Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

TSA gropes young boy's testicles while he is strip searched in front of everyone

page: 7
173
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Writing about this on ATS, helps people become aware, but it's not going to change anything if action isn't taken.

STOP FLYING. YOUR CHILDREN'S WELL BEING DEPENDS ON IT.

edit on 21-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I'm going to church. My parting comments are simple.
This is a violation of:

- Our 4th amendment rights.
- Our privacy
- Our dignity
- WHATS NEXT? PAT DOWNS AT THE MALL?
- When does it stop?

I am a die hard republican conservative and even I can see where this steps over the line. I don't support the Patriot act or the Wars in Iraq an Afganistan.

"Fight for your freedom. One day you will wake up and you won't have any rights. Will you be remembered as a Patriot or a Coward?"



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyrebelyell2004
watch out for big bertha right there on the left with her arms all crossed and cavity gloves on, Looking like "yeah, that's right, we own you now"

Another thing, anyone know why it takes 3 people to search this little boy even with his shirt off?
edit on 11/20/2010 by kyrebelyell2004 because: (no reason given)


And why does his shirt need to come off at all??????

IMO this is called GROOMING. Getting children used to being undressed and touched by strangers for their 'safety'. Just imagine where this is leading.
edit on 21-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 



Originally posted by wcitizen
except by a medic


Why only a medic? Medics can't possibly be pedophiles?

What is the difference between a medic touching a private area nonsexually, and a trained professional police officer or federal agent touching a private area nonsexually?

In my opinion, they both should be trust worthy (in the presence of a parent), and both have equal reason to do it.


Originally posted by wcitizen
WHY do you find that so hard to grasp?


I don't find it hard to grasp. If I was childish and immature, I can easily grasp why you think all contact with private areas is sexual.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that not all contact with private areas is sexual?
edit on 21-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by wcitizen
 



Originally posted by wcitizen
except by a medic


Why only a medic? Medics can't possibly be pedophiles?




Your question is utterly ridiculous.... Of course a medic can be a paedophile, and you know damn well that is true..... Buy why would a medic be needed? If a child is sick, when a physical examination may be necessary. And that is why I added SAFE AND SUPERVISED, which you clearly decided to omit just to put forward a specious, ridiculous argument.



What is the difference between a medic touching a private area nonsexually, and a trained professional police officer or federal agent touching a private area nonsexually?

In my opinion, they both should be trust worthy, and both have equal reason to do it.



That question is so ridiculous it's not worthy of a reply. Enjoy being groped.


Originally posted by wcitizen
WHY do you find that so hard to grasp?


I don't find it hard to grasp. If I was childish and immature, I can easily grasp why you think all contact with private areas is sexual.
I'm guessing you aren't yet even 20 years old.





Why is it so hard for you to grasp that not all contact with private areas is sexual?


Like I said, enjoy being groped.

edit on 21-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-11-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Next thing they will stage a terrorist scare where someone hid explosive material in their private orifice....and for our safety they will be searching there next.

.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Oh great cop-out. Yes ignore answering the question.


Enjoy being groped? That is really an immature thing to say.

It's absolutely DISGUSTING that you think these people are touching children sexually. It's very telling of your mindset.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I'm surprised only two or three people in this thread have mentioned the fourth amendment. For those who don't know the text (emphasis mine):

"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."

In my opinion, if this does not violate the fourth amendment, then nothing does. Warrantless search and seizure of vehicles, warrantless home invasion and search, and all other manner of unconstitutional search and seizure are on the table if this is on the table. That's just how I see it.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


How is this a violation to your 4th Amendment rights? You have to agree to searches in order to board the plane.

Example:

I have something you want to buy. I have no right to take your money. Instead, you give me your money so you can get the object you want.

The airports have something you want, but in order for you to get it you have to be searched. They have no right to search you. Instead, you let them search you so you can board the plane.

That is what is happening. You are not being force to fly, nor are you being force to be searched, you are allowing them to search so you can fly.

edit on 21-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


FIRST AND FOREMOST MIRAJ...

(this post applies to every reader as well by the way)

The US Constitution does not in a any way guarantee us rights. It was written with the sole expression to limit the power of the Federal Government. Period. It has been amended so as to allow for the Judiciary to decide if those limitations can also be applied to the citizens of the (tm)UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We became their property with the bankruptcy of American in 1933 and the implementation of the hidden clauses of the 14th Amendment, which has even more draconian laws laid on top of that due to the fact that we have been in a state of "martial law" since 1868. That is why executive orders have merit) And to top that all of off, the SCOTUS has yet to decide upon the 2nd Amendment...) Look up this for a better understanding.
We live in a modern FEMA camp.

Our rights according to the constitution are GOD-GIVEN and IN-ALIENABLE. That is not a religious statement or a statement about aliens. We can do what ever we which as long as it does not infringe upon the right of others. That is what was meant by GOD-GIVEN (given by birth) and cannot be infringed upon by the rights of others (in-alienable).

