When a Pat-Down Seems Like Groping
Nov 3, 2004 | 5:29 pm
#31
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,110
oh and here is another website mentioned in the article
www.TSA-Screeners.com. "News, Resources and Humor for America's TSA Screeners."
Very interesting actually.
www.TSA-Screeners.com. "News, Resources and Humor for America's TSA Screeners."
Very interesting actually.
Last edited by KSinNYC; Nov 3, 2004 at 5:36 pm
Nov 3, 2004 | 5:59 pm
#32
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by KSinNYC
oh and here is another website mentioned in the article
www.TSA-Screeners.com. "News, Resources and Humor for America's TSA Screeners."
Very interesting actually.
www.TSA-Screeners.com. "News, Resources and Humor for America's TSA Screeners."
Very interesting actually.
Nov 3, 2004 | 6:30 pm
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Originally Posted by SPN Lifer
Moreover, one should take full advantage of a hearing before an administrative law judge if threatened civil penalties are ever sought (and are not mere screener bluster).
Bruce
Nov 3, 2004 | 7:01 pm
#34
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Saipan, MP 96950 USA (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands = the CNMI)
Programs: UA Silver, Hilton Silver. Life: UA .60 MM, United & Admirals Clubs (spousal), Marriott Platinum
Posts: 18,052
Originally Posted by eyecue
Too many inconsistencies in your story for you to be credible surely as a "Former Federal Prosecutor" You would be able to see that.
If one insists on capitalizing it and adding superfluous quotation marks, the proper title for 6 years was Assistant United States Attorney.
Nov 4, 2004 | 5:25 am
#35
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by eyecue
Too many inconsistencies in your story for you to be credible surely as a "Former Federal Prosecutor" You would be able to see that. As far as a temple is concerned, your temple is potential threat to us athiests.
Last edited by GUWonder; Nov 4, 2004 at 6:11 am
Nov 5, 2004 | 1:58 pm
#36
Join Date: Nov 2004
Programs: OnePass
Posts: 10
from joe sharkey at new york times
Jennifer,
Am not sure how this Flyertalk reply function works, but assuming you get this in response to your post:
I've had over 100 e mails from women in response to last week's column on TSA patdowns. I'm summarizing some of them in next week's column.
If you want to talk about what happened to you, I'd be very eager to hear from you, as your experience seems to have been especially egregious.
I'm at this e mail: [email protected]
Alternate e mail: [email protected]
And this phone number (today and all weekend, plus Monday, when I am writing the column for Tuesday's paper): 973-748-2132
Thanks and regards,
Joe Sharkey
Business travel columnist
New York Times
I believe you are talking about me in this post. Just a quick update here, I will also post it on the other thread when I get a chance (flying so much I don't have time!).
I received a call today from someone at TSA at DCA. I spoke with her about the situation for 30 minutes. Bottom line is that she admitted that the screening I received was excessive, and I should not have been forced to remove my shirt.
I am not sure this will really change anything, but it is a step. I will be contacting the reporter from the article.
Jennifer[/QUOTE]
Am not sure how this Flyertalk reply function works, but assuming you get this in response to your post:
I've had over 100 e mails from women in response to last week's column on TSA patdowns. I'm summarizing some of them in next week's column.
If you want to talk about what happened to you, I'd be very eager to hear from you, as your experience seems to have been especially egregious.
I'm at this e mail: [email protected]
Alternate e mail: [email protected]
And this phone number (today and all weekend, plus Monday, when I am writing the column for Tuesday's paper): 973-748-2132
Thanks and regards,
Joe Sharkey
Business travel columnist
New York Times
Originally Posted by JenniferNAz
There was a thread here the other day on a woman that was forced to strip down to her undergarmets by TSA because she was wearing a zippered-sweatshirt. That stripping was not in lieu of a patdown; they required her to strip in addition to the patdown.
Where do we draw the line on "anything for security?"
Where do we draw the line on "anything for security?"
I believe you are talking about me in this post. Just a quick update here, I will also post it on the other thread when I get a chance (flying so much I don't have time!).
I received a call today from someone at TSA at DCA. I spoke with her about the situation for 30 minutes. Bottom line is that she admitted that the screening I received was excessive, and I should not have been forced to remove my shirt.
I am not sure this will really change anything, but it is a step. I will be contacting the reporter from the article.
Jennifer[/QUOTE]
Nov 5, 2004 | 2:05 pm
#37
Original Poster
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,133
Joe,
It is my pleasure to welcome you to FlyerTalk. ^
I hope your column will continue to show the country that the TSA's latest policy is nothing more than increased harassment that adds nothing to airport security.
It is my pleasure to welcome you to FlyerTalk. ^
I hope your column will continue to show the country that the TSA's latest policy is nothing more than increased harassment that adds nothing to airport security.
Nov 5, 2004 | 3:15 pm
#38
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MKE, formerly the closest FT-er to LAX
Posts: 715
Originally Posted by bdschobel
Remember that even if a hearing is granted -- and the evidence to date suggests that hearings are not being offered -- it will be held in the city where the "offense" occurred, partly because that's more convenient for the government witnesses. This puts travelers at a distinct disadvantage, unless the incident happened to occur at their home airport.
Bruce
Bruce
Nov 5, 2004 | 4:53 pm
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Jupiter, FL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium, Hilton Silver
Posts: 39,646
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
The minute you stop flying.
Nov 5, 2004 | 4:54 pm
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Jupiter, FL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium, Hilton Silver
Posts: 39,646
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
As long as the fanatical people here are flying I don't feel safe. 
Nov 5, 2004 | 5:40 pm
#43
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,017
Back on the topic of the thread, I'm very heartened to hear that there was a large response to Joe Sharkey's article. I knew I couldn't be the only woman in the world offended by strangers pawing at my breasts. What part of "no" don't you understand, TSA?
No, you may not touch my breasts. No, you may not put your wand between my legs within an inch of my genitals. No, you may not remove my clothing. No, no, no, no, no. Women have worked hard to remove coercion and threats from their relationships. Now we have no choice but to take up the fight again to remove coercion, threats, and unwelcome sexual contact from our travels. We do not deserve to be treated this way, and we do not deserve banishment from our means of travel and from our livelihoods because we have stood up for the dignity and sanctity of our bodies.
No, you may not touch my breasts. No, you may not put your wand between my legs within an inch of my genitals. No, you may not remove my clothing. No, no, no, no, no. Women have worked hard to remove coercion and threats from their relationships. Now we have no choice but to take up the fight again to remove coercion, threats, and unwelcome sexual contact from our travels. We do not deserve to be treated this way, and we do not deserve banishment from our means of travel and from our livelihoods because we have stood up for the dignity and sanctity of our bodies.
Nov 5, 2004 | 7:09 pm
#44
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: MKE, formerly the closest FT-er to LAX
Posts: 715
Originally Posted by GradGirl
...Now we have no choice but to take up the fight again to remove coercion, threats, and unwelcome sexual contact from our travels.
My point is to say that the rhetoric used in the fight against these procedures bears directly on the attitudes of those who might be willing to join the fight...
Nov 5, 2004 | 8:39 pm
#45
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by mizzou65201
GG, I was just beginning to warm up to the idea that TSA really had gone too far...but then you went extremist on me again! Unwelcome contact, sure. But this is by no means sexual contact. The use of the words coercion and threat also imputes motives that I do not think are fairly attributable to airport screening.
My point is to say that the rhetoric used in the fight against these procedures bears directly on the attitudes of those who might be willing to join the fight...
My point is to say that the rhetoric used in the fight against these procedures bears directly on the attitudes of those who might be willing to join the fight...