purpose of which one of the primary objectives is individual liberty. We continued for many years to recognize that our individual liberty was guaranteed by the one thing for which we gave up our individuality, the willingness to collectively fight for the lost liberty of others, even at our own individual cost. We recognized that if the least protected in our society could lose a guaranteed liberty, that we could as well. So we fought for them, we fought with them, and we protected our liberty by protecting theirs. We often did this accepting great risk.

We are quickly losing that if it is not lost already. The sad truth is that a vast majority of the people that went through the CP that day and every day, boarded their flight uneventfully and proceeded to their destination. They just really do not care what happened to anyone else in the process. Even if they knew they would not care as it did not happen to them. They survived. That is all that matters.

There are those of us on this forum that have pledged to do what they can to change the process for everyone, even if it involves a varying level of personal risk and cost. That is admirable and it is worthy of being done. Late in life, I am learning the value of our liberty, and I have pledged to fight for it. I am willing to fight for it. I do so by little things like standing up to the officious martinets that inhabit the CP. I look out for my fellow travelers and offer help and provide guidance. Every time I go through the CP. I wait at the exit, slowly putting myself back together, watching for abusive and cruel behavior. I prepare myself to defend the innocent, even though I know it may cost me time and I just might miss my flight.

Is it a big deal? No, it is entirely too little, but it is what I do.

So, while it greatly saddens me about what happened to this person, while I wish that I could do something to lessen the pain, while I regret that I did not have the opportunity to step up and protect them, I also recognize that I am one of the few that cares. That, saddens me even more. As a society we have lost both the desire to care and the wherewithal to do something about it even if we did.

I'm going to try to take a somewhat different position on this thread- because it's like so many other Internet threads I've read that have nothing to do with travel.

1. Taking this discussion to extremes, Godwinning, etc. helps NO ONE. Not the individual affected in the OP, NO ONE. Making statements in forums like this that "I think we can all agree......" are ridiculous. No, we can't all agree on the basis of a thread, at least I can't.

2. Anyone who thinks they have been abused and their rights have been violated should by all means pursue complaints and all other avenues of redress. That CANNOT be done on an Internet forum.

3. As far as our experience (we usually travel by air twice a year or so, and have for around 15 years), we've never seen, heard of, or had anyone in an airport mention any problem with security.

4. A while ago, I read a lengthy thread (not on Flyer Talk) about the alleged abuses of the TSA, and consulted with my brother about this. He has worked for the TSA (at a major airport which will not be named) since about a year after its inception. While he has heard some second or third-hand stories, neither he nor his wife (who also works for TSA in the same airport) has ever been involved in an incident where a passenger evidenced discomfort with the process, or complained about the process.

5. No system is perfect. The TSA was instantly brought into being post-9/11, and for very good reasons. I want them there, and I want them to do their job. They are still finding guns in people's carryons after 11 years, folks. Are there going to be abuses? Yes, and stating that these things shouldn't happen ignores that reality. Our system of law guarantees redress of grievances, and those abuses should be pursued by the persons affected. The rest of us can't do anything. A basic rule of our law system, since the year one, involves "standing to sue." If we personally have not been injured or affected, the court will simply rule that we have no "standing to sue." And the vast majority of people who have a legitimate complaint....never do anything about it. This guarantees the abuses will go unchecked. So- the OP should by all means pursue every avenue open to them. The rest of us should move on.

They are still finding guns in people's carryons after 11 years, folks.
And how many of those guns are actually a threat to the aircraft? There's not a shred of evidence that that number isn't zero. Everybody agrees that the vast majority of such are people that simply forgot to remove their gun from their bag.

rico567 - of course people don't dare speak up while they are being groped or pornoscanned. The TSA has had people arrested on nebulous charges such as disorderly conduct and "interfering with the screening" if they dare to exercise their First Amendment rights. A couple of people have even been arrested for quoting the Fourth Amendment while they were being groped.

TSA exists because of fear and they thrive on it.

Or possibly because the emphasis changed from weapons (which are mostly metal) to IED to components (which are most non-metalic).

Good luck whipping up an IED of sufficient strength to take out a NYC subway rat, while skipping use of metallic material. :rolleyes:

I disagree with almost all of your post, but wanted to comment on this. In my experience (but what do I know? ;)), her story will be on Drudge Report by tomorrow. International shaming of the TSA is possibly the best method of complaining we have.

2. Anyone who thinks they have been abused and their rights have been violated should by all means pursue complaints and all other avenues of redress. That CANNOT be done on an Internet forum.

--Jon

I'm going to try to take a somewhat different position on this thread- because it's like so many other Internet threads I've read that have nothing to do with travel.

1. Taking this discussion to extremes, Godwinning, etc. helps NO ONE. Not the individual affected in the OP, NO ONE. Making statements in forums like this that "I think we can all agree......" are ridiculous. No, we can't all agree on the basis of a thread, at least I can't.

2. Anyone who thinks they have been abused and their rights have been violated should by all means pursue complaints and all other avenues of redress. That CANNOT be done on an Internet forum.

3. As far as our experience (we usually travel by air twice a year or so, and have for around 15 years), we've never seen, heard of, or had anyone in an airport mention any problem with security.

4. A while ago, I read a lengthy thread (not on Flyer Talk) about the alleged abuses of the TSA, and consulted with my brother about this. He has worked for the TSA (at a major airport which will not be named) since about a year after its inception. While he has heard some second or third-hand stories, neither he nor his wife (who also works for TSA in the same airport) has ever been involved in an incident where a passenger evidenced discomfort with the process, or complained about the process.

5. No system is perfect. The TSA was instantly brought into being post-9/11, and for very good reasons. I want them there, and I want them to do their job. They are still finding guns in people's carryons after 11 years, folks. Are there going to be abuses? Yes, and stating that these things shouldn't happen ignores that reality. Our system of law guarantees redress of grievances, and those abuses should be pursued by the persons affected. The rest of us can't do anything. A basic rule of our law system, since the year one, involves "standing to sue." If we personally have not been injured or affected, the court will simply rule that we have no "standing to sue." And the vast majority of people who have a legitimate complaint....never do anything about it. This guarantees the abuses will go unchecked. So- the OP should by all means pursue every avenue open to them. The rest of us should move on.

Concern troll is concerned.

Co na shloightear, feallta, fuar?
Co na ghealtar dh'iarradh uaigh?
Co na thraill fo shail luchd-fuath?
Clis bi bhuam fhir-chlith

Let me remind everybody that it isn't a "pat down," despite the TSA's appropriating that term. It's more of an invasive custodial-style search.


+1

A pat down/ frisk search is what you get when you attend a professional sporting event. 15 seconds to check your arms and legs for concealed weapons and you're on your way.

I was selected for a random frisk search at Heathrow security a few years ago, and it was exactly like what I've gone through at Yankee Stadium.

Let's face facts, even unhappy facts -- the TSA is not about to go away...

2. Any politician, be it the president or a member of Congress, who approved the dismantling of the TSA would be putting himself in an extremely precarious position. Today, if there is an attack which involves a terrorist aboard an airplane, the government can say, "We tried everything possible to prevent this." If the TSA is dismantled and there is such an attack, the voters would turn on the politicians who shut it down. It is a very rare politician who will put himself in that position.

Even if the other factors (security theater, unions) did not exist, this one alone would ensure that the TSA hangs around or gets worse. Only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people would vote against a politician because they made the TSA more powerful. But if that politician voted against the TSA and there was an attack, related or not, that person would be packing up their office the next day.

I don't get the impression that Dovster was saying "don't call your congresscritter," or, "the TSA is good," but rather, we're stuck with it, like it or not.

Mike

Wow, don't even know where to start. Posts like yours remind me why it's not just the ignorant that allow these abuses and ineffectual, wasteful, and damaging procedures to continue.


1. Taking this discussion to extremes, Godwinning, etc. helps NO ONE. Not the individual affected in the OP, NO ONE. Making statements in forums like this that "I think we can all agree......" are ridiculous. No, we can't all agree on the basis of a thread, at least I can't.


For someone that just made this comment, it's ironic that your subsequent comments based on your opinion and limited experience are made in a way that suggests fact.


3. As far as our experience (we usually travel by air twice a year or so, and have for around 15 years), we've never seen, heard of, or had anyone in an airport mention any problem with security.


Glad that you think your 2x a year travel qualifies you to determine whether there are problems with airport security. For those of us who (for better or worse) must travel much more frequently for work (try 80+ times a year), the experience is very likely to be different.


4. A while ago, I read a lengthy thread (not on Flyer Talk) about the alleged abuses of the TSA, and consulted with my brother about this. He has worked for the TSA (at a major airport which will not be named) since about a year after its inception. While he has heard some second or third-hand stories, neither he nor his wife (who also works for TSA in the same airport) has ever been involved in an incident where a passenger evidenced discomfort with the process, or complained about the process.


With respect, your brother nor his wife are on the other side. How can they know if passengers experienced discomfort? For every one complaint there are probably dozens more that were just too afraid, or not sure how to lodge a complaint.


5. No system is perfect. The TSA was instantly brought into being post-9/11, and for very good reasons. I want them there, and I want them to do their job. They are still finding guns in people's carryons after 11 years, folks. Are there going to be abuses? Yes, and stating that these things shouldn't happen ignores that reality. Our system of law guarantees redress of grievances, and those abuses should be pursued by the persons affected. The rest of us can't do anything. A basic rule of our law system, since the year one, involves "standing to sue." If we personally have not been injured or affected, the court will simply rule that we have no "standing to sue." And the vast majority of people who have a legitimate complaint....never do anything about it. This guarantees the abuses will go unchecked. So- the OP should by all means pursue every avenue open to them. The rest of us should move on.

This is by far the weakest argument. "No system is perfect" so we should allow a system that is designed to infringe on constitutional rights to continue? We should allow taxpayer money to continue to be spent on machines that don't accomplish jack squat? We should just stand by because we have no standing to sue?

Who said a lawsuit was the only way to effect change? The rest of us standing by because we weren't the direct victim is exactly what allowed other atrocities throughout history to be perpetrated. (and I by no means intend to trivialize past atrocities--but this is where it starts)

Also tell people who were unlawfully detained or locked up in Guantanamo that our system of law guarantees redress of grievances.

rico567 - of course people don't dare speak up while they are being groped or pornoscanned. The TSA has had people arrested on nebulous charges such as disorderly conduct and "interfering with the screening" if they dare to exercise their First Amendment rights. A couple of people have even been arrested for quoting the Fourth Amendment while they were being groped.

TSA exists because of fear and they thrive on it.

I agree. It's called intimidation, and there's rather a lot of it in the airports these days.

Rico567: here's a different question for your brother and his wife who work for TSA and never hear complaints: ask them how many people they see break down in tears or start shaking as they stand there being molested. Based on the many, many stories we've read about here in FT, it seem to happen rather a lot.

With respect, your brother nor his wife are on the other side. How can they know if passengers experienced discomfort?

More to the point, how can anything they say be trusted at all, since dishonesty is part and parcel of the TSA's "job?"

Or possibly because the emphasis changed from weapons (which are mostly metal) to IED to components (which are most non-metalic).

Of which NONE have ever been found in the two years of using strip search machines, as opposed to the many guns and knives which continue to be found, and which can be placed to evade those machines.

5. No system is perfect. The TSA was instantly brought into being post-9/11, and for very good reasons. I want them there, and I want them to do their job. They are still finding guns in people's carryons after 11 years, folks.You'd think patting a person down is not a very effective way to find a gun in their carryon.

Besides, while I agree that some security is definately necessary at the airport, that doesn't mean that anything is ok in the name of security. Just like the need for a legal system doesn't mean that any law you can come up with is good.

Of which NONE have ever been found in the two years of using strip search machines, as opposed to the many guns and knives which continue to be found, and which can be placed to evade those machines.
Have there been many (or any) knives and guns found on people? I thought that nearly all (or all) have been found in carryons?

Also, as has been said before, the most important part of checkpoint security is the deterrence factor, so saying that something hasn't been found isn't that meaningful: in almost all cases, something that is found isn't a threat, but somethign forgotten.

I wonder what the regulations are regarding passengers taking video of the process. If you were videotaping your wife's security check, they might have shown more care.

I can't speak to this general issue from experience as I haven't flown since 9-11.

Aside from talking to representatives, and stirring up the media, a general campaign of prayer about what is happening to our country would help. I don't blame the airlines, but I wonder if they could be doing more to moderate the TSA.

I have heard the TSA also can stop people traveling by motor vehicles on the highways. This situation will have to be reviewed by competent authority before it gets much worse.

Rico567: here's a different question for your brother and his wife who work for TSA and never hear complaints: ask them how many people they see break down in tears or start shaking as they stand there being molested. Based on the many, many stories we've read about here in FT, it seem to happen rather a lot.

I agree with you - I don't know what airport Rico's brother and wife work for, but in my last three trips through LAX and HNL I have seen a young woman crying, another woman visibly shaken, husbands getting angry at the TSA and an elderly woman complaining about the invasiveness of the search, plus an unpleasant experience of my own. I don't fly that often (anymore) but considering I'm not even at the checkpoint for that long, I find it hard to believe that someone working there all day has not heard any complaints!

... but considering I'm not even at the checkpoint for that long, I find it hard to believe that someone working there all day has not heard any complaints!

I believe that it may have to do with either being hardened to the job and lacking compassion or empathy, or interpreting the situation differently than the traveller. We've seen that here in past on FT.

Then there are the TSOs who shout and bully; they most likely enjoy the responses like that as it validates their sense of power.

The relations may be referring to their perception of valid complaints, which may differ very greatly from ours.

Have there been many (or any) knives and guns found on people? I thought that nearly all (or all) have been found in carryons?

Also, as has been said before, the most important part of checkpoint security is the deterrence factor, so saying that something hasn't been found isn't that meaningful: in almost all cases, something that is found isn't a threat, but somethign forgotten.

True, most have been, although celebrated Red Team exceptions (pistols waltzing past hidden in brassieres) have occurred, and Jon Corbett's test indicated that these can be hidden on the sides as well.

The deterrence argument loses a lot of force if you look at the level of expertise required for true threats--explosives. It's not going to be the isolated crazy that comes up with these. The folks who are capable of producing these will go under the wings using ground crew. Or through WTMD with children serving as props. Or probe til they find a bribable TSA clerk, which apparently isn't all that hard. Pick the hole in the sieve, there's many to choose from. Yet we subject the 99.99999999999999% of innocent passenger to wholesale sex organ groping despite the uselessness of it.

If the terrorist were smart, they wouldn't be too afraid of getting someone caught. A near miss would cause as much disruption as a hit.

True, most have been, although celebrated Red Team exceptions (pistols waltzing past hidden in brassieres) have occurred, and Jon Corbett's test indicated that these can be hidden on the sides as well.

The deterrence argument loses a lot of force if you look at the level of expertise required for true threats--explosives. It's not going to be the isolated crazy that comes up with these. The folks who are capable of producing these will go under the wings using ground crew. Or through WTMD with children serving as props. Or probe til they find a bribable TSA clerk, which apparently isn't all that hard. Pick the hole in the sieve, there's many to choose from. Yet we subject the 99.99999999999999% of innocent passenger to wholesale sex organ groping despite the uselessness of it.

If the terrorist were smart, they wouldn't be too afraid of getting someone caught. A near miss would cause as much disruption as a hit.

A "near miss" or even a mythical "hit" or "plot" involving airports and/or on planes served by US airlines causes far more disruption than any actual hit, since September 2001.

The TSA's knee-jerk overreactions and conditioning to respond to everything and nothing at all has resulted in the current idiocy and the kind of apathy that is the handmaiden to inhumanity against others being performed by those in the employ of government.

The TSA doesn't deter much of anything that is a serious treat. The TSA's methods may even be better characterized as the opposite of a deterrent.

Or probe til they find a bribable TSA clerk, which apparently isn't all that hard.
Except that there's a significant risk of being caught unless the first TSO is bribable and that's hard. I think people on this forum tend to greatly underestimate the difficulty of implementing plots that rely on "insiders". Those are indeed viable if the opponent is a national intelligence service whose operators are trained in how to approach and select people. They learn how to do so in a way that won't cause suspicion and they also learn how to fit into a society. But it can take years to be successful in that sort of task because of the very real risk of being reported by people who aren't willing to cooperate, especially in this day and age. So they have to move very slowly, deliberately, and carefully.

I don't think that terrorist groups ever had that capability, but it's nearly impossible that they have it now given the focus on operations to degrade and track communications and money slow, both of which are essential to the success of any such long-term operation.

A "near miss" or even a mythical "hit" or "plot" involving airports and/or on planes served by US airlines causes far more disruption than any actual hit, since September 2001.

The TSA's knee-jerk overreactions and conditioning to respond to everything and nothing at all has resulted in the current idiocy and the kind of apathy that is the handmaiden to inhumanity against others being performed by those in the employ of government.

The TSA doesn't deter much of anything that is a serious treat. The TSA's methods may even be better characterized as the opposite of a deterrent.

The TSA does deter attacks. Why hasn't anybody come up to a checkpoint with a couple of AK's and sprayed the line? Ahmed Ressam wanted to blow up a passenger waiting area at LAX. Why hasn't anybody done anything like that? The TSA causes large concentrations of passengers that could be attacked, but the existence of the TSA deters such attacks.

Terrorists want to harm America, and leaving the TSA in place harms America more than any single attack possibly could. An attack on an airplane - or, even more, an attack on a checkpoint - would highlight the uselessness of TSA, and possibly lead to changes. Terrorists don't want any changes to the TSA, so they don't attack.

First and foremost, to the OP, your story is horrifying. As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse I completely understand your wife's reaction. Though my encounters were nowhere near as violent and traumatizing as hers, just approaching an airport these days to drop my wife off for a flight aggravates my "baggage". Please let her know she is daily in my thoughts and prayers. Please let her know she is not alone, she did nothing wrong, and she is strong enough to get through this.

As for what to do next, you might want to write a letter to TSA, though it will do little good, so don't be surprised by the reaction. In December of 2010 I wrote a letter to John Pistole and my Senator, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee (or whatever its official title is), following my first opt out groping. It retraumatized me to the point where I shook through the flight, and vomited upon arrival. This is not to take away from your horrifying ordeal, only to relate that the response for those of us with these backgrounds is not uncommon.

TSA responded with a form letter that I should be proud to undergo such retraumatization in defense of the Nation. No joke, and nation was capitalized. My Senator let me know I should be grateful for the option.

TSA's letter also included information that they worked with a variety of disability groups (This is a verbatim quote. Sexual abuse is a disability to them.) to help them (the non-TSA people) understand the necessity of the screening process better. I asked for a list of these groups so that I might seek help, and this letter has gone unanswered for nearly 2 years despite several follow up requests.

The simple fact of the matter is, TSA doesn't give a sh!t that they do this to people. In conversations with supervisory personnel following these gropings, they are proud that they do this to people because, in the words of one supervisor, "Only a terrorist wouldn't want to feel the way you do right now." They are sick, perverted fetishists who abuse their power and get off on it.

