Police charge mother who stopped TSA from fondling her daughter

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.

See, this is exactly the sort of situation that makes this worse. Your kids probably have to travel that way, for a custody arrangement, so you really don't have a choice. Yet some people would tell you that you "chose" to allow such things. Not true. Not in that sort of situation, not for military and families that have to go overseas, not for some who have to fly for work.

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..

So, you think no pedophiles can work for TSA? Really?? Think again. Fact is, they are lousy at checking out their employees. Fact is, we know they have hired such types:
One TSA sex offender down, how many to go?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Oh, really? Where does it state, when you buy a ticket to fly, that you are waiving your rights? Oh, yeah, it doesn't. That's the biggest CROCK I ever heard.

Oh yeah it does.

American Airlines Conditions of Carriage

American Airlines
ACCEPTANCE OF PASSENGERS

American may refuse to transport you, or may remove you from your flight at any point, for one or several reasons, including but not limited to the following:

Compliance with government requisition of space.
Action necessary or advisable due to weather, or other conditions beyond American's control.
Refusal to permit a search of person or property for explosives or for deadly, controlled, or dangerous weapons, articles or substances.

Continental Contract of Carriage

PDF but see Page 18

There are hundreds more just like it (those were the first 2 that came up on Google) so no... it is not a crock and please educate yourself before spouting off nonsense.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Simply choosing a form of transportation does NOT mean you voluntarily waive your Constitutional rights.

When you enter into a contract with a private entity and the waiver of rights is specified in the contract (see above or any other commercial airlines contract for carriage) you DO voluntarily waive your 4th Amendment right as well as your 2nd Amendment right.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Not happening. Not myself, not my kids. Some jerk tries that with one of mine, would be more than yelling they had to deal with.

Then do not fly because by attempting to board the aircraft you have waived your 4th Amendment rights as well as those of your minor children.

Originally posted by SFA437
Just to clarify my position-

The TSA are the singular most incompetent, useless, worthless and nonsensical branch of the FedGod that has ever inhabited our fevered nightmares. They need to go and go NOW.

I am just pointing out that the 4th Amendment does not apply to voluntary searches related to partaking in voluntary activities.

The point that you seem to be missing is that choosing an activity does NOT mean you choose a search. That's the point. Deciding to take a plane doesn't mean you automatically lose your rights. That doesn't give them probably cause. Not to mention the fact that these scanners and searches are not making anyone safer. Metal detectors and explosive-sniffing dogs would be FAR more effective, coupled with common sense profiling for suspects. Yes, profiling, based on common sense criteria. When virtually all of the convicted terrorists of the last decade are Middle Eastern men, how does targeting children, the disabled, and hot girls protect anyone?? This is NOT about safety. it's about making people willing to submit to anything, and everything. You do know, don't you, that they want to be in bus stations, train stations, and on highways, right? Meaning your RIGHT to move about freely is taken away, unless you give up other RIGHTS. If this isn't stopped, and soon, America is no more. THAT is the reality.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
The point that you seem to be missing is that choosing an activity does NOT mean you choose a search. That's the point. Deciding to take a plane doesn't mean you automatically lose your rights.

The point you seem to be missing is.... Yes. It. Does. Choosing to fly DOES mean you consent to a search. That is the point. Deciding to take a plane means that you are contractually bound to the airline to a search prior to boarding the aircraft and every damned US commercial carrier states this in the contract of carriage. Why the hell is this so hard for you to grasp?????

Continental Contract of Carriage

See Page 18

American Airlines Contract of Carriage

See Acceptance of Passengers

Delta Conditions of Carriage

See Page 10

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
That doesn't give them probably cause.

It is probable cause and they do not need it BECAUSE YOU GIVE CONSENT ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE CONTRACT!

reply to post by SFA437


Ah, that's another point. I have seen video of people, several videos in fact, who calmly refused, and were told they could not leave. In most cases, they were also told they could not video the event, which legally wasn't true. They COULD run video, as long as they didn't try to get the scanner images, but the TSA thugs, and SOME, not all, of the cops, tried stopping them. Most cases, after a lot of bickering, they simply were escorted off the property, by masses of TSA and police. A couple were arrested.

As stated before, though, the sickest thing is that this crap doesn't protect anyone. It's not even trading freedom for security, but trading it for false security.