If that occurs then one is supposed to go see the SHERIFF (do not ever go to the police) and file a formal complaint against that MAN for groping that child (get as many witnesses as possible). Then the individual seeking the complaint must demand (in the nicest way possible) that case be seen in a criminal court (make sure a court reporter is always present).
No matter what happens take this to a jury vote.

The people are always the jury and we have the final veto power over any vote.

Please read the Constitution (general plea). Know what the government can not do,,,,,,

Know and Understand the power that we still have left in the concept of jury nullification



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I've just posted the quote below on another thread about the totally unnecessary humiliation of a crew member having to remove her prosthetic breast as part of these searches and I have the same beliefs in this case. Regardless of whether anyone thinks the child was molested, I think it is entirely wrong to treat a child like this, there really has to be some justification for these searches and as many others have pointed out, I have never heard of child suicide bombers in the UK or the US and as a citizen of the UK, which has been subjected to multiple terrorist attacks from the IRA over several decades, I have never seen anything as draconion as this.

For all of you defending these actions, you really should look a bit further into how these tactics actually prevent attacks and in the following quote there is a fair amount of research and opinion that clearly questions the validity and effectiveness of the "treat all citizens as potential terrorists" approach

Sorry Here is the link to my original post on the other thread if anyone wants to read the links in the post


I have been giving quite a bit of thought to this subject as I truly believe that security is not the ultimate agenda in these types of searches.

As a citizen of the UK, growing up in the 1970's and 1980's where terrorist attacks by the IRA were commonplace, and not limited to military targets, I cast my mind back to how the public reacted to these events and the type of security measures that were put in place to prevent attacks. Whilst I can remember visiting London in the late 70's as a 9/10 year old and being subjected to very long, slow moving queues, as security staff carried out bag searches, these were done in a sympathetic and sensible way. I remember as we got closer to the front of the queue, getting my shoulder bag ready, and was waved through by the guard, who smiled and said "Oh I think you'll be okay" though they did search my mum's bag. Similarly, they waved through a couple of Japanese tourists - well I suppose it was extremely unlikely that they were Irish terrorists! So whilst every attack was greeted by the public with horror and anger and yes, Irish citizens were more likely to be singled out, the total fear and paranoia created post 9/11 by the "War on Terror" just didn't exist back then, even though there have been far many more attacks on the UK by Republican terrorists than by any Islamic terror group. Here's a list of terror attacks on the UK, sorry it is a wiki one, but gives a general idea:

Terror Attacks UK

Furthermore research from the Economic Social Research Council ESRC Suspect Communities shows the differences of the perceived threat by communities from the Irish community as a whole to Muslims

One of the most significant differences we note from our Mapping Analysis
is the tendency of the press to downplay the representation of the Irish as a whole as a threat, especially when compared with the tendency to magnify and extend the perceived threat posed by Muslims to entire communities. We found that Muslims were homogenized as a cultural and religious Other outside Britishness. Whereas, the Irish/IRA tend to be homogenized as a threat to British institutions and the British State.



and also notes that Catholicism was rarely referred to in relation to bombing campaigns whereas Islam is

While political actors rarely if ever made speeches explicitly relating to Catholicism when addressing the IRA bombing campaign in Britain, since the 1990s there were frequent and open mentions of Islam and Muslims under New Labour. This shows both an attempt to extend the parameters of what was problematized within New Labour’s ‘project’ of social cohesion, and a shift in public perceptions of terrorism. The IRA had come to be understood and fought as a domestic problem, whereas so-called Islamist terrorism came to be framed ontologically as an attack on globally shared liberal values and on British society.



Security measures taken during the height of the IRA's bombing campaign in the UK focussed mainly in the centre of London and emulated Belfast's "Ring of Steel" protecting the main political and financial sectors but this study by Coaffee in 2004 showed that the notion of downplaying security measures was a vital element in keeping a balance between vigilant, yet calm in order to reduce the "Siege Mentality" effect that in fact gives the terrorists a "Propaganda Gift" in terms of realising their objectives of control through fear (Sorry can't copy anything from this pdf!)

With the introduction of greater security measures following the 7/7 attacks on London by Islamic terrorists, it is notable that the suggested measures will do nothing to prevent the type of attacks that London has experienced in the past, and as such it is important to really question why this is being done and if in fact measures that curtail the liberty of citizens are playing into the hands of terrorists as noted in this article in the Telegraph Balancing Liberty with Counter Terrorism

Therefore, I really do question the validity to remove a prothestic breast from a long-standing airline employee in the name of security and the assumption that we "all have the potential to be terrorists" It is incorrect and it is very possibly counter productive as the terrorist has in fact won - we are prisoners of our own fear and of our Governments and this type of routine assault is totally unacceptable.


edit on 21-11-2010 by destination now because: to add a link to the original post



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by ericsnow
 

I saw nothing close to what you titles this thread as.
why should my blood boil?

Don't worry about it.
You have to be human to understand.


Originally posted by Miraj
To be completely honest.
Do you think that children aren't used to carry bombs and explosives..? think again!

I take it you'd be perfectly happy to have your shy and frightened little boy or girl publicly stripped and have their genitals felt by a stranger in public?