But, yes, do write those letters. Eventually someone somewhere with some common sense will finally see these procedures for what they are: rape and molestation. There are many of us on this board who will gladly help.

As to these points:

Except that there's a significant risk of being caught unless the first TSO is bribable and that's hard. I think people on this forum tend to greatly underestimate the difficulty of implementing plots that rely on "insiders". ...

As an "insider" let me tell you, your assessment is grossly off.

The TSA does deter attacks. Why hasn't anybody come up to a checkpoint with a couple of AK's and sprayed the line? ...

Because the volume of evil terrorists out there hellbent on destroying America is far less than FedGov would like us to believe. It doesn't happen because the threat does not exist at the level we've been led to believe.

There are approximately 60,000 terrorists in America. They are easy to identify by their blue shirts and spiffy tin badges. The spraying down of a queue of passengers will happen when one of these "people" "goes postal". Mark my words.

The TSA does deter attacks. Why hasn't anybody come up to a checkpoint with a couple of AK's and sprayed the line? Ahmed Ressam wanted to blow up a passenger waiting area at LAX. Why hasn't anybody done anything like that? The TSA causes large concentrations of passengers that could be attacked, but the presence of the TSA deters such attacks.

.... because there just aren't that many terrorists at US airports who are interested in doing the easily done above sort of thing. In other words, no deterrence.

Terrorists want to harm America, and leaving the TSA in place harms America more than any single attack possibly could. An attack on an airplane - or, even more, an attack on a checkpoint - would highlight the uselessness of TSA, and possibly lead to changes. Terrorists don't want any changes to the TSA, so they don't attack.

Clearly some terrorists want changes to how the US does things, including at US airports and with US flights. Evidence of that: even aborted attempts using incompetent clowns is considered acceptable and authorized, upon the opportunity presenting itself to get the US to work itself up into a frenzy and to get the TSA to go into yet another massive knee-jerk overreaction by letting loose.

The creepy TSA is not going to give up its creepy behavior in full anytime soon.

The TSA does deter attacks. Why hasn't anybody come up to a checkpoint with a couple of AK's and sprayed the line? Ahmed Ressam wanted to blow up a passenger waiting area at LAX. Why hasn't anybody done anything like that? The TSA causes large concentrations of passengers that could be attacked, but the presence of the TSA deters such attacks.Are you serious?

Just how would the presence of TSA workers dissuade any terrorist from a landside assault?

I will concede that the checkpoints may have deterred a direct approach to get on an airplane, but we don't know since no attempts seem to have been made. In the US. The shoe bomber, underwear bomber and the faux liquid plot don't seem to have been put off though.

Are you serious?

Just how would the presence of TSA workers dissuade any terrorist from a landside assault?

Terrorists want screening to kept just as it is, or made worse. The screening process interferes with commerce and degrades the quality of life in America. Terrorists know that a landside assault would make it even clearer that the TSA degrades aviation security, rather than improves it, and they're scared that such a demonstration would cause changes to the screening process that would make it more efficient.

Been thinking about this some more. It's very frustrating, there there seems to be no solution. Maybe there are no EASY solutions, but we can still do a hard one. What if the OP put together a list of expenses he incurred as a result of his wife's hospitalization and submitted it to the TSA as an invoice? He'd have to have a good attorney behind him, of course. I know, the TSA would laugh at it. What if several people did that? And copied the media? What about a class action?

It's just so wrong and so evil that innocent people have to submit to victimization by their government in order to "protect the nation". Since WE are the nation, it makes no sense - we're victimizing ourselves to protect ourselves? WTH? It MUST change. Somehow.

I believe that it may have to do with either being hardened to the job and lacking compassion or empathy, or interpreting the situation differently than the traveller. We've seen that here in past on FT.

That may be part of it, but another factor may be that there are a lot of other people like me. I would never, if it were humanly possible to avoid it, express my discomfort directly to the screener involved. I think most people posting here are all too aware that many, many screeners do not possess the demeanor and the professionalism to avoid retaliating against people who complain of hurt or injury during the grope.

It is also possible that the reason the poster's relatives are not seeing the complaints is because these two screeners are not sticking their fingers into women's vaginas, chopping men's testicles or busting people's medical devices. Perhaps they have somehow managed to avoid administering such aggressive gropes.

Terrorists want screening to kept just as it is, or made worse.I think the point was that it sounded like you meant the presence of TSA staff at a checkpoint was deterring a terrorist attack on the queue. The presence of armed LEOs nearby may be a deterrent. TSA staff can only attack back with harsh language, or flee, so there's no help to be found in that quarter.

I think the point was that it sounded like you meant the presence of TSA staff at a checkpoint was deterring a terrorist attack on the queue. The presence of armed LEOs nearby may be a deterrent. TSA staff can only attack back with harsh language, or flee, so there's no help to be found in that quarter.

Well, I was happy to provide the clarification. I also went back to my previous post and changed "presence of the TSA deters attacks" to "existence of the TSA deters attacks."

I agree with you - I don't know what airport Rico's brother and wife work for, but in my last three trips through LAX and HNL I have seen a young woman crying, another woman visibly shaken, husbands getting angry at the TSA and an elderly woman complaining about the invasiveness of the search, plus an unpleasant experience of my own. I don't fly that often (anymore) but considering I'm not even at the checkpoint for that long, I find it hard to believe that someone working there all day has not heard any complaints!

(BOLDING ABOVE IS MINE

My wife does not travel by air with me any more for family visits, etc. I would not be able to stand there and watch one of those TSA "people" doing that assault on her; I'd be arrested.

My frequently used airline is losing thousands of dollars because my family does not fly any more. But the company's response to this is "oh well".

Been thinking about this some more. It's very frustrating, there there seems to be no solution. Maybe there are no EASY solutions, but we can still do a hard one. What if the OP put together a list of expenses he incurred as a result of his wife's hospitalization and submitted it to the TSA as an invoice? He'd have to have a good attorney behind him, of course. I know, the TSA would laugh at it. What if several people did that? And copied the media? What about a class action?

It's just so wrong and so evil that innocent people have to submit to victimization by their government in order to "protect the nation". Since WE are the nation, it makes no sense - we're victimizing ourselves to protect ourselves? WTH? It MUST change. Somehow.

Would he have better luck just taking them to Municipal "small claims" court and getting a sympathetic judge to rule in his favor for $3-5k depending on state.

Except that there's a significant risk of being caught unless the first TSO is bribable and that's hard. I think people on this forum tend to greatly underestimate the difficulty of implementing plots that rely on "insiders". Those are indeed viable if the opponent is a national intelligence service whose operators are trained in how to approach and select people. They learn how to do so in a way that won't cause suspicion and they also learn how to fit into a society. But it can take years to be successful in that sort of task because of the very real risk of being reported by people who aren't willing to cooperate, especially in this day and age. So they have to move very slowly, deliberately, and carefully.

I don't think that terrorist groups ever had that capability, but it's nearly impossible that they have it now given the focus on operations to degrade and track communications and money slow, both of which are essential to the success of any such long-term operation.

I think you're not using your imagination sufficiently. What do people do who are interested in acquiring illegal drugs? I suspect they sniff around obliquely, til some word of mouth points them in a successful direction. One could do the same thing wrt bribe-taking clerks. Yes, it's hard, but there are those who do smuggling and they can be found out. So what if some low level expendable or even an unwitting stooge thinking he was setting up a drug deal got burned. It would all be ascribed to drugs and nobody would be the wiser. You'd just move on to the next prospect.

You're making this sound a lot harder than it really is. And taking comfort where there is none.

Can't sue the feds this way, unfortunately (which is one reason why privatization is a good idea). She'd need to file an FTCA claim with the TSA and allow them 6 months to pay. If they don't (and they don't), the woman may sue in federal court.

Would he have better luck just taking them to Municipal "small claims" court and getting a sympathetic judge to rule in his favor for $3-5k depending on state.

--Jon

I was furious, but my wife wanted to just get out of the checkpoint and to our gate. She popped some pills and was hoping it would all go away... But it didn't. Once we got to our home airport, she vomited in the bathroom and asked me to take her to the ER.

I suspect her OD'ing on the pills is what caused her to go to the ER...

All pro/anti TSA arguments aside, since when did vomiting and stress mean rushing to the ER?

Did this really qualify as an EMERGENCY?

I've met people that get stressed or can't cope with day to day life, and while I sympathize, how can the TSA know whether she's faking it or telling the truth? If the "terrorists" find out they'll make an exception for victims of sexual assault they'll groom victims of sexual assault to carry out attacks.

While it's unfortunate what happened to your wife, we have yet to have another plane crash or even come close to crashing thanks to terrorists on US soil.

That said I think the TSA could use some more training and be cut back significantly, but at the end of the day there are people out there that can't cope with even minor inconveniences to them when they're traveling and frankly they should avoid traveling especially by air where it is a giant cattle car in the sky.

Air travel is cheaper than it's ever been and as such expect the same quality of "service" that you'll get at any discount business, which means getting a cold shoulder when you feel disrespected.

Complain to TSA here: http://www.tsa.gov/contact/index.shtm

Also complain to your congressman, both your senators, the White House and the airport administration every time TSA tries to force you through a naked body scanner or punishes you for refusing by subjecting you to the groping.

This is our only option for fighting back against an agency that is way out of control.

And not to go too far OMNI P/R here but I would also advise you to vote for Gary Johnson in the Presidential election. If you do so and are a life-long Republican, please send messages to the Romney campaign explaining the single issue that lost Romney your vote. If you vote for Johnson and are a life-long Democrat, please send messages to the White House explaining the single issue that lost Obama your vote.

Voters who refuse to stand up and buck the corrupt special-interest infested two party system (more scanners for Chertoff to sell to a Romney administration; more unionized government-employed thugs to be employed by an Obama administration) as it stands today are a big part of the problem.

The poster upthread that claimed that NO politician will take on TSA is wrong. While most won't, there are a few that will. If enough of us supported these politicians (even when they are in the opposite, or a third, party from our natural preference), change would be possible.

Thanks, Doctor. Except that doesn't explain why the hospital wanted to admit her for multiple nights.

I suspect her OD'ing on the pills is what caused her to go to the ER...

All pro/anti TSA arguments aside, since when did vomiting and stress mean rushing to the ER?

Did this really qualify as an EMERGENCY?

--Jon

No one should have to check their dignity at the security gate.

Although my story is not as awful as the OP'S, I , too, was treated for PTSD. To get a pat down here in the US is something I am skittish about but has not been nearly as horrifying for me as it is in Europe. In the last year, I have been patted down in both Amsterdam and in Rome. These people might as well be doing a breast exam and a pelvic. I can't bear the thought of ever going through that again.

To the OP: My best advice? Make sure your wife has a therapist that she can talk to before she needs to fly and that this individual is available to her via phone in the event that this happens to her again. My prayers go out to both of you!

The poster upthread that claimed that NO politician will take on TSA is wrong. While most won't, there are a few that will.And they will achieve nothing of substance (see: John Mica) except a few soundbites here and there. One, two, twenty representatives don't have the necessary power, which is why I maintain that 'complaining' to any of them is essentially futile.

If there's going to be a White Knight, it won't be from Congress; nor the Judiciary until the current Justices umm... move on. Which leaves the Executive branch, and only a second-term one at that for the re-election consideration noted above. But not this second-term one I fear.

That said I think the TSA could use some more training and be cut back significantly, but at the end of the day there are people out there that can't cope with even minor inconveniences to them when they're traveling and frankly they should avoid traveling especially by air where it is a giant cattle car in the sky.

Air travel is cheaper than it's ever been and as such expect the same quality of "service" that you'll get at any discount business, which means getting a cold shoulder when you feel disrespected.

You are glossing over the fact that it was not cattle car airline treatment that triggered the trauma. It was at the wandering hands of our government and the same thing could have happened to her at a train station or bus stop now.

A whole bunch of nonsense.

You are one sick puppy.

Seriously, for your own sake, and that of those you love, please seek help.

You are one sick puppy.

Seriously, for your own sake, and that of those you love, please seek help.

+1 to that.

I'm going to try to take a somewhat different position on this thread- because it's like so many other Internet threads I've read that have nothing to do with travel.

1. Taking this discussion to extremes, Godwinning, etc. helps NO ONE. Not the individual affected in the OP, NO ONE. Making statements in forums like this that "I think we can all agree......" are ridiculous. No, we can't all agree on the basis of a thread, at least I can't.

1) You're right. Ridiculous extremes help no-one. That's exactly what we're discussing here - TSA has taken their "security" measures to ridiculous extemes. Cupcake in a jar is a threat? Running fingers inside peoples' pants and collars? Feeling up peoples' genitals and running fingers through hair? Ridiculous.

2. Anyone who thinks they have been abused and their rights have been violated should by all means pursue complaints and all other avenues of redress. That CANNOT be done on an Internet forum.

2) While complaining in a thread may not have any immediate, direct, measurable impact on the gubment, it DOES have immediate, direct, measurable impact on the public - how many people have now heard OP's story and are outraged by it? Public opinion is a mighty powerful force, and complaining in threads like this help to sway public opinion. That CAN and IS done on internet forums. In fact, in this day and age, it is done MORE in internet forums than in just about any other forum.

3. As far as our experience (we usually travel by air twice a year or so, and have for around 15 years), we've never seen, heard of, or had anyone in an airport mention any problem with security.

3) In part 5, you mention that They are still finding guns in people's carryons after 11 years, folks. Have you ever seen one found?

Just because you've never personally witnessed something doesn't mean it isn't happening on a regular basis. These complaints are real. These abuses happen. They've happened to politicians, celebrities, and of course, to average people.

By the way - you read here, they you HAVE heard of people having problems with security. What you really mean is that you haven't heard any complaints to which you give any credence. But if you don't believe it when someone complains here on FT, why are you even bothering to read TS&S?

4. A while ago, I read a lengthy thread (not on Flyer Talk) about the alleged abuses of the TSA, and consulted with my brother about this. He has worked for the TSA (at a major airport which will not be named) since about a year after its inception. While he has heard some second or third-hand stories, neither he nor his wife (who also works for TSA in the same airport) has ever been involved in an incident where a passenger evidenced discomfort with the process, or complained about the process.

4) Your brother and his wife are biased. They work for the agency. Their opinions cannot be trusted to be objective or unbiased, particularly if that opinion is that "everything is okay, nothing is wrong", because even if you don't believe that TSA is inherently broken, EVERY large agency occasionally has something wrong with it.

In other words, saying, "these reports are overblown, there are way fewer problems than they say" is believable, but saying, "there is never a problem, nothing ever goes wrong, we're 100% perfect" is just not believable. At all.

5. No system is perfect. The TSA was instantly brought into being post-9/11, and for very good reasons. I want them there, and I want them to do their job. They are still finding guns in people's carryons after 11 years, folks. Are there going to be abuses? Yes, and stating that these things shouldn't happen ignores that reality. Our system of law guarantees redress of grievances, and those abuses should be pursued by the persons affected. The rest of us can't do anything. A basic rule of our law system, since the year one, involves "standing to sue." If we personally have not been injured or affected, the court will simply rule that we have no "standing to sue." And the vast majority of people who have a legitimate complaint....never do anything about it. This guarantees the abuses will go unchecked. So- the OP should by all means pursue every avenue open to them. The rest of us should move on.

5) No system is perfect, but some systems are less perfect than others. TSA's system needs a massive overhaul.

I want them there, and I want them doing their job, too. Right now, they're NOT doing their job properly.

There are going to be abuses. When they happen, shrugging and saying, "well, that's reality, deal with it" is the WORST possible reaction. It's called "tolerance". And when it comes to abuses of peoples' civil rights by the government, and violations of the US Constitution, we should have zero tolerance. None. Not even a little bit. None at all. Ever.

Right now, the system of redress of grievances you mention is broken. It's not working. Standing by and not saying anything when someone else is abused means that the system is not accountable to anyone - and the abuses will continue, unchecked and unabated. The only way to fix that system is with public outcry - which means that we must ALL voice our opinions. Remember the old saying, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Standing silently by while others are abused, merely because "it's the responsibility of the abused person to speak up for themselves and the rest of us should stay out of their business", simply means that good men are doing nothing. And evil is triumphing.

The TSA does deter attacks. Why hasn't anybody come up to a checkpoint with a couple of AK's and sprayed the line? Ahmed Ressam wanted to blow up a passenger waiting area at LAX. Why hasn't anybody done anything like that? The TSA causes large concentrations of passengers that could be attacked, but the existence of the TSA deters such attacks.

Terrorists want to harm America, and leaving the TSA in place harms America more than any single attack possibly could. An attack on an airplane - or, even more, an attack on a checkpoint - would highlight the uselessness of TSA, and possibly lead to changes. Terrorists don't want any changes to the TSA, so they don't attack.

There is no TSA at Arundel Mills Mall or Harborplace. There is no TSA at the Udvar-Hazy annex in Dulles. There is no TSA at Oregon Ridge Park when it's packed with thousands of people for fireworks on July 4. And there is no TSA at Walt Disney World.

Why haven't The Terrists opened up with AK's at those crowded venues, without TSA's deterrence factor?

I'll tell you why - because real terrorists are practically non-existent in the US. It has nothing whatsoever to do with TSA's presence.

TSA is a deterrent only to the free and unrestricted travel of law-abiding people. Law-breakers are not deterred by minimum-wage pizza box clerks in the slightest.

What's TSA going to do if they actually DO detect a real terrorist? Hit them with an $11,000 fine? Send them to a private room for a resolution pat-down? Bark at them to remove their shoes? "Do You Want To Fly Today?"

The very idea that TSA deters actual terrorism is ludicrous on its face.

I think you're not using your imagination sufficiently. What do people do who are interested in acquiring illegal drugs? I suspect they sniff around obliquely, til some word of mouth points them in a successful direction. One could do the same thing wrt bribe-taking clerks.
I disagree with that analogy, for a number of reasons. First, in the case of acquiring drugs, there are people on both sides of that transaction putting feelers out that they're looking for people to transact with. And, more importantly, there's an established "community" within which that information can be shared. If somebody who wants to buy drugs goes to a major city they've never been to before, there's a fairly good chance they'll be able to link up fairly quickly with somebody willing to sell them because they know how to contact that community.

But there's nothing similar with those who want to blow up planes. Even if a TSO, airport worker, or shipping company employee were willing to accept a bribe, what would be the analogy to the drug dealer? Where would they find a community in which to spread the word "if anybody wants to blow up a plane, find me!"? Any such "community" would almost certainly be composed of undercover law enforcement.

Secondly, terrorists, especially international ones, aren't going to fit in very well. They'll appear strange or be "off" in cultural or societal ways and stand out. It'll be that much extremely harder for them to "sniff around obliquely".

As I said, I believe a national intelligence service, despite the difficulty of getting around the first issue, could do it because they have sufficient resources and communications and sufficient training to get around the second issue. I don't think any terrorist organization can come close.

