"How I Went Through TSA Security Without Being Scanned or Touched"

Now, I’ve read a fair amount about the controversy surrounding the new TSA policies. I certainly don’t enjoy being treated like a terrorist in my own country, but I’m also not a die-hard constitutional rights advocate. However, for some reason, I was irked. Maybe it was the video of the 3-year old getting molested, maybe it was the sexual assault victim having to cry her way through getting groped, maybe it was the father watching teenage TSA officers joke about his attractive daughter. Whatever it was, this issue didn’t sit right with me. We shouldn’t be required to do this simply to get into our own country.

So, since I had nobody waiting for me at home and no connecting flight to catch, I had some free time. I decided to test my rights.

The blogger goes on to show how he explains that he is concerned about radiation from the scanners, and will consider himself being touched in his private areas as assault and as "a U.S. citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained.” He does not allow anyone to touch him in said area, or he will file assault charges. Then asks if he is going to be detained, and if so under what legal grounds.

Great story. The blogger was polite the entire time. I thought that what this blogger did was both courageous and enlightening.

Read the full blog for the rest of the story of the bloggers 2.5 hour ordeal as it involves the blogger getting questioned by supervisors, the airport police, and finally the big finale after a call to the "Federal Security Director" at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport:

You Don't Need to See his ID

Interesting;linky comesback "limit exceeded".

Originally posted by 46ACE
Interesting;linky comesback "limit exceeded".

I tried it again in three browers, firefox, chrome, and IE, the linked worked in all of them for me. I'm guessing perhaps it is on the server end, but I don't know. Looks like it's ok now in any event.

That is epic. Truly epic. If I ever go to fly anywhere, I'm showing up hours early and doing that same thing. I'm not having an x-ray nor touching of the genitalia. Thank you for the post!

He's my hero. I would love to do that. Unfortunately, my biggest character defect is my temper, especially when my rights are being trampled by government goons. I am pretty sure I would end up in custody.

The most important thing a person needs to know in a democracy is their rights. This gent showed that a calm reasonable approach to his situation worked. Good for him.


This will all go away because:

1) More people are learning that these scanners aren't effective at detecting the things they were brought into to detect.

2) People are getting fed up being treated like criminals in order to travel freely in their own country(constitutional right)

3) The scheme behind this is getting exposed:
-Chertoff pushing for these things as DHS director then leaving public service and guess what his firm gets a $300 millions contract from the companies that make these things
-State Dept. let the underwear bomber on the flight with no passport and ignored the warnings from the guys own father that he intended to commit a terrorist act

Seriously, I am reposting a link to that article and having everyone I know read it. Of course you know if every single person started doing that, they'd find a way around it.

Always the stupid loopholes. *rolls eyes* But know what? We'd find a way around that also. I just can't get over how many Americans are fine with the scanners et al! It blows my mind and makes me sick. You can find other ways to ensure we're safe than groping us, etc. I personally don't mind a metal detector. But touching me? Anywhere?????? I can see going to visit a prison, lol.
this is FLYING.

This new line led to a TSA security checkpoint. You see, it is official TSA policy that people (both citizens and non-citizens alike) from international flights are screened as they enter the airport, despite the fact that they have already flown. Even before the new controversial security measures were put in place, I found this practice annoying. But now, as I looked past the 25 people waiting to get into their own country, I saw it: the dreaded Backscatter imaging machine.

I'm surprised no one is commenting on the truly disturbing part.

This was not pre-flight! This was after the fact upon arriving at his destination. Since when have TSA had the right to scan/search you AFTER you've flown? I'm shocked at this, I really am! When did this start? Because it certainly wasn't in place when I last returned from Europe back in July.

ETA: Interesting to note how the TSA guy at the end kept asserting that the gentlemen was under his escort and not the police when the gentleman asked for the police to be there too because, as a citizen, he felt safer with them there.

I have to fly home for Christmas, and I do have a fair amount of time on my hands to deal with any imprisonment so I think I will also refuse to be scanned and groped by these criminals.