These days, what they really should do is start making gun rules like the Swiss have. Everyone has to cary, and be trained. Why? because the latest tactic is for terrorist websites to encourage individuals to act alone, targeting whoever is in their area. Like that Muslim woman spitting on customers at a store, or the other one that was attacking people near (I think) a library. Or some of the odd "random" beheadings in various places around the world. Mass attacks aren't the thing now. Small ones are. Worse yet? If you speak out against such things, you can be labeled as "Islamophobic", or "hateful" or some other such PC BS. The authorities won't even call those sort of acts terrorism, after they state that such things are encouraged. The way things are now, you have to wonder if those in charge don't want it this way.

Originally posted by backinblack

If I say to you "Hey I'll pay your mortgage if you do XXXX" and you decide to do it- that is not blackmail. That is a commercial agreement.

That's BS..
If the Fed was funding these airlines in the past and then suddenly say "Agree to these new conditions or the funding stops", I call that blackmail..

Agreed. Not to mention that the Fed is using TAX MONEY, meaning the money of the people, to "bail out" these airlines. Basically, stealing from the people, to take control, so they can implement these measures.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Telling the people they were not free to go if they refuse the search/scan IS a 4th Amendment issue. The search is not as the flier agrees to it prior.

I believe I referred to that in an earlier post but the search itself is not unconstitutional nor is there any 4th Amendment issues with the search in and of itself.

So what happens next??

Will the Government stop all social security unless you agree to scrap the constitution??

I still call it blackmail and illegal though time will tell.

Originally posted by Bixxi3
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

she knew what she was getting in too. If you refuse the body scanners then you get a pat down. Im not saying itsw right but when you buy that ticket your agreeing with the security measures of the airport.

That is so lame.

If we submit to a police state in order for the "privilege" to fly, it seems to me the "terrorists" have won.

It goes against all logic that we should willingly relinquish our personal freedom and dignity for a bit of security - especially since a new report just disclosed that there have been 25,000 breaches of airport security since 9/11 and despite all the security theater we've still had an underwear bomber and some dude flying with phony i.d. and expired boarding passes.

It's not about security, it's about obedience. Good for this mom for not blindly obeying. We should all support her.

I do think it constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - if I am not on a watch list, there is no reasonable cause to believe I am a threat and I have not exhibited any other behavior that would cause concern - then I should not be subjected to the a scan or a grope.

reply to post by backinblack


In that case I've committed several felonies for firing my landscapers, pool service company and maid service for not doing what I asked them to do in exchange for my money.

Gonna have to move to France (their extradition laws are pure Byzantine madness) to avoid at least 80 years in prison for 8 counts of blackmail.

Was what you asked your landscaper/gardener to do against the constitution??

If not you're just sprouting BS...

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
WRONG. In this country, we have a Constitutional right to NO illegal search and seizure of or persons or our property.

Originally posted by SFA437If you give consent to the search it is NOT illegal (and nobody is seized by the TSA- they have no arrest power)

Ah, but just choosing to take a plane doesn't mean you waive your rights. People have refused consent, and been arrested for doing so. Seen the videos.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
These TSA procedures violate that right in SO many ways.

Originally posted by SFA437No they do not.

Of course they do! Choosing a particular mode of transport doesn't mean there is probable cause, nor a warrant. Telling people they can choose not to fly means they have the option to less than others, or to be groped. That's NOT freedom. It's slavery.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Choosing to fly does NOT means one surrenders rights.

Originally posted by SFA437This is correct. Purchasing a commercial airline ticket and securing your boarding pass shows intent to waive your 4th Amendment rights. The airline demands a waiver of your 4th Amendment rights and submission to a search in exchange for a seat on their airplane and they are well within THEIR rights to do so.

No, purchasing a ticket means you agree that you won't bring anything hazardous. A metal detector isn't invasive, nor harmful, nor intrusive, at all. X-rated, stronger-by-10-times-than-x-rays-machines, or being groped by some possible pervert, is another matter. If the government wasn't forcing this, the airlines would never get away with it. As it is, the government is saying if you want to travel as you always have, now we get to see you naked or grope your privates. Again, that's not freedom; it's slavery.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Not to mention, some don't HAVE a choice. How about military families, who become stationed overseas? They have to fly to get there, so under these fascist policies, they are subjected to being irradiated, or groped? NO WAY that is right.

