CX HK

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

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

GUWonder

.... and the flop that is CurrentTV.

WillCAD

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.

nachtnebel

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

and if you need randomness, use dogs.

Boggie Dog

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.

SWCPHX

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

KDS

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.

Helen Quintano Barr

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?

Boggie Dog

The answer is a bit complicated but here goes.

Goverment Contractors + Congress + Pockets = Money.

jphripjah

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.

exbayern

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 , 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.

AUS2008

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.

mybodyismyown

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.

SWCPHX

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.

RichardKenner

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.