Alex Jones / Infowars Video on Assaultive TSA Patdowns

An obvious and possibly rhetorical question arises: In whose interests - for whose benefit - for what purposes - are the cameras installed?

1. It is for the sole protection of the TSA and is unavailable for public viewing, even by the person being screened.
   
2. It is for protection of the traveling public and as such should be open to the person that has been screened.
   
3. It is of dual use depending on circumstances that is equally accessible by either the TSA to document their actions or to the traveler to document his.

The correct answer will determine the purpose.

TSOs have a long, if anecdotal, history of showing extra interest in attractive women. At dual-device checkpoints I have seen TSOs urging teenage girls and young women into the Nude-o-Scope while middle-aged men like me were allowed to use the conventional mag without complaint. This is de facto profiling, of course, but not in the name of air security.

That's exactly what they want -- to subjugate the public and make us less prone to question forced sexual humiliation. It is up to you and every American to resist. It's line-in-the-sand time.

I agree with this statement. I'll never forget one evening at Ft. Lauderdale Airport, when a group of TSA thugs appeared at my gate to do "gate screening" (which is absurdly unnecessary, but that's another topic). They looked around the gate area and almost immediately "selected" the two most attractive young women there -- who were perhaps late teens and truly beautiful -- and took them aside to be searched and patted down, in front of everybody there. I was appalled -- and posted the story here on Flyertalk. Events like that should outrage any thinking person. It was as clear as day that the selection process had nothing at all to do with "security."

Bruce

This is exactly what I saw here a couple weeks ago & I let them have it at the risk of getting in trouble myself.

Those are old AND the videos were posted AND the TSA was exonerated

6 years ago? Your testimony is doubtful unless you took notes.

I supervise officers daily and what you say is pretty much the case. This interviewee talks about a gross departure from the standard. That is why it should be subject to review.

At the risk of seeming to have completely lost my bearings -- or raising suspicions that my Flyertalk handle has been hijacked -- I also listened to that woman's account with serious skepticism. I don't doubt that male screeners have patted down females; I've seen it myself. But the notion that any woman would allow a total stranger to do to her what that woman described -- or even that a Federally employed screener would do that, knowing the risk that he could be charged with sexual assault and fired -- makes the scenario unlikely at best. I suspect that she was at least exaggerating the circumstances. But none of us was there, so we'll just have to rely on our own judgment as to what likely happened. It was very convenient that one of Alex Jones's employees just happened to have such a hideous experience and was willing to recount it on his radio show. Very convenient indeed.

Bruce

That's pretty silly. People remember extreme events like that. They don't need notes.

Bruce

It varies by state, but the statute of limitations for sexual assault is generally between five and ten years (it can be longer if there is DNA evidence).

Even if the suggestion that a woman's report of a sexual assault is "doubtful" because it is 6 years old was not disgusting of itself (it is), it is false -- in some states it would still be valid testimony under law.

I tend to agree that this seems exaggerated and the association with infowars does not reinforce confidence of the highest standards of journalistic probity (is that enough fancy words to be lawyer-proof

But it is definitely the that case male screeners do physical searches of female passengers and that the TSA does not have a policy absolutely forbidding this.

Moreover, casual sexual harassment of young women -- selecting young women for the strip-search machine, male screeners oggling the girl-on-girl pat-down, (non-)random gate searches -- is a serious ongoing problem.

All this is crap and a lie that TSO cant and will not touch someone form the opposite sex,.

TSORon said on another tread to me that is an small airport and no female TSO aroung ( this is if you are an female) then it is tuff luck that ypou have the choice of being pat-down by a male or walk away.

Is that even fair or legal?
So dont tell me that male TSO will not or cant touch females.
They are.

So where is the video in this latest case?

Oh, still waiting for your evidence that the screening didn't happen as described.

Umm no I disagree for several reasons:
1. My 14 year old daughter was killled in a car crash in 2007 and when the trial came up just 6 months later, even the people in the truck with her could not remember details.

2. The use of a written statement is widely recognised in courts to refresh memory.
3.The prosecution in my daughters vehicular homicide trial had a field day with the defense witnesses over a 6 month time.

The impeachability of the witness is very high.

Nothing about the statute of limitations. I am speaking to the integrity of the witnesses memory after that long.

This is why a incident must be documented very well so that if asked in the future they will remember. "If you didnt write it, it didnt happen" anyone who has been around healthcare and been to court knows this as your best defense is a well written record and or video/audio as the video/audio doesnt lie.

This is why people should either record or film there interactions with TSA, so TSA cant pull there famous stunts when they get caught red handed. just make sure the state your in is only a one party state or you have the appropriate wording on your person.

Exactly..

If traveling with a companion, are we allowed to ask the companion to videotape the pat-down? Perhaps this would at least remind the TSO not to do anything outside of guideline because it's going to be all recorded. BTW, I am reading conflicting info with regards to contacts with private parts. Are TSO allowed to even get close to them? If so, is it back of the hand or palm?

LAX

What is the basis for the assumption that there is a problem with opposite sex patdown? What if the screener openly preferred same sex contact? Would that mean that such screener: a) should only patdown the opposite sex; or, b) should not patdown anyone?

And, if your answer is what I think is correct (the sexual preference of the screener is irrelevant) then why the "same sex" rules?