Originally posted by SFA437I have yet to see someone marched to an airport at gunpoint and being forced through the TSA checkpoint under threat of death so in reality people DO have a choice.

Military families may fly MAC / Space A and not even have to deal with civilian aircraft at all or even leave the military base's perimeter.

That is so overstated. MAC flights/space-available flights are not guaranteed, and not even always possible. Not to mention, can you imagine a mother with a couple of small kids, trying to keep order in a C-130? When we flew to Germany, because the Army moved my husband there, he was sent ahead of us. I flew with just the kids - one young, one still needing a carseat. No place in a C-130 for that. No way that would have worked. Nor was it even possible. Those flights aren't usually even available, and with families, beyond impractical. No, no one holds a gun to anyone's head, but military do NOT get to choose their flight, period. Going to a duty station, they go however the orders read, and that's usually commercial. The families could "choose" not to go, but then what? Separation for three YEARS? That's not a choice. How about parents who are divorced, and have to share custody, or visitation out of state? They can't always CHOOSE a car trip; work schedules don't tend to permit that. So, they have to FLY their kids, and now, that means unattended kids are groped by potential pedophiles. See the link I posted earlier for one that was arrested, who was working for TSA.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
NO ONE should put up with this. If every single person flying STOPPED, that had ANY option other than flying, the airports would lose so much money that they would demand the TSA stop this BS.

Originally posted by SFA437For that bit you got a star!

Starred one of yours as well, about the TSA not allowing people to calmly refuse and leave. At this point, they are the new Gestapo.

reply to post by kosmicjack


People are submitting to the wishes of the airline in exchange for convenience. They are not submitting to the government (in this case).

It is the airlines who submit to the government in exchange for a nice fat teat to suckle off of.

Despise TSA, despise, DHS, despise the FedGod... but do it based on truth and fact rather than invective and emotion.

reply to post by SFA437


That's pretty new policy changes, then. If that's what they are doing, then they deserve to go broke. Step one would seem to be to remove tax money from the airports' pockets. Get the government out of that business.

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
The point that you seem to be missing is that choosing an activity does NOT mean you choose a search. That's the point. Deciding to take a plane doesn't mean you automatically lose your rights.

The point you seem to be missing is.... Yes. It. Does. Choosing to fly DOES mean you consent to a search. That is the point. Deciding to take a plane means that you are contractually bound to the airline to a search prior to boarding the aircraft and every damned US commercial carrier states this in the contract of carriage. Why the hell is this so hard for you to grasp?????

Continental Contract of Carriage

See Page 18

American Airlines Contract of Carriage

See Acceptance of Passengers

Delta Conditions of Carriage

See Page 10

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
That doesn't give them probably cause.

It is probable cause and they do not need it BECAUSE YOU GIVE CONSENT ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE CONTRACT!

edit on 14-7-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)

As I stated before, and will state again, such a "contract" is already a violation. Several reasons why. One, it assumes that choosing to fly gives them a search warrant. No judge, no probable cause, just open season. Two, people can't even choose to just walk away. No, they are threatened, and arrested, all the time. You should take note of how far the TSA people go to publicly humiliate anyone that refuses their little x-rated scanners. Searched, groped, stripped, eve,n, right in full view of all the other passengers. At this rate, they will be doing body cavity searches before long, for all the world to witness. Stripping people of their rights, their privacy, their dignity, just to fly a plane? While, at the same time, knowingly allowing a terrorist aboard? You still haven't addressed that point.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Think you're a cpl pages behind which is causing me no end of frustration

Did you read the various contracts for carriage I posted where it specifies, in back & white, that they can refuse you service if you do not submit to a search of your person and belongings?

That is the waiver I am speaking of. If you wish to board THEIR aircraft that they own you must abide by their rules- the same as I would have to abide by yours if I was to ride in your car or visit your home. One cannot do whatever one wishes on the property of another.

As for MAC Space A- my wife got back and forth to Jordan twice and once to Germany without issue. Granted my son was 9 to 12 years old on the various flights over the years but it does work. If the child is too young to fly transatlantic ships still run. Flying is a convenience not a right.

Oh, really? Where does it state, when you buy a ticket to fly, that you are waiving your rights?

Read the "Contract of Carriage"

In specific as I know most people are too lazy to actually follow the link and read it.

