Airport Pat-downs - people upset

-Cp

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2004
2,911
362
48
Earth
Why do people feel as if "their rights are being violated"? Last I checked, it is NOT A RIGHT to fly - it's not in our Bill of Rights, I've checked..

It's a complete PRIVLEDGE to fly, and if you want to board an airline that's run by a COMPANY, you'll have to go thru their screening process. Don't like it? Take a Train, Bus, Boat or Drive.

That said, the only thing that'd creep me out is if the dude patting other dudes down talked like a homo - he might enjoy doing those pat-downs.. :p

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/lo...,0,2105646,print.story?coll=sfla-news-broward


Shocked by what she perceived as far too intimate a security check, Melanie Higley burst into tears.

First, the wand was placed too aggressively between her legs, then the airport screener at Dallas-Fort Worth International groped her, she said.

Hysterical, she protested that she was being abused. The screener's response: She was just doing her job.

Higley was then ordered to take off her tennis shoes, which she did -- and threw them at the screener.

"I was sweating, I was crying, I was a mess," said Higley, of Jupiter, who was heading to Palm Beach International with her family that September day. "I've never been touched like that before by another woman."

Scores of women, and some men, say they have suffered similar humiliation during a pat-down, standard procedure since Sept. 22 in secondary screenings at airport checkpoints. Many protest that it is an unnecessary invasion of privacy, the security process going too far.

"People should be outraged, fuming, doing something to change this," said Rhonda Gaynier, a New York attorney who said she was given a "breast exam" while flying out of Tampa in October. "It's like we have no rights anymore."

The Transportation Security Administration said the procedure is crucial to security. Less than a month earlier, two Russian airliners exploded, and authorities think two women hid explosives under their clothing.

The TSA requires female screeners pat down women; male screeners check men. The back of the hand must be used on breasts, genitals and buttocks and passengers can request it be done out of public view.

About 10 to 15 percent of passengers are selected for secondary screenings, chosen for a number of reasons.

The airlines are required to randomly select a certain number of passengers for closer inspection. The carrier will stamp the code "SSSS" on the ticket of a passenger selected for this process. Passengers who wear loose clothing are more apt to receive a pat down, as are travelers who set off metal detector alarms or exhibit suspicious behavior, such as protesting when asked to take off their shoes.

Most passengers understand the TSA must balance passenger privacy against the threat of terrorism, said TSA spokeswoman Lauren Stover.

"They understand it is done for their safety," she said. "We also realize the need for people to adjust to this new procedure."

Stover said the TSA is rigorously investigating all complaints, and if found valid, disciplinary action will be taken. No screeners have been punished, she said.

"There may be a few instances where screeners took the procedure a little too far," she said. "But the screeners are still adjusting to this new process as well."

4 months pregnant

That is of no consolation to Higley, an American Airlines flight attendant, who on Sept. 29 was returning from vacation in Lake Tahoe with her husband and 2-year-old son -- one week after the tougher rules went into effect.

She was four months pregnant, it was her 39th birthday, and the family had to catch a connecting flight in Dallas. A screener asked Higley to step aside for a pat down and an additional check with the wand.

"She put that thing in between my legs like you wouldn't believe," Higley said. "It was very offensive.''

Higley, who was not wearing any metal, said the wand beeped as it passed over the small of her back.

"She grabbed my rear end in an offensive way," she said. "I spun around and said, `Don't touch me again.' I was really starting to get offended."

Just the same, Higley said, the screener "reached over and cupped my right breast. At this point, I'm starting to shake, I'm starting to cry. I said, `If you touch me again, I'm going to hit you.'"

Her husband, an airline pilot, tried to join in her protest, but he could only look on because he wasn't allowed near where she was being searched, Higley said

Asked to remove her shoes, Higley said she took them off and threw them at the screeners.

"They had every right to call the police on me at that point," she conceded. "I was being very belligerent."

The police weren't called, and she was eventually allowed through the checkpoint, but only after she had become hysterical. In the aftermath, she said she was mad at herself for not getting the screener's name and filing a formal complaint.

Not everyone has been reluctant to complain. Though the TSA won't release numbers, news reports and an informal survey of airport passengers indicate the agency has offended hundreds of women in the past two months.

