Texas becomes first state to ban 'intrusive' TSA security pat downs

[sabrina 1]

Humiliating: A man endures a pat-down at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in front of a crowd

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386825/Texas-state-ban-airport-security-pat-downs-look-follow-suit.html#ixzz1MIywPEnN


Texas becomes first state to ban 'intrusive' TSA security pat downs

Texas has become the first state to ban intrusive airport security pat downs.

The bill, passed late last night, aims to make touching travellers in an 'inappropriate' way during searches a criminal offence.
The measure makes it illegal for anyone conducting pat-downs to touch 'the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person' including through clothing.


It also prohibits searches 'that would be offensive to a reasonable person.'

'This (bill) has to do with dignity and travel, and prohibiting indecent, groping searches,' Republican Representative David Simpson, the bill's chief sponsor said.

The bill won't supercede Federal Law, because the Senate has not acted on it yet. But it's a first step towards getting rid of these abuses and it's good to see that so many people are disgusted by them.

Simpson says he hopes the bill will keep TSA officials from treating travellers like criminals.

Alaska passed a similar resolution in March and six other states including NJ, NY, NH and Hawaii are looking at banning the Rapiscans and patdowns from their states also.

In New Hampshire the proposed bill would make 'touching or viewing of a person's breasts or genitals' by airport security staff a sexual assault, is still languishing at the committee stage'.

The NH bill's co-sponsor Representative Andrew Manuse, who is completely opposed to the practices had this to say about the issue:

"Let's put their name on the sex offender registry, and maybe that will tell them New Hampshire means business".

Several lawsuits have also been filed claiming violations of 4th Amendment rights.

This appears to be a bi-partisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats are disturbed by these abuses.



Lots of anger over this across the country and photos like this of a little baby being patted down don't help people feel any better about it.

The country seems to be losing its mind, but in reality, the American people are not to blame and appear to be about to put a stop to all this nonsense.

[RagAss]

1. Nude flying is our only hope.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Well, it would ensure I was the only one

on the plane as the rest of the passengers would be in the airport restroom throwing their guts up. Now, if I was 22 again . . . ;-)

[Buns_of_Fire]

81. "Nekkid Airlines" -- an idea whose time has (finally) come!

"We Have Nothing To Hide"(tm) "Be Patriotic! Fly Nekkid!"(tm):patriot:

(All I need is a few billion in seed capital...)

[brettdale]

97. LOL

Too freakin funny

[gateley]

2. K&R! Good on ya, Texas! nt

[Keith Bee]

41. Really?

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2011/05/13/texas-plays-into-tsas-hands/

[Mojeoux]

3. We need a sonar glove, that you use on yourself.

They would supply sanitary plastic gloves to wear under the sonar glove.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

4. well this will be interesting...

since there is neither a federal law or federal court ruling enabling freedom fingerbangs. Although I know this will be disappointing to those around here who so enthusiastically support the gropings and any other theatrical display of force that makes them feel "safe".

[sabrina 1]

11. Yes, a few people are going to be disappointed.

I will never understand the appeal of authoritarianism to people who are supposedly progressives.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Public safety is not...

authoritarianism. You've really got to stop playing the "you're authoritarian if you disagree with me" one-size-fits-all "debate" tactic.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

59. and to paraphrase, public safety isn't a suicide pact either

Public safety also isn't born out of theatrical displays of force or funneling billions to republican campaign contributors.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

58. I don't think it is a sincere embrace of authoritarianism

Their just fools cowering in fear and if getting to second base with a TSA asshole makes them feel safer, so be it.

[Le Taz Hot]

15. Freedom finger bangs?

:rofl: Now, THAT'S funny! And right on.

[sabrina 1]

47. I missed that!

:rofl:

'Freedom finger bangs'! Lol!

[dixiegrrrrl]

32. LOL!!!!! "freedom fingerbangs"

I gotta tell you, it has been several decades since I have heard the word "fingerbangs".
Nice use of the word, there, Sen.

[krabigirl]

5. good for texas! k & R

[suffragette]

6. Happy to hear this. Hope it starts a shift from from the guilty

until proven innocent approach that's become pervasive starting with the preemptive war against Iraq and back to treating people as innocent until proven guilty .

[sabrina 1]

8. Yes, that almost seems to be thing of the past, innocent

until proven guilty. But when people get together and stand up, and there were a few who stood out on this issue, like the two pilots who were suspended for refusing to accept these abuses eg. Their example inspired the Pilot's Union to get involved. When people take a stand it does make a difference. Maybe this was a last straw for a lot of people. I hope so.

[suffragette]

43. Let's hope it is a turning point.

[Prometheus Bound]

7. Oh Dear Lord! The terrorists have won. No one is safe.

[sabrina 1]

9. We'll be okay, I don't think George Bush flies on commercial

planes when he leaves Texas!

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. Good

Guess who lost the argument?

[MadHound]

12. Wow, Texas does get something right once in awhile,

Congrats on the common sense and standing up to the bullshit Texas.

[NotThisTime]

25. I agree, probably the only thing they've done right

[Le Taz Hot]

14. As a Californian I admit

I don't cut Texas a lot of slack but I say kudos for the Texas state leg. on this one.

[pecwae]

16. Good!

Hopefully an avalanche of such bills will begin.

[sabrina 1]

20. Yes, that's what I am for also.

[woo me with science]

17. Kicked and strongly recommended. nt

[somone]

18. Every state should do this

[woo me with science]

19. Kick. nt

[SDuderstadt]

21. Did you know that the mother...

holding the baby in your second picture is "laughing the whole thing off", according to the guy that took the picture?

