It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 2012srb
What do you suppose would have happened if the TSA stuck their hand in George Washington's crotch?
Sharon Kiss, 66, has a pacemaker, but also has to fly often for her work. "During a recent enhanced pat-down, a screener cupped my breasts and felt my genitals," she said in an e-mail to msnbc.com "To 'clear my waistband' she put her hands down my pants and groped for the waistband of my underwear. "I expressed humiliation and was told 'You have the choice not to fly.' " The remark infuriated Kiss, who lives in Mendocino, Calif. "Extrapolate this to we should not provide curb cuts and ramps for people confined to wheelchairs because they can choose to stay home ... This a violation of civil rights. And because I have a disability, I should not be subjected to what is government-sanctioned sexual assault in order to board a plane."
Marlene McCarthy of Rhode Island said she went through the body scanner and was told by a TSA agent to step aside. In "full view of everyone," McCarthy said in an e-mail, the agent "immediately put the back of her hand on my right side chest and I explained I wore a prosthesis.
Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
You do know that the 4th Amendment can be waived with consent don't you?
You can give consent for your home, vehicle and person to be searched and the 4th Amendment does not attach.
If you drive you have already given consent to have your breath and/or blood taken to determine levels of alcohol and/or narcotics in your body.
If you enter the airport you have already given consent to search your person and belongings. If you enter into a contract with the airline to fly on their aircraft then you have already given consent to be subjected to the measures adopted by the TSA.
Whether or not those measures are effective is the subject for another thread- I am simply addressing the false statement that the 4th Amendment applies to the TSA screening procedures.
The title should read "Woman Places Child in Situation Where She Will be Body Searched and Flips Out Over Her Own Stupidity"... but that wouldn't generate the righteous outrage of the uneducated.
Originally posted by windword
Originally posted by 2012srb
reply to post by JibbyJedi
I knew a guy so rotten he got fired from his job as a prison guard.
Most places wouldn't hire a person like that.
Guess who he works for now?
Want really scary? He's a supervisor.
Originally posted by summer5
My two teen-age girls traveled by the airlines to visit their dad last month. I was worried about the check point. Luckily, neither coming or going was an issue. No scanners, no pat down, just the walk through the metal detector. What a relief. I don't think I would have been one happy parent had they wanted to pat the girls down. If they had the scanners, I wasn't to keen on that idea either. This time, neither was an issue - luckily.
A 41-year-old Clarksville woman was arrested after Nashville airport authorities say she was belligerent and verbally abusive to security officers, refusing for her daughter to be patted down at a security checkpoint.
Originally posted by k21968
reply to post by Vitchilo
If she didnt want her daughter's crotch grabbed then she should have let her walk through the x-ray plain and simple. There is a fine line between standing up for something you believe in and being ridiculous. Seriously folks, I am sure if TSA wanted to grab someone's crotch for pleasure they would've chosen someone more appropriate like a 17 yr old hottie in daisy dukes. I seriously doubt a pat down consists of grabbing a crotch unless they feel something. My husband was a cop for 22 yrs. He has patted down hundreds of people and not once did he ever do it for pleasure. Get real...this is ridiculous..
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by Bixxi3
reply to post by Vitchilo
she knew what she was getting in too.
Here's what I know I'm "getting in to" when I'm dealing with government authorities.
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.
Well said, and please let me hasten to add, Rosa Parks knew what she was getting into. Even then, she was legally challenging the violation of the civil rights of an entire race of people here in the US.
How are we now comparing a child being molested with her own protectors required to stand by silently assenting? This alone could cause many, many issues in a growing child, girl or boy.
But with women's needs to set boundaries, treating a little girl like this is not going to help her with future situations, I promise.
The jury's duty is clear, if it makes it that far. They will probably drag the whole thing on and on and force her to take a plea or face the entire federal government, a daunting prospect, to be sure.
If Casey Anthony got off, by God, this mother better as well.
Furthermore, don't children have specific privileges, and certain protections, as well, as one poster pointed out?