|
US Senator Gets Resolution Patdown
Senator McCaskill received the resolution patdown after her hands tested positive for an ETD swab:
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportat...-tsa-screening You would think the TSA would seek to placate those in Congress by guaranteeing that they avoid such treatment. While I don't like to see anyone get the private room patdown, perhaps this will finally turn some heads now that a female Senator - especially if you remember the controversy surrounding her opponent's comments - has experienced such an intimate patdown. |
Originally Posted by Majuki
(Post 20403016)
Senator McCaskill received the resolution patdown after her hands tested positive for an ETD swab:
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportat...-tsa-screening You would think the TSA would seek to placate those in Congress by guaranteeing that they avoid such treatment. While I don't like to see anyone get the private room patdown, perhaps this will finally turn some heads now that a female Senator - especially if you remember the controversy surrounding her opponent's comments - has experienced such an intimate patdown. She kept on defending them until...she actually got the new, post-NoS 'love pats' and realized what everyone was complaining about. She went so far as to say that her constituency was right and that there was one particular TSO at her home airport who caused the good Senator to 'tense up' whenever she saw her because she knew things were going to get 'ugly'. I hope she is equally vocal about how she was handled this time. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 20403134)
I hope she is equally vocal about how she was handled this time.
|
Originally Posted by deldel
(Post 20403154)
I would prefer less vocal and more action. My guess is she will tow the line and say it made everyone safer that day.
|
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 20403299)
She may not go that far, but like Chaffetz and Paul and others, she'll talk a good line on a slow news day, but she won't actually take up the issue and fight for change.
Dear S Lost, Thank you for contacting me regarding the use of "body scanners" at our nation's airports, as well as enhanced security pat down procedures being utilized by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond. As you know body scanning equipment and a new pat down procedure are now being integrated into the screening procedures for boarding flights in the United States. The new technology represents an advancement over traditional X-ray machines because it will better enable screeners to spot hidden explosives, such as the ones the "Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to use last year, that would not normally show up on current X-ray machines. These new scanners are currently in use at more than 100 airports nationwide, including the Kansas City airport. While I believe the new screening procedures are an important tool in keeping fliers safe from attempts at terrorism, I have heard from many Missourians who have raised legitimate privacy concerns. Some important guidelines have been implemented to protect passenger privacy. First, it should be noted that passengers have the right to forgo the scanner in favor of a search by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents. Second, at no time will the machines save the images captured automatically; they will only be saved if there is an incident. Further, the screen which shows the image will be in a separate, secure location unable to be viewed by the public. While the new pat down procedures have been controversial, it is important to note that passengers will only receive a pat down in two instances: (1) if a passenger elects to have a pat down instead of going through the new scanner; or (2) if a passenger triggers the alarm on the scanners and therefore requires additional screening. In the event a passenger must receive a pat down, there are several measures in place to help protect the passenger's privacy. For example, all pat downs are performed by an officer of the same sex. In addition, passengers have the right to request their pat down be performed in a private setting as well as have a travelling companion be present during the pat down. As a frequent flier myself who is often subjected to expanded screening due to a knee replacement I received several years ago, I understand and am sympathetic to the privacy concerns many Missourians have with both the scanners and the recent expanded pat down procedures that TSA has implemented. While I believe these measures are necessary in light of the threats to our nation from terrorists and the techniques they use, I am urging the TSA to continue their efforts to establish the next generation of the screening technology which will show only a stick figure as opposed to the more complete image that the screeners currently see. Security must be our first concern, but there also must be a proper balance and approach in providing that security to the flying public. Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue. Sincerely, The interesting thing is the rah-rah nature of "the TSA is Only Doing It To Protect You!" line. And the fact that it trots out falsehoods in several places. And that it mentions the underwear bomber as being "last year" (it was 2009). It's nice to know that the senator's flunkies don't even care enough to update their form email responses or answer any of the specifics when their voters contact them. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 20403134)
This is the same Senator who initially defended the gropes as nothing more off-putting than TSA 'love pats'.
|
Originally Posted by janetdoe
(Post 20404567)
Exactly my thoughts upon reading this story. She is one of the few people in the world who is actually in a position of power (even on the appropriate committee) to protect citizens from TSA abuse, but she defends them. She deserves a resolution pat down every time she goes to the airport.
|
Her office's constituent response letter claims that the TSA saves the strip search images of passengers when there is an incident. This runs contrary to the TSA propaganda at least in part.
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 20405117)
Her office's constituent response letter claims that the TSA saves the strip search images of passengers when there is an incident. This runs contrary to the TSA propaganda at least in part.
TSA didn't say it wouldn't save images, it said it couldn't save images. Big difference. Seems odd to need the scan in the event of an 'incident' anyway. If the scan is suspect, the pax is groped. If nothing is found, end of story. If something is detected, the contraband itself justifies TSA's suspicions and is grounds for any further actions. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 20406158)
A very significant part, IIRC.
TSA didn't say it wouldn't save images, it said it couldn't save images. Big difference. Seems odd to need the scan in the event of an 'incident' anyway. If the scan is suspect, the pax is groped. If nothing is found, end of story. If something is detected, the contraband itself justifies TSA's suspicions and is grounds for any further actions. Not that TSOs would ever take delight in observing an attractive person being groped at a checkpoint, of course. |
Originally Posted by SeriouslyLost
(Post 20403649)
Indeed. This from the good Senator of my State, dated February 28, 2013:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...-need-tsa.html |
Originally Posted by KDS
(Post 20406762)
How interesting -- this letter is almost word-for-word the letter that I received from my US Representative about the TSA:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...-need-tsa.html However, TSA doesn't think to revise them in a timely manner. Hence, "such as the ones the "Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to use last year." In spite of my pointing out to one of my senators that this happened more than 3 years ago, he continues to include that sentence in his communications. |
|
Originally Posted by petaluma1
(Post 20406995)
From my senators also. I think the TSA writes these things for Congresspeople to make certain that everyone sends the same message.
However, TSA doesn't think to revise them in a timely manner. Hence, "such as the ones the "Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to use last year." In spite of my pointing out to one of my senators that this happened more than 3 years ago, he continues to include that sentence in his communications. |
Perhaps Senator McCaskill's constituents should all send her a blue glove to demonstrate their sympathy.
Of course, what McCaskill and Chaffetz and the rest of the (occasional) complainers really want is to join the privileged company of folks who are not subject to TSA's hands-on policies. Grant them this exemption and we'll never hear another word about TSA. |
Originally Posted by SeriouslyLost
(Post 20408337)
I've always worked on the assumption that the aides that churn out the letters pool their responses and simply cut and paste to the sender. That's why the letter can be stock. And ignore the actual content and questions sent to them.
|
Every congresscritter should be subject to an RPD every time they fly. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
|
Originally Posted by javabytes
(Post 20422644)
Every congresscritter should be subject to an RPD every time they fly. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
|
Originally Posted by SeriouslyLost
(Post 20427858)
Your use of the word "goose" is appropriate there. On several levels. Well done!
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 20405117)
Her office's constituent response letter claims that the TSA saves the strip search images of passengers when there is an incident. This runs contrary to the TSA propaganda at least in part.
|
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
(Post 20435846)
I believe I've been saying that they would save them for that kind of purpose since the first time TSA stated they wouldn't save images. They have all the reason to save the images as they will want "proof".
I have been thinking much the same as you on this matter of strip searched passenger images. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:41 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.