Originally Posted by
nykjets
Always 2 sides to every story. I'm sure the TSA agent would give different story to what happened. If OP was nice about everything and asked politely about filming and was cordial, I doubt there would have been an issue. But she admitted she was not being nice. I highly doubt the TSA agent "groped" the 16 year old. It sounds like an over protective mother overreacting to a standard pat-down. Mothers are naturally protective of their children, its human nature. So I don't necessary blame OP, but I think this is an overreaction.
Doesn't matter whether the pax was being nice. Professional behavior in a uniformed government employee is expected, no matter what the provokation. In other words, having a difficult job is no excuse for doing your job poorly. TSOs need to grow thicker skins and learn to deal with whatever crap is thrown their way by pax - or get a different job.
Originally Posted by
nykjets
Then go through the body scanner or don'y fly. Flying is a privilege, not a right. And yes, the pat-downs are pretty pervasive and make many people uncomfortable. But you can't really call them "inappropriate". It's just the nature of the pat-down, it is "inappropriate" for everyone.
I call them inappropriate. Completely inappropriate. They are an un-Constitutional search, far more invasive than necessary, in light of current technology, to search for weapons and explosives, and not confined in good faith to that purpose - which puts them outside of the limited definition of the Administrative Search and therefore subject to 4th Amendment restrictions. Which also means they're a violation of the 4th Amendment, since they are done without warrant, probable cause, or articulable suspicion.
They're also routinely used as retaliation against those who fail to properly respect the TSO's authoritah! and are poorly regulated to insure that they adhere to the proper procedure.
Originally Posted by
nykjets
"I will not "ask politely" about doing something that is within my rights." Completely disagree with this statement. As for being discriminatory and stereotyping women, I was simply referring to the protective maternal instinct that is found in just about every species on this planet, including humans. No disrespect meant.
I completely disagree with your disagreement.
There is no need to ASK at all about something that you have a right to do, much less ask politely. You just do it, and if anyone has a problem with it, they're free to express their opinion.
Originally Posted by
nykjets
Ok...deep breaths... calm down.... haha. Now, just curious. How do you consider flying to be right and not a privilege?
How do you consider it a priviledge? What legal, moral, or ethical basis to you have for considering a particular mode of travel any more "priviledged" than any other mode of travel, such as walking, riding a horse, riding a bike, or taking a bus or taxi?
And don't bother bringing up the whole "you need a license to drive a car" issue, because it's a Straw Man - you need a license to OPERATE a motor vehicle, just like you need a license to OPERATE a plane, but you don't need a license to be a passenger in either, because travel, by whatever means you choose, is not a priviledge, it's a right.
Originally Posted by
nykjets
I understand travel is a right. And I understand the right to travel through "navigable airspace". But I am referring to flying a commercial carrier. I don't think that is a protected right. Is it? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Well, for one thing, the CFR says "A
citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." It doesn't mention commercial entities, companies, or anything else - it specifies
citizens. It places no restrictions on the methods a citizen may choose to use for such transit. A citizen may choose to purchase their own plane and either pilot it themselves or hire a pilot, or may contract with a licensed business operator to fly them, or even hitch a ride with a friend.
Originally Posted by
formeraa
I personally find it ironic that some of the most vocal opponents of the TSA were also very vocal about the LACK of security after 9/11. Just a thought...either we have security or we don't.
Bull chips.
1) Name some on FT who fit that description and link to some quotes that back up your assertion.
2) Security is not an all or nothing proposition, and only a few way-out wack-jobs suggest "no security". Those of us with some brains realize that there should be some level of passenger screening for commercial air travel, we simply don't believe that the currently used methodologies are Constitutional or compatible with a free society.
And for the record, "lack" of security had nothing to do with 9/11. It was passenger attitude - full cooperation with hijackers - that led to 9/11, and that went out the window before the morning was even over, when the pax on United 93 fought back and prevented the aircraft from reaching its intended target at the cost of their own lives.