TSA is a deterrent only to the free and unrestricted travel of law-abiding people. Law

Well, I agree with your reasoning here and in the rest of what you wrote, but take another look at my post, because you misunderstood it if you think it expresses any disagreement with your views.

Or possibly because the emphasis changed from weapons (which are mostly metal) to IED to components (which are most non-metalic).

Or drugs.

The system seems designed to make it easier to catch druggies. It's not going to catch the properly-prepared terrorist.

2. Anyone who thinks they have been abused and their rights have been violated should by all means pursue complaints and all other avenues of redress. That CANNOT be done on an Internet forum.

Complaints get circular-filed. The courts generally throw out the cases on inadequate grounds and even when they try to do something the TSA just thumbs their nose at them. We have no recourse against the TSA.

3. As far as our experience (we usually travel by air twice a year or so, and have for around 15 years), we've never seen, heard of, or had anyone in an airport mention any problem with security.

We've never had any serious problems but my wife has gotten a couple of unjustified pat-downs (although not the sexual-assault grope of a retaliatory)--their inability to resolve something on the x-ray doesn't give them any justification to pat her down. Just open the bag and have a look, morons!

4. A while ago, I read a lengthy thread (not on Flyer Talk) about the alleged abuses of the TSA, and consulted with my brother about this. He has worked for the TSA (at a major airport which will not be named) since about a year after its inception. While he has heard some second or third-hand stories, neither he nor his wife (who also works for TSA in the same airport) has ever been involved in an incident where a passenger evidenced discomfort with the process, or complained about the process.

Most of us know better than to give bullies any indication that they are succeeding. Thus even when the agents are out of line there usually won't be any complaint. To complain is to ask for a missed flight and a sexual-assault grope.

5. No system is perfect. The TSA was instantly brought into being post-9/11, and for very good reasons. I want them there, and I want them to do their job.

Why don't you move to Russia, then? Their "job" is to destroy the 4th amendment and get us used to living in a police state.

They are still finding guns in people's carryons after 11 years, folks.

So? People make mistakes. The old metal detectors/x-rays caught them fine.

Our system of law guarantees redress of grievances, and those abuses should be pursued by the persons affected.

Except it doesn't.

The rest of us can't do anything. A basic rule of our law system, since the year one, involves "standing to sue." If we personally have not been injured or affected, the court will simply rule that we have no "standing to sue." And the vast majority of people who have a legitimate complaint....never do anything about it. This guarantees the abuses will go unchecked. So- the OP should by all means pursue every avenue open to them. The rest of us should move on.

Most people don't have the money to put into a court case that will probably be circular-filed by some judge without the brains to understand that his government is in the wrong.

Have there been many (or any) knives and guns found on people? I thought that nearly all (or all) have been found in carryons?

Also, as has been said before, the most important part of checkpoint security is the deterrence factor, so saying that something hasn't been found isn't that meaningful: in almost all cases, something that is found isn't a threat, but somethign forgotten.

Find knives on a person? Nope. One of the Mythbusters guys accidentally flew with a couple of saw blades in his pocket. TSA didn't notice.

Except that there's a significant risk of being caught unless the first TSO is bribable and that's hard.

1) The druggies accomplish it.

2) "Let our guy with the coke through or your daughter spends what little of her life remains being raped." Of course it's not coke.

Would he have better luck just taking them to Municipal "small claims" court and getting a sympathetic judge to rule in his favor for $3-5k depending on state.

You can't bring non-economic damages in small claims, can you?

I disagree with that analogy, for a number of reasons. First, in the case of acquiring drugs, there are people on both sides of that transaction putting feelers out that they're looking for people to transact with.

And the clerks who took bribes were not looking for a chance to score? Someone knew these people would deal. Someone knew how to contact them. Why do you suppose terrorists couldn't make use of the same network? Yes, agree with you that it is probably a smaller circle than just drug dealers, but it is something that can be tapped into using the smuggling rubric.

But there's nothing similar with those who want to blow up planes. Sure there is, as per above. Not as prevalent, but it exists all the same. Unless you're claiming that the many known smuggling schemes were impromptu.

Even if a TSO, airport worker, or shipping company employee were willing to accept a bribe, what would be the analogy to the drug dealer? Where would they find a community in which to spread the word "if anybody wants to blow up a plane, find me!"?

Are you deliberately not understanding my post, or perhaps I didn't make it clear. Nobody in their right mind would approach this as "wanna help me smuggle a bomb?" To everyone involved, it would be a package, say a few kilos of drugs. Only people out of the direct transaction would know what it really was.

Secondly, terrorists, especially international ones, aren't going to fit in very well. They'll appear strange or be "off" in cultural or societal ways and stand out. It'll be that much extremely harder for them to "sniff around obliquely". You're not thinking this through, IMO. If a dodgy character has money to hand out, nobody will care. The right introductions will be made. The right intermediaries will take care of the rest. Of course nobody is going to know what's really going on til its too late.

I don't think any terrorist organization can come close. That is a gamble. Precisely the same type of gamble the TSA won't accept when it insists on random groin searches of people who are under no suspicion.

I suspect her OD'ing on the pills is what caused her to go to the ER...

All pro/anti TSA arguments aside, since when did vomiting and stress mean rushing to the ER?

Did this really qualify as an EMERGENCY?

I've met people that get stressed or can't cope with day to day life, and while I sympathize, how can the TSA know whether she's faking it or telling the truth? If the "terrorists" find out they'll make an exception for victims of sexual assault they'll groom victims of sexual assault to carry out attacks.

While it's unfortunate what happened to your wife, we have yet to have another plane crash or even come close to crashing thanks to terrorists on US soil.

That said I think the TSA could use some more training and be cut back significantly, but at the end of the day there are people out there that can't cope with even minor inconveniences to them when they're traveling and frankly they should avoid traveling especially by air where it is a giant cattle car in the sky.

Air travel is cheaper than it's ever been and as such expect the same quality of "service" that you'll get at any discount business, which means getting a cold shoulder when you feel disrespected.

I tend to differ with the perceptions of many people on TS&S, including on this thread. The post about patdowns in Italy for instance varies to the far end of the spectrum from what I have experienced and I suspect that I have had a much larger number of patdowns in Italy than the person who posted about it.

However, as others pointed out, the hospital did feel that the situation warranted a multiple night stay.

And vomiting and headache can be symptoms of migraines, which are often misunderstood by those who don't have them as simply a headache. Hemiplegic migraines can mimic stroke, and many people are admitted to hospital either during their first instance with those rare forms of migraine, or during episodes, because they or those around them (and often first responders) believe that they are having a stroke. The wife didn't appear to have such a situation, but others may well have had as a result of the stress, noise, lighting etc at a US checkpoint.

I discount the posts from several posters on TS&S based on their posting history, and their percpetion of situations. I also believe that a handful are detrimental to getting the American public on side against the TSA, and no longer refer people to TS&S as a result.

I don't however discount this poster, nor would I minimise the impact on his wife, especially considering the length of the stay.

I tend to differ with the perceptions of many people on TS&S, including on this thread. The post about patdowns in Italy for instance varies to the far end of the spectrum from what I have experienced and I suspect that I have had a much larger number of patdowns in Italy than the person who posted about it.

Like you, I fly in/out of Italy quite a bit. On my last trip there I wore suspenders which had small metal tabs. I was flying MXP-PRG-TLV and received the patdowns in both Milan and Prague.

They were just as invasive as in the US and the only difference seemed to be that nobody wasted my time by telling me, step by step, what he was about to do.

That has not been my experience in various Italian airports.

Around the world at a large number of airport checkpoints, nobody has ever
- pulled down my underwear
- put their hands into my crotch
- lifted my skirt above the knees
- forced limbs to contort causing severe pain
- rubbed their hands along my bare upper thighs

That has only happened to me in the US, and occurred about 60% of the time I passed through a TSA checkpoint. (Add of course the other indiginities such as telling me that I am 'saying my name wrong', which has only happened in the US to that list)

The reports on TS&S are people's perceptions of what occurred. I can only use my past experience, combined with the nature of the reports and the reporter's history, as well as general observations and feedback to determine whether or not I will place much stock in the report.

And as I have stated several times, I do think that the perception is not always the reality. That of course also applies to my own reports, and our perception of the same situation vary greatly.

But I will gladly fly from any airport around the world over flying from a US airport, and I have flown from many 'bad' countries over the world.

Like you, I fly in/out of Italy quite a bit. On my last trip there I wore suspenders which had small metal tabs. I was flying MXP-PRG-TLV and received the patdowns in both Milan and Prague.

They were just as invasive as in the US and the only difference seemed to be that nobody wasted my time by telling me, step by step, what he was about to do.

The Italian patdowns are not as invasive as the touch-the-junk gropes done by the TSA. The TSA rubs against passenger penises and/or scrotums with far greater frequency and official mandate than airport security screeners in Italy or any other developed country in the world (primarily OECD countries).

The US is far more messed up in this area than any country in Europe or the Americas.

Are you deliberately not understanding my post, or perhaps I didn't make it clear. Nobody in their right mind would approach this as "wanna help me smuggle a bomb?" To everyone involved, it would be a package, say a few kilos of drugs. Only people out of the direct transaction would know what it really was.

You're not thinking this through, IMO. If a dodgy character has money to hand out, nobody will care. The right introductions will be made. The right intermediaries will take care of the rest. Of course nobody is going to know what's really going on til its too late.
I still disagree with you. Yes, this exact scenario would be how a national intelligence organization could accomplish this task. But not a terrorist group. Drug undergrounds are even more suspicious of people and sensitive to those who don't fit in than society in general. There isn't a shred of evidence that terrorist groups have ever had, or even come close to having, the sort of capabilities and training to do what you describe.

I think it's more simple than that. A terrorist-wannabe could easily get a job himself with the TSA, rather than find a willing conspirator already in the TSA. The real danger is not in bribing employees, but that anyone can become an employee (and even if the TSA won't hire you [doubtful], the ground crew, restaurants, etc., employees are often unscreened or underscreened).

I still disagree with you. Yes, this exact scenario would be how a national intelligence organization could accomplish this task. But not a terrorist group. Drug undergrounds are even more suspicious of people and sensitive to those who don't fit in than society in general. There isn't a shred of evidence that terrorist groups have ever had, or even come close to having, the sort of capabilities and training to do what you describe.

--Jon

Find knives on a person? Nope. One of the Mythbusters guys accidentally flew with a couple of saw blades in his pocket. TSA didn't notice.

12" razor blades, and they weren't in his pocket. They were in his laptop bag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4&feature=player_embedded

I'm sorry but there is not a single reason you absolutely have to fly anywhere. If i was told i had to fly somewhere to give one of my kids a kidney then by all means... Short of that... I am 41 and have never stepped foot on a plane and i have no intentions on ever going into an airport or airplane. You all know this. If you can't sit back and think about it and understand that then you need to go back to school! If you choose to get on an airplane... Then deal with it and quit whining. You all sound like a bunch of spoiled little brats. Me me me! I want i want i want! It is seriously disgusting.

I'm sorry but there is not a single reason you absolutely have to fly anywhere. If i was told i had to fly somewhere to give one of my kids a kidney then by all means... Short of that... I am 41 and have never stepped foot on a plane and i have no intentions on ever going into an airport or airplane. You all know this. If you can't sit back and think about it and understand that then you need to go back to school! If you choose to get on an airplane... Then deal with it and quit whining. You all sound like a bunch of spoiled little brats. Me me me! I want i want i want! It is seriously disgusting.

I was sexually abused and raped as a child by both men and women. This story is exactly why I do not fly. I don't wish to go through the naked radiation scanner, or to be groped and intimidated by authority figures. You should contact the major media outlets, as well as media like Democracy Now, and CNN's Nancy Grace and Jane-Velez Mitchell, and find a way to get your story on national news.

It might be empowering for your wife to tell her story and it would bring awareness to the general public. Start a campaign, take it to congress. Be vigilant. This has to stop. There are about 60 MILLION survivors of child sexual abuse in this country who will be affected by your story, and who would be prompted to take action.

^And not to go too far OMNI P/R here but I would also advise you to vote for Gary Johnson in the Presidential election. If you do so and are a life-long Republican, please send messages to the Romney campaign explaining the single issue that lost Romney your vote. If you vote for Johnson and are a life-long Democrat, please send messages to the White House explaining the single issue that lost Obama your vote.

Voters who refuse to stand up and buck the corrupt special-interest infested two party system (more scanners for Chertoff to sell to a Romney administration; more unionized government-employed thugs to be employed by an Obama administration) as it stands today are a big part of the problem.

The poster upthread that claimed that NO politician will take on TSA is wrong. While most won't, there are a few that will. If enough of us supported these politicians (even when they are in the opposite, or a third, party from our natural preference), change would be possible.

^^^^^^^

I'm sorry but there is not a single reason you absolutely have to fly anywhere. If i was told i had to fly somewhere to give one of my kids a kidney then by all means... Short of that... I am 41 and have never stepped foot on a plane and i have no intentions on ever going into an airport or airplane. You all know this. If you can't sit back and think about it and understand that then you need to go back to school! If you choose to get on an airplane... Then deal with it and quit whining. You all sound like a bunch of spoiled little brats. Me me me! I want i want i want! It is seriously disgusting.

Welcome to FlyerTalk SKULLYARD!

[Remainder deleted, nothing else worth saying.]

I'm sorry but there is not a single reason you absolutely have to fly anywhere. If i was told i had to fly somewhere to give one of my kids a kidney then by all means... Short of that... I am 41 and have never stepped foot on a plane and i have no intentions on ever going into an airport or airplane. You all know this. If you can't sit back and think about it and understand that then you need to go back to school! If you choose to get on an airplane... Then deal with it and quit whining. You all sound like a bunch of spoiled little brats. Me me me! I want i want i want! It is seriously disgusting.
:rolleyes:
And sadly, you are not alone. Apathy and lack of knowledge and lack of critical thinking is so common amongst the American public when it comes to 'anything for safety'.

One way in which people broaden their horizons and open their minds is through travel.

(How do we 'all know this' when it is your second post on FT by the way?)

That has not been my experience in various Italian airports.

Around the world at a large number of airport checkpoints, nobody has ever
- pulled down my underwear
- put their hands into my crotch
- lifted my skirt above the knees
- forced limbs to contort causing severe pain
- rubbed their hands along my bare upper thighs

That has only happened to me in the US, and occurred about 60% of the time I passed through a TSA checkpoint

No one, anywhere, has pulled down my underwear.

Yes, the top of their hands did touch my crotch, both in the US and Europe.

I do not wear skirts.

My limbs have never been forced to contort in any position.

I do not fly with bare upper thighs (believe me when I tell you that they would not be an appetizing view for most other passengers).

Hang around for a while. You might even come up with something intelligent to add to the discussion.

Because insinuating that their post had nothing intelligent to add is a great way to get them to stick around...

The fact is he does have a point, no one is forcing people to travel by air.

Also like I said before air travel is pretty stressful for those not used to it, with or without the Free TSA gropings people are going to get overstressed and blow things out of proportions.

Am I the only one more disturbed by the casualness by which people use the Emergency Room? To me it should be reserved for those that have life threatening injuries, things like panic attacks or stress should be handled by physicians or specialists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_department#United_States


Many U.S. emergency departments are exceedingly busy. A survey of New York area doctors in February 2007 found that injuries and even deaths have been caused by excessive waits for hospital beds by ED patients.[6] A 2005 patient survey found an average ED wait time from 2.3 hours in Iowa to 5.0 hours in Arizona

The emergency department conducts medical clearance rather than treats acute behavioral disorders. From the emergency department, patients with significant mental illness may be transferred to a psychiatric unit (in many cases involuntarily).

To me this means that it should have been: A pat down that ended my wife up in the psychiatric unit.

The Emergency room doesn't Treat acute behavioral disorders.

I fly 2-3 times a year and have encountered nothing very professional TSA agents, I have yet to be groped and have had no issues.

I'm not saying issues don't exist, but fewer people would fly if this was a more common occurrence.

Want to send a statement to the TSA and airlines? Hit them in their pocketbook, don't fly.

After reading this story one would be led to believe that we no longer have any rule of law what soever in Amerika. There was no legal recourse for this woman or her husband other than being sexually assaulted by a government agent.

If you think it a little deeper, you realize that this is MUCH worse than anarchy. With no central monopoly on power (anarchy) this woman's husband could have protected his wife from being sexually assaulted by government goons. He would have been free to be armed, and could have used whatever force necessary to protect his wife. With an armed husband it is very unlikely the goon would have acted in this manner to begin with.

We have a government that instead of protecting rights, unbelievably protects and enables the criminals. It furthermore does everything in it's power to make the legal system inaccessible, and not to work in the interest of justice.

The next time the government propagandist try to demonize the concept of anarchy, think back about how this woman's rights would have been much more likely to be protected if there were not a monopoly on power. In fact it was that monopoly on power that CAUSED her so be sexually assaulted. Rethink the monopoly power of the state. Rethink the CIA demonized concept of anarchy.

I am 41 and have never stepped foot on a plane and i have no intentions on ever going into an airport or airplane.So why are you here?FlyerTalk - The world's most popular frequent flyer community

So why are you here?

Well, to be fair, Skullyard isn't the only non-flying member of FT. I recall a poster who used to come to TS&S every now and again and tell us how they didn't fly and that they were somehow to superior to those who do as a result. I just don't know how Skullyard can say 'as you all know' when it was their very first post here on FT.

I'm sorry but there is not a single reason you absolutely have to fly anywhere.

Frankly, I find it very difficult to visit my girlfriend in Milan without flying and a trip across the Mediterranean and the Atlantic to spend some time in my native land would take quite a while by boat.

The Emergency room doesn't Treat acute behavioral disorders.


The above is more myth than reality.

Many ERs deal with massive behavioral disorders, as well they should.

12" razor blades, and they weren't in his pocket. They were in his laptop bag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4&feature=player_embedded

I misunderstood. I thought those blades were in his pocket.

So why are you here?His restraining order mentions airports and airplanes, but not FT?

I'm sorry but there is not a single reason you absolutely have to fly anywhere. If i was told i had to fly somewhere to give one of my kids a kidney then by all means... Short of that... I am 41 and have never stepped foot on a plane and i have no intentions on ever going into an airport or airplane. You all know this. If you can't sit back and think about it and understand that then you need to go back to school! If you choose to get on an airplane... Then deal with it and quit whining. You all sound like a bunch of spoiled little brats. Me me me! I want i want i want! It is seriously disgusting.

There are legitimate reasons why a person needs to fly, and they don't involve donating a kidney.

What do you do for a living? Is the job market extremely ripe for your profession in your part of the country? Imagine for a moment that your boss told you one day that you needed to fly, or lose your job to someone else who WILL fly. Could you casually say, "Take this job and shove it!" and find a new job tomorrow to feed your family and keep a roof over their heads?

Even if you can say YES to that question, there are LOTS of people who simply can't. When jobs are plentiful, you can choose one that fits all of your criteria, i.e. is within your max commuting distance, pays more than your preferred minimum, has the benefits you want, and doesn't require you to fly. But when jobs are scarce, and you have a family to feed, you suck it up and take the best job you can find, even if it means flying a lot.