At a security checkpoint Nov. 5 at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Patti LuPone, the singer and actress, said she was instructed to remove articles of clothing. "I took off my belt, I took off my clogs, I took off my leather jacket," she said. "But when the screener said, `Now take off your shirt,' I hesitated. I said, `But I'll be exposed!"' LuPone said she removed her shirt after vehemently protesting, revealing the see-through camisole she was wearing. LuPone said she demanded an explanation. "We don't want another Russia to happen," she said one of the screeners told her.

Next, she was given a pat-down by a screener who, she said, "was all over me with her hands."

When she persisted in her complaints, she said, she was barred from her flight.

Gaynier, 46, a real estate attorney based in Manhattan, said she was humiliated at Tampa International Airport.

She had been helping her parents set up their winter home in Zephyrhills and was planning to return to New York on American Airlines on Oct. 19, when she was pulled aside.

"They touched me between my breasts and I stopped them. When I refused to allow them to continue, they refused my boarding," she said.

She complained to a supervisor, who told her the pat down was mandatory.

"I said. `That's ridiculous, you're treating me like a criminal. I don't understand,'" Gaynier recalled.

Another female screener was called to continue the inspection, she said.

"She came around to front of my breasts and touched them with her fingertips. That's when I said, `Whoa, what are you doing? I don't think that's appropriate.'"

Gaynier protested again to the supervisor, saying the procedure was offensive.

"He said, `Ma'am, that's not offensive.' I said, `Oh really; what if somebody touched you ... during a pat down?'" she recalled.

Gaynier was denied boarding and escorted by police to the front of the terminal, where American Airlines agents found a flight for her on JetBlue.

But that required another pat down, which she endured so she could get home. Later, she filed a complaint with the TSA and protested to her congressman, as well as to U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy and the National Organization for Women.

Gaynier refuses to fly again until the procedure is abolished. Instead of flying to Michigan for Thanksgiving, she has rented a car. She's also thinking about taking Amtrak to Florida to see her parents at Christmas.

"I'm not going to fly if I have to get a breast exam to get on a damn plane," she said.

Men also complain

Though much fewer in number, some men also say they have been treated rudely.

Carlos Gonzalez, 21, of Weston, said he was going through security in Fort Lauderdale to board a Southwest Airlines flight to New Orleans on Nov. 5, when he was pulled aside.

"I take my shoes off, put everything in the basket and go through the metal detector, but for some reason it kept going off," said Gonzalez, who works in security for a department store.

Screeners asked him to stick out his arms and patted him down, much the way a police officer would frisk a suspect, he said. He said they didn't physically offend him, but yelled at him when he put his arms down without their permission, and made him feel like a criminal.

"They were saying to me, `We're not even close to being finished. What are you trying to hide?' It was like this huge ordeal," he said. "I felt uncomfortable because it was a whole big scene, and everyone was looking over as I was frisked."

Gonzalez said he didn't file a complaint because "I didn't get anyone's name and I just wanted to get out of there before I did anything I'd regret."

Others said they weren't offended by the pat down but simply felt uncomfortable.

Elaine Fitzgerald, spokeswoman for the annual Air & Sea Show at Fort Lauderdale beach, said the wire in her bra set off metal detector alarms last Christmas, well before pat downs became routine.

"They put me in a corner with my back to the public," she said. "They had a woman actually squeeze my bra cups. She apologized profusely. She seemed embarrassed. And I didn't like it one bit. But I was at their mercy, and I was late for a flight."

Unni Marie Berg, of Boca Raton, said because the pat down enhances security, "I don't mind at all. I think it adds a personal touch."

"I think it's a little uncomfortable, but if it improves security, it's necessary," said Miki Agrawal, of New York, who recently flew into Fort Lauderdale on business.

Eventually, the TSA might do away with pat downs, if it can hone explosive trace portals, which passengers walk through. Those machines already are being tested at six airports, including in Tampa.

"The good news is that aviation security has improved exponentially and that we continue to explore ways to tighten the bolt on our security system," Stover said.
 