[sabrina 1]

26. Did you know that the guy who took the picture took it

because he was so shocked by what he was seeing?

[SDuderstadt]

28. Yet, the mother of the baby that was supposedly "abused"...

laughed it off and chastised the picture-taker. Hmmm.

BTW, I responded to the OP without realizing you were the author. My mistake.

[sabrina 1]

30. Yes, I noticed you do that a lot.

React to things you have not thoroughly read.

Several mothers and fathers have had their toddlers creepily fondled at the airport and were not laughing about it. The issue is not about the reaction of one individual. I'm sure there were plenty of people who were not bothered by the policies of many totalitarian states.

The issue, now being taken up by a growing number of states' legislators, approximately eight so far, is our Constitutional rights. It is appalling that any country claiming to be a democracy would even consider these tactics. Nor did we, ironically until a little over a year ago.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Research the Supremacy Clause of the...

Constitution and case law, Sabrina. State legislatures do not trump Congress.

[sabrina 1]

33. I am aware of the issue of supremecy, in fact it is mentioned in

the OP. But as more states' legislators ban the use of 'enhanced patdowns' and Rapiscans hopefully, elected officials at the federal level will have to pay attention to what their constituents want. This was a political decision made after the failed terror attack, using it as a weapon to sell these machines. And when people opted out of using them in favor of the regular searches, the TSA decided to make the patdowns so intrusive that people would choose the machines. It was a deliberate attempt to continue the sale of those vile contraptions. I watched it happen on the TSA's blog.

Now the people are speaking out and standing up, suing, pressuring their state and federal elected officials as the outrage increases, as it should whenever people's rights are threatened.

Hopefully this country will return to sanity before it is too late and I am awed by courageous and patriotic people, including some elected officials, who will not let this stand until it has been resolved in favor of the constitutional rights of all Americans.

[TheMadMonk]

42. The constitution however, SHOULD trump congress.

"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."

That the people have been too fucking terrified of their own shadows to kick up a stink is problem they'd bloody well better fix toot sweet, or there will be nothing to call America left.

[SDuderstadt]

52. "toot sweet"

LOL!

There are exceptions to the 4th amendment. Security checkpoint are one of them and there is no requirement that the TSA obtain a search warrant prior to administering an "administrative search'.

The ignorance here of the Constitution and how our legal system works is oftentimes nothing short of stunning.

[TheKentuckian]

89. Where in the Constitution are your exceptions? They were carved out by subsequent authoritarian

Activist judges and corrupt elected officials in direct violation of the original and superseding law and should be overturned.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Read Marbury v Madison...

Are you one of those "original intent" guys like Antonio Scalia? Or, do you realize there are exceptions to the Bill of Rights? Could a defendant claim a first amendment right to commit perjury? Do you honestly think the exceptions need to be spelled out in the Constitution?

P.S. Bonus points for working "authoritarian" into your post.

[dogday]

22. Last law I liked made in Texas was the red light camera law here in

Houston, but I am loving this one. Another check for the Lone Star State.... :hi:

[sabrina 1]

35. Yes, they can be proud to lead the way on this ~

[Gormy Cuss]

23. Interesting. Touching breasts and buttocks were part of the older version of TSA pat-downs.

Of course, it was down with the back of the hand and that was the extent of the genital area probe.

[Ichingcarpenter]

24. Lt. Crusher of star treck gets his nuts crushed at LAX by the TSA

Will Weaton look it up.
He's pissed

[sabrina 1]

27. As he should be!

I hope CA will start proposing legislation to ban these abuses too since I live here now and would like to be able to fly again.

[Ikonoklast]

36. Ah, c'mon, who doesn't want to kick Wesley Crusher in the nuts?

Just as a matter of principle.

[thanks_imjustlurking]

29. This is good, but

the Texas lege is still not doing a thing about raising revenues to fill the gap that Perry's "improvements" to the tax system made. They're just going to slash schools and services to the bone. And they're hot on voter ID and invading women's bodies.

I'm not Texas-bashing - I live here. I'm just pointing out that this is about the *only* good thing that out-of-control batch of crazy Repugs has done.

[sabrina 1]

34. Maybe this is a good sign, do you think? I imagine that the legislature

must have been hearing from constituents about the issue and are responding to the complaints. If that is why they have taken these steps, then it would mean they are responding to pressure from the public.

I was surprised that it was Texas, not NY or NJ who actually got this done as NY, NJ and NH eg, have been working on similar lege. but seem to be dragging their feet on it. Maybe now that Texas has led the way, it will inspire others to do the same.

It might be worthwhile starting separate movements to pressure them on the other issues you mention. I know what you mean though, I did not expect Texas to lead the way on something like this. Hope it gets better for you there though ...

[thanks_imjustlurking]

63. There's a fair amound of pressure on the school funding issue

leading to absolutely nothing so far.

Texas Observer had an editorial hoping they'd push a decision on the budget to a special session this summer where it could be the only thing on their plate, hoping more people would notice and more pressure would be applied.

If the budget does go to a special session, I for one will be there every Friday, which I have off in the summers. If I can afford the gas.

[sabrina 1]

108. Frustrating I'm sure.

Good to know they are being pressured at least. Good luck though regarding seeing results. Sometimes they actually do respond when the people shout loud enough, it's rare I know though ~

[LibDemAlways]

37. Bad enough that adults are subjected to this ridiculous

groping, but the baby pat-down proves that the system is broken.

If the powers-that-be in DC were serious about eliminating waste in the fed. budget, TSA would be a great place to start. There isn't a more useless agency out there.

Not a big fan of Texas, but it looks like they are at least trying to address the problem. Hope other states follow suit. There are many of us who will not fly until this shit stops.

