A full colonoscopy goes beyond the bend in the colon, and is supposed to be much more painful; my father-in-law had one and had general. I don't think it would be practical to get anything even as high as a sigmoidoscope goes without medical assistance, but the amount you could get without even going beyond the rectum is large enough to be worrisome to me.

Is that (call it about 8-12 cubic inches, at a guess absent experimental data) enough to take down a plane? No idea, but even if not I'd certainly not like to be on the plane when someone tries. I'd be curious if anyone more knowledgeable about explosives could comment about whether that's a sufficient amount.

You may be right - hence my comment about the "have to go to the bathroom" dance above - but people can get used to a lot if motivated either by sexual kinks or (I'd assume) fanatacism, and it would be easy enough to train for - for example with a condom or similar full of inert substance like modeling clay/plasticine/play-doh.

Given enough planning and a not-too-solid explosive, you could probably it laparascopically as well, but that would be a good deal harder. With an open incision, would they actually need to recover for more than a couple of days? As far as I know, TSA does not particularly flag people who show signs of recent surgery.

In the shorter or the longer run? Since the key phrase here seems to be "suicide bomber" rather than "hijacker," they're unlikely to care about the longer run - and finding something that will be biologically neutral for a couple of days, and keeping the person on high dose antibiotics for the same couple of days, is much easier problem then creating something that's safe in the longer term. Even there, you have readily available off-the-shelf biologically neutral covers -- for example the ones used for breast implants.

There are clearly doctors who might be willing to do this -for one example, Nidal Malik Hasan was a physician, although it's not clear to me whether he was actually tied to any terrorist organization or just an individual nutter. Whether any of them have the surgical skills necessary, who knows? It's unlikely in the west, but it just takes a couple of them to try this.

To which? Medically implanting the device, or internal carry? The former sounds very difficult to test and I may very well be missing details that make it impossible, although the obvious roadblocks all seem surmountable.

The latter sounds both practical and very readily testable given inert items and a few volunteers (shouldn't be hard to find, up in San Francisco); there's also quite a bit of experience with it in the drug-smuggling trade (and presumably with detecting it in customs enforcement, but the timelines involved are quite a bit different.) Bathroom access is generally not that limited, and people tend to respect the privacy of others when using the john even in airports and on planes.

If so, the shoe x-rays make sense, and I can't say it's any great imposition either individually or constitutionally. That said, a lot of other countries' airport security rules seem to disagree.

Certainly. As can the ingenuity of hiding it. Reactively closing the door after each failed attempt doesn't seem like the right way of combatting the threat, nor, frankly is the prospect of an individual airliner being downed - even as a frequent very-long-haul flier thus having an above par chance of being on that plane - necessarily worth the invasiveness of some possible security procedures.

This is not remotely true, as the fact that no other country a) has a TSA shoe carnival and b) has suffered any ill effects as a result. Why do you and your agency keep repeating this pathetic lie when we and you know it's a lie?

I talked about this a while ago on another thread. (I think it was also a topic on Propaganda Village.) The TSA asserted that they would keep a "list" of passengers who committed workplace violence acts against a screener. This is a mis-application of the workplace violence directives. Nowhere in any workplace violence directive is a provision to apply it to a visitor to or customer of a government facility. If the Xerox repair guy comes into my (government) office and sucker punches one of my guys, that's not workplace violence - it's assault.

The fact that the TSA teaches you how to deal with "violent" passengers speaks volumes.

Well, I'm a lot closer to "elderly" than "adolescent" and I would dare say that I am infinitely more of a threat to a screener who grabs my almost-elderly crotch than I am to commercial aviation.

Not for nothing, but if the police stopped you every time you started the engine of your car and backed out of your driveway, how many times would that have to happen before you found it abusive and complained? Simply *driving* a car does not constitute probable cause to be stopped by an LEO

Attempting to use a legally purchased and valid airline ticket should not be probable cause for being frisked, either, IMO. Even if I were pulled over by a police officer for a traffic violation, the odds of my being frisked are fairly slim. But refusing to allow myself to be subjected to radiation is suddenly grounds for physical violation?

You may say it's not - but as a survivor of sexual abuse, I am very, very sensitive as to who gets to touch me and where and under what circumstances. If I refuse NoS, why can't I be sent back through the metal detector, and only IF I alarm there, be subject to SSSS?

It's been asked and not answered - if someone is directed to a private screening area, can they bring a witness and allow photographic (or video) evidence to be retained by said witness?

Here's another question - why is it that the dead can be loaded on a plane without a scan, but not the living? I have an acquaintance who is an undertaker, and their funeral home is a "certified screening facility" (which required a 10 minute training course). She slaps a sticker on the coffin and that coffin goes in the plane without a second glance. Jewelers, art dealers and pharmaceutical companies can get the same stickers, from what I've been told.

A slight correction, Scubatooth, as you made a typo: you meant to say "remember" not "recommend."

You see, Ron, when having a colonoscopy you are given medications to take away your memory and to dull the discomfort from the expansion of the colon using CO2, as Scubatooth stated. A general anesthetic is NOT used for a colonoscopy. If your doctor told you he was giving you an anesthetic (and sadly many doctors do tell their patients this), he was lying to you.

