nachtnebel

AFAIK, it's been done before, by a congressman who shoved a TSA clerk who injured him by vigorously chopping up at his genitals, with video evidence showing the striking action of the clerk and the flinch and shove by the congressman. Nothing bad happened the congressman, but I think the clerk was disciplined.

iflyfast

Do you know the name of the congressman, which airport, and about when this happened? I need to track this down and would appreciate any help! (thanks)

TWA884

Google is your friend.

It happened over five years ago:

iflyfast

Thank you! I'm so embarrassed. I tried Google, but I didn't find this one. Oops. Good info.
thanks!

petaluma1

No need to be embarrassed. Sometimes doing a search on Google is difficult if you don't have the right parameters, just as it is on FT.

gsoltso

That is great, I am under the impression that the original person I was speaking to on this was not Congressional member. If I am wrong, then I will gladly stand corrected.

My sentiments remain the same, anyone that does this, please let me know how it goes for you... Seriously.

iflyfast

I highly recommend against it. There is case law I've read where any actions you take will result in your arrest, per what I've read (not *my* advice nor analysis). It's seriously not worth it, when you look at the time and cost (on many levels) you may incur. My lawsuit is proceeding well, which will hopefully provide the case law for invidious violations by TSA, but for the most part, we're stuck until someone can turn this ship around. I just couldn't stay silent if someone actually thought they could get away with violence in return. That's not appropriate, and I strongly discourage it!

nachtnebel

I wasn't aware that different rules or consequences should apply to a congressman vs a member of the public that put him in his office. But then again, I've been wrong before.

Boggie Dog

TSA, the rules are decided on the spot depending on the attitude of the TSA screener and which side of the bed they woke up on that day.

chollie

It sounds to me like the 'academy' is now teaching screeners that they have the 'final say' on whether or not they will deliberately physically harm a pax. There is apparently no longer any need to pretend that any harm inflicted is accidental or unintended.

Apparently the 'academy' is teaching screeners that the checkpoint and the sterile area are truly outside the protections of the Constitution. Sad to think so many ex-military are on board with this attitude. Fortunately they are ex-miltary; people with that kind of disdain for our fundamental Constitutional rights should never have been allowed to wear the uniform in the first place.

TSA HQ is clearly on board with these practices, because it continues to teach these practices at the 'academy' and to support TSOs who engage in them.

FliesWay2Much

It's a perfect storm: ExtortionCheck + no oversight + clerk abuse of passengers is no longer news + it's always the passenger's fault

TWA884

Folks,

The topic of this thread is TSA wants to get more intimate when doing passenger pat downs, in other words, it is about the TSA's enhanced pat-down procedures for airline passengers which were implemented earlier in the year.

If you wish to discuss screener discretion, screeners' final say, PreCheck, etc., etc., etc., we have plenty of active threads dealing with those topics.

Please keep your posts at least tangentially relevant to the subject of this thread. Future off topic messages will be summarily deleted.

Thank you for your understanding and your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

gsoltso

You are making my point for me. I was pointing out that striking a TSO, for performing a pat down, would mostly result in bad things for the person doing the striking. However, others here feel that with the current screening process (based upon the title of the thread), they are going to be able to do so and not be responsible for their actions. I am simply asking the ones that actually do it, report it here, so we may all learn from it.

I have long since given up hoping that all people will be held to the same standards. The evidence of that difference is readily available by a simple perusal of available public records.

Boggie Dog

The entire Grope Down issue is TSA's own doing. TSA has used weasel words when supposedly informing travelers what may occur during a TSA screening. TSA has been consistently dishonest in describing Grope Downs, such as using words like "resistance" when describing certain steps of the Grope Down. If there is a slight chance that a TSA screener is going to cup my genitals, or push their hand against my testicles then I should be informed of that possibility before giving consent to proceed and have the opportunity to withdraw my request to enter the sterile area of the airport. Since TSA is dishonest by nature that makes the front line screeners task more difficult and they get the blame for the procedures TSA leadership requires of the employee.

I know that low level TSA employees can't change this however they can take issues such as this to their union since this is a management created problem that puts the employee in a difficult position. But, until some changes are made by TSA, a growing segment of the public will blame the individual screeners for the things they do to travelers and I for one believe the current Grope Down is not justified in any way.

WillCAD

Unions never do anything that would reduce the power, prestige, compensation, or benefits received by their memberships.

The current policies, which so many screeners proclaim to be uncomfortable with or dislike, are a result of screeners enjoying the extensive discretion, i.e. decision-making power, which policy grants them. Were they to exert pressure on management through the union to change the policy, this might reduce the power that the rank and file screener has over their victims, er, suspects, er, the traveling public. Since any reduction in the power of the individual is by definition a reduction in the power of the whole, of course they brush aside whatever discomfort they might experience, until the Stanford Prison Effect takes over and they start to regard the people they abuse as nothing but troublesome cattle to be cowed into submission.

Both the agency and the union have a vested interest in continually pushing the envelope of the permissible with screening methodologies. More leeway means more power, and more power is what all organizations seek, especially government organizations and the unions and private companies which serve them. The evil in this organization will continue to expand, and we will see more and more "intimate" screening methodologies as they continually creep their mission further and further afield from the core.

I have no doubt that within ten years we will see TSA unabashedly claiming authority to do strip searches and body cavity searches on any traveler, and using local LEOs to detain their victims, claiming (as they have in the past) that once one presents oneself at the checkpoint for screening, there is no legal right to withdraw until TSA determines that screening is complete.