[sabrina 1]

39. Definitely Homeland Security needs to go. The name alone

is creepy. And a few years ago there was a huge scandal brewing about corruption involving that agency, and involving Chertoff et al, allegations of prostitutes being paid for with DHS funds, corruption regarding contracts etc. Supposedly lots of powerful people from the government were going to be implicated, but only one that I know of, Cunningham, was ever prosecuted and after the DC Madame 'committed suicide' that seemed to end it.

[LibDemAlways]

44. I would vote for any Presidential candidate who

promised to eliminate the whole bloated, corrupt bureaucracy. You're right about "homeland" being creepy. A little too close to "vaterland" for my taste.

[Matariki]

38. Good.

Think I'll send this article to my own State Senators.

[SDuderstadt]

40. If the Senate hasn't...

"acted on it yet", how in the world could it be claimed that Texas "banned" anything? Are you claiming that if the Texas House passes something, it, ipso facto, becomes law? Eric Cantor...is that you?

Or, are you talking about the United States Senate, in which case your OP is even more bizarre?

[Iris]

45. Weird coincedence. I just flew out of TX last week and the girl behind me in the

super-duper scanner got pulled out for one of these.

[sabrina 1]

46. Why don't you read the linked article and the OP?

[SDuderstadt]

48. The subject line of the OP is...

a falsehood.

[sabrina 1]

49. The Texas House voted to ban TSA patdowns. That is a fact!

If you have something to prove otherwise, post it.

[SDuderstadt]

50. You already posted it...

it's the OP. The subject line proclaims that Texas is the first STATE to ban the patdowns. Really? So, in the state of Texas, if the House passes a measure, but similarly is not enacted by the Senate, does it automatically become law? Did you study at the Eric Cantor school of government?

If your subject line had read that the Texas House was the first legislative body to vote to ban the procedures (which they really can't do anyhow because of the Supremacy clause of the United States Constitution), your subject line would be true, but, is essentially a distinction without a difference.


But, the claim that the State of Texas has banned the procedures is simply false, as I have previously pointed out. In fact, the RW tabloid article your OP is based upon points out that it is no more than a symbolic gesture, for the reason I have previously stated.

You can try to blur the lines all you want, but, your subject line is false on its face.

[sabrina 1]

53. The vote was 100% against the TSA. I know you don't like it.

But not much you can do. This is moving ahead and I feel confident these violations of people's rights will be stopped far more quickly than originally expected. The Senate will pass it because that is what the people want. And since the Feds have no standing to use their Supremacy status since they are in violation of the Constitution, this is simply fantastic news. Way more than I had expected this soon.

The truth is the American people do not like their Constitutional rights being violated, especially by their own government. Eight states now moving to make these pat-downs and obscene machines illegal and it's only been six months!!

I am proud of the American people! :applause:

The TSA blogger is having a hard time also. I see you got your stats from him. No wonder they were so off. I have not filed a complaint and neither has any member of my family or friends, yet every one of them feels the same way. So his numbers are worthless. The TSA is the last place most people are going to complain to.

My complaints, and those of my family and friends will be going to our legislators. I am thrilled with how the people are protecting their rights.

Frankly I thought this would take a couple of years.

As for the link, this story has been covered by numerous news outlets. Google it if you don't like this link, there are lots more. This is a bi-partisan issue, an American issue. The implementation of these anti-Constitutional tactics were bi-partisan also, sadly. The party we put into power was supposed to stop these Bush tactics. But hey, we the people have the power to do that ourselves, and that is what we are doing.

[Gravel Democrat]

54. +1,000,000!! Tell IT

"Get Up Stand Up"

Preacher man, don't tell me,
Heaven is under the earth.
I know you don't know
What life is really worth.
It's not all that glitters is gold;
'Alf the story has never been told:
So now you see the light, eh!
Stand up for your rights. come on!



Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight!

We sick an' tired of-a your ism-skism game -
Dyin' 'n' goin' to heaven in-a Jesus' name, lord.
We know when we understand:
Almighty god is a living man.
You can fool some people sometimes,
But you can't fool all the people all the time.
So now we see the light (what you gonna do?),
We gonna stand up for our rights!

http://youtu.be/tqjET1cBjXM

How the hell is it that I learned more about rights from a black Jamaican with dreads than I learned in 12 years of "school"?

[SDuderstadt]

56. "May it please the Court...

the Plaintiffs call Bob Marley to the stand".

Solicitor General of the United States: "You're calling a corpse to the stand?".

Too funny.

[sabrina 1]

70. Lol, good question, Gravel Democrat!

[SDuderstadt]

55. "The Senate will pass it...

because that is what the people want".

Sabrina...you just disproved your own claim...did you see that? If the Senate has not passed it, then the State of Texas has NOT banned it, unless you can explain how one house of a bicameral legislature can enact legislation all on its own. When Eric Cantor tried to make a similar claim, he was pilloried for a number of days.

Beyond that, can you please explain what you mean by "the Feds have no standing to use their 'supremacy status' (sic) since they are in violation of the Constitution"? No one is talking about the "supremacy status of the Feds", whatever that means. The Supremacy Clause refers to the power of Congress, in that federal law trumps state law and states cannot enact law that supersedes Congress. I honestly never thought I would see someone assert a "state's rights" position on a progressive discussion board.

I'm also chuckling at your contention that the Supremacy clause is somehow trumped because Congress allegedly enacted unconstitutional legislation. We are certainly lucky that questions of constitutionality are settled by the United States Supreme Court and not you, because you have little idea what you are talking about. As I have pointed out numerous times before, there are exceptions to the warrant and probable cause provisions of the 4th amendment and "administrative searches" like security checkpoints have been upheld by the Supreme Court numerous times. While the "reasonableness" requirement is not a low hurdle, the Court will, in my opinion, use a balancing approach and conclude that public safety trumps the inconvenience and even the cumbersome and uncomfortable nature of the searches.