Flying for folks like that is not a matter of choice; they fly, or their families starve.

However, you're missing the entire point of these discussions. The point is not whether or not someone "needs" to fly. The point is whether or not the government has the right to do this to people, ever, whether they are engaging in a voluntary activity or not.

We have the right to unrestricted interstate travel. We have the right to travel by air. Flying is not a priviledge, it's a right - but having our other rights violated in order to excercise our right to travel by air is wrong.

It's not selfish to want the US government to not violate our civil rights, and to abide by the US Constitution.

If you can't sit back and think about that and understand it, then maybe you need to go back to school. And if you are so afraid of the Evil Bwown Muswim Tewwowists that you are willing to let the US government violate the civil rights of millions of people just so you can get a warm fuzzy feeling... just deal with it and quit whining.

We have the right to unrestricted interstate travel. We have the right to travel by air. Flying is not a priviledge, it's a right - but having our other rights violated in order to excercise our right to travel by air is wrong.

It's not selfish to want the US government to not violate our civil rights, and to abide by the US Constitution.


Tell me where the Constitution says we have a right to fly.

Methinks you need to go back to school if you seriously believe that it's a fundamental RIGHT for people to fly.

If so, it's a right only the "rich" are able to engage in because of airfare prices.

By your logic we should offer free airfare for everyone because it's a RIGHT and not a privilege.

The thing is, if the TSA IS violating your rights, then you clearly have recourse right? Millions of travelers have determined that the TSA aren't violating rights or if they are it's in isolated incidents.

If people want to give up their rights for the ability to fly then that's their choice, the day people defend their "rights" is the day the airports sit empty.

The patdown didn't land the wife in the ER, the pills she took along with the stressful situation landed her in the ER. Any number of events could trigger these types of situations, that doesn't mean her rights were violated(if they were consult a lawyer) and that doesn't mean the TSA is responsible for the ER bill.

Tell me where the Constitution says we have a right to fly.

Methinks you need to go back to school if you seriously believe that it's a fundamental RIGHT for people to fly.


Where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to post idiotic things on the internet? The Constitution is not a laundry list of enumerated rights, but primarily of the limitations of government. Put another way, what right does the government have to restrict free travel within the country???

Where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to post idiotic things on the internet?

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Methinks you need to go back to school if you seriously believe that it's a fundamental RIGHT for people to fly.

"A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the
navigable airspace." 49 US Code-Section 40103 (2)

Where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to post idiotic things on the internet? The Constitution is not a laundry list of enumerated rights, but primarily of the limitations of government. Put another way, what right does the government have to restrict free travel within the country???

Gotta love when people can't refute an actual point or respond to a question and instead resort to personal attacks.

Just because people say they have the "right" to fly doesn't actually mean they have the right to fly.

To answer your question, the government has the right to restrict free travel when it suits them.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_the_US_government_restrict_your_civil_rights_f or_the_sake_of_national_security

Sources, several well cited laws that allow the government the right to restrict your travel.

Your turn, tell me how citizens have the "RIGHT" to Fly and how it's not a privilege but a right given to ALL citizens.

I can't wait for your response, this should be good.

Before attacking others you might want to learn the difference between a Right and a Privilege.

Tell me where the Constitution says we have a right to fly.

How about:


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.

Am I the only one more disturbed by the casualness by which people use the Emergency Room? To me it should be reserved for those that have life threatening injuries, things like panic attacks or stress should be handled by physicians or specialists.


This is the OP - I had FlyerTalk change my handle because I realized I was using my full name... my wife is very sensitive to all of this.

When she was admitted, there was a MENTAL HEALTH person on staff at the ER, it's not just surgeons and nurses who work at the ER. We like to think of the ER being a place where people go when they're physically hurt, but the fact is, a lot of these panic attacks (this wasn't "stress") can result in bodily harm and possibly suicide, intentional or accidental. The hospital is a safe haven, where medical staff is there 24/7 to monitor patients. This happened on a Sunday - should I have made an appointment with her psychiatrist and hoped he could fit her in sometime that week?

She's doing better now after a three day stint in the psychiatric ward. She didn't feel safe, and the right thing to do in that situation is to put the patient in a monitored environment.

It's fine to disagree about the role of airport security, but the woman I loved went through living hell the other day. I don't really understand it either, but I do know the TSA experience was the tipping point in all of this. Like you, I was dubious about bringing her to the hospital, but she said "I NEED TO GO TO THE ER. LISTEN TO ME", so I listened. And it was the right thing to do.

This is completely and totally out of control. Whenever I go into the TSA grope-down area (I will not let them cook me in the X-ray) I have my phone in recording mode. If someone is with me, they wait in the distance and record for me and then when I get through, I turn around and do the same for them. The whole time I maintain very direct eye-contact.

For some reason they seem intimidated since they can see that I'm fishing for footage to go viral on youtube. Of course they come across as trying to be authoritarian, but the fear is obvious since they know that the "law of the jungle" is in effect and having video proof in the equivalent of being an elephant surrounded by a couple of wolves with no teeth.

After reading what happened to your wife it only galvanizes my resolve to stand up to these criminals and thugs who operate outside of their jurisdiction. I hope that she will be ok. As others have said, writing to your congressman is useless. Instead, vote them out of office if they show the slightest hint of supporting the TSA.

Gotta love when people can't refute an actual point or respond to a question and instead resort to personal attacks.

Just because people say they have the "right" to fly doesn't actually mean they have the right to fly.

To answer your question, the government has the right to restrict free travel when it suits them.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_the_US_government_restrict_your_civil_rights_f or_the_sake_of_national_security

Sources, several well cited laws that allow the government the right to restrict your travel.

Your turn, tell me how citizens have the "RIGHT" to Fly and how it's not a privilege but a right given to ALL citizens.

I can't wait for your response, this should be good.

Before attacking others you might want to learn the difference between a Right and a Privilege.



http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/357/116/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
Kent v. Dulles

No. 481

Argued April 10, 1958

Decided June 16, 1958

357 U.S. 116


(a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S. 125-127.

I think we can all agree that flying is a form of traveling.

Sorry, couldn't find the case on Wiki.

How about:


You are correct. Federal jurisdiction is limited to the 10 mile radius of Washington DC and it is clearly stated in the Constitution....something that serioustraveler has either never read or is hoping that the rest of us do not read.

What TSA is doing is not only illegal but those who enable their actions are committing an act of treason.

Any honest lawyer will admit to this and several that I know are working on class-action lawsuits to enforce the 10th amendment.

To argue with people who cannot deal with facts is a complete and total waste of time.

Also, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/):

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

It's fine to disagree about the role of airport security, but the woman I loved went through living hell the other day. I don't really understand it either, but I do know the TSA experience was the tipping point in all of this. Like you, I was dubious about bringing her to the hospital, but she said "I NEED TO GO TO THE ER. LISTEN TO ME", so I listened. And it was the right thing to do.

You did exactly the right thing in listening to her. This would have been right even if there was nobody in the ER who could help her -- when somebody is having a panic attack the last thing she needs is the person she loves to argue with her about it.

That said, I don't think it is fair to blame the TSA for the attack -- anymore than it would be to blame Delta if someone with a fear of heights has a panic attack in an airplane.

If you (or she) was unaware that as a result of her being sexually molested she is extremely sensitive to being touched by strangers, there is nothing you could have done to avoid this. The TSA "experience" is not pleasant, and like many I have very strong doubts about its effectiveness, but it is what it is. From the moment she decided to fly there was a good possibility she would have this patdown.

If she was aware of her sensitivity she should not have flown -- any more than the person with the fear of heights should fly.

Is it fair that your wife should have the possibility of air travel taken away from her (at least until she can be cured of her phobia)? Probably not, but the government is not about to make an exception for people in her condition. If it did, each and every one of us would claim the same thing.

I completely agree that you did the right thing by taking her to the ER. I'm glad she was able to get the help she needed.


For everyone saying she shouldn't have flown. I urge you to understand trauma before you cast stones. They very well might have had unremarkable travel, but trauma is tricky and you cannot control all the factors outside a therapist's office (and sometimes inside). She did the brave thing by traveling - which I am in complete support of.

TSA should be much better trained and professional. Actually - skip that- our government and WE should not be so willing to have our freedom and rights stripped from us in the name of security. I'll leave the rest of that rant for some other thread.

I'm sorry but there is not a single reason you absolutely have to fly anywhere. If i was told i had to fly somewhere to give one of my kids a kidney then by all means... Short of that... I am 41 and have never stepped foot on a plane and i have no intentions on ever going into an airport or airplane. You all know this. If you can't sit back and think about it and understand that then you need to go back to school! If you choose to get on an airplane... Then deal with it and quit whining. You all sound like a bunch of spoiled little brats. Me me me! I want i want i want! It is seriously disgusting.

It's disgusting that someone is voicing their displeasure with a sytem that abuses people? It's disgusting that people won't accept being abused? What is disgusting about wanting to visit family? Because you have no desire to travel to places via plane doesn't mean that noone else does. And do you really believe that this woman should have known that this would happen to her? Disgusting indeed.

If she was aware of her sensitivity she should not have flown -- any more than the person with the fear of heights should fly.

The thing is she has flown many, many times since the incident. She's only ever gone through the metal detector, so this was the first time she's gone through the patdown. She had no idea it would trigger this (I was there, and it was a woman doing the patdown.)

Here's what the problem is: the TSA agents at the checkpoint were downright lewd to her. I was right there. When I was in Japan, the security agents were professional and *apologetic* about asking me to take off my belt for screening. Had those agents been at FLL, she probably would have been fine. Instead, the TSA agents obviously enjoyed their authority and were harsh in their delivery of what would happen to her. It scared her so much, she went through the backscatter - and then she was patted down anyway!

It's all about delivery. The TSA needs to get their agents to understand that you can't lightly talk about touching private parts in front of some people - there needs to be a better, consistent means of delivery. Not all agents are this bad, but the two agents she interfaced with at FLL were.

.


For everyone saying she shouldn't have flown. I urge you to understand trauma before you cast stones. They very well might have had unremarkable travel, but trauma is tricky and you cannot control all the factors outside a therapist's office (and sometimes inside).

It is not a matter of casting stones. Clearly, she suffered tremendously and she should not risk that again.

This, to me, is just as obvious as my having to avoid eating anything with peanuts because I am allergic to them.

Gotta love when people can't refute an actual point or respond to a question and instead resort to personal attacks.

Just because people say they have the "right" to fly doesn't actually mean they have the right to fly.

To answer your question, the government has the right to restrict free travel when it suits them.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_the_US_government_restrict_your_civil_rights_f or_the_sake_of_national_security

Sources, several well cited laws that allow the government the right to restrict your travel.

Your turn, tell me how citizens have the "RIGHT" to Fly and how it's not a privilege but a right given to ALL citizens.

I can't wait for your response, this should be good.

Before attacking others you might want to learn the difference between a Right and a Privilege.

"[T]he Court has fully and finally rejected the wooden distinction between "rights" and "privileges" that once seemed to govern the applicability of procedural due process rights. The Court has also made clear that the property interests protected by procedural due process extend well beyond actual ownership of real estate, chattels, or money. By the same token, the Court has required due process protection for deprivations of liberty beyond the sort of formal constraints imposed by the criminal process." Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 571-572 (1972, footnotes omitted). See also: Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971), Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).

Of course, my information regarding the non-distinction between depriving someone of a "right" and a "privilege" comes from precedent set forth by the US Supreme Court some 4 decades ago. But it has been a while since I hit the law books, and you appear to be giving the lecture here, so please enlighten us: what is the difference between a "right" and a "privilege"? Please cite your sources, as you did with your previous reference to the prestigious law journal,"Wikianswers".

It's all about delivery. The TSA needs to get their agents to understand that you can't lightly talk about touching private parts in front of some people - there needs to be a better, consistent means of delivery. Not all agents are this bad, but the two agents she interfaced with at FLL were.

I don't disagree with a word that you said -- but the fact remains that there are agents like these two (although, to tell the truth, I have not run into any).

Most women would not have reacted as she did. Of course, most women have also not shared her past experience. Until she can deal with running into other agents like those, she is best off keeping away from airports.

The thing is she has flown many, many times since the incident. She's only ever gone through the metal detector, so this was the first time she's gone through the patdown. She had no idea it would trigger this (I was there, and it was a woman doing the patdown.)

Here's what the problem is: the TSA agents at the checkpoint were downright lewd to her. I was right there. When I was in Japan, the security agents were professional and *apologetic* about asking me to take off my belt for screening. Had those agents been at FLL, she probably would have been fine. Instead, the TSA agents obviously enjoyed their authority and were harsh in their delivery of what would happen to her. It scared her so much, she went through the backscatter - and then she was patted down anyway!

It's all about delivery. The TSA needs to get their agents to understand that you can't lightly talk about touching private parts in front of some people - there needs to be a better, consistent means of delivery. Not all agents are this bad, but the two agents she interfaced with at FLL were.

The TSA Sexual Assault Grope Down exceeds the limits of a limited Administrative Search by several orders.

The TSA Whole Body Strip Search Machines were placed in airports without compliance with standing federal regulations.

The people at odds with the United States and its laws are not people who travel but TSA and all of its 60,000 or so employees.

It is high time to return to reasonable screening policies. WTMD, HHMD, and ETD for people and then only escalating with cause.

Why can't TSA comply with the United States Administrative Procedures Act?

I'm sorry but there is not a single reason you absolutely have to fly anywhere. If i was told i had to fly somewhere to give one of my kids a kidney then by all means... Short of that... I am 41 and have never stepped foot on a plane and i have no intentions on ever going into an airport or airplane. You all know this. If you can't sit back and think about it and understand that then you need to go back to school! If you choose to get on an airplane... Then deal with it and quit whining. You all sound like a bunch of spoiled little brats. Me me me! I want i want i want! It is seriously disgusting.

So now you think it is ok for me to have a ob. exam by a total stranger ( who cant even tell me/know if there is something wrong with me).
A stranger who have no medical training or customer service.

All that to go to my home country in Europe.

Wake up and smell the roses.

Most women would not have reacted as she did. Of course, most women have also not shared her past experience. Until she can deal with running into other agents like those, she is best off keeping away from airports.

I get what you're saying, but here's the way I see it:

Your argument is that she and a percentage of other American's should not fly because the current procedures could cause emotional unrest. My argument is that the procedures should be modified to not necessarily need to exclude a minority population.

So should my wife not be able to go on vacations with me that require flying because she was forcibly raped against her will and is still recovering? Or should there be better intelligence (profiling, background checks) and less invasive ways of admitting someone beyond the checkpoint? I don't think "less invasive" is purely technical (backscatter, MMW, metal detector, etc.) - I think it could also include training agents to be aware that not everyone is wired equally.

Tell me where the Constitution says we have a right to fly.

Methinks you need to go back to school if you seriously believe that it's a fundamental RIGHT for people to fly.

If so, it's a right only the "rich" are able to engage in because of airfare prices.

By your logic we should offer free airfare for everyone because it's a RIGHT and not a privilege.

The thing is, if the TSA IS violating your rights, then you clearly have recourse right? Millions of travelers have determined that the TSA aren't violating rights or if they are it's in isolated incidents.

If people want to give up their rights for the ability to fly then that's their choice, the day people defend their "rights" is the day the airports sit empty.

The patdown didn't land the wife in the ER, the pills she took along with the stressful situation landed her in the ER. Any number of events could trigger these types of situations, that doesn't mean her rights were violated(if they were consult a lawyer) and that doesn't mean the TSA is responsible for the ER bill.

I am an immigrant to this country. If this would have anything written in my "immigration papers" that the condition for me to EVER FLY out of USA. Would be that TSA could "PLAY DOCTOR" with me.

I would never have immigrated here.

I pay for the ticket and I do expect to be treated like a customer. Not a criminal.

I get what you're saying, but here's the way I see it:

Your argument is that she and a percentage of other American's should not fly because the current procedures could cause emotional unrest. My argument is that the procedures should be modified to not necessarily need to exclude a minority population.

So should my wife not be able to go on vacations with me that require flying because she was forcibly raped against her will and is still recovering? Or should there be better intelligence (profiling, background checks) and less invasive ways of admitting someone beyond the checkpoint? I don't think "less invasive" is purely technical (backscatter, MMW, metal detector, etc.) - I think it could also include training agents to be aware that not everyone is wired equally.


People with disabilities are a protected class and must have the same access and ability to use facilities as anyone else. It seems that TSA should try complying with the law, of course we all know that TSA has little concern for being responsible to the citizens and guests of this country.

This is the OP - I had FlyerTalk change my handle because I realized I was using my full name... my wife is very sensitive to all of this.

When she was admitted, there was a MENTAL HEALTH person on staff at the ER, it's not just surgeons and nurses who work at the ER. We like to think of the ER being a place where people go when they're physically hurt, but the fact is, a lot of these panic attacks (this wasn't "stress") can result in bodily harm and possibly suicide, intentional or accidental. The hospital is a safe haven, where medical staff is there 24/7 to monitor patients. This happened on a Sunday - should I have made an appointment with her psychiatrist and hoped he could fit her in sometime that week?

She's doing better now after a three day stint in the psychiatric ward. She didn't feel safe, and the right thing to do in that situation is to put the patient in a monitored environment.

It's fine to disagree about the role of airport security, but the woman I loved went through living hell the other day. I don't really understand it either, but I do know the TSA experience was the tipping point in all of this. Like you, I was dubious about bringing her to the hospital, but she said "I NEED TO GO TO THE ER. LISTEN TO ME", so I listened. And it was the right thing to do.

I am so sorry for your wife and you.

You both did the rite thing. Panic attacks are something a lot of people dont understand and/or agree with. I know what they are.
I know what it is. And she did great during what happened.
All the best to her. And I hope you keep fighting for this.

I don't disagree with a word that you said -- but the fact remains that there are agents like these two (although, to tell the truth, I have not run into any).

Most women would not have reacted as she did. Of course, most women have also not shared her past experience. Until she can deal with running into other agents like those, she is best off keeping away from airports.

You are rite about that most women would not have reacted like her.

I would not have waited with my "thrown up". I would have done it on the spot.
And we all have to fly sometimes for funerals. TSA should not give us more grief.

There is no TSA at Arundel Mills Mall or Harborplace. There is no TSA at the Udvar-Hazy annex in Dulles. There is no TSA at Oregon Ridge Park when it's packed with thousands of people for fireworks on July 4. And there is no TSA at Walt Disney World.

Why haven't The Terrists opened up with AK's at those crowded venues, without TSA's deterrence factor?

I'll tell you why - because real terrorists are practically non-existent in the US. It has nothing whatsoever to do with TSA's presence.

TSA is a deterrent only to the free and unrestricted travel of law-abiding people. Law-breakers are not deterred by minimum-wage pizza box clerks in the slightest.

^
More than a decade later and I don't understand why so many people don't understand these points. Ya know what worries me? It's the guy who takes a large backpack on Amtrak, fills it with explosives and waits until the train is under Penn Station. Heck, the terrorist doesn't even have to commit suicide to pull it off.