Page 25 Section B

RULE 25 REFUSAL TO TRANSPORT
Delta may refuse to transport any passenger, and may remove any passenger from its aircraft at any time,
for any of the following reasons:
A. Government Request Or Regulations
Whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulations, directives, or
instructions; or to comply with any governmental request for emergency transportation in connection
with the national defense, or whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather
or other conditions beyond its control (including but without limitation, acts of God, force majeure,
strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities or disturbances) actual, threatened or
reported.
B. Search Of Passenger Or Property
When a passenger refuses to permit search of his person or property for explosives, weapons,
dangerous materials, or other prohibited items.

This is indeed only the CoC for Delta, but if you go read any of the commercial airline's web pages you will find theirs to be the same. This states they may refuse you a seat if you refuse the search. Thus by passing through the gate you show your intent to fly, thus granting them permission to conduct the search. Legally, yes it is cut and dried and no argument to the contrary will prevail. However I see no reason for TSA to exist as they are a waste of time and money. I do think they need to be dismantled, but arguing it from a legality standpoint is not going to cut it.


Secondly

Case no. 04-10226, United States vs. Aukai

We must decide whether a prospective commercial airline passenger, who presented no identification at check-in, and who voluntarily walked through a metal detector without setting off an alarm, can then prevent a government-ordered secondary screening search by stating he has decided not to fly and wants to leave the terminal.   We hold that such passenger cannot prevent the secondary search because such search comports with the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a search be reasonable where, as here, the initial screening was “inconclusive” as defined in Torbet v. United Airlines, 298 F.3d 1087, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2002).   We need not and therefore do not decide whether the same would be true were the secondary screening more intrusive or were it triggered by the subjective evaluation of the prospective passenger by airline or security personnel rather than more objective criteria such as a screening machine alarm being triggered, random selection, or, as here, the prospective passenger's failure to present identification upon checking in.

This states that if you have passed the first screening and it was inconclusive, or in some way questionable that you can't then decline the second screening as there is now probable cause. This one will probably be used against people trying to get out of the screening as they have passed the initial checkpoints etc. Thus it could be contested that the "initial" check was done. This will be one more way the TSA can continue to justify its existance. The only real way to ever get rid of TSA, will be to get eneugh people to write congress, protest in the streets, picket airlines etc. Untill the people in charge of this waste of government resources are forced to conceed and disband TSA or atleast make changes in the way the "Search" is conducted.




________________________


And back to the post made by another user about the military. In actuality most military, and their dependants do indeed fly commercial air. Only in times of war, as in dropping into a combat zone, do they use military air. When a soldier is transferred to Germany for instance, he and his will fly commercial airlines. Thus the soldier is basically forced to use Commercial Air, while his family could indeed choose otherwise. This also holds true for many jobs. I Work in one such job, my Company requires me to travel overseas on a regular basis. I do not have the option of arranging my own travel. I must use the company travel which is going to be commercial air. So while eyes I do have the option to quit my job, or fly commercial, it is not much of a choice. However for any "Domestic Travel" that is not forced on a person in this way, you can (and should) use another means. Private charter flights, drive a car, train, etc. This is one form of protest that will be very good in getting the point across. If the airlines have no more customers they will then force the issue of TSA for us.

In one instance I did use a private charter flight for overseas travel and yes we were escorted past all the security points right to the airplane and that was it. No passing through security, no passing through customs even. The customs agent met us on the plane and took our declarations right there in our seats. We then got our baggage off the plane there on the tarmac, were then escorted past all the security points at the destination and dropped at the baggage claim. So we could meet people or get a taxi etc.

reply to post by SFA437


Whatever. You may parse words as you like, I just call it what it is - a police state.

Originally posted by Bixxi3
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

she knew what she was getting in too. If you refuse the body scanners then you get a pat down. Im not saying itsw right but when you buy that ticket your agreeing with the security measures of the airport.

Your mistaken to an extent. The TSAholes were supposed to have "relaxed" the rules concerning kids.

(cough) BULLSHT(cough)

Since I am refusing to fly, I am looking at these scanners in a new light. These things are actually quite good for our society.

As they slowly kill the idiot tsahole operating them, they will filter new ones in. We are deleting an entire part of the populace that have no use whatsoever! Eventually, we may run out of these knuckle draggers.

Nah, god loves idiots. There will be more imported>