And, again, the subject line of your OP is an utter falsehood; the State of Texas has not banned enhanced patdowns, nor could they even if they wanted to. Both Texas houses can cast as many votes as they want, but it is no more than a symbolic gesture, unless you think Texas is stupid enough to have the DPS square off against U.S. Marshals.

Too funny.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

60. For the supremacy clause to apply, there first must be a federal law

There is no enabling legislation to much of what the TSA does on an operational basis. The supremacy clause can apply to federal body executing their own internally created policies - but it first must be empowered by congress to perform the conduct being disputed by the state and no modern ruling on administrative searches even remotely touched on anything of the invasive or sexually charged nature of the TSA patdowns.

When the 9th ruled on this in 1973 they could not have conceived of a rouge agency like the TSA ever existing or such an offensive practice even being proposed.

[SDuderstadt]

62. LOL!

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+49USC114

http://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/1652-AA53/large-aircraft-security-program-other-aircraft-operator-security-program-and-airport-operator-securi

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

69. Thank you Sen. ~ n/t

[sabrina 1]

65. What you're seeing is the American people's Constitutional rights position. I

never thought I would see anyone supporting this Bush anti-Constitutional position on a democratic board, but even worse I never thought that the my party would go even further to push Bush policies than Bush himself was able to do.

I guess you weren't around during the Bush years when to Democrats this very issue, the implementation of those machines, was a major issue that we fought Bush on and succeeded in keeping them out of our airports, with the help of Civil Liberties organizations. When exactly did the left start supporting Bush's fascist policies???

As for the headline that you are so focused on, the TSA believes that Texas has passed a law banning their pat-downs. Check it out. That's good enough for me.

The courts cannot ignore violations of the Constitution. The TSA has no authority to treat people like criminals. Even the police, who have far more authority, still, despite all of Bush's efforts, cannot do that.

I like our Constitution. I like it enough that I am willing to take a teeny, tiny, miniscule risk that I might die by terror since I take far greater risks every day.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Are you saying security checkpoints are...

unconstitutional? Simple question. And, the terror landscape has shifted since the Bush years, yet you always downplay the security issues, never once taking into account how security measures contribute to keeping the chances of dying in a terrorist attack far lower. You can take all the chances you want with your own life, but not with mine nor my loved ones. I'd love to see your design for effective airport security that balances safety with constitutional concerns. So far, all you've said is you'll go back to the "one we had that worked", whatever that was.

And, again, your subject line is false, unless you can explain how one house of a bicameral legislature can enact legislation all on its own.

[sabrina 1]

68. It's not about YOU. It's about this country.

But since you are making it personal, you don't have the right to give up my rights because you are so afraid. If the FFs had worried about those who were afraid, we'd still be singing God Save the Queen.

It isn't my job to provide security, that is the job of those we elected. And we did not elect them to place fear over rights. It is OUR job to make sure that does not happen, and I am doing my part.

When someone pays me to work on security, trust me, I will work hard to balance security with our rights. Unfortunately those we entrusted and are paying to do this job, are far more interested in helping Chertoff et al profit from fear. And that is why we the people are letting them know, we will not stand for it.

Chertoff, the man who let a US city drown!! You trust his ideas to protect this country! :eyes:

I don't know why you keep asking me 'are you saying' when what I said is right there.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Sabrina...

It's real simple. Describe the security system that balances public safety and concerns over freedom. You keep going on and on about "unconstitutionality". What part of the 4th amendment do enhanced patdowns violate? It can't be the requirement for a warrant. "Administrative searches" are a well-recognized exception. Are you okay with security checkpoints at all? Why are you not screaming about those in general? Is your concern the "probable cause" provision? It can't be, because security checkpoints are a well-recognized exception.

As I have stated before, the remaining hurdle would be the "reasonableness" provision. But, as we know, you are only subject to secondary screening if you set off the metal detector after several tries, trigger the chemical trace sniffer or trigger notice in some other way. According to the TSA, it's less than 3 % of the traveling public. How is that not "reasonable"? Less than three percent so the rest of us can be safer? You make it sound like everyone is subjected to these measures.

Why don't we try it your way and dramatically roll-back the safety measures? Hint: because we might as well put up a big neon sign over the plane that says "target!". You can keep ridiculing my position as "fear", but, in the process, you ignore a very real threat. As another poster put it, I'd rather submit to an uncomfortable pat-down than fight for my life at 35,000 feet. I have never once heard you express concern for public safety. And your "rights" do not trump public safety.

[sabrina 1]

73. I have already had the 'security checkpoint' argument many times

before and am not going to waste time on it again in this thread.

THIS issue is about the Constitutionality of procedures that go far beyond those used at security checkpoints nor are the TSA agents officers of the law. When tested on their claim that they can arrest and charge and fine anyone who refuses to follow their orders, the TSA has backed away and done nothing, because they know they are treading on very, very questionable legal ground. We were all hoping they would carry out their threats as their claims do need to be tested in the courts, but obviously they themselves know they would not win.

You are defending these tactics, why? Is it because you believe they will be effective? If so you better think again.

Most experts on security, including one of Israel's top security veterans says they will do nothing to stop a terror attack.

And he is not the only one. The EU has refused to use them stating they would contribute little to security and additionally would intrude on the rights of travelers for not good reason.