But hey, it happened on an airplane-that must be the only place it could happen again.

I have but one wish: that every person in the world become math-literate enough to understand that they are far more likely to die in a car accident on the ride to the airport than they are due to terrorist actions. Is that too much?

Mike

(a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S. 125-127.This should be a 'sticky' so we don't have to go through this every time some newbie chimes in.

Your argument is that she and a percentage of other American's should not fly because the current procedures could cause emotional unrest. My argument is that the procedures should be modified to not necessarily need to exclude a minority population.

So should my wife not be able to go on vacations with me that require flying because she was forcibly raped against her will and is still recovering? Or should there be better intelligence (profiling, background checks) and less invasive ways of admitting someone beyond the checkpoint? I don't think "less invasive" is purely technical (backscatter, MMW, metal detector, etc.) - I think it could also include training agents to be aware that not everyone is wired equally.

Your wife, unfortunately, is not in a position to deal with what "should be" but rather with what "is".

You will find numerous posts by me on TSS contending that the TSA should follow the Israeli model and look for terrorists, not for weapons. You will also find numerous posts from other members saying that what I am arguing for is racist.

By all means, try to get the system changed. I doubt you will be successful but I will be very happy to be proven wrong.

In the meantime, however, your wife remains at risk every time she goes into an airport -- and that is not something which she should put herself through.

If she was aware of her sensitivity she should not have flown -- any more than the person with the fear of heights should fly.

At least, there is a correlation between a fear of heights and flying. The correlation between fear of having a stranger grab your breasts or poke you in the genitals and flying....doesn't exist.

At least, there is a correlation between a fear of heights and flying. The correlation between fear of having a stranger grab your breasts or poke you in the genitals and flying....doesn't exist.

There is a definite correlation between going through the TSA checkpoint (which is unavoidable in US airports) and having a stranger touch your breasts or genitals.

Gotta love when people can't refute an actual point or respond to a question and instead resort to personal attacks.

Just because people say they have the "right" to fly doesn't actually mean they have the right to fly.

To answer your question, the government has the right to restrict free travel when it suits them.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_the_US_government_restrict_your_civil_rights_f or_the_sake_of_national_security

Sources, several well cited laws that allow the government the right to restrict your travel.

Your turn, tell me how citizens have the "RIGHT" to Fly and how it's not a privilege but a right given to ALL citizens.

I can't wait for your response, this should be good.

Before attacking others you might want to learn the difference between a Right and a Privilege.



I think other's on this thread have already provided enough information to refute your contextually ridiculous demand to "show you" where it says there is right to fly.

I didn't resort to a personal attack--sorry if you took it as such. But, apparently by your mode of thought you do not have a "right" to post on the internet (no matter how intelligent or not) because it does not say so in the Constitution. Obviously, this right is contrued by the Constitution through the prohibition of governmental restrictions. This is analagous to how we actually do have a "right" to fly.

And case law does confirm this.

This is not to say that these rights are absolute, but they are rights notheless.

Meanwhile, have fun searching for other words that don't exist in the constitution such as breathe, sleep, walk, eat. Lots of things that you have a "right" to do--these are just not explicitly enumerated.

This should be a 'sticky' so we don't have to go through this every time some newbie chimes in.

I'm surprised the poster didn't already know this since they seem so fully versed on rights and privileges.

Go figure.:rolleyes:

There is a definite correlation between going through the TSA checkpoint (which is unavoidable in US airports) and having a stranger touch your breasts or genitals.

There is no option but to experience heights when you fly. The same is not true with being groped at the checkpoint.

Tell me where the Constitution says we have a right to fly.

Methinks you need to go back to school if you seriously believe that it's a fundamental RIGHT for people to fly.

If so, it's a right only the "rich" are able to engage in because of airfare prices.

By your logic we should offer free airfare for everyone because it's a RIGHT and not a privilege.

The thing is, if the TSA IS violating your rights, then you clearly have recourse right? Millions of travelers have determined that the TSA aren't violating rights or if they are it's in isolated incidents.

If people want to give up their rights for the ability to fly then that's their choice, the day people defend their "rights" is the day the airports sit empty.

The patdown didn't land the wife in the ER, the pills she took along with the stressful situation landed her in the ER. Any number of events could trigger these types of situations, that doesn't mean her rights were violated(if they were consult a lawyer) and that doesn't mean the TSA is responsible for the ER bill.

The Privileges and Immunities clause (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1) and upheld repeatedly by the US Supreme Court (U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)), estalishes the peoples' right to unobstructed interstate travel.

"A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the
navigable airspace." 49 US Code-Section 40103 (2)

And that, of course.

Not to mention the 10th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Methinks you need to go back to school and learn what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all about. They don't GRANT you rights - they LIMIT the government's ability to infringe upon rights that every human being is born with.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the government has a right to view my naked body, touch my genitals, or irradiate my skin as a condition of free travel? Nowhere - but it does state very clearly (in the 4th Amendment) that the government is prohibited from subjecting anyone to unreasonable search and siezure without warrant or probable cause.

I consider a government actor touching my testicles without a warrant or probable cause to be an extremely unreasonable search. Or siezure, but that varies according to the individual TSO's technique.

The Privileges and Immunities clause (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1) and upheld repeatedly by the US Supreme Court (U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)), estalishes the peoples' right to unobstructed interstate travel.



And that, of course.

Not to mention the 10th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Methinks you need to go back to school and learn what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all about. They don't GRANT you rights - they LIMIT the government's ability to infringe upon rights that every human being is born with.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the government has a right to view my naked body, touch my genitals, or irradiate my skin as a condition of free travel? Nowhere - but it does state very clearly (in the 4th Amendment) that the government is prohibited from subjecting anyone to unreasonable search and siezure without warrant or probable cause.

I consider a government actor touching my testicles without a warrant or probable cause to be an extremely unreasonable search. Or siezure, but that varies according to the individual TSO's technique.

^^^:-:

Your wife, unfortunately, is not in a position to deal with what "should be" but rather with what "is".

You will find numerous posts by me on TSS contending that the TSA should follow the Israeli model and look for terrorists, not for weapons. You will also find numerous posts from other members saying that what I am arguing for is racist.


The TSA should look for terrorists? :D ROTFLOL :D Your position invites more "security" theater than there already is, even if some may try to claim otherwise.

There aren't that many non-state actor terrorists in the US that the TSA has a chance of even catching; and the few terrorists known to have been at airports with a TSA presence have been cleared to fly by the TSA; and some have been missed or eventually cleared (to fly) by the Israeli/Israeli-trained voodoo "security" personnel on the supposed hunt for terrorists rather than on the hunt merely for prohibited items.

I don't know what the TSA did wrong in this story. I am sympathetic to the situation of the woman described in the original post, but we can't exempt people from security screening just because they have mental health issues or an aversion to airport security measures. TSA used a female officer to perform the pat down and it seems that the officer performed that pat down properly.

I don't know what the TSA did wrong in this story. I am sympathetic to the situation of the woman described in the original post, but we can't exempt people from security screening just because they have mental health issues or an aversion to airport security measures. TSA used a female officer to perform the pat down and it seems that the officer performed that pat down properly.

TSA exempts all sorts of people, pilots, aircrew, airport workers, TSA employees, some members of congress, and I am sure there are others.

No one should get a pat down unless cause can be shown to require that act. The crotch groping, breast groping, hands in the pants TSA pat down exceeds the limited administrative search TSA is authorized to conduct.

There is a definite correlation between going through the TSA checkpoint (which is unavoidable in US airports) and having a stranger touch your breasts or genitals.

Yep. Just like the correlation between wandering out on High Street in Oakland and getting mugged or shot.

Criminality aside, nobody with reason would think these things reasonable at the airport, if no cause for them were given by a passenger.

The weird need to feel people up at random or because machines used have a greater than 50% error rate, or ETD swabs have a 100% error rate.

Spare me the assertion that the Israeli's do it better. You mean like forcing people to log into their private emails, peeking at them, like actually and physically strip searching reporters from the New York Times as a punitive measure and putting them on the next flight back to New York because of unfavorable articles? Yeah, lets do security just like the Israelis. Heaven help you if you're of Arab descent.

TSA exempts all sorts of people, pilots, aircrew, airport workers, TSA employees, some members of congress, and I am sure there are others.

No one should get a pat down unless cause can be shown to require that act. The crotch groping, breast groping, hands in the pants TSA pat down exceeds the limited administrative search TSA is authorized to conduct.

I've been pat down in airports all over ther world. Often it's right before boarding, sometimes they are probably looking for drugs, sometimes everyone is getting pat down, and sometimes it's only selected people. Takes about 30 seconds, and it's never been sexual.

I've been pat down in airports all over ther world. Often it's right before boarding, sometimes they are probably looking for drugs, sometimes everyone is getting pat down, and sometimes it's only selected people. Takes about 30 seconds, and it's never been sexual.

...and just because you haven't experienced an inappropriate and sexualized expeirence at the hands of the TSA is relevent why?

You post a classic example of "if it didn't happen to me, it must not be a real problem."

I don't know what the TSA did wrong in this story. I am sympathetic to the situation of the woman described in the original post, but we can't exempt people from security screening just because they have mental health issues or an aversion to airport security measures. TSA used a female officer to perform the pat down and it seems that the officer performed that pat down properly.

You may have missed the parts of the original posting where the TSO(s) involved used graphic language to intimidate the passenger into submitting to the scanner in the first place, became irritated with the passenger when she requested a private screening (to which all passengers are entitled), and yelled at the passenger's husband when he attempted to comfort her during the process.

The screening itself may have been performed properly, in a literal sense. But the passenger certainly wasn't treated with the "respect and care (http://www.tsa.gov/who_we_are/mission.shtm)" that are part of TSA's stated values.

...TSA used a female officer to perform the pat down and it seems that the officer performed that pat down properly.

And that is precisely the problem.

The methodology currently in use by TSA to look for non-metallic explosives is the least effective (other than metal detection) one to use.

Color me surprised.

I don't know what the TSA did wrong in this story. I am sympathetic to the situation of the woman described in the original post, but we can't exempt people from security screening just because they have mental health issues or an aversion to airport security measures.

The TSA is a federal agency that must comply with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and provide facilities accessible to the disabled. Serious PTSD subsequent to sexual assault is a covered disability, depending on the symptoms.

From the American Association of People with Disabilities (http://www.aapd.com/resources/power-grid-blog/airport-security-aapd-asks-tsa-to-uphold-civil-rights.html):
The TSA Office of Disability Policy Outreach's charge is to address disability policy issues and civil rights/consumer concerns specific to security issues at airports. This would include investigating complaints where people feel wronged or where the rights of people with disabilities have been violated, such as under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The OP should pursue this line of complaint and inquiry: that the TSA failed to provide accomodations appropriate to his wife's disability. The page that I linked to above gives detailed instructions on how to file these types of complaints. Don't forget to CC: your congressional representatives.

I don't want to fly in a world where anyone who claims mental distress gets to avoid pat downs after setting off a metal detector or after getting arrested.

Because insinuating that their post had nothing intelligent to add is a great way to get them to stick around...

The fact is he does have a point, no one is forcing people to travel by air.




My post has been edited. Thanks for the appropriate comment.

I don't want to fly in a world where anyone who claims mental distress gets to avoid pat downs after setting off a metal detector or after getting arrested.

Neither of which occurred in this situation.

I don't want to fly in a world where anyone who claims mental distress gets to avoid pat downs after setting off a metal detector or after getting arrested.

Why should we care what you want or don't want? After all, no one is forcing you to fly. (ha!) But the federal government should, in fact, be forced to follow the law.

This is completely and totally out of control. Whenever I go into the TSA grope-down area (I will not let them cook me in the X-ray) I have my phone in recording mode. If someone is with me, they wait in the distance and record for me and then when I get through, I turn around and do the same for them. The whole time I maintain very direct eye-contact.

How do you keep a recording device with you when you're being groped?

Why should we care what you want or don't want? After all, no one is forcing you to fly. (ha!) But the federal government should, in fact, be forced to follow the law.

What do you want it to do? Ignore anomalies on the x ray machine and forego pat downs if the passenger claims to have mental health issues and an aversion to being touched? That's not reasonable.

What do you want it to do? Ignore anomalies on the x ray machine and forego pat downs if the passenger claims to have mental health issues and an aversion to being touched? That's not reasonable.

I can only answer your rhetorical question by replying that I don't accept the premise. I'm opposed to the use of X-Ray scanners and to those falsely named "pat downs" that are actually custodial-style searches.

I don't believe submitting to one or the other - or both - enhances the safety of the traveling public to any meaningful degree but I believe their presence as standard operating procedure is a dreadful incursion on the rights of Americans.

YMMV.

Do you believe in metal detectors? What should TSA do if a person sets off a metal detector or makes the wand beep but claims to have mental health reasons why they shouldn't be pat down?

I don't want to fly in a world where anyone who claims mental distress gets to avoid pat downs after setting off a metal detector or after getting arrested.

More room for those of us who aren't cowards.

I don't know what the TSA did wrong in this story...
Try reading the OP again:
My wife was sent towards the backscatter, and told the TSO she didn't want to go through that. I then overheard the TSO graphically describing that "they will need to touch your privates..."
...
And then they discovered an "anomaly" in her bra, so she needed to be patted down on her breasts. ... She asked for a private room and for me to be there, and it was obvious that this pissed off the female assist TSO. ... the TSO yelled that I couldn't touch her and that I'd need to go through screening again.

Had she been permitted to go through the metal detector, she would have been fine. But the language of the TSOs and lack of sympathy towards anyone with mental health issues is repulsive.

Here's what the problem is: the TSA agents at the checkpoint were downright lewd to her. ... When I was in Japan, the security agents were professional and *apologetic* about asking me to take off my belt for screening. Had those agents been at FLL, she probably would have been fine. Instead, the TSA agents obviously enjoyed their authority and were harsh in their delivery of what would happen to her.

...The TSA needs to get their agents to understand that you can't lightly talk about touching private parts in front of some people

.... TSA used a female officer to perform the pat down and it seems that the officer performed that pat down properly.
Are you claiming that the items I've highlighted in bold above are proper procedure? Threatening language, yelling, lewd, throwing their authority around? Really? The OP explicitly said that if the screeners had behaved professionally and politely like the ones in Japan (and, IME, nearly everywhere else in the world), his wife would have been okay.

Do you believe in metal detectors? What should TSA do if a person sets off a metal detector or makes the wand beep but claims to have mental health reasons why they shouldn't be pat down?
This is not a story about setting off the WTMD and then refusing a patdown. In fact, the WTMD would have been a better choice for the OP's wife:
Had she been permitted to go through the metal detector, she would have been fine.
The thing is she has flown many, many times since the incident. She's only ever gone through the metal detector, so this was the first time she's gone through the patdown.
The issue is two fold - first, compared to the WTMD, the NoS has a higher incidence of false positives, leading to more pat downs after scanning, not to mention a pat down if one opts out. Secondly, it's the way that the pat down is done - whether it's respectful and polite or whether it's a nasty, rude power play to enforce the screener's authority - more than the need to do the pat down.

When she asked for a private room, the screener should have said, "Of course, right this way" rather than getting pissed off. (In fact, the screener should have offered the private room in the first place; TSA keeps banging on about how you're allowed to have a private room and a witness.) When she started shaking and crying, the screener could have paused for a moment, said "I know this is difficult for you. Take a minute to catch your breath and let me know when you're ready to go on. I'll be as quick as I can." rather than yelling at the husband. But this would have given the passenger control ("let me know when you're ready") rather than enforcing the screener's authority.

I've had a patdown in Japan where the screener apologized before, during and after, let me stay seated (I had only sat down to take my shoes off but she said, "it's okay, you can stay there") and went and got my shoes from the conveyor belt afterwards, and helped me put them on. Also the actual pat down was not at all invasive. It was entirely about making me feel comfortable during an awkward process, not about making the screener feel powerful and important.

Let me express my sincere sympathy for what you and your wife experienced. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is all to common.

I had a meeting with TSA officials today before I read this post. They think they are doing a great job! They are proud that Less than 8% of the 750,000 to 800,000 of the calls they receive every year are complaints! I did the math; that's over 1,000 complaints a week, and nothing for TSA to be proud of.

right2fly.org

Do you believe in metal detectors? What should TSA do if a person sets off a metal detector or makes the wand beep but claims to have mental health reasons why they shouldn't be pat down?

But WTMD plus wand isn't an option anymore in the US. It doesn't exist, so why argue that fact?

The scanner is useless. The extremely high rate of anomalies is one of the many reasons the German federal police refused the scanners after extensive trials, and why most countries around the world refuse to use them.

I don't have time to post my Werner Gruber link right now, but you really should educate yourself on why so many are angry at the waste in the US to use something which doesn't make you safer.

What do you want it to do? Ignore anomalies on the x ray machine and forego pat downs if the passenger claims to have mental health issues and an aversion to being touched? That's not reasonable.

the new zealanders use metal detectors and hand wanding to resolve. I saw no touching whatsoever the last time I passed through it. women's underwires evidently set off the WTMD occasionally and the wand confirmed the location without any need for breast groping and crotch feeling. why do you insist that this must be done? These are things that really cannot be done to people not under criminal suspicion. This is an odd and sick fetish. From an odd and sick agency.

This story has made it to Russia Today (RT):

http://rt.com/usa/news/tsa-rape-room-wife-179/

This story has made it to Russia Today (RT):

http://rt.com/usa/news/tsa-rape-room-wife-179/

.... and the flop that is CurrentTV.

What do you want it to do? Ignore anomalies on the x ray machine and forego pat downs if the passenger claims to have mental health issues and an aversion to being touched? That's not reasonable.

No, what we want to do is completely eliminate the x-raying of live human beings. X-rays are ionizing radiation. They cause cancer. X-ray exposure is cumulative - there may be a tiny little bit in each scan, but they add up, and they will cause cancers in people who otherwise wouldn't develop cancer.

But there are other options. WTMD plus HHMD will detect metal items without ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT, which is how it was done for about 35 years before the cancer boxes came along. The system worked - yet it's been abandoned in favor of a system that A) is less effective, B) is far, far less efficient, and C) violates peoples civil rights and causes mental anguish on a massive scale.

Do you believe in metal detectors? What should TSA do if a person sets off a metal detector or makes the wand beep but claims to have mental health reasons why they shouldn't be pat down?

If a person sets off a WTMD, the metal can be localized with a HHMD and the person can be cleared without physical contact. It was done that way for 35 years. It can be done that way again. Physical contact can be cut by 99%, and the remaining 1% of cases where an anomaly can only be cleared by touching can be cleared by limited, localized, area-specific touching, not the full-body rubdown with genital contact and hands inside the pants method that is currently used.

NOBODY should be given a full-body pat-down without warrant or probable cause, and if warrant or probable cause is present, the full-body pat-down should be performed by vetted professional LEOs, not minimum wage pizza box flunkies.