If so, I hope someone sends the Child Protection Agency around to put them in the care of someone who does give a damn.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
The tyranny will continue until all people realize and call the enemy out. Who is the enemy, the mason. I know, I know. you have friends who are masons and they are wonderful. Yeah, all Satanists are wonderful. But masonry isn't Satanic. Tell that to Albert Pike. They got his carcass at the 33 degree supreme building in D.C. He says Lucifer is god. Download Morals and Dogma. Masons need to be ashamed to belong to an organization that creates so much heartache for mankind.. But how can the mason be connected to TSA? The Illuminati use freemasonry to fulfill their dastardly deeds.The Illuminati wouldn't get anything done it it weren't for the ground troops,(the mason). I'm a targeted Individual by the Freemason and believe me, there are more of them than they say. Google Gang Stalking or Organized Gang Stalking. This is what happens to some dissents.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy
 


It is in my opinion, because not flying is an unreasonable alternative for many, many people. In many people's cases, it would utterly and completely disrupt their lives, possibly even destroying their quality of life. Since, for those people at least, not flying is an unreasonable alternative (because driving or taking the train state to state or coast to coast is too time intensive,) these searches are de facto mandatory for many.

Flying has become an institution in this country and around the world. It has become as common place and integral to many people's lives, employments, and livelihoods as walking or driving. The air line and the TSA have the right and the authority to bar someone from flying if there is evidence of criminal behavior or safety threats in my opinion, but not to force them to undergo a pat down or full body scan. Not without a warrant. Especially since the TSA is a Federal Agency under the DHS. That is just my opinion and interpretation of the fourth amendment. Feel free to disagree. I respect your view. (And I could be legally wrong, too. I'm not a legal scholar or an attorney. This is just my opinion.)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Notice how everyone's simply standing there and watching the whole event. Best they can do is say a couple of words such as "nice" and "ridiculous".

I bet that if the FEMA camps theory is correct then these people will be saying the same stuff when they come to take them away:
Nice, I'm going to a FEMA camp.
This is ridiculous, I don't want to share the showers with that hairy man who makes me pick up the soap all the time.
edit on 21/11/2010 by DGFenrir because: nice edit



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillalive
i get that you guys are angry, but you should blame the terrorists, the extremist,that now decided to smuggle bombs in germany,on the fest even.
and the officers are just doing their job, you think they like touching boys or old people?


You wouldn't mean this bomb story where they say it was not real but was a security "test" instead? Would that be the terrorist danger you are speaking of?

Source

Anyone who can justify this type of behavior should be smacked repeatedly with a large stick.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DGFenrir
 
I completely agree with you. I've embarrassed my husband publicly because when I see something that just isn't right I speak out. He's the kind that mumbles under his breath about injustice and I'm the type to get up in the face of injustice and speak my piece.

I got thrown out of class in seventh grade because the teacher pulled a girl's hair when he saw writing in her math book. I stood up and told him to get his hands off of her and that he should make sure she actually did it before he took "appropriate" action!

A few winters ago we were driving down the street of the nearest town and this young "mother" was all bundled up in a winter coat and hat, and had her infant in a diaper, t-shirt and socks. I made my husband stop the truck so I could yell at her for being so stupid. Maybe no one ever told her if she's cold... the baby is colder?

I would have no problem confronting the search squad and telling them to get their hands off that boy! I'd also have no trouble telling the dad what a piece of crap I thought he was for allowing it to happen in the first place!



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I cannot believe you people that think this is acceptable. Who cares if the title of this thread is overstating what happened during the search. You are searching young children FFS!!!!

It doesn't matter what conspiracy you believe or don't believe or whether its part of the war terror, the war on drugs or the NWO. The only thing that matters here is that it has now become an acceptable practice in America to search innocent young children...but preferably we want it done behind closed doors so we don't have to be reminded of what we have become.

Whatever the war, America has officially lost it.

Those of you that justify this search because terrorists use young children as suicide bombers I ask you to show me one example. Even the most extreme of extremists don't use young children to carry out suicide bombings because even they understand the backlash that would come from their own supporters.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
you didn't see the guy running his hands all over the boys crotch?
it aint pretty
o:24
edit on 20-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


I didn't. i saw the guy turning the kids shirt inside out at that time. you can only see the back of the kid there is no way you can say that happend for sure.

im against them feeling people up, but that's not nessecarily what i saw here.

edit on 21-11-2010 by MR BOB because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MR BOB

Originally posted by Danbones
you didn't see the guy running his hands all over the boys crotch?
it aint pretty
o:24
edit on 20-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


I didn't. i saw the guy turning the kids shirt inside out at that time. you can only see the back of the kid there is no way you can say that happend for sure.

im against them feeling people up, but that's not nessecarily what i saw here.

edit on 21-11-2010 by MR BOB because: (no reason given)


Who cares what he did or didn't touch or if they ironed the damn shirt before they put it back on, they are searching a young child!!! That is what is wrong here.






top topics



 
173
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join