Why do you always assume that people have not thoroughly researched the issues they stand up for here? This is DU, not FR. So the likelihood of people being informed is far greater, a fact that should have been obvious to you by now. Instead your constant nagging, silly posts attacking those you engaging in discussion, are the kind of comments that should be reserved for those who are blind followers of their leaders. This is not the case with democrats. We do not blindly follow anyone, and it is THAT that makes the difference, one of those clues I told you about already.

[SDuderstadt]

74. "You are defending these tactics. Why?"

This is nothing more than you attempting to win this "debate" by attempting to argue it's not debatable. In Logic, this is called "psychic foreclosure". You keep claiming that I am "attacking" you. Please point to a single example of me "attacking" you. I have never once questioned your motivation, yet you feel you can attack mine with abandon.

In the meantime, please answer two simple (although multi-part) questions you keep ducking.

1. Are security checkpoints constitutional? Yes or no?

If your answer is no, and, assuming it is on the basis of the 4th amendment, do you claim they violate the warrant requirement? Do you claim they violate the "probable cause" provision? Do you claim they violate the "reasonableness" provision? If your answer is that they are constitutional, please tell us what makes the enhanced security measures unconstitutional. Is it the "warrant" provision? Why would the enhanced measures require a warrant if checkpoints do not? Is it the 'probable cause" provision? Why would the enhanced measures require a higher standard of probable cause, when security checkpoints do not require probable cause? If it's the reasonableness provision, please explain how and why the measures are not reasonable, especially given the minuscule number of travelers subjected to them and, particularly, balanced against compelling public safety issues.

And, again, in your dream airport security system, how would you prevent PETN from getting on the plane, without using full body scanners or enhanced pat-downs? You can ramble on and on about your "rights", but unless you can address that very practical issue in an alternative manner, your position is a non-starter.

[sabrina 1]

92. PETN

The issue of PETN has been addressed over and over again. But for your benefit, one more time:

Full Body Scanners, What's Next?

And PETN is what the TSA is looking for these days. That's pentaerythritol tetranitrate, the plastic explosive that both the Shoe Bomber and the Underwear Bomber attempted but failed to detonate. It's what was mailed from Yemen. It's in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guns and traditional bombs are passé; PETN is the terrorist tool of the future.

The problem is that no scanners or puffers can detect PETN; only swabs and dogs work. What the TSA hopes is that they will detect the bulge if someone is hiding a wad of it on their person. But they won't catch PETN hidden in a body cavity. That doesn't have to be as gross as you're imagining; you can hide PETN in your mouth. A terrorist can go through the scanners a dozen times with bits in his mouth each time, and assemble a bigger bomb on the other side. Or he can roll it thin enough to be part of a garment, and sneak it through that way. These tricks aren't new. In the days after the Underwear Bomber was stopped, a scanner manufacturer admitted that the machines might not have caught him./div]

I guess I would use methods that actually can detect it.

The issue of the Constitutionality of 'enhanced pat-downs' will be settled in the courts when the several lawsuits which have already been filed claiming violations of 4th Amendment are heard.

Courts have in fact ruled in the past against checkpoints, google it if you are interested. I have already posted that info on DU in the past ~

[SDuderstadt]

95. I'll be glad to watch you...

proven wrong, Sabrina.

The justice system will side with public safety. I'd be willing to bet a number of the lawsuits will be dismissed on the grounds I have already stated, especially since such a minuscule number of travelers are subjected to the measures.

P.S. your subject line is still a falsehood.

[sabrina 1]

100. Funny, they weren't dismissed in the past. Which is why

Chertoff blamed the ACLU for his 'clients' at Rapiscan not being able to get their machines into operation.

And it's not 'my' subject line. Take it up with the press who covered the story.

[SDuderstadt]

99. If you have already posted it on DU before....

why would it be so hard to post it again? Why are you demanding that I prove YOUR claim?

BTW, your "source" is a blog from some guy named Bruce Schneier. Why should we believe him?

[sabrina 1]

101. Because he's a well-known security expert? Who has been

opposing these tactics for years? You really don't know anything about this issue, do you? Were you on board with the Bush gang's attempt to install them while the rest of us, including Mr. Schneier, were fighting that fascist regime's attempt to destroy our Constitutional rights? Because this is not a new issue. It is only in the news now because they finally managed to get them installed.

Your total lack of knowledge about the history of the fight to keep these monstrosities out of our airports (and off our streets now. What will be your defense of that I wonder?) raises the question, were you supporting this when Bush was president? I know I never met a single Democrat who was supportive of these tactics in the six years since they were first introduced.

[SDuderstadt]

106. "fighting that fascist regime's "

For the last time, you need to quit trying to tie me to the Bush administration. As despicable as they were, they were not a "fascist regime" and your labeling them that way shows you have little grasp of political systems.

It won't hurt to be free of your strawman arguments and red herrings. In the meantime, perhaps you can utilize the time you'll save in rallying Code Pink to go perform a "citizen's arrest" of Karl Rove as we discussed sometime ago. Myself, I'll continue to work in the trenches of the Democratic Party to try to undo the damage done by organizations like Code Pink.
P.S. Since you're not a mindreader, as you've demonstrated so many times. I did not think enhanced measures were necessarily until the last terror attempts.

[sabrina 1]

107. And a classic example of strawmen, speaking of irony.

Nice attempt to defend the Bush regime from the label 'fascist'. What would you call a Corporate-run state that bestows the powers of a king on a single leader and his corporate buddies?

And this while attacking a respected Democratic organization. I bet you hate Kucinich too and 'dirty hippies' and 'pacifists' and the 'sixties'!