No, what we want to do is completely eliminate the x-raying of live human beings. X-rays are ionizing radiation. They cause cancer. X-ray exposure is cumulative - there may be a tiny little bit in each scan, but they add up, and they will cause cancers in people who otherwise wouldn't develop cancer.

But there are other options. WTMD plus HHMD will detect metal items without ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT, which is how it was done for about 35 years before the cancer boxes came along. The system worked - yet it's been abandoned in favor of a system that A) is less effective, B) is far, far less efficient, and C) violates peoples civil rights and causes mental anguish on a massive scale.



If a person sets off a WTMD, the metal can be localized with a HHMD and the person can be cleared without physical contact. It was done that way for 35 years. It can be done that way again. Physical contact can be cut by 99%, and the remaining 1% of cases where an anomaly can only be cleared by touching can be cleared by limited, localized, area-specific touching, not the full-body rubdown with genital contact and hands inside the pants method that is currently used.

NOBODY should be given a full-body pat-down without warrant or probable cause, and if warrant or probable cause is present, the full-body pat-down should be performed by vetted professional LEOs, not minimum wage pizza box flunkies.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

and if you need randomness, use dogs.

I've been pat down in airports all over ther world. Often it's right before boarding, sometimes they are probably looking for drugs, sometimes everyone is getting pat down, and sometimes it's only selected people. Takes about 30 seconds, and it's never been sexual.

I didn't say that TSA groping genitals was sexual, but it is wrong and exceeds a limited administrative search for weapons, incendiaries, and explosives which is all TSA is allowed to search for.

Also, if you are in the U.S. and the TSA search is looking for drugs your civil rights are being violated.

Also, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/):

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Why do you believe that a UN document carries any weight concerning US laws and practices?

If so, it's a right only the "rich" are able to engage in because of airfare prices.

By your logic we should offer free airfare for everyone because it's a RIGHT and not a privilege.

The fact that you have a right to do something does not mean I (we the taxpayers are the government's source of money) have to pay for you to exercise that right.

You have the right to print handbills and distribute them; but you have no authority to ask the government to pay for the ink, paper, labor, and other costs associated with exercising that right.

Civics 101 is a course that needs to be taught again in the USA. Too many people think I have to monetarily pay for their rights' exercise. I reject that assertion.

Can anyone tell me why, when flying into America, most other countries do not use body scanners, yet while inside America you don't fly anywhere without such an assult? Is the terrorist within, and if so why are we fighting abroad?

Can anyone tell me why, when flying into America, most other countries do not use body scanners, yet while inside America you don't fly anywhere without such an assult? Is the terrorist within, and if so why are we fighting abroad?

The answer is a bit complicated but here goes.

Goverment Contractors + Congress + Pockets = Money.

It's partly because America has a lawsuit-driven culture. If the scanning technology exists and airports don't use it and then someone hijacks and crashes a plane, the same people who currently complain about extensive security measures would be lining up to sue over the inadequate security that caused the plane crash.

Americans constantly demand freedom, but if someone else uses that freedom to cause harm, Americans then quickly look for a corporation or government to sue for millions of dollars.

It's partly because America has a lawsuit-driven culture.

I would say that it is because common sense, critical thinking, and logic prevail in other countries, whilst the American public in general seems to have been brainwashed into submission, being told endlessly that they are at war, and to be very afraid. (Meanwhile, when we hear 'we are a nation at war', we wonder whom with, and question who declared that war)

In the meantime, rest of world dealt with terrorism for decades before the US. Flight 182 means nothing to most Americans, even though it was the largest loss of life in an airplane terror attack prior to 9/11. (Sadly, based on the recent response and comments to the shooting this week, I think that many Americans don't care because it concerned a bunch of brown-skinned turban-wearers, even if they do know about the event :rolleyes: , even if the vast majority were actually their neighbours to the north)

The US doesn't hold the market on terrorism. Other countries figured out long ago how to deal with the threat without using scanners or violating rights or treating people in the way the US does. I don't agree with all the methods in use, such as the camera obsessed UK, but at least I can travel in most of rest of world without having to fear the airport checkpoint like I do in America.

But WTMD plus wand isn't an option anymore in the US. It doesn't exist, so why argue that fact?

The scanner is useless. The extremely high rate of anomalies is one of the many reasons the German federal police refused the scanners after extensive trials, and why most countries around the world refuse to use them.
I don't have time to post my Werner Gruber link right now, but you really should educate yourself on why so many are angry at the waste in the US to use something which doesn't make you safer.

well....unless they are looking for wrinkles/creases in your jeans, which the MMW/AIT so nicely detected my last time through. Just got a focal cursory patdown. Same jeans I wear almost every time I fly...new "anomaly" to me...I usually get the green light.

Why do you believe that a UN document carries any weight concerning US laws and practices?

Natural rights are distinct from legal rights.

Try reading en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights for the basics. Here's an excerpt: "Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.
...
Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law."

We have a natural right, recognized in international human rights law, to travel freely within the borders of our own country.

Natural rights are distinct from legal rights.

Try reading en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights for the basics. Here's an excerpt: "Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.
...
Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law."

We have a natural right, recognized in international human rights law, to travel freely within the borders of our own country.

Have you read the entire UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights or are you just picking out the section that you believe most applicable to you? That is nothing more than a pithy feel good document that has absolutely no bearing on any court or jurisdiction within the United States. There are also comments about "rights to own property", "rights to equal pay for equal work", and the right to "form and join trade unions". That document means absolutely nothing more than the paper it was printed on. The US doesn't recognize a natural rights philosophy. It may use it as guidance from time to time but we operate under a system of written laws, not feel good happy fluffy feelings about the way the world should be.

The US doesn't recognize a natural rights philosophy.
Yes, it does. Have you read the Declaration of Indepence recently? It says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,".

Now, if you want to argue that recent court decisions may have been ignoring that principle, I might agree with you, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It's clear to many people that it reflects the intent of the drafters of the Constitution, which they meant to be interpreted consistent with that intent.

Yes, it does. Have you read the Declaration of Indepence recently? It says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,".

Now, if you want to argue that recent court decisions may have been ignoring that principle, I might agree with you, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It's clear to many people that it reflects the intent of the drafters of the Constitution, which they meant to be interpreted consistent with that intent.

Wrong...If the US followed the doctrine of natural law we wouldn't have debates over SSM, union bargaining etc. The ideals espoused by the UNUDHR are just that ideals, nothing more.

Wrong...If the US followed the doctrine of natural law we wouldn't have debates over SSM, union bargaining etc. The ideals espoused by the UNUDHR are just that ideals, nothing more.

RichardKenner is correct, as is only more obvious to those who properly read the words of the nation's founding fathers.

RichardKenner is correct, as is only more obvious to those who properly read the words of the nation's founding fathers.

Sorry, but I'm going to argue that the US does not follow a strict doctrine of natural law and that the UNUDHR has no bearing on US laws, policies, or procedures. It's a feel good happy fluffy document nothing more.

Sorry, but I'm going to argue that the US does not follow a strict doctrine of natural law and that the UNUDHR has no bearing on US laws, policies, or procedures. It's a feel good happy fluffy document nothing more.

You are arguing against arguments of your own creation, so carry on arguing however you like.

Wrong...If the US followed the doctrine of natural law we wouldn't have debates over SSM, union bargaining etc. The ideals espoused by the UNUDHR are just that ideals, nothing more.
I wasn't arguing that the US fully adopted the ideals of the UNUDHR, but rather that the concept of natural law is indeed built in to our legal system.

I wasn't arguing that the US fully adopted the ideals of the UNUDHR, but rather that the concept of natural law is indeed built in to our legal system.

The concept of it sure, but we've migrated pretty far away from natural law and natural rights and to quote the UNUDHR as an example of a "right to fly" is just silly.

The concept of it sure, but we've migrated pretty far away from natural law and natural rights and to quote the UNUDHR as an example of a "right to fly" is just silly.

1) The legal basis of the right to fly, as enshrined in US law, has already been listed in this thread. Arguing against it after it's already been put forth is just silly.

2) The idea that the US doesn't recognize natural law and natural rights is just silly. It's enshrined in US law in the 9th Amendment, the intent of which can be clearly seen when you look at the Declaration of Independence, which was written by mostly the same people only 11 years earlier.

TSA violates that concept on a regular basis, and has jumped through numerous legal hoops to prevent the specific methodologies of scope and grope screening from going before a federal court, which says to me that they are well aware of it's illegality and un-Constitutionality but are too scared to risk having it declared such in court.

1) The legal basis of the right to fly, as enshrined in US law, has already been listed in this thread. Arguing against it after it's already been put forth is just silly.

Please cite a court case that stated somebody has the "right to fly". What is constantly cited, 49 CFR part 27, is the right to equal access of air facilities for disabled people, it's not a right to fly. And the other section for a person to move through navigable airspace is not an inherent right to fly either.

2) The idea that the US doesn't recognize natural law and natural rights is just silly. It's enshrined in US law in the 9th Amendment, the intent of which can be clearly seen when you look at the Declaration of Independence, which was written by mostly the same people only 11 years earlier.

And the 9th Amendment was pretty much challenged successfully in US Public Workers vs Mitchell and Oklahoma vs Civil Service Commission no? The Federal government has the ability to restrain rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Basically flying is a privilege, not a right.

TSA violates that concept on a regular basis, and has jumped through numerous legal hoops to prevent the specific methodologies of scope and grope screening from going before a federal court, which says to me that they are well aware of it's illegality and un-Constitutionality but are too scared to risk having it declared such in court.

And yet it occurs in airports everyday around the country in full view of Federal Courts that could put a stop to it with injunctions. I dislike the TSA as much as most people but around here but some of the folks on here are not doing any favors in getting it shut down with the usual hyperbole, misguided opinions, and relying on silly pithy statements from the UN.

Please cite a court case that stated somebody has the "right to fly". What is constantly cited, 49 CFR part 27, is the right to equal access of air facilities for disabled people, it's not a right to fly. And the other section for a person to move through navigable airspace is not an inherent right to fly either.

The Privileges and Immunities clause (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1) and upheld repeatedly by the US Supreme Court (U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)), establishes the peoples' right to unobstructed interstate travel.

And the 9th Amendment was pretty much challenged successfully in US Public Workers vs Mitchell and Oklahoma vs Civil Service Commission no? The Federal government has the ability to restrain rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Basically flying is a privilege, not a right.

I am not a lawyer or a legal scholar of any kind, but my understanding of that case is that it was based on the idea that those employed by the federal government may have their freedom of speech muzzled in order to prevent the perception - or reality - that government was influencing or coercing the people, since it's the people who are supposed to be in charge, not the government.

Violating peoples' civil rights in order to advance government interest not only doesn't fall under that category, it flies directly in its face; the restrictions on individual rights of a limited number of people in the Mitchell decision was considered to be a restriction on government, not on the people. TSA's violation of the 4th Amendment is a restriction on the people themselves.

By the way - whether you believe there is a right to fly or not makes no difference whatsoever. TSA's scope and grope methodology doesn't violate one's right to fly, it violates a specifically enumerated right set forth in the 4th Amendment, the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. That right doesn't say, "except when engaged in voluntary activity" or "only when you're exercising one of your other rights." It's a blanket statement - the government may not execute unreasonable searches or seizures against the people without warrant or probable cause.

And yet it occurs in airports everyday around the country in full view of Federal Courts that could put a stop to it with injunctions. I dislike the TSA as much as most people but around here but some of the folks on here are not doing any favors in getting it shut down with the usual hyperbole, misguided opinions, and relying on silly pithy statements from the UN.

Do federal courts issue injunctions without a specific complaintant? can a judge on the bench simply issue an injunction against something if he, let's say, sees it on the news, or witnesses it himself? I was under the impression that an actual charge or suit had to be heard by a court before the court could take such an action. And TSA has jumped through legal hoops to prevent any such case from being heard in any federal court.

But, as I said, I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps one of the legal eagles could chime in here and clarify.

-----------------------------------------------------

One more thing.

We can debate legal technicalities and sound bites all we want, but when it comes down to brass tacks, what the TSA is doing with the scope and grope methodology, the harassment of innocent people, the lack of public accountability for its actions, and the blatant disregard for the rights of the individual in the name of a nebulous form of safety from a poorly-defined, minimal threat, is wrong. It's unethical and immoral in the extreme, whether it's legal in the convoluted mess of the CFR notwithstanding. It's wrong, no matter how you justify it or rationalize it. It's just wrong.

Slavery was legal. The Holocaust was legal. The Crusades were legal. The Inquisition was legal. Stalin's purges were legal. The extermination of native peoples in the Americas was legal. Everyone who perpetrated those things thought they were justified. But all of those things were wrong.

Something that's wrong is always wrong, whether it's legal or not. Ask anyone who has studied history - the wrongs of today will be clucked over, and anyone who accepts those wrongs will be laughed at, pitied, or outright hated, by the people of tomorrow.

The Privileges and Immunities clause (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1) and upheld repeatedly by the US Supreme Court (U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)), establishes the peoples' right to unobstructed interstate travel.


Fail, right to travel does not equate right to fly. You and I don't have to seek permission before entering another state or taking up residence there, that's what Shapiro vs. Thompson said. A state can't deny your ability to travel through it or take up residence there, that's all. Furthermore, a state can't deny your ability to up and leave time you want. Again, no "right to fly".

First, IANAL, but here goes anyway.

It is not whether we have a right to fly or not. The question is whether it is within the enumerated powers of congress to pass a law that restricts our ability to travel within the states by any means.

Fail, right to travel does not equate right to fly. You and I don't have to seek permission before entering another state or taking up residence there, that's what Shapiro vs. Thompson said. A state can't deny your ability to travel through it or take up residence there, that's all. Furthermore, a state can't deny your ability to up and leave time you want. Again, no "right to fly".

Fail.

Please cite a court case or portion of the Constitution which specifically grants the federal government the power to deny travel to anyone - by any means they choose - without due process.

Please cite a court case or portion of the Constitution which says that the people don't have a right to travel - by any means they choose - without some sort of travel permission or permit process imposed by the government.

First, IANAL, but here goes anyway.

It is not whether we have a right to fly or not. The question is whether it is within the enumerated powers of congress to pass a law that restricts our ability to travel within the states by any means.

Of course they do. The "right to travel" isn't any different from the "right to bear arms", the government has the ability to regulate it and place restrictions on it.

And what do you do for the poor Hawaiian islanders, Guamanians, or Puerto Ricans? If they have a "right to fly" as residents/citizens of US states and territories shouldn't we as taxpayers be subsidizing that or providing equal access just as we do to disabled passengers? Honestly I think that some clever Hawaiian could make a claim that the US is violating equal protection clauses. Thanks to the interstate highway system, us mainlanders can hop in a car or a bus and be across the country in a few days, Hawaiians can't do that. Neither can they take subsidized Amtrak to travel interstate.

Fail.

Please cite a court case or portion of the Constitution which specifically grants the federal government the power to deny travel to anyone - by any means they choose - without due process.

Please cite a court case or portion of the Constitution which says that the people don't have a right to travel - by any means they choose - without some sort of travel permission or permit process imposed by the government.

There isn't one and I never said that the government can deny your "right to travel", but neither does anybody have a constitutional "right to fly". We're not in disagreement.

"One more thing.

We can debate legal technicalities and sound bites all we want, but when it comes down to brass tacks, what the TSA is doing with the scope and grope methodology, the harassment of innocent people, the lack of public accountability for its actions, and the blatant disregard for the rights of the individual in the name of a nebulous form of safety from a poorly-defined, minimal threat, is wrong. It's unethical and immoral in the extreme, whether it's legal in the convoluted mess of the CFR notwithstanding. It's wrong, no matter how you justify it or rationalize it. It's just wrong.

Slavery was legal. The Holocaust was legal. The Crusades were legal. The Inquisition was legal. Stalin's purges were legal. The extermination of native peoples in the Americas was legal. Everyone who perpetrated those things thought they were justified. But all of those things were wrong.

Something that's wrong is always wrong, whether it's legal or not. Ask anyone who has studied history - the wrongs of today will be clucked over, and anyone who accepts those wrongs will be laughed at, pitied, or outright hated, by the people of tomorrow."

^^^^^Standing applause loud and long! Standing, oh standing applause!!!^^^^^

Fail, right to travel does not equate right to fly.Nor does it specifically equate to:
right to walk
right to ride a horse
right to ride a bicycle
right to ride a train/bus
right to board a boat
right to go by road (OK, you need a license to do that).

It encompasses all of the above. Repeat: all of the above.
There are conditions and behaviors attached to some, if not all, of them and for air travel that includes being subjected to a security check. If a passenger complies with the security (and airlines' conditions) he/she has the uncontestible right to fly.

This whole quasi-argument is a canard. The reasonableness, legality and Constitutionality of the security check is the issue.

There isn't one and I never said that the government can deny your "right to travel", but neither does anybody have a constitutional "right to fly". We're not in disagreement.

In an earlier post I submitted evidence to the Right to Travel, for clarity sake I will post the information once again.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../116/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
Kent v. Dulles

No. 481

Argued April 10, 1958

Decided June 16, 1958

357 U.S. 116

(a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S. 125-127.


Please note the decision does not define a means of travel, that decision is left to the individual. Also, the United States Constitution does not grant rights to citizens, it limits government. You seem to have a difficult time understanding that point.

The only restriction to travel is agreeing to the contract of terms if traveling by commercial means. There is certainly no requirement that government assist a person with a means or cost of travel. The right to travel, by any means, is secured by stepping foot on U.S. soil. To lose that right will take legal action as is the case when a person is incarcerated for a crime.

The Right to Travel, by air, by train, by car, by foot, or by any other means now known or to be known in the future can be found in these words;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You can continue arguing that a right to travel by air or any other means does not exist, but in the United States you are wrong!

Of course they [the members of the U.S. Congress, as the U.S. Congress] do [have enumerated powers to pass a law that restricts our ability to travel within the states by any means]. The "right to travel" isn't any different from the "right to bear arms", the government has the ability to regulate it and place restrictions on it.

Incorrect. This is the point. Those "enumerated powers" and that "ability" are nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution.

We individuals have "the right" to do anything we wish to, so long as we don't infringe upon "the rights" of others. We have empowered the U.S. Government to enforce those "rights" to a certain, limited degree. The U.S. Government does not have "the power" to regulate or place restrictions on our travelling beyond those powers, and certainly not to infringe upon the enumerated rights itemized in the U.S. Constitution.

Do all of you realize how much authority the Feds exercised over air travel prior to deregulation? Routes, schedules, fares, etc. Sorry but the Government can place just about whatever restrictions they want on air travel and right now, unfortunately, the TSA is one of them. You could take away the TSA and Congress could impose a tax of $100/ticket for example. Because traveling by air is seen as a choice and is not the only option available for most of us, the ability to restrict access to it is not as limited.

You can continue arguing that a right to travel by air or any other means does not exist, but in the United States you are wrong!

Right to travel, yes, the privilege of traveling by any specific method is subject to rules and regulations that the Government clears has the power to enact and enforce.

