The Obama Approved (Nazi)TSA sexual assault of former Miss USA

[Uncensored2008]

I imagine that is your confirmation bias speaking. Just like you keep "seeing" people being sexually molested by the TSA.

Your love of a police state is palpable.

Such is the way of leftists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the bar said pat downs were mandatory to get inside to party it up with hoity toities because it's the local hot spot, is it a problem if one still wishes to enter the club?

She chooses to fly. To fly, ya get a pat down and your privates touched. Don't like it? Take a train. Or a bus. It's just the way it is.

Ain't fascism grand?

What a wonderful world you leftists promote.

A legal administrative search at the airport is not fascism and the TSA pat-downs have been implemented since 2002.

You may have read about TSA implementing enhanced pat downs as part of our layered approach to security. Using the latest intelligence, TSA constantly updates our screening procedures to stay ahead of those who wish to do us harm and keep the skies safe for the flying public. When developing our security procedures, we use input from across the agency, including our Offices of Intelligence, Privacy, and Civil Rights and Liberties.

To add some perspective, TSA has used pat downs since our agency started federalizing checkpoints in 2002. They’re an effective way of helping us keep dangerous items such as weapons or improvised explosive devices off of planes.

So, what might cause you to receive a pat-down? Passengers may receive a pat-down in a number of circumstances: to resolve an alarm at a walk-through metal detector; if an anomaly is detected during screening with advanced imaging technology; or during random screening. Passengers who opt out of enhanced screening such as advanced imaging technology will receive an equivalent level of screening to include a thorough pat-down. Remember, you can always request to be screened in a private area.

You shouldn’t expect to see the same security procedures at every airport. Our security measures are designed to be unpredictable and are constantly assessed and updated to address evolving threats.

The TSA Blog: Enhanced Pat-downs

Again, an administrative search is checking luggage for weapons and/or explosives. It is not going through luggage to make sure everyone has their liquids in containers that hold less than 3 ounces and sequestered in a gallon Ziplock bag. It is not feeling people up. It is not even patting down people who happen to be trying to fly home in time to be at the side of a dying parent. It is not putting your hands inside the clothing of a young girl who could not possibly be carrying an weapon. It is not using an explosive residue test that is so inaccurate that every law enforcement agency in the country has stopped using it because it alerts to the people having eaten bacon for breakfast.

I could go on forever, yet all anyone who supports this can do is point to a blog run by the very agency that is violating civil rights of every single person they come into contact with.

 

[Valerie]

Papers pleezzz, you vill show your papers SCHNELL.

and the TSA pat-downs have been implemented since 2002.

Of course you opposed them at that time - different party in power.

Look, that you leftists promote an oppressive police state isn't news to anyone.

Once again, fear and lies...


I don't care who is the president, it is my opinion that making a scene at the airport is nothing but drama queen propaganda.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am spitting my coffee!

Mods, petty and childish? OMFG NO WAY!!!

Maybe mods should be TSA agents since you trust them so implicitly.

I do not trust anyone implicitly. I do, however, require evidence before I accuse people of being petty and childish. I have not seen that on this board.

I imagine that is your confirmation bias speaking. Just like you keep "seeing" people being sexually molested by the TSA.

Could be, just like you continually see the TSA following procedures and never doing anything wrong. All you have on your side is that the government says it, while I have the fact that people are people and will sexually molest others whenever they have a chance.

Why do you trust the government despite all the evidence that people are abusive? Is in not possible that the occasional TSO does abuse their power? Isn't the fact that the TSA consistently denies it is happening evidence that they are part of a cover up?

To be honest, you remind me a lot of the apologists for the Catholic church when people accused priests of child abuse. Their attitude was that, if it is happening, it is extremely rare, and the church would take the necessary steps to make sure it did not happen again. My guess is that you did not believe that line coming from them, yet you believe it coming from the TSA because you want them to keep you safe.

Just something to think about.

 

[Valerie]

A legal administrative search at the airport is not fascism and the TSA pat-downs have been implemented since 2002.

Says the poster child for sheepleness:

"We have already noticed the intimate relation between the two amendments. They throw great light on each other. For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. "

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (U.S. 02/01/1886)


.

I wonder if the xcited 1 will try to claim that you are being disingenuous for citing that 1886 precedent...?

Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].

FourthAmendment.com - Post details: Airport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limits

 

[Skull Pilot]

All you guys have is drama and fear, deflection and personal attack, meanwhile not one shred of evidence that this TSA agent did anything beyond procedural toward the drama queen in the OP...



"TSA sexual assault of former Miss USA"

The so called groping procedure IS the problem.

I understand some people think the procedure is the problem but that does not mean the procedure is sexual molestation. That is a lie. Security at the airport is currently legal procedure which is not subject to change by virtue of every drama queen with an agenda making false allegations of sexual molestation just to drum up propaganda.