Some things are just too predictable ~

[SDuderstadt]

109. You mean the one who...

peacefully left office when his term was up? That "fascist regime". You do, of course, know that one of the hallmarks of a fascist regime is violent, brutal suppression of the opposition, right?

By the way, you just committed the "psychic foreclosure" fallacy, as well as "begging the question" fallacy again. Let me know when you can find any noted historian who agress that the Bush administration was a "fascist regime".

As far as "Code Pink" being a respected Democratic institution, please provide proof of that. Are you claiming that Code Pink is, in any way, affifilated with the Democratic Party? Would this be the same Code Pink that occupied Speaker Pelosi's office? That Code Pink?

Newsflash: I know of no one in the Democratic Party who doesn't regard Code Pink as a joke. Let us know how the "citizen's arrest" of Karl Rove goes.

[sabrina 1]

110. I'm not surprised you know 'no one in the Democratic Party who

doesn't regard Code Pink as a joke'. :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

113. Why don't you find some praise of...

Code Pink by the Party or any party official. Take your time.

P.S. I'm willing to bet I know far more Democratic Party officials at all levels of the Party.

[sabrina 1]

116. You would lose that bet, but that's not something I wish to discuss

here.

And you're switching to 'party official' from 'democrat'? I do believe you said you knew no 'democrat' who respected them. Shifting gears again!

But since you asked:



Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur with Code Pink

Oh, and one more for you:



Code Pink co-founder and Democratic activist Jodie Evans and President Barack Obama, Oct. 15, 2009.

[SDuderstadt]

117. Do you know the difference between a...

registered Democrat and a member of the Democratic Party?

In the picture above, it looks to me like Kaptur is in a venue where just about anyone can have their picture taken with her. Can you find a statement from her praising Code Pink?

If you think I would lose that bet, please pony up your evidence.

[sabrina 1]

118. Lol, always shifting gears!

Code Pink have a very excellent relationship with Rep. Marcy Kaptur.

I included another one for you, but here it is again in case you missed it:



Code Pink co-founder and Democrat activist Jodie Evans and President Barack Obama, Oct. 15, 2009.

Code Pink, which most Democrats know, are a highly respected activist group who work for the principles of the Democratic Party.

[SDuderstadt]

119. Sabrina....

that is another picture-taking session. I have pics of me with Bill Clinton, as well as Barack Obama. I am asking you to point to praise for Code Pink from any Democratic Party official or elected Democrat.

[sabrina 1]

124. Yes, any old disrespected radical can have a conversation with

the President of the US ~ Code Pink have met this president and have held fundraisers for him several times.

And another great Democratic member of Congress joins Code Pink in their tireless efforts on behalf of this country:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey’s Address at CODEPINK's People’s State of the Union

Good afternoon. I want to thank CODEPINK for organizing today's event and to Cindy Sheehan for sharing her grief for a child lost in a war that our country should have never started. Her crusade as a mother demanding answers of her President has helped embolden us on Capitol Hill to continue to demand an end to Bush's war in Iraq.

Long list of Democratic members of Congress with whom Code Pink has worked. And they have held fundraisers for many of our best Democrats, including this President, for which he and they were very grateful.

They work tirelessly with Veterans groups and have traveled to Iraq, Afghanistan and have reported back to this WH what they have found in those war torn countries. They are especially concerned about women in these war zones and their work is known around the world.

But, not to worry, you are not alone in your opinion of Code Pink, here's someone who probably shares your opinion:



As I said, they are highly respected among Democrats, not so much on the right, which was, of course the whole point of their existence.

[SDuderstadt]

125. Sabrina....

your "source" for praise of Code Pink is...Code Pink. What a surprise.

And Lynn Woolsey's "praise" of Code Pink is to thank them for organizing an event. That's it.

You go on in your post to include a bizarre sentence fragment:

"Long list of Democratic members of Congress with whom Code Pink has worked"

Neither that sentence fragment nor any of the words following appear anywhere in your link. Where you got them is a mystery known apparently only to you. It also is from nearly 5 1/2 years ago. What praise have the Democrats heaped on Code Pink since then? Have the Democrats ever recognized Code Pink at any national convention?

Reading your post, the words "really stretching" comes to mind.

[sabrina 1]

128. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

You're losing every argument and then you make pathetic attempts to deny every piece of evidence that contradicts your initial claims by veering off into irrelevant diatribes, hoping to distract from the original claims you made. It's clear you know nothing about Code Pink, but they dared to question Nancy Pelosi when she badly needed to be questioned, and that's enough for you.

Those women are highly respected in Democratic circles whether you like it or not. The problem for some Democrats NOW is that while Code Pink and most progressives have remained true to their principles, some Democrats HAVE abandoned their principles and when confronted, as Pelosi was, with citizens reminding them of that, it is not pleasant for them. Nor should it be, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Party loyalists, left or right, are damaging this country badly. I am sure Pelosi herself knows she was wrong not to keep the door open for investigations into the myriad of crimes committed by the previous administration and no, none of the excuses made were remotely acceptable.

As a result of that decision, not only are those criminals free to continue to slam the very same Dems who protected them from prosecution, but now victims of their crimes are going to other countries to get justice, and this will not stop because while politicians may want to sweep things under the rug, victims of crimes and their grieving loved ones NEVER forget. See South American nations after 40 years of waiting, now prosecuting THEIR war criminals.

That decision has shamed this country but it hasn't stopped the pursuit of justice only now rather than the US doing its duty itself, we will be merely spectators as courts around the world deal with what was the responsibility of the US.

Code Pink are women of integrity and even some who do not agree with them would not argue against that. The reputation of the US in the world today is worse than at any time in its history, but people like Code Pink when they visit other nations at least show that not all Americans are torture supporters or protectors of war crimes.