Incorrect. This is the point. Those "enumerated powers" and that "ability" are nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution.

We individuals have "the right" to do anything we wish to, so long as we don't infringe upon "the rights" of others. We have empowered the U.S. Government to enforce those "rights" to a certain, limited degree. The U.S. Government does not have "the power" to regulate or place restrictions on our travelling beyond those powers, and certainly not to infringe upon the enumerated rights itemized in the U.S. Constitution.

Wrong. The litmus test is not simply that whatever we wish to do does not infringe on the rights of others. For example, as a municipal employee I am prohibited from displaying a candidate's campaign sign in my yard. First Amendment violation anyone?

Wrong. The litmus test is not simply that whatever we wish to do does not infringe on the rights of others. For example, as a municipal employee I am prohibited from displaying a candidate's campaign sign in my yard. First Amendment violation anyone?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do see it that way, although the SCOTUS case you cited above contradicts my opinion.

Of course, that case wasn't unanimous, and there were dissenting opinions written by two justices warning that such restrictions on government employees constituted a gross violation of their 1st Amendment rights.

But, in a roundabout way, your argument actually proves itself wrong - the reason why that case was upheld was that the free expression of political speech by government employees was seen as a form of government self-promotion, possibly even coercion, which could be the beginning of a long, dark road of government telling the people how they should vote under the guise of "free speech". Which was, of course, considered a case where the free exercise of the government employees' rights was thought to infringe upon the free exercise of everyone else's rights, and is thus limited.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do see it that way, although the SCOTUS case you cited above contradicts my opinion.

Of course, that case wasn't unanimous, and there were dissenting opinions written by two justices warning that such restrictions on government employees constituted a gross violation of their 1st Amendment rights.

But, in a roundabout way, your argument actually proves itself wrong - the reason why that case was upheld was that the free expression of political speech by government employees was seen as a form of government self-promotion, possibly even coercion, which could be the beginning of a long, dark road of government telling the people how they should vote under the guise of "free speech". Which was, of course, considered a case where the free exercise of the government employees' rights was thought to infringe upon the free exercise of everyone else's rights, and is thus limited.

In a way I agree with you, however, the law doesn't make any exception if I never tell my neighbors who I work for or if I flat out lie to them and tell them I work for Target, Wal-Mart, QT, or anybody else for that matter. During the era of political patronage and employment being hand in hand, I could see a need for a control on a government employee's right to post signs or what have you on their own property but the times have changed. I don't think that there is a coercive aspect associated with my right to post a candidate's sign in my yard.

During the era of political patronage and employment being hand in hand, I could see a need for a control on a government employee's right to post signs or what have you on their own property but the times have changed.

Times have changed because of the controls in place, get rid of the controls and you're back at square 1.

At the end of the day the government can do whatever the heck it wants to do in the name of National security, they're free and clear thanks to the laws they've put on the books.The laws might be immoral, go against our constitution, and might eventually be challenged, but they're currently legal.

Do I think pat downs are ridiculous? Yes, and I feel they should be a last resort option.

Do I think people should be exempt from them if that's the current security protocol? No, because if you make exceptions the terrorists will use them to bypass security.

The key for effective security protocols is to switch it up so that the TSA agents don't get complacent doing the same thing over and over again.

The key for effective security protocols is to switch it up so that the TSA agents don't get complacent doing the same thing over and over again.

Well, that and having TSA employ people who're capable of understanding the whys and wherefores of the policies and procedures they agree to administer in the course of their employment, and who're smart enough to decline to perform procedures that serve no meaningful purpose or are overly intrusive.

For example, terminating employees who engage in deliberately punitive actions during an opt-out grope-down would be a really good start.

right to go by road (OK, you need a license to do that).
No, you need a license to be the driver of a vehicle on a road, not to be in the vehicle, which is exactly the same situation as an airplane.

That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.

No, you need a license to be the driver of a vehicle on a road, not to be in the vehicle, which is exactly the same situation as an airplane.

That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.Yeah I should have worded it better.

Some courts (supra) have all but confirmed the existence of that specific right without actually saying so. Typical gutless state of today's judiciary (in general) and I believe these cases will be strung out so as to avoid having to make a decision, one that should be self-evident. Under a different, calmer climate it would be a no-brainer.

No, you need a license to be the driver of a vehicle on a road, not to be in the vehicle, which is exactly the same situation as an airplane.

That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.

This should be a sticky.

That no court has definitively ruled on the existence of the right to fly also means no court has ruled there is no such right.

All we have are our own opinions. Asserting them as fact is spurious.

No, you need a license to be the driver of a vehicle on a road, not to be in the vehicle, which is exactly the same situation as an airplane.

That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.

Courts also have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of walking down the street to a right of walking down the street with one's arms raised high.

If an airline wishes to sell me a ticket on one of its flights, and I wish to buy and use it, the U.S. Government can interfere with us only insofar as the U.S. Constitution permits it to. Defined powers, and specific (among other, unspecified) rights.

Simply ask: "Where is that written down?"

Courts also have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of walking down the street to a right of walking down the street with one's arms raised high.

If an airline wishes to sell me a ticket on one of its flights, and I wish to buy and use it, the U.S. Government can interfere with us only insofar as the U.S. Constitution permits it to. Defined powers, and specific (among other, unspecified) rights.

Simply ask: "Where is that written down?"

And a car dealership will happily sell you a car. That transaction alone, however, does not mean that you can just drive it around without further registering it or paying license fees, etc. Just because a business is willing or able to complete a transaction with you does not mean that you have further rights.

Of course they do. The "right to travel" isn't any different from the "right to bear arms", the government has the ability to regulate it and place restrictions on it.

And what do you do for the poor Hawaiian islanders, Guamanians, or Puerto Ricans? If they have a "right to fly" as residents/citizens of US states and territories shouldn't we as taxpayers be subsidizing that or providing equal access just as we do to disabled passengers? Honestly I think that some clever Hawaiian could make a claim that the US is violating equal protection clauses. Thanks to the interstate highway system, us mainlanders can hop in a car or a bus and be across the country in a few days, Hawaiians can't do that. Neither can they take subsidized Amtrak to travel interstate.

I never said they could not pass a law and institute a means of enforcement. I said it was not within their enumerated powers to do so.

As for firearm ownership, and ignoring the confusion of the incorporation clause for now, the states are within their rights to regulate firearms. In general, most states, some with more severity than others, have adopted doctrines that say if one is dangerous to society as defined by law and shown by evidence in some sort of judicial or legal review, the that right to firearms possession and ownership can be regulated. The parallel here is that if I have a proven record of being danger to others by flying, then the government can restrict my right to travel.

We used to have a system where everyone was deemed fit to travel by air and the airlines or the government had to find cause to prevent that travel. We now have a system where no one has the inherent right to travel by air until we can prove that we are not a danger to the aircraft or those traveling. It appears to be a subtle difference, but there is a wide gulf between the two.

Furthermore, it is quite ridiculous to propose that because we have a right to something, that someone else is required to pay for us to make use of that right.

Right to travel, yes, the privilege of traveling by any specific method is subject to rules and regulations that the Government clears has the power to enact and enforce.

This appears to be the heart of your argument, and it's not only wrong, it's one of the most dangerous attitudes anyone can have in a free society.

Apply that logic to other rights. Let's say, freedom of speech.

Suppose the government said, "Sure, you have the right to freedom of speech, but the privilege of speaking by any specific method is is subject to rules and regulations that the Government clears has the power to enact and enforce."

So, you could say whatever you want, but you need government approval to say it. Speaking Security Authority Officers would have to clear anything you say in a public forum; they'd have to check and approve anything you write on the internet; they'd have to filter anything you publish in a newspaper or magazine; and they'd have the power to examine any written documents you possess to search for "regulated" speech whenever you attempt to exercise your freedom of speech.

Oh, but they're not denying your freedom of speech, because you can still say whatever you want in the privacy of your own home.

--------------------------------------

Suppose the government said, "Sure, you have the right to freedom of assembly, but the privilege of assembling by any specific method is is subject to rules and regulations that the Government clears has the power to enact and enforce."

So, you could assemble whenever you want, but you need government approval to do it. Any time you gather in groups greater than XX amount (such as to go bowling, family reunions, weddings, funerals, going to work, watching fireworks, attending your kids' sporting events, going to work, or your kids going to school), Assembly Security Administration Officers would have the authority to show up and conduct invasive searches of anyone in attendance. Imagine if ASAO's showed up at your kids' school to pat them down before they enter; or if they showed up at funerals to pat everyone down; or if they showed up at your workplace and you had to queue up to empty your pockets and go through an AIT scanner or be patted down to get into your office.

Oh, but they're not denying your freedom of assembly, because you can still assemble whenever and wherever you want, they're just putting reasonable restrictions on it to keep us all "safe".

--------------------------------------

Putting extensive restrictions on a freedom and creating an undue burden on the exercise of that freedom is called "infringing". And it's prohibited in the Bill of Rights.

No, you need a license to be the driver of a vehicle on a road, not to be in the vehicle, which is exactly the same situation as an airplane.

That being said, my understanding of the current state of the law is that courts have not as yet been willing to generalize the right of travel to a right of travel by air. There are some cases out there that are trying to do that by arguing that that's the only practical way for some people to travel. But those cases are years from being decided.

Does a court have to rule on this or any other question to codify a right?

This appears to be the heart of your argument, and it's not only wrong, it's one of the most dangerous attitudes anyone can have in a free society.

Apply that logic to other rights. Let's say, freedom of speech.

Suppose the government said, "Sure, you have the right to freedom of speech, but the privilege of speaking by any specific method is is subject to rules and regulations that the Government clears has the power to enact and enforce."

So, you could say whatever you want, but you need government approval to say it. Speaking Security Authority Officers would have to clear anything you say in a public forum; they'd have to check and approve anything you write on the internet; they'd have to filter anything you publish in a newspaper or magazine; and they'd have the power to examine any written documents you possess to search for "regulated" speech whenever you attempt to exercise your freedom of speech.

Oh, but they're not denying your freedom of speech, because you can still say whatever you want in the privacy of your own home.

--------------------------------------

Suppose the government said, "Sure, you have the right to freedom of assembly, but the privilege of assembling by any specific method is is subject to rules and regulations that the Government clears has the power to enact and enforce."

So, you could assemble whenever you want, but you need government approval to do it. Any time you gather in groups greater than XX amount (such as to go bowling, family reunions, weddings, funerals, going to work, watching fireworks, attending your kids' sporting events, going to work, or your kids going to school), Assembly Security Administration Officers would have the authority to show up and conduct invasive searches of anyone in attendance. Imagine if ASAO's showed up at your kids' school to pat them down before they enter; or if they showed up at funerals to pat everyone down; or if they showed up at your workplace and you had to queue up to empty your pockets and go through an AIT scanner or be patted down to get into your office.

Oh, but they're not denying your freedom of assembly, because you can still assemble whenever and wherever you want, they're just putting reasonable restrictions on it to keep us all "safe".

--------------------------------------

Putting extensive restrictions on a freedom and creating an undue burden on the exercise of that freedom is called "infringing". And it's prohibited in the Bill of Rights.

Um, that's the society that we live in. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, you can't publish slanderous or libelous statements, you can't plagiarize another's work, and you can't hold a parade down Main St. without a permit. What's the issue here? The Government has the unquestionable authority to place restrictions and limits on certain rights.

In your opinion, the TSA is an unreasonable limitation on your privilege to travel by air. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it's a completely mistaken belief that the Government can't and doesn't have the ability to place restrictions on liberties.

I never said they could not pass a law and institute a means of enforcement. I said it was not within their enumerated powers to do so.



Respectfully, it doesn't really matter if it's not within their enumerated powers to do so. The courts have said that they can and that's really all that matters.

Respectfully, it doesn't really matter if it's not within their enumerated powers to do so. The courts have said that they can and that's really all that matters.

In one statement you have managed to underscore the problem perfectly. Thank you for the clarity.

You believe that the enumerated powers no longer matter because the rule of men have circumvented them. I believe that the enumerated powers are all that matters, and the opinions of men, the rule of men not of law, is the problem and that ignoring enumerated powers is the problem and not just in this area but in many others.

Sadly, our disagreement irreconcilable as it is a political argument rather than one of travel security. It is an OMNI-type discussion, and no additional comment will be forthcoming.

You have defined your position well enough. I now know where you stand.

Respectfully, it doesn't really matter if it's not within their [Congress's] enumerated powers to do so [pass a law and institute a means of enforcement]. The courts have said that they can and that's really all that matters.

The courts have ruled only that such acts are within their enumerated powers. It is still up to us, indeed it is our duty as citizens, to decide whether the courts erred, in any given instance.

It has happened in the past, and some current court rulings will also undoubtedly be shown to have been in error, some day.

Even so, even the imperfect courts have apparently not ruled that individuals do not have a "right to travel by aircraft."

Courts are bound by the U.S. Constitution. We need not wait for the courts to rule before we know what the Constitution provides. Which clause in the Constitution gives the Congress the power you suggest it has?

Please cite a court case that stated somebody has the "right to fly". What is constantly cited, 49 CFR part 27, is the right to equal access of air facilities for disabled people, it's not a right to fly. And the other section for a person to move through navigable airspace is not an inherent right to fly either.



And the 9th Amendment was pretty much challenged successfully in US Public Workers vs Mitchell and Oklahoma vs Civil Service Commission no? The Federal government has the ability to restrain rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Basically flying is a privilege, not a right.



And yet it occurs in airports everyday around the country in full view of Federal Courts that could put a stop to it with injunctions. I dislike the TSA as much as most people but around here but some of the folks on here are not doing any favors in getting it shut down with the usual hyperbole, misguided opinions, and relying on silly pithy statements from the UN.

Two questions:

1. What do you think congress meant when it codified into law the right to freely move through the navigable airspace, if it did not mean the right to fly? Possibly they meant the right for a person to float tethered to a balloon. :confused:

2. What is the difference, in legal terms, between a "privilege" and a "right"? When asked for this difference, most people respond by capitalizing the two words and re-iterating the statement...but here I'm looking for a workable legal definition. I've already cited what SCOTUS had to say on the matter in the context of procedural due process: that there is no meaningful distinction (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/19090803-post125.html). How do you distinguish between the two words, and what is your source?

In one statement you have managed to underscore the problem perfectly. Thank you for the clarity.

You believe that the enumerated powers no longer matter because the rule of men have circumvented them. I believe that the enumerated powers are all that matters, and the opinions of men, the rule of men not of law, is the problem and that ignoring enumerated powers is the problem and not just in this area but in many others.

Sadly, our disagreement irreconcilable as it is a political argument rather than one of travel security. It is an OMNI-type discussion, and no additional comment will be forthcoming.

You have defined your position well enough. I now know where you stand.

The courts have ruled only that such acts are within their enumerated powers. It is still up to us, indeed it is our duty as citizens, to decide whether the courts erred, in any given instance.

It has happened in the past, and some current court rulings will also undoubtedly be shown to have been in error, some day.

Even so, even the imperfect courts have apparently not ruled that individuals do not have a "right to travel by aircraft."

Courts are bound by the U.S. Constitution. We need not wait for the courts to rule before we know what the Constitution provides. Which clause in the Constitution gives the Congress the power you suggest it has?

Commerce Clause, article 1, section 8, clause 3.

Two questions:

1. What do you think congress meant when it codified into law the right to freely move through the navigable airspace, if it did not mean the right to fly? Possibly they meant the right for a person to float tethered to a balloon. :confused:?

That airspace was not any different than the public roads and land based routes. That as long as you had standing to be in navigable airspace you could use it. You can fly anywhere you want any route you want as long as it's navigable and not closed.

2. What is the difference, in legal terms, between a "privilege" and a "right"? When asked for this difference, most people respond by capitalizing the two words and re-iterating the statement...but here I'm looking for a workable legal definition. I've already cited what SCOTUS had to say on the matter in the context of procedural due process: that there is no meaningful distinction (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/19090803-post125.html). How do you distinguish between the two words, and what is your source?

This has been asked and answered numerous times with several examples. You have a right to travel via the interstate highway system, it is, however, a privilege to have a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle. You have the right to vote, early voting or absentee voting is a privilege in some jurisdictions. A woman has the right to an abortion, it is a privilege that a facility may be nearby that can perform one. You have the right to "bear arms" it's a privilege to be able to carry concealed, open, or whatever. It's a privilege to own magazines above a certain capacity. I'm not sure why this is a difficult distinction.

That no court has definitively ruled on the existence of the right to fly also means no court has ruled there is no such right.
False. The current state of the law is indeed that a court has ruled there is no such right.

If an airline wishes to sell me a ticket on one of its flights, and I wish to buy and use it, the U.S. Government can interfere with us only insofar as the U.S. Constitution permits it to. Defined powers, and specific (among other, unspecified) rights.
That argument can't succeed. The Commerce Clause specifically allows the government to regulate interstate commerce. That's been abused a lot recently, but there's no question that air travel is interstate commerce.

Suppose the government said, "Sure, you have the right to freedom of assembly, but the privilege of assembling by any specific method is is subject to rules and regulations that the Government clears has the power to enact and enforce."
But that essentially is the law! You need a permit to have an assembly in almost all jurisdictions.

Does a court have to rule on this or any other question to codify a right?
Yes, because the way rights get codified is the courts. It's the sole perview of the courts to interpret and define the boundaries of "rights". Congress can pass laws, but it's up to the courts to determine whether or not they infringe on rights.

False. The current state of the law is indeed that a court has ruled there is no such right.

As VIPR's mission creeps (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/18/tsa-mission-creep-us-police-state) to trains, subways and music festivals (http://www.infowars.com/tsa-vipr-teams-and-cbp-agents-spotted-patrolling-music-festival/), perhaps the topic can be expanded to discussing the extent to which citizens may live their lives without encountering check points, searches, and demands for i.d."

"If you don't like it," er, what alternatives will remain?

What is the difference, in legal terms, between a "privilege" and a "right"? When asked for this difference, most people respond by capitalizing the two words and re-iterating the statement...but here I'm looking for a workable legal definition. I've already cited what SCOTUS had to say on the matter in the context of procedural due process: that there is no meaningful distinction (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/19090803-post125.html). How do you distinguish between the two words, and what is your source?
Yes, but that's just in the context of due process! The fundamental difference between a privilege and a right is that if something is a privilege, the government can prevent you from doing that thing by due process (but only by due process); if it's a right then it can't prevent you from doing it even by due process.

But that essentially is the law! You need a permit to have an assembly in almost all jurisdictions.

I've never heard of a permit requirement for holding a wedding, funeral, birthday party, family reunion, religious service, or Thanksgiving dinner.

You need a permit to have a gathering or event on public property. You need a permit to have a gathering or event for commercial purposes. But private gatherings, on private property? Not that I've ever heard of.

When has the government ever told anyone that they need a permit, and required any sort of government oversight, for a backyard BBQ?

I've never heard of a permit requirement for holding a wedding, funeral, birthday party, family reunion, religious service, or Thanksgiving dinner...

