Army Times:Decorated, wounded Marine treated 'shamefully' by security screeners (SMF)
 

Another win for TSA in Sacramento (SMF):

Army Times:
Decorated, wounded Marine treated 'shamefully' by security screeners
Jul. 5, 2013 - 06:00AM

A short quote:and

I thought someone had mentioned in a previous thread that Marines aren't allowed to travel in uniform, even when traveling on orders...or am I remembering that wrong?

(Not that it would excuse the TSA's behavior in any way...I'm just trying to wrap my head around the situation)

Retired Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines generally don't wear full dress uniforms when flying. If they do, why wouldn't they be subject to the same security measures as everyone else? Not trying to defend the TSA here, but what did they do outside of the normal scope of their duties?

The photo attached to the article shows him wearing a full dress uniform as he is being patted down by a uniformed TSA screener.

And he was in that full-dress uniform because he was traveling either to or from the State House in Sac. where he was being honored for his service and scarifice.

OK, but he is still subject to security checks. In any event, it seems from the article like the state capital guards did the most damage. Does SMF airport have an area by security where a pat-down could have been done in private?

The issue here is that some folks believe that those who wear the uniform of our country are entitled to special treatment because of their service and their many sacrifices.

However, what they are fighting for is the United States of America, a nation where the government is not supposed to treat people differently based on their race, religion, background, or occupation, and where the rights and freedoms of all people are protected equally by that government.

For me, this means that the issue is not a special pass for the military, but that NOBODY should ever be subjected to these despicable deprivations and violations without warrant, probable cause, or articulable suspicion.

In other words, yes, I firmly believe that uniformed military, police, or other public servants should be treated by government actors exactly the same as anyone else when transiting a c/p. But I don't believe the treatment that this Marine got was permissible under the 4th Amendment for ANYONE, be they a vet in dress blues, an octogenarian housewife, a middle-aged businessman, or a couple of college kids on their way to spring break. NOBODY should ever be treated this way just to get on a plane.

Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


This is one of the things these vets fight and die for, yet it's being stripped away from us, a piece at a time, in a bogus attempt to make the world "safe" and "secure".

It's despicable that our government would do this to ANYONE without warrant, without probable cause, without even articulable suspicion.

Agreed, and well said.

This is what happens to hundreds if not thousands of us daily at TSA checkpoints. It shouldn't come as a surprise to people reading TS&S that this is the normal outcome for many of us every single day, regardless of our gender, race, nationality, or career choice.

And the article should have been clear that the outcome was no different that it would be for anyone else who has similar issues. In fact, I think that he got off very lightly, based on past experience.

+1000

Wrong focus here. It shouldn't be about the guy being a vet or a decorated vet or a disabled vet.

It should be about anyone, any time, wanting to transit a checkpoint without undue loss of dignity or hassle. That includes someone who may not be able to assume and hold the position for an infinite variety of reasons: war wound, stroke, Parkinson's, sports injury, etc.

So, it's ok when they do it to the rest of us, but not ok when they do it to a Marine in uniform? Ok...........

There are certain ironies about it.

They are (according to some at TSA) comrades-in-arms, fighting to keep America free.

According to some (alleged or real) TSOs who post/lurk on this forum, there are many many vets working for TSA. IIRC, the vet who was told to remove his prosthesis (PHX?) was hassled by two other vets now working for TSA.

One would expect, then, that if TSA did show any unprofessional favoritism at the checkpoint, it would be in favor of the vets, not against them.

To 'be secure' it must happen to everyone, not just a select group. Like any 'crime', if you let a certain group not follow the rules, the bad people will look like those that are ok to be exempt. Not all cops are honest, yet they are given breaks all the time, until someone proves without a doubt they did it. Then the argument starts that someone should have said something sooner.

The OP in the posting seems to be implying that it is only wrong cause he is military. I guess they are exempt from crime. Tell that to the bad guy and all he has to do is look military.

Oh no wait, should, not we ALL be thought of as innocent at a security checkpoint, than assumed to be guilty of trying to do something wrong because we are going by airplane? That would be too simple. Then all those in charge could do is blame themselves for not catching the bad guy that is out to cause harm/damage.

Also, like the Asiana crash in SFO, why is the first thing confirmed is that 'it was not terrorism'?

Of course, on the flip side, if the officer in uniform was exempt, and he really was up to something, what would be the first outcry? Why did someone not do anything? Of course those crying that are those least likely to travel OR The news media needing something to whine about and fill the 24 hour channel instead of go to a test pattern u til there is something of value :)

Excepting, of course, the young, the elderly, airline crew, active duty military, airport employees, and anybody deemed eligible for TSA Pre✓™.

In the Security Theater, some actors get better roles than others.

(bolding mine)

SO very true (unfortunately).

Each uniformed service has different rules concerning retirees wearing the uniform. (First of all, you still have to be able to fit into it and you have to meet grooming standards!) If he was going to an official ceremony, whether or not he was an honoree or just an attendee, wear of the uniform is authorized. The only ways that a clerk would have known is was retired rather than active would have been: If the Marine used his retired ID card as an ID; or, if the Marine had told the clerk he was retired. For the TSA clerks to have deduced he was retired would have meant that the ID checker would have noticed it and that he yelled to the groping clerk, "He's retired!"

This is all about (as I have written many times before -- sorry!) the TSA adopting something fundamental from the Communist "Playbook" about creating a system of privileges that can be granted or taken away at any time for any reason. By granting privileges, the TSA removes a class of people from the debate and creates a class of people who won't dare challenge their authority or rock the boat in any manner, because retaining their privileges is the most important thing on the planet to them.