You know nothing of these wonderful women. Not that I think it would matter. Their high principles and love of their country are appreciated around the world, and until very recently the only people in THIS country who share your opinion of them, were far right Bush supporters, understandably since they had the guts to stand up to him when many others did not.

One thing is certain, the Right is far more scared of them than they are of Nancy Pelosi and they don't even appreciate what she did for their heroes.

Code Pink will not allow war criminals and torturers to profit from their crimes without at least making them uncomfortable as they try. Since our government refuses to prosecute them, that's the best we can do at this point. But it's something.

THEY are great Democrats, adhering to the principles of the party without fear and never being swayed from those principles no matter how tempting it may be.

Good Democrats, like Marcy Kaptur and Lynn Woolsey frequently talk to them about issues of importance to every democrat. You asked for ONE Dem. Party official and when presented with it, to your amazement, you try to deny the facts.

What are YOU doing about the crimes that have turned this country into a pariah in many parts of the world, other than childishly whine that someone isn't kissing the feet of those we elected to do that very job and who failed to do it?

[SDuderstadt]

129. If "these women are highly respected in Democratic circles"

as you claim, where are all the accolades? And your claim that I "lose all the arguments" is just a manifestation of your cognitive dissonance.

Tell you what. You set a date when you feel confident that the TSA regulations are overturned and we'll meet back here and check your progress. In the meantime, keep me posted on how Code Pink's "citizen's arreat" of Karl Rove is going. The rest is pointless because, every time I asked you a question (like if aomeone has a container of PETN under their clothing, will the full body scanner detect the outline of the container. The answer, of course, is yes.), you answer a totally different question, one, of course, I never, ever asked.

[sabrina 1]

130. Fighting to restore the rule of law in this country is not a contest,

it is principle. If our courts fail to do it, we will keep trying.

Did you seriously think Code Pink was trying to actually arrest Karl Rove? Congress was supposed to that when he refused to answer subpoenas btw, but failed to do so.

What they were doing with Karl Rove was using Street Theater to draw attention to his crimes and make sure he didn't get to sell his lying books without someone pointing out what a traitor he is.

And they not only succeeded they finally forced the media to present him to the public, NOT as some respected political analyst, but as someone who has done things he is too scared to answer questions about.

It was BRILLIANT activism. First class. The first time the media had to cover him in an unflattering situation and he was furious.

He too shares your opinion of them btw. And when Karl Rove hates you you KNOW you're doing something right.

You stated that we needed those scanners in order to stop terrorists from getting PETN on a plane. I and the Sen. proved to you that those scanners will NOT stop that from happening.

If a terrorist is stupid enough not to use the methods that would avoid detection, that is not someone we need to be afraid of. It is someone as unthreatening as the Shoe Bomber and the Underwear Bomber both too inept to be a threat to anyone. But someone who is determined to it will not be detected by those scanners.

And for this, you would sacrifice our freedoms and rights!

[SDuderstadt]

132. No, you and the "senator"...

didn't, Sabrina. Neither of you will answer the simple question I ask because it undermines your claim. The full body scanner will detect the outline of a container of PETN, so a terrorist cannot hide it under his/her clothes. That the terrorist would have to adapt to avoid detection by the scanner proves my point. My point is that we want to throw as many obstacles in the way of terrorists as we can.

As I offered earlier, pick a date by which you think the TSA regulations will be effectively banned or struck down. I'll be glad to reserve my gloating until then.

[SDuderstadt]

72. "It's not about YOU"

Perhaps you're confused by the word "public" in "public safety". That's 100%, Sabrina. That's EVERYONE, Sabrina. Yet, you continue to suggest that the public safety of all of us is trumped by your concern for the "whole country" when it really comes down to the reasonableness of security measures that are only imposed upon less than 3% of airline travelers. When you take into account the large number of people who never fly, that drops to an even smaller percentage of all Americans.

However, as I have noted before, math is not one of your strong suits. Tell me something, Sabrina. In your design of an airport security system, how would you keep PETN off the plane? Or, should we just lower our defenses and roll the dice?

P.S. Your attempts to tie me to Chertoff and Bush are a hoot.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

77. In the same of "public safety" I propose every sharp edge in the country

is covered with the same material use to make pool noodles.



As far as PETN goes, much of the world uses explosive sniffing dogs for this purpose. PETN is actually very easy to detect as a chemical - but that is entirely dependent on the competence level of the individual and agency screening for it. You could also conceal enough PETN up your ass to bring down an airplane. You could swallow enough of any number of explosives in balloons and pass or puke them out enroute.

Hell, there is a material(that resembles black sand, is odorless and not independently explosive) that can be assembled into an explosive device using only things you could buy after security. How much fucking black sand do you think the TSA sees in Maui every day?

[SDuderstadt]

79. Is this one of those...

them there "reductio ad absurdum" arguments I'be heard so much about?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

80. I would hope they are immediately recognizable to you

Since you are already there and rarely deviate with your defense of the TSA's heavy petting.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Dude...

I'm not "defending" it. I wish they didn't have to do it. But I also understand trade-offs. I'm with the other poster, in that, I would rather undergo a pat-down (even though my chances are less than 3%) then have to fight for my life at 35,000 feet.

Please spare me your psychoanalysis of my fear mechanism.

[U4ikLefty]

83. ^^^fear.

[SDuderstadt]

84. ^^^ hit and run. n/t

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

85. and in what PLAUSIBLE scenario do you see yourself fight for your life in an airplane

that might have been prevented by a pat-down? You are far, far, far more likely to be killed by your neighbors dog than a terrorist.