I'm on your side but have to point out zoning laws (http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2012/07/11/phoenix-preacher-jailed-in-zoning-dispute/).

When has the government ever told anyone that they need a permit, and required any sort of government oversight, for a backyard BBQ?
Well, you don't need permit for that, but if you're in PA, you'd better be sure you haven't forgotten the flag. (PA Penal Code Section 2101).

More seriously, normally the freedom of assembly is meant to imply the freedom to protest and you normally do need a permit for that.

I've never heard of a permit requirement for holding a wedding, funeral, birthday party, family reunion, religious service, or Thanksgiving dinner.

You need a permit to have a gathering or event on public property. You need a permit to have a gathering or event for commercial purposes. But private gatherings, on private property? Not that I've ever heard of.

When has the government ever told anyone that they need a permit, and required any sort of government oversight, for a backyard BBQ?

We are well down the slope.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/christian-fined-sentenced-to-60-days-in-jail-over-az-home-bible-studies/

Christian Fined & Sentenced to 60 Days in Jail Over AZ Home Bible Studies

Michael Salman, who lives in Phoenix, Ariz., has been sentenced to a startling 60 days in jail, given a $12,180 fine and granted three years probation for refusing to stop hosting Bible studies at his home.

Commerce Clause, article 1, section 8, clause 3.

Might as well quote it:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The constitution refers to three separate and distinct groups: The People, the States and the United States. If you do not understand the difference, and what each is, then you are not ready to discuss this. (Refer to the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendments for an example of the use of "The People." The 10th in particular shows the clear distinction between the three and that the three are considered separate entities.)

So, yes, Congress has within its enumerated powers the ability to "regulate Commerce ....among the several States...."

Do you know what this means and why it is in the constitution? Did you notice that the regulation of "The People" is specifically omitted from the commerce clause? If you are going to use the commerce clause to justify regulation of travel, find for me the part of the clause that specifically refers to the fact that the clause is intended to enumerate a power to regulate the people. It is an enumerated power to regulate the commerce among the states. And that that does not mean the commerce of the people in the states. It means among the states.

I am done.

Might as well quote it:



The constitution refers to three separate and distinct groups: The People, the States and the United States. If you do not understand the difference, and what each is, then you are not ready to discuss this. (Refer to the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendments for an example of the use of "The People." The 10th in particular shows the clear distinction between the three and that the three are considered separate entities.)

So, yes, Congress has within its enumerated powers the ability to "regulate Commerce ....among the several States...."

Do you know what this means and why it is in the constitution? Did you notice that the regulation of "The People" is specifically omitted from the commerce clause? If you are going to use the commerce clause to justify regulation of travel, find for me the part of the clause that specifically refers to the fact that the clause is intended to enumerate a power to regulate the people. It is an enumerated power to regulate the commerce among the states. And that that does not mean the commerce of the people in the states. It means among the states.

I am done.

What?

You asked under what authority Congress has to regulate travel, the answer is the Commerce Clause. Unfortunately, regulating any industry often involves regulating the people within that industry, what's confusing about that? Please tell me how you regulate interstate commerce without regulating people?

The Commerce Clause (through judicial rulings) has been used by Congress to stick their fingers in almost everything. I understand that you don't agree with that, but the courts don't hold your opinion.

What?

You asked under what authority Congress has to regulate travel, the answer is the Commerce Clause. Unfortunately, regulating any industry often involves regulating the people within that industry, what's confusing about that? Please tell me how you regulate interstate commerce without regulating people?

The Commerce Clause (through judicial rulings) has been used by Congress to stick their fingers in almost everything. I understand that you don't agree with that, but the courts don't hold your opinion.

One more try.

The commerce clause does not give the Congress an enumerated power to regulate the travel of the people. They have used that as an excuse to do so, but congress does not grant itself enumerated powers. Those powers were granted by the states and limited to 18 specific and limited enumerated powers.

The commerce clause only regulates the commerce between the states. Not the people. Not the people in the states. Not industry in the states. BETWEEN THE STATES. And you regulate commerce between the states by establishing that states are not permitted to set rules of interstate commerce and the states released that specific enumerated power to congress. The commerce clause allows regulation of how states may trade with each other. For example, Tennessee can not unilaterally charge a tariff for goods crossing over from Kentucky. That power is enumerated to Congress.

The people are not the states and the states are not its people. They are recognized as different entities with different rights and different powers as stated and enumerated in the Constitution.

If you do not understand the difference in The People and The States, and are unwilling to see that there is a difference, there is no hope in discussing this further.

And, a court ruling does not make a law constitutional. It only makes it legal. It becomes the rule of men, not the rule of law. My position is to stand for the Constitution as that is what makes us a nation with the rule of law.

Just because they have made it that way, and that it has been that way for a while, does not make it right or constitutional.

[Ignore is my friend.]

We are well down the slope.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/christian-fined-sentenced-to-60-days-in-jail-over-az-home-bible-studies/

Try to read the facts before you believe hype pushed by people who want that to be the story:
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/07/michael_salman_committing_crim.php

The commerce clause only regulates the commerce between the states. Not the people. Not the people in the states. Not industry in the states. BETWEEN THE STATES.
While that is certainly a valid interpretation and indeed may well have been what was intended by that clause, no modern court has interpreted it in that way. The ACA decision contains a very long discussion of the current theory of the Commerce Clause.

While that is certainly a valid interpretation and indeed may well have been what was intended by that clause, no modern court has interpreted it in that way. The ACA decision contains a very long discussion of the current theory of the Commerce Clause.

Thank you.

That is what I have been trying to say and feel like I have be talking to a brick wall. What we have, and what we must live with, are interpretations of the constitution that have become far removed from the original intentions of what was written. We no longer live under the rule of law. We live under the rule of men that say whatever they want the law to be and then feign adherence to a constitution that they do whatever they can to ignore.

As we can never know how the next judge will rule, we can never know what the law will be, only what it happens to be today. Even that can be based on contradictory opinions.

Yes, but that's just in the context of due process! The fundamental difference between a privilege and a right is that if something is a privilege, the government can prevent you from doing that thing by due process (but only by due process); if it's a right then it can't prevent you from doing it even by due process.




By this definition breathing is a privilege.

While that is certainly a valid interpretation and indeed may well have been what was intended by that clause, no modern court has interpreted it in that way. The ACA decision contains a very long discussion of the current theory of the Commerce Clause.


There is this fundamental disconnect between people who see the Constitution from perspective of recent/current court rulings, and those of us who look at what the actual words of the Constitution say. (Eg, the disagreement between InkUnderNails and SWCPHX.) Many rulings/interpretations since FDR's time support the growing dominance of the federal system over states and individuals. For example, the word "regulate" before the 1930's was understood to mean "make regular" ie, encourage the free flow of commerce between states. Since the 1930's, "regulate" has increasingly been understood to mean "dominate".

There is no need to see the Constitution as merely a legal document, under which we relinquish all interpretation to the legal priesthood. In fact, when that priesthood has arrived at a point where the plain and clear text of the Constitution is denied (as in the case of TSA testicle and breast carresses without cause wrt the 4th Amendment), it is fatal for the people to continue abdicating their judgement. The Constitution is a political document that the people should be using to measure the entire federal system, including the courts. The federal court system simply has to be regarded as simply one more political party with an interest in outcomes, and not as an impartial arbiter.

There is a growing disconnect between what SCOTUS says the Constitution means in certain key particulars, and what citizens think it says and their expectations.

There is this fundamental disconnect between people who see the Constitution from perspective of recent/current court rulings, and those of us who look at what the actual words of the Constitution say.
Unfortunately, the Constitution was written at a time when life is very different than it is now and the sorts of decisions that have to be made now about what's permitted and not permitted are things that couldn't even have been envisioned back in those days. That was a time when communication was an extremely slow phenomenon, when it could take weeks or months to communicate a message across the country and many of the provisions and understandings in were based on those sorts of considerations. Now that same message takes small fractions of a second.

"Freedom of the Press" means one thing when you're talking about the only form of media being printing presses and quite something else when anybody can put what they want on the Internet at any time. Assault rifles and machine guns didn't exist when the "right to bear arms" was codified.

I don't think you can try to appeal to the literal words of the Constitution unless you're asking a question that would have been applicable in the era when they were written. And almost none of the questions we currently ask are in that category.

Unfortunately, the Constitution was written at a time when life is very different than it is now and the sorts of decisions that have to be made now about what's permitted and not permitted are things that couldn't even have been envisioned back in those days. That was a time when communication was an extremely slow phenomenon, when it could take weeks or months to communicate a message across the country and many of the provisions and understandings in were based on those sorts of considerations. Now that same message takes small fractions of a second.

"Freedom of the Press" means one thing when you're talking about the only form of media being printing presses and quite something else when anybody can put what they want on the Internet at any time. Assault rifles and machine guns didn't exist when the "right to bear arms" was codified.

I don't think you can try to appeal to the literal words of the Constitution unless you're asking a question that would have been applicable in the era when they were written. And almost none of the questions we currently ask are in that category.

I can't agree that the principles and intent of the Constitution, and their expression, are so time bound they aren't comprehensible or valid for our times.

The "press" was analogously fluid as the internet is now--it wasn't a domain controlled by a few outlets, but something than anyone could set up, and did set up, at a moments notice anywhere, anytime. And the scurrilous nature of what got printed was every bit as bad or worse than what's on the internet. Cf. the editor who was jailed under the Sedition Act for expressing the wish that the next 21-gun salute for President Adams would be pointed at his *ss. The medium used or speed are irrelevant to the essential thing occurring in the free dissemination of opinion.

It is also noteworthy that the term "Arms" was used in the 2nd Amendment, not "firearms". The intent being that ownership of commonly used arms, be they swords, knives, rifles, or ray guns, are a fundamental right of citizens. The restriction imposed by the machine gun act in 1934 was upheld partly based on the rationale that riflemen in a military squad did not have machine guns, therefore such devices were not arms commonly used. The same rationale applied to AOW (all other weapons) such as artillery, etc.

Finally, wrt 4th Amendment searches and TSA invasive searches for no cause, I'm even less sure about what has changed since the writing of the Constitution. Crotches, female breasts, buttocks seem to be the same, the expectation and desire to be secure from unwanted touch and viewing of those areas certainly are pretty much the same. So is the hand and eye of the government agent accessing those private areas. This is a profound break with both the explicit words of the 4th Amendment and the expectations of the people.

If things have changed to the point of requiring changes to the Constitution, it should be amended. If there is political support for the changes, they will be made. If there is not political support, the changes should not be made in the first place. This process has been supplanted by a government by force where three people, Obama, Napolitano, and Pistole can decree strip searches for the American people, and the groping of their private parts.

I can't agree that the principles and intent of the Constitution, and their expression, are so time bound they aren't comprehensible or valid for our times.
You missed the entire point of what I wrote. I didn't say they weren't "valid" for our time, just that many have no literal meaning in our time, so they have to be interpreted. And when you're in the of business interpreting them, there's room for people to disagree on the interpretation. You're basically trying to ask "if this technology existed at the time it was written, what would the folks who wrote it have decided?". There's no way to definitively answer that question. Would the "right to bear arms" have included automatic weapons? Maybe yes, but maybe no: there's just no way to know.

I'll give another example. As was discussed in another thread, when the Bill of Rights was written, the word "warrant" was well-understood. Unfortunately, it referred to a legal instrument that's different from the modern usage of "warrant" and which isn't issued anymore. So if you must interpret the 4th Amendment literally, it's only giving conditions under which the government can issue a document that it no longer issues. In other words, that part of the 4th Amendment has no literal meaning. Indeed we can give it a meaning by interpreting the word "warrant" there to be the modern "search warrant" because it isn't that different, but that's an interpretation, not taking it literally. Perhaps (and most likely) the people who wrote it would have intended it to also apply to the modern meaning of the term, but perhaps not. We can't know for sure.

Unfortunately, the Constitution was written at a time when life is very different than it is now and the sorts of decisions that have to be made now about what's permitted and not permitted are things that couldn't even have been envisioned back in those days. That was a time when communication was an extremely slow phenomenon, when it could take weeks or months to communicate a message across the country and many of the provisions and understandings in were based on those sorts of considerations. Now that same message takes small fractions of a second.

"Freedom of the Press" means one thing when you're talking about the only form of media being printing presses and quite something else when anybody can put what they want on the Internet at any time. Assault rifles and machine guns didn't exist when the "right to bear arms" was codified.

I don't think you can try to appeal to the literal words of the Constitution unless you're asking a question that would have been applicable in the era when they were written. And almost none of the questions we currently ask are in that category.

I find the "it's different today than it was back then" reasoning to be nothing more than a bogus trick.

If the Constitution needs to be updated to "keep up with the times", it provides established procedures for doing just that. Nowhere does it say that it can be ignored by the courts simply because "things are different today".

Unfortunately, for a while, the courts (especially the Supreme Court) were such a champion for people's rights, that people have forgotten that they do not have the legal power to plainly go against the Constitution, and instead assume that they are allowed to rewrite it.

If the Constitution needs to be updated to "keep up with the times", it provides established procedures for doing just that. Nowhere does it say that it can be ignored by the courts simply because "things are different today".
Of course! Nor am I proposing that it being "ignored". I was arguing that it's not a document that can be taken literally because the kinds of things (the Internet, automatic weapons, etc) we try to apply it to didn't exist back then. So we have to apply a process where we ask what the words that are there would mean in a context that didn't exist when they were written. That means they can't be taken literally, but instead have to be interpreted.

Of course! Nor am I proposing that it being "ignored". I was arguing that it's not a document that can be taken literally because the kinds of things (the Internet, automatic weapons, etc) we try to apply it to didn't exist back then. So we have to apply a process where we ask what the words that are there would mean in a context that didn't exist when they were written. That means they can't be taken literally, but instead have to be interpreted.

I agree. However, the proper process for doing that is by amendment in modern language and terminology. No interpretation necessary.

Let's try one. IANAL, so my effort will be crude, but here goes.

The United States shall have the power to regulate commercial air travel and provide necessary protections to provide for the safety and security of travel wholly within the United States and for international travel originating or terminating within the United States without consideration of the protections of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Now, just get the necessary majorities to pass it, and I will quit my complaining.

You missed the entire point of what I wrote. I didn't say they weren't "valid" for our time, just that many have no literal meaning in our time, so they have to be interpreted.

What you seem to be saying is that the history (original intent) of the Constitutional text in question has to be brought out in order to properly understand it and apply it. I could live with that, provided that any such "interpretation" in our own times does not result in any substantial diminution of the right/liberty as experienced and claimed by the original signers. That is, subsequent federal courts including SCOTUS do not have any authority to lessen the rights and freedoms agreed to by the states in forming the federal union.

...when the Bill of Rights was written, the word "warrant" was well-understood. Unfortunately, it referred to a legal instrument that's different from the modern usage
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. It is beyond dispute that one of the primary concerns of the framers was to do away with general warrants (you know, the "writ of assistance" thing attempted by the British). They wanted particularized warrants etc, etc. Some historians claim that because officers at this time could only arrest with warrants, the framers thought this a sufficient protection against illegal searches and seizures. As police powers expanded as the 1800's rolled on, so did further SCOTUS rulings in this area to limit police activity in an attempt to preserve the original liberty and guarantees expressed in the 4th Amendment.


It is impossible to make the case that the original framers would have been content with wholesale strip searches of the people, and complete body searches including intimate areas for NO cause at airports. We need not wring our hands because the framers did not have airports or naked scanners, or double digit IQ TSA clerks goosing former heads of state.

If anything, the abhorrence of such governmental intrusions was precisely why the revolutionary war was fought in the first place. And yes, I think we can indeed know that. You cannot do something so highly illegal and offensive to persons no matter how convenient it might be. Such a trespass cannot be recovered from.

What you seem to be saying is that the history (original intent) of the Constitutional text in question has to be brought out in order to properly understand it and apply it. I could live with that, provided that any such "interpretation" in our own times does not result in any substantial diminution of the right/liberty as experienced and claimed by the original signers.
But that's the problem. Let's say that laws were passed that forbid citizens from owning automatic weapons, from posting comments critical of the government on government web sites, and requiring citizens who choose to fly to submit to strip searches and lets say the courts upheld each of those. None of those would have resulted in the diminution of the rights/libertuies of the original signers because they couldn't do those things in any case. So we have to go back and ask "well, what if they could? Would they consider those restrictions to be diminutions of their rights to do those things?".

But that's the problem. Let's say that laws were passed that forbid citizens from owning automatic weapons, from posting comments critical of the government on government web sites, and requiring citizens who choose to fly to submit to strip searches and lets say the courts upheld each of those. None of those would have resulted in the diminution of the rights/libertuies of the original signers because they couldn't do those things in any case. So we have to go back and ask "well, what if they could? Would they consider those restrictions to be diminutions of their rights to do those things?".

Seems you are saying that we should be asking how does what we are doing today comport to the Constitution but I think the question should be how does the Constitution comport to what we are doing today.

The language in the Constitution is pretty straight forward. It has been the courts that have twisted the documents meaning. Example, a 4th amendment carve out for administrative searches. There is not one word in the 4th that supports that concept.

But that's the problem. Let's say that laws were passed that forbid citizens from owning automatic weapons, from posting comments critical of the government on government web sites, and requiring citizens who choose to fly to submit to strip searches and lets say the courts upheld each of those. None of those would have resulted in the diminution of the rights/libertuies of the original signers because they couldn't do those things in any case. So we have to go back and ask "well, what if they could? Would they consider those restrictions to be diminutions of their rights to do those things?".

IMO, you are making this more difficult than it needs to be. By your reasoning, once automated presses came into being, none of the old conceptions of freedom of the press would apply because the technology is different. The Constitution was written broadly enough for such advances in technology. There is a right to bear "Arms" not a right to bear "flintlock smoothbore rifles and pistols". That definition of course could extend to both machine guns and nuclear warheads which are both arms, but which due to the undesirability of folks having those, needed some other rationale, as expressed in US v Miller, as arms in the 2nd amendment sense being what someone would reasonably have if incorporated into a militia. The fact that the modern rifle uses a center fired primer rather than a flintlock, is rifled rather than smoothbore, and capable of multiple fires between reloads is completely irrelevant.

Air travel is simply travel. It is the means by which modern people travel. It is a required means of travel in most cases. The fact that the vehicle used does not require horses, is not restricted to moving on land, and carries more people than a wagon is completely irrelevant.

The essence of the activity in traveling is the same now as it was for the framers. The essence of traveling on public routes, on for-hire carriers, or by private means remains the same now as it was for the framers. The mechanism by which travel is effected is the only change, and it is an irrelevant one. So, yes indeed, we can know what the framers would have felt about being strip searched and sexually groped, both they and their families, before embarking on a journey.

Legalities aside, all one really needs to do to determine if the founders would have been OK with the TSA is to imagine a situation where if they could hire a carriage to go from Washington to Richmond, they had to stop at the Virginia border to have their carriage and all of their belongings searched as well as get a pat down.

I am sure they would have been fine with that.