-Cp said:
"I think it's a little uncomfortable, but if it improves security, it's necessary," said Miki Agrawal, of New York, who recently flew into Fort Lauderdale on business.
Exactly how I feel! But I don't think it should be random, I think everyone should go through it. Especially if I'm on the plane, I wanna know I'm safe! :)
 
Damn....I have been flying a lot lately, and I haven't been touched by any of the female TSA paople....where is the equality in that?

Aren't we all supposed to be treated equally?

I want a massage when I fly to O'Hare on Monday morning!
 
Got thru the airport again this morning without anyone touching me....although they did want to check my bag (lots of electronical equipment...sic)

Here's hoping I get a little grope on WEd when I fly home.
 
Fmr jarhead said:
Damn....I have been flying a lot lately, and I haven't been touched by any of the female TSA paople....where is the equality in that?

Aren't we all supposed to be treated equally?

I want a massage when I fly to O'Hare on Monday morning!




My husband flies all the damn time! He better not be getting felt up by pretty girls. HAHAHAHA!


On a side note my husband did tell me "have you looked at the TSA people they hire?" I guess I am not too worried about it now....hehehe
 
Patriot said:
My husband flies all the damn time! He better not be getting felt up by pretty girls. HAHAHAHA!


On a side note my husband did tell me "have you looked at the TSA people they hire?" I guess I am not too worried about it now....hehehe


Yeah LOL no worries there!!! Some of those women look like they could be linebackers. :eek2:
 
-Cp said:
Why do people feel as if "their rights are being violated"? Last I checked, it is NOT A RIGHT to fly - it's not in our Bill of Rights, I've checked..

You might want to read the 4th amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states:

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.

And as far as the right to travel, Justice Tolman states:

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.



The right to fly is indeed a personal liberty, encompassed by the right to travel. If I want to go fly my aircraft, I don't have to pass any security check. The thing that allows the government to pass laws regarding security on airlines is that airlines are corporations, and the government has the authority to dictate how corporations are run. Until the TSA, airline security was handled by the various airline corporations, and corporations are not restricted by the bill of rights, in that if they want to make a requirement that to board their equipment you pass a security check, they are free to do so.

It is quite a different matter, however, to have a GOVERNMENT agency and government officers, searching citizens in an unreasonable manner.

-Cp said:
It's a complete PRIVLEDGE to fly, and if you want to board an airline that's run by a COMPANY, you'll have to go thru their screening process. Don't like it? Take a Train, Bus, Boat or Drive.

Bull. It's not a privilege, anymore than buying food at the store is a privilege. The right to travel is a fundamental right, one of the rights not excluded by enumeration as noted in the 9th amendment.


Regards


Andy
 
CivilLiberty said:
You might want to read the 4th amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states:

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.
It's not unreasonable when it comes to protecting citizens not only on the plane but also wherever that plane can crash if taken over by someone sneaking shit on.
I don't get this, if you have nothing to hide, why worry about being searched before getting on a plane? Unless it's an oral search, does it really hurt you?
 
UsaPride said:
It's not unreasonable when it comes to protecting citizens not only on the plane but also wherever that plane can crash if taken over by someone sneaking shit on.
I don't get this, if you have nothing to hide, why worry about being searched before getting on a plane? Unless it's an oral search, does it really hurt you?

I really don't have a problem with it in general, however there have been some cases in which possibly due to lack of training or abuse of power some searches have been a little too personal and intrusive, I think there are a lot of bugs to be worked out, also better use of technology may be a solution. Protocol needs to be streamlined better.
 
Bonnie said:
however there have been some cases in which possibly due to lack of training or abuse of power some searches have been a little too personal and intrusive, I think there are a lot of bugs to be worked out, also better use of technology may be a solution. Protocol needs to be streamlined better.
I agree. More training, better technology, I agree.
But, until we get to where we should be, this is what we have. If I go to get on a plane and some woman has to check the wire in my bra or a crease in my pants, check it. As long as she's checking the others that thoroughly then I know I'm safe on that plane.
Now, the people that are abusing their power need to be taking care of. I hear about just the fact of being search is the problem more than how their being searched, you know. So really, that's what bugs me.
 
UsaPride said:
It's not unreasonable when it comes to protecting citizens not only on the plane but also wherever that plane can crash if taken over by someone sneaking shit on.
I don't get this, if you have nothing to hide, why worry about being searched before getting on a plane? Unless it's an oral search, does it really hurt you?


