You'll get nowhere arguing with someone who still believes nowhere is a two-word phrase...

Didn't Nappy put veterans on her list of "domestic terrorists"?

This is also one of the things that was answered already (I think by SATTSO, actually). The civil fine is for interfering with the screening process. If you're asked to do something, you don't do it, and the screener says "if you don't do that, we can't complete screening", it's the TSA that's stopped the screening process, not you. So there's no fine.

The difference is subtle, but present. It's easier to see with bags than with the person. You send your bag into the x-ray and a bag check is called. You reach in, grab your bag, and leave. That's clearly you stopping the screening. Now suppose your carryon bag is locked and they ask you for a key and you refuse and they say they can't screen it unless you give them the key. In this case, they've stopped the screening.

Where, exactly, is the line. Nobody knows since there've been no cases in this area (existing case law on "not stopping screening" applies to the issue of exclusion of evidence and not to physically refusing to do what's being requested), but I strongly suspect the courts would be very reluctant to force somebody being screened to take any action, unless it were fairly trivial.

Part of the problem is that the TSA refuses to tell passengers what to expect during the screening process, then claims that they've consented to something they were never told about.

How many travelers could possibly have considered that a screening by the TSA could be brought to a full stop by the presence of an adult incontinence undergarment?

See, now you're really getting at the crux of the problem, in my view at least. If it's safe (still a big 'if' I think), I don't personally mind the NOS; someone seeing an outline of me naked on screen isn't that big a deal. I remember as a kid seeing the movie "True Lies," when Schwarzenegger and Arnold walk through one on the way into their office thinking "Hmm, would save time at the airport. It's painless and I'm shameless. But on principle, when they institute these draconian policies that put people like adult diaper-wearers, or urostomy/colostomy bag-users in these positions, it really bothers me.

What bothers me more is the fact that the screeners have been given no discretion on which pax to only sort of pretend they're screening. That, IMO, is where the "security theater" has its place: appear to be screening people you know aren't a threat so it appears you're checking everyone but realize that it's just for show. When that 95-year-old diaper-wearing, wheelchair-bound cancer patient steps up, go through the motions, but then just send her on her way. Do you know how many times I've violated the 3-1-1 rule, either knowingly or on purpose? Either they don't notice or don't care and hopefully (for the sake of security :rolleyes:) it's the latter. Well, why don't you apply that in a few other places as well?

Today's Homeland Security Theater strip spells the problem out in fine detail.

WRT strip searches, an example of what can happen in the absence of reasonable restrictions on the use of authority. Not TSA.

http://videosift.com/video/PSYCHO-CO...Innocent-Woman

In that particular case the sheriff defended it to the end saying a bunch of his guys ripping the clothes off that innocent woman was totally normal and acceptable. His department destroyed much of the incriminating video (such as when they swept her legs and threw her to the ground, injured her spine, broke her tooth) and they then lied about its existence. They got tripped up because the other cameras were seen filming in the video they did produce. They settled out of court rather than going to trial and now refuse to discuss the case.

In the end, taxpayers footed the bill and all the cops walked away free to continue as before. I believe TSA has even less accountability than those guys. In the same manner I don't talk to the police I try to avoid interaction with TSOs as well. It's just safer that way.

Where's the followup on this case?

At the time I didn't think it was anything more than the lawyer trying the case in the press. The whole thing makes sense if you figure she said something that sounded like a suicide threat. Note that that video was released by the attorney, not the state--they could edit out whatever they wanted to.

Really? If somene says something that SOUNDS like it MIGHT be a suicide threat, the propper response is a mixed gender gang stripping?

Here is the unedited video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDRsCkc-9k0

Notice, the point where this video starts is all the SHERRIFF released. THEY are the ones that withheld the lead up.

Here is the hallway footage, where you can clearly see the handheld video camera trained on her. Her lawyers weren't the ones withholding footage. And by the way, check this and other jail footage on youtube. Nowhere can I find the out of control maniac they made her out to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51k9l...eature=related

Nope. TSA only.

While the officers in that video, as well as their supervisors and the county sheriff should all be out of jobs, and some should likely be in jail themselves, that answer, "now or ever?" is about the dumbest possible thing one could say given the circumstances. Still, even with that, the appropriate response is to call paramedics and have the person transported to a hospital to be placed under suicide watch, especially if the only concern is that they're a potential danger to themselves, rather than they may have committed a crime.

There was a six figure settlement, as the official policy of having female jailers only do this task was obviously not followed. One or two of the male deputies involved quit, I'm not sure how the top guy fared. Just going from memory here, you can google it.

There is a long and sordid history of people being mistreated, beaten, and beaten to death in jails across this country. That is why it is so offensive and so unacceptable to have so many of their procedures (jail screening procedures such as hair inspections, crotch inspections) integrated into the TSA's airport activities.

One of the things done with someone on suicide watch is to strip them. They're normally provided with a garment that's useless for suicide purposes but the lack of such attire doesn't stop them from stripping the person.

Be cooperative about it and there would be no issue, but if you don't comply the cops are going to strip you. If there aren't enough cops of the right gender available you might even end up with cops of the other gender being involved.

I see nothing out of line here if we assume she made suicide threats and then didn't cooperate. Her lawyer of course won't mention this and the sheriff can't.

Follow-up. It should be noted that the guys seen in the video dog-piling and stripping her filed a lawsuit against a local news organization alleging defamation and invasion of privacy. It was settled for what was reported to be a very small amount.

I didn't want to hijack the thread but my point was this: When given power, significant resources and total immunity from liability or responsibility people (and organizations) will use it in whatever way they care to.

I'm not a particularly political person and I laugh at outrageous conspiracy theories, but I worked with LE at local and federal levels for almost 10 years and came to recognize that they can be very dangerous if you're not their very best friend. They typically believe they're doing good work chasing down the bad guys, but cross them and they have no qualms about ruining your life as they'll just lump you in as one of those bad guys. You're for them, or against them. That's essentially how they see it.

The world continues to need tools like LEOs and screeners, but when our leaders place them on pedestals and claim they're infallible in the face of evidence to the contrary, it undermines the credibility of the organizations completely. If they're going to spout obvious lies and propaganda rather than clean house, there's no reason why I shouldn't be wary of them.