[SDuderstadt]

86. A guy trying to ignite...

a bunch of PETN. Duh.

P.S. None of our neighbors have dogs.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

93. So would you also support full cavity searches to board airplanes?

Because enough PETN to bring down an airplane could be concealed inside the rectum or vagina, or you could say "outside of the TSA's reach".

Although, if PETN is the boogieman - that is a job for dogs and not the fingers of the TSA.

[SDuderstadt]

96. In your case?

Yes.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

98. But if PETN is such a danger shouldn't everyone have a cavity search?

There are any number of explosives which can be concealed in a large enough amount in such a way. Clearly the pat-downs and body scans aren't enough if your all about prevention.

[sabrina 1]

103. And now that you have the facts, how will he be prevented from

getting his PETN on the plane since Rapiscans and enhanced pat-downs won't stop him?

Face it, no one can be guaranteed complete safety in this world.

And because most rational people know that, we are not willing to give up all of our rights in a futile attempt to achieve that perfect state of being.

[PavePusher]

126. The problem is that even with "pat downs", you still may very well have to fight for your life...

at 35K feet, but you've been put at a disadvantage, by being completely disarmed, by the very government supposedly "protecting" you.

We should not have to forego essential liberty for the facade of "security".

I suggest we leave security to the Citizenry, with the stipulation that the airlines may, of course, regulate their private property as they wish; but if they disarm their passengers, they must provide one armed security guard for every five passengers.

Have chemical scanners/sniffer dogs for the explosive threat.

Done deal.

[SDuderstadt]

127. You want travelers to carry guns on...

flights?

Nevermind.

[PavePusher]

131. I've been a military aviation mechanic for over 20 years.

I know a bit about the subject, and it isn't the problem you think it is.

[SDuderstadt]

133. Yes....

having a plane full of armed travelers make enormous sense.

And, who would know that better than an military aviation mechanic.

[PavePusher]

134. And your credentials are....?

More specifically, perhaps you can list the dangers as you perceive them?

[PavePusher]

135. Nothing? Seriously? Hmmmmm..... n/t

[sabrina 1]

102. You asked about PETN. You have received your answer, twice now

Don't think it hasn't been noticed that with the collapse of that argument as a defense for the use of those machines, you quickly try to change the subject.

[SDuderstadt]

112. Huh?

Are you claiming the full body scanner cannot see the shape of suspicious materials?

No one is claiming that the scanner are anything other than that.

[sabrina 1]

114. Nice try, at ignoring the information you have now been given

several times. But hey, it's fun watching you not comment on actual information that YOU requested and then pretending you never saw it!

[SDuderstadt]

115. Serious question....

are you saying that the full body scanner cannot detect the outline of suspicious materials?

[sabrina 1]

120. I don't fall for these tactics. Try them on someone who does.

Now, go back and comment on the information that was provided for you and stop pretending you don't now know that those scanners will not stop a terrorist from getting PETN onto a plane. It's childish.

[SDuderstadt]

121. I have asked you this question multiple times...

No one is saying the scanners will identify a material as PETN. But, you refuse to answer my question (for good reason). If a terrorist has PETN hidden within his/her clothing, will the scanners detect the outline? Yes or no? Please quit ducking the question.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

123. The point is that isn't the only way to conceal something

Sufficient explosives can be smuggled on the body in ways neither a scanner or (present) TSA finger banging will reveal. Therefore clearly a far more invasive primary inspection is required. Where do you draw the line?

[Egnever]

51. LOL @Texas

They sure like pissing up a rope there.

[Modern_Matthew]

61. Texas does something right. Many kudos for this victory. nt

[SemperEadem]

64. so far this year, I've flown 3 times

none of those times involved any tsa patdown or searches. I walked through the metal detector like I've done for years and went ahead to my gate. The scanners was there, they weren't in use at the airports from which I flew out.

[sabrina 1]

66. Good to hear they weren't using them.

What they ought to be doing is protecting the baggage area. That might actually do some good. More so than searching babies.

[BlueIris]

75. Thanks, Texas.

It's a rare day I have anything good to post about A Whole Other Country, but you got this one right.

[whatchamacallit]

78. Good! (nt)

[Initech]

87. Good! This shit needs to stop!

[SDuderstadt]

88. Yes!

God knows we simply can't have the less than 3% of air travelers who fail the metal detector and chemical trace sniffers to be subjected to an uncomfortable additional screening to increase security for all passengers!

[woo me with science]

90. And don't forgot those people who arrogantly complain in line about TSA procedures...

....Those terrorists!

"Washington (CNN) -- Don't like the way airport screeners are doing their job? You might not want to complain too much while standing in line.

Arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator Transportation Security Administration officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists, CNN has learned exclusively. And, when combined with other behavioral indicators, it could result in a traveler facing additional scrutiny.

....

Members of Congress also expressed concern about the number of "false positives" -- people flagged for additional screening that resulted in nothing being found. For every person correctly identified as a "high risk" traveler by (the behavior detection officers), 86 were misidentified, Willis said. At random screening, for every person correctly identified, 794 were misidentified."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/15/tsa.screeners.complain/index.html?hpt=T2

:eyes:

[WatsonT]

94. Texas hate vs. TSA hate. Go!

[lovuian]

104. Once texas does it and others do the tide will turn

and more people will opt out

[sabrina 1]

105. I just read that as many as ten states are now pushing similar

legislation. And it's a completely bi-partisan issue. This vote was 138-0 I believe.

I have also read that funding for the machines has been cut by Congress.

I remember when this battle started. At first people reacted with disgust but didn't think they'd ever be used. We've come a long way since then, and that was probably only about six or seven years ago.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

122. k