ORAL SEARCH BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :rotflmao:
 
Fmr jarhead said:
Andy, do you consider driving an automobile a right or a privilege?


Some consider it "right" regardless, and some state constitutions support this to a degree.

My statement is:

It is a right to drive an automobile, it is a privilege to drive an automobile on roads owned and maintained by the government, but most important, it is a RIGHT to TRAVEL in a motor vehicle as a passenger, regardless of the above premise.

A
 
UsaPride said:
It's not unreasonable when it comes to protecting citizens not only on the plane but also wherever that plane can crash if taken over by someone sneaking shit on.
I don't get this, if you have nothing to hide, why worry about being searched before getting on a plane? Unless it's an oral search, does it really hurt you?

Prove to me an intrusive pat down search does anything REAL to secure safety of passengers and crew.

This is my general statement on civil liberties, though it does apply here:

<hr>
You Need Civil Liberties!
How Civil Rights Are Important To Your Life.
By Andrew Somers, 8/2003

Shortly after 9/11 I had a conversation with the apprentice editor on a film I was working on. He made the statement "I think the government should take away our civil liberties in order to protect us". I was so stunned by that statement I wasn't even certain how to respond.

Let's try this: He's Korean/American. We're having problems in our relationships with North Korea right now. It's not too difficult to imagine the possibility of a conflict leading to military action. Now assume that we allowed our government to do away with our civil rights, as he proposes. What will prevent the government from interning him in a camp for the duration of the conflict with Korea? Nothing.

This is not some far-fetched conjecture. Consider the internment of over one hundred thousand Japanese Americans during World War II. Consider that today, thousands of people have been taken prisoner by the U.S. Government in the war on terror - not charged with any crime, not given access to family, or legal representation - simply imprisoned by the government. No trial. No due process. Just freedom revoked.

Faced with a tragedy like 9/11, it's very easy to think that "giving up civil liberties to fight the bad guys" is a good idea. If you're an honest citizen then there's no reason for you to fear a totalitarian government, right? But that is where an important reality check is in order. If you have no civil rights, then you must rely entirely on the goodness of the government, as well as each and every person in that government, and each and every one of your neighbors.

Without civil liberties what is to prevent a racist cop from inflicting his racism on a target minority? Nothing - as innocent minorities convicted on false testimony can attest.

Without civil liberties what is to prevent your neighbor (that has a grudge against you) from "turning you in to the authorities" for some alleged crime (one you didn't commit, but that he reports anonymously that you did)? Nothing - as many have found, anonymous tips are a great way to get back at someone you don't like.

Without civil liberties, we are all open to the gravest destruction of our private lives, even if we are the most honest and hardworking of citizens.

If you don't believe that a government unchecked by civil rights is capable of injustice then you need to review history. While it's always easy to bring up the recent past of Nazi Germany, The USSR and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the distant past points to even more serious human rights violations. In fact, it was these excesses of past governments (including the one we freed ourselves of in 1776) that resulted in our forefathers developing the Bill of Rights for our own constitution.

No society can survive and thrive when absolute power is given to the governing body. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Understanding this premise leads us to the realization that civil liberties are the most precious and frail of rights and must be protected at all costs. Our legacy of civil liberties in this country have been paid for by the blood of our fathers, grand fathers, and great great great great grand fathers. To throw these rights away for the misguided illusion of greater security would be a most serious crime indeed.
 
CivilLiberty said:
Prove to me an intrusive pat down search does anything REAL to secure safety of passengers and crew.
Are you serious?
If I'm hiding shit in my bra, then I'm sure somebody will find it if they're patting me down. That could save the lives of the passengers and crew.

Without civil liberties what is to prevent a racist cop from inflicting his racism on a target minority? .....
Without civil liberties what is to prevent your neighbor (that has a grudge against you) from "turning you in to the authorities" for some alleged crime (one you didn't commit, but that he reports anonymously that you did)? .....
Doesn't this kind of stuff happen now as it did before 9/11? Racist cops inflicting racism? Mean ass people claiming you did something you didn't?
To throw these rights away for the misguided illusion of greater security would be a most serious crime indeed.
I don't even know how to reply to this. I'm completely dumbfounded!
 

Forum List

Back
Top