Then again, you seem to believe many things that are not true.

That's what i meant to say. Conscious sedation is pretty much the standard for diagnostic procedures; the cocktail used depends on the practitioner but ketamine, versed/midazolam. , diprovan/propofol and mixes of those are common. Full General anesthetic where the patient is intubated is normally only used in more invasive procedures and will take longer then what CS lasts. Then if the procedure requires the patient to not move at all then paralytics are used.

Most doctors dont tell there patients or explain the differences because the differences would go over there heads resulting in that glazed over stupefied look that many here have seen at the airport alot.

Ron, I should point out that most of your meanderings are unsubstantiated. When you say that SOP says X you cannot substantiate it.

Hey, tsadude1, explain to me where, EXACTLY, I said anything about causing a fracking breach. DO NOT attribute words to me that I have not written - as you can tell, it royally pisses me the .... off.

You failed to address any of the statements that I made and instead tried to infer comments I did not make in an attempt to divert the question at hand. Either answer the fracking questions or butt the .... out.

To refresh your obfuscating personage, I will repeat the questions, slightly modified, here:

1. If a passenger is selected for the "Alarm Resolution" version of the frisk, are they forced into a private inspection room by the TSA?
2. If the passenger is forced into a private inspection room, is this handled directly by the TSA, or done under LE orders?
3. In either case, where is the regulatory authority to take this search well beyond the administrative search boundaries?

Hey DD!
A resolution pat down HAS to be done in private. If the passenger does not wish to consent to this, OR they become something like uncooperative, they cannot proceed to get on the plane because screening has not been completed. I see your point about stretching the 4th amendment. I dont believe the words regulatory authority are good though because that is all TSA is. Should be "lawful authority." There was a news special on a couple of years ago that outlined the ambiguity of TSA and the fact that what we do is very loose in legal arenas. If you look at the act that created TSA you will see that there is no legal authority to tell someone that they cannot fly. What the law says is that the GSC will be called and told what the recommendation of TSA is. The law then states that the GSC cannot disregard the recommendation. This has however been changed in process and practice to be more of an "incomplete screening process" denial of admission to the boarding area. If a person cannot finish the process then the LEO comes in to escort the person from the checkpoint because the person has no reason to be there. I hope that clarifies it somewhat.

So, you are saying that TSA will require the passenger go into a private room? That is an unlawful detention in my opinion.

PS - I know what I meant by regulatory authority and will stand by the fact that TSA has not posted where, exactly, they get the the authority to require anyone to submit to an unlawful detention and a search in a non-public space.

I asked this up thread and I am still waiting for an answer:

I may permit the private screening under three conditions:

1. I can be told the scope of the upcoming screening so that I can give informed consent. Not as it is progressing. Before it starts.
2. I can have a witness of my choice.
3. My witness will be permitted to take photographic evidence.

Are any of these unfair or not permitted?

And if I may summarize your statement above, if I am wrong in a detail let me know:

1. I have no choice about the "private" screening so I am under arrest or detention if I want to fly until I can be cleared.
   
2. I do have the option of leaving at this point.
   
3. The TSA has no authority to tell me I can not fly, but you can recommend that that a GSC make that determination, and he/she must take the recommendation of the TSA.

Actually sounds like, I did not do it, he did. Not me. It was him, he made me. Sounds like bullies on the playground. And I am the one being bullied.

To answer your questions:
The NOS has a level of detection that cannot be matched by any other means EXCEPT a patdown. If you refuse the NOS then you have to be screened to the same level of detection and your method would not be to that standard.
Yes you can bring a witness with you to the private screening area. I am fairly certain that you and your witness cannot tape the screening.. If you refuse the patdown for any reason then you cannot proceed to your gate.
With deceased and other examples that you have listed, that is considered cargo and there is something called a "trusted shippers" program that allows them through various means to certify that the cargo is safe and has been inspected and is free of prohibited items. However the rules for what is prohibited in cargo are different from what you are allowed to carry on.
I hope that answers your questions.

If I give consent and permission, who is to say the search can not be photographed? It is my search. If you are patting me down in the public area, I could grant that permission. What makes this different?

If it is the possible embarrassment, save it, it will not embarrass me. I think it may be the embarrassment to the TSA that is the concern. Or is there statute or regulation that does not permit it?

I am sorry to make this such a sticking point, and I hope it never, ever comes up.

I am a little late to this party, but really? This site relates the truth as experienced about the security nightmare in an effort to educate. It is the DHS/TSA spews the fear-mongering.

This is one of those cases where photographing the screening process in detail is not allowed. You can take pictures of the checkpoint but if you get close to the methods and means that are used and you capture them, that is not allowed. You are going to be asking to film three people: (the passenger, the TSA officer and the TSA officer witness.) So for you to consent is fine, the other two wont and if they could it would not matter because filming or taping the process could lead to revealing techniques and other things that could lead to exploitation of the process. In other words (and this makes people on here scream) it is SSI. Therefore it is against Federal law.