It's an illegal search.

Why is it that a cop can't just pat down every Tom, Dick, or Ahmed on the street?

 

[Ravi]

I do not trust anyone implicitly. I do, however, require evidence before I accuse people of being petty and childish. I have not seen that on this board.

I imagine that is your confirmation bias speaking. Just like you keep "seeing" people being sexually molested by the TSA.

Could be, just like you continually see the TSA following procedures and never doing anything wrong. All you have on your side is that the government says it, while I have the fact that people are people and will sexually molest others whenever they have a chance.

Why do you trust the government despite all the evidence that people are abusive? Is in not possible that the occasional TSO does abuse their power? Isn't the fact that the TSA consistently denies it is happening evidence that they are part of a cover up?

To be honest, you remind me a lot of the apologists for the Catholic church when people accused priests of child abuse. Their attitude was that, if it is happening, it is extremely rare, and the church would take the necessary steps to make sure it did not happen again. My guess is that you did not believe that line coming from them, yet you believe it coming from the TSA because you want them to keep you safe.

Just something to think about.

I've never claimed the TSA is incapable of wrong doing. But it would be extremely hard for an agent to sexually molest someone. They aren't exactly doing their work in secret. And any actual molestation would elicit a very loud and immediate vocal response.

 

[syrenn]

You've reached a dead end here, huh?

I have yet to even walk in the scanner or have a pat down everytime I go to the airport the scanners have no one to run them....kinda odd if you ask me

idk, i fly at least once a month and have never been pat down or had to go through the full body scanner.

Get you a pair of boobs and some makeup on.... watch the change.

 

[syrenn]

?” Am I a threat to US security? I was Miss USA, for Pete’s sake!"
Right here is the problem. How can they actually treat me like they treat the masses.

They try to blow up another plane using a Caucasian girl and this whole thread goes away.

Just stfu, stop thinking you are above the law and comply. I dont approve of them "randomly" picking a little child though. Pat down the parents and send the child through x ray. Actually this makes me a bit of a hypocrite, but really, a six year old?

Again, this spoiled "beauty queen" needs to stfu or dont fly. She is the one who didnt want to go thru the xray machine. Again, dont fly! She knows damn well she did not get felt up. YOUR 15 MINUTES WERE UP WHEN YOU HANDED OVER YOUR CROWN THE NEXT YEAR. We dont know you anymore.

Pathetic.

I don't think it's absurd for her to ask that a stranger not touch her vagina. Had the TSA agent done that to her in a bar, he'd be arrested for attempted rape. But since the TSA does it, well, then she should "stfu" and take it, right?

If you don't want your stuff TOUCHED then go through the body scanner! The body scanner is no big deal. If you want SPECIAL TREATMENT, then don't complain about what happens.

It always amazes me how people can complain. Requesting a TSA agent to do a body check is a request for special treatment. They know what is going to happen, so don't bitch about what you are going to get.

Not ALL airports have the body scanners.

 

[syrenn]

I imagine that is your confirmation bias speaking. Just like you keep "seeing" people being sexually molested by the TSA.

Could be, just like you continually see the TSA following procedures and never doing anything wrong. All you have on your side is that the government says it, while I have the fact that people are people and will sexually molest others whenever they have a chance.

Why do you trust the government despite all the evidence that people are abusive? Is in not possible that the occasional TSO does abuse their power? Isn't the fact that the TSA consistently denies it is happening evidence that they are part of a cover up?

To be honest, you remind me a lot of the apologists for the Catholic church when people accused priests of child abuse. Their attitude was that, if it is happening, it is extremely rare, and the church would take the necessary steps to make sure it did not happen again. My guess is that you did not believe that line coming from them, yet you believe it coming from the TSA because you want them to keep you safe.

Just something to think about.

I've never claimed the TSA is incapable of wrong doing. But it would be extremely hard for an agent to sexually molest someone. They aren't exactly doing their work in secret. And any actual molestation would elicit a very loud and immediate vocal response.

You don't know very much about sexual molestations then ravi.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea we sure do miss those Rights. Now that Bin Laden's dead,it would be nice to get them back. How bout it Politicians?

 

[Valerie]

"no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose "



A search confined in good faith for that purpose, is NOT sexual molestation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Once again, fear and lies...

That you support and promote a police state is demonstrable fact. Are you too dull to comprehend what you are advocating.

I don't care who is the president,

Now that is an outright lie. You are 100% partisan.

 

[Valerie]

A legal administrative search at the airport is not fascism

Papers pleezzz, you vill show your papers SCHNELL.

and the TSA pat-downs have been implemented since 2002.

Of course you opposed them at that time - different party in power.

Look, that you leftists promote an oppressive police state isn't news to anyone.

I noticed you ignored the facts about when the procedure was implemented only to repeat your lie 15 posts later.

I imagine that is your confirmation bias speaking. Just like you keep "seeing" people being sexually molested by the TSA.

Your love of a police state is palpable.

Such is the way of leftists.

"Papers pleezzz, you vill show your papers SCHNELL."


BTW, now you're saying we shouldn't even need to show a passport or license either?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I noticed you ignored the facts about when the procedure was implemented only to repeat your lie 15 posts later.

What are you buzzing about, drone? Do you even know?

BTW, now you're saying we shouldn't even need to show a passport or license either?

You mean just random checks? No, we should not.

I suspect that much of your hostility toward basic civil liberties is born of your complete lack of grasp of the concept of liberty.

I don't care whether an infringement causes direct and immediate harm. A free people are left unmolested in their daily lives. Checkpoints and random searches are features of a police state, not a free people.

I grew up in a free country - I support making this nation free again.

 

[Valerie]

Once again, fear and lies...

That you support and promote a police state is demonstrable fact. Are you too dull to comprehend what you are advocating.

I don't care who is the president,

Now that is an outright lie. You are 100% partisan.

Not at all, I just have this thing about drama queen liars fear mongering the public into believing America is a police state...

 

[HUGGY]

The so called groping procedure IS the problem.

I understand some people think the procedure is the problem but that does not mean the procedure is sexual molestation. That is a lie. Security at the airport is currently legal procedure which is not subject to change by virtue of every drama queen with an agenda making false allegations of sexual molestation just to drum up propaganda.

It's an illegal search.

Why is it that a cop can't just pat down every Tom, Dick, or Ahmed on the street?

Because the street is public?...and an airport is not? An airport is a public facility when it comes to managing air traffic. But that is only a relationship between pilots, carriers and the FAA. The TSA is not protecting you or me at the airport...they are protecting the interests of the Pilots, Air Carriers and the companies that insure them against liable. You have no more rights at an airport than in a Walmart.

 

[Ravi]

Could be, just like you continually see the TSA following procedures and never doing anything wrong. All you have on your side is that the government says it, while I have the fact that people are people and will sexually molest others whenever they have a chance.

Why do you trust the government despite all the evidence that people are abusive? Is in not possible that the occasional TSO does abuse their power? Isn't the fact that the TSA consistently denies it is happening evidence that they are part of a cover up?

To be honest, you remind me a lot of the apologists for the Catholic church when people accused priests of child abuse. Their attitude was that, if it is happening, it is extremely rare, and the church would take the necessary steps to make sure it did not happen again. My guess is that you did not believe that line coming from them, yet you believe it coming from the TSA because you want them to keep you safe.

Just something to think about.

I've never claimed the TSA is incapable of wrong doing. But it would be extremely hard for an agent to sexually molest someone. They aren't exactly doing their work in secret. And any actual molestation would elicit a very loud and immediate vocal response.

You don't know very much about sexual molestations then ravi.

In an airport, full of people, and with other agents looking on it would be virtually impossible to sexually molest someone unnoticed.

It's really sad that people keep making these false accusations. It is one thing to be against the searches but the lies and attacks on character are sickening.

 

[Valerie]

I noticed you ignored the facts about when the procedure was implemented only to repeat your lie 15 posts later.

What are you buzzing about, drone? Do you even know?

BTW, now you're saying we shouldn't even need to show a passport or license either?

You mean just random checks? No, we should not.

I suspect that much of your hostility toward basic civil liberties is born of your complete lack of grasp of the concept of liberty.

I don't care whether an infringement causes direct and immediate harm. A free people are left unmolested in their daily lives. Checkpoints and random searches are features of a police state, not a free people.

I grew up in a free country - I support making this nation free again.

We're talking about airport security, not checkpoints and random searches, and you keep deflecting and pretending the implementation of this airport security policy was political by repeating the word "leftist" as if repeating it will make it true...?





We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are "conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 111 (2006); Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.


A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913.

FourthAmendment.com - Post details: Airport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limits

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A legal administrative search at the airport is not fascism and the TSA pat-downs have been implemented since 2002.

Says the poster child for sheepleness:

"We have already noticed the intimate relation between the two amendments. They throw great light on each other. For the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man "in a criminal case to be a witness against himself," which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a man's private books and papers to be used in evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. "

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (U.S. 02/01/1886)


.

I wonder if the xcited 1 will try to claim that you are being disingenuous for citing that 1886 precedent...?

Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, " confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].

FourthAmendment.com - Post details: Airport screening searches no longer considered a matter of implied consent; they are regulatory searches, and they are not without limits

You realize that you just proved that your argument that people consent to these searches by flying is wrong, at least in the 9th Circuit, don't you?