I also have an iPhone and a recording application I'll be taking with me.

I'll be sure to post my story if things get out of hand.

AWESOME!!!



AND NANANANANANANANA!

We still have rights in the US. We are driven by "liability!" Nobody wants to be the guy that let a bomber through, but nobody wants to be the guy that had his hands in the panties of an ABC reporter either! Nobody wants to get fired, but they also don't want to get sued! Nobody wants to limit their authority, but they also don't want to be the reason the policy gets tried and overturned in court!

There is a reason they use the term "EXERCISE" for our rights! There is some inertia, some discomfort, some pushback, but if we are polite, educated, and determined, we do still have rights! If we all began to EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS, we might start to notice that we have a lot MORE RIGHTS!!!

We actually don't have rights in America, and his hoop jumping exercise pretty much proves the point.

If you are being illegally searched and detained for several hours at an airport by government agents, even if you manage to talk your way out of being searched, your rights have still been violated.

Let us re-visit the 4th amendment:

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.

Pretty self-explainatory.

The government can not search you without first getting a warrant issued from a judge; and a judge may not issue a warrant unless the police can articulate probable cause for the judge to issue a warrant.

It's also important to note that the 4th amendment is an explanatory addendum to the Constitution in its bill of rights. It is not necessary for this amendment to exist in order for us to have the right to be free from unlawful searches. That right exists no matter if it is specifically detailed in the US Constitution or not.

Now square that Constitutional amendment with what the 9th circuit court recently ruled:

The high court, he explained, has held that the government may conduct a warrantless search in the exercise of its regulatory authority, provided that there is a “special need” and the search is no more intrusive than is justified by the administrative need. He cited cases upholding a warrantless search of a junkyard and its records, as part of a regulatory program designed to deter theft and control insurance rates; as well as the use of sobriety checkpoints.

The Supreme Court, Bea noted, as held that a valid administrative search does not require consent. In United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972), the court held that a gun dealer’s participation “in this pervasively regulated business” subjects the business premises to warrantless searches authorized by federal statute.

The 9th circuit has no authority to issue such a ruling, since such a ruling is clearly in violation of our natural rights.

As any fan of US history will tell you, the 4th amendment was specifically crafted to prevent exactly what the 9th circuit is allowing to take place.

The colonists were invasively searched on a routine basis by British agents who were attempting to enforce the Stamp Act. The Stamp Act declared that every piece of paper produced in the country have a special tax stamp affixed to it. The government granted itself the power to search people's property in order to enforce this regulation.

The federal government is supposed to be a protector of rights, but since it gets its funding through coercive theft, it necessarily can not protect our rights. It must engage in violent looting, invasive searches, and other disruptive behavior in order for it to exist in the first place.

The courts are simply upholding the power of the coercive body that puts food on their plate. The courts will not grant relief from this kind of behavior because they have a vested interest in seeing it continue.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Excellent comment.

And although we do have rights guaranteed to us by the constitution, that does not mean that laws created, or officials enforcing them will always do things legally. That is what the court system is for. The Supreme Court only looks at cases that involve the constitution.

Unfortunitly many many people only care about rights when it comes to themselves. The Constitution of the United States protects its people from each other. One must exercise their right by using the court system many times in order to uphold those rights though. in the meantime, laws and people abusing them will get away with it.

The only way to keep the freedom is to stick up for what is yours, and sometimes that means being arrested, and taken to court. Not to say that that happened in this instance, but I've read that if people opt out of either option they are going to be fined. That may be a deternant to many people. But to those who want their freedom they will risk the fine, and then fight it in the court system. One of these cases needs to be taken to court, and challenged so it can get to the Supreme Court. Hopefully the Justices there will do the right thing, but not even they always do.

This guy did it the right way!! All these other people going in with instant attitude will AUTOMATICALLY get them searched... Be polite and look what happens.

Didn't know you already posted this. Good job.

I want you to notice the people that jump in to defend the TSA. They NEVER talk about how Michael Chertoff ordered these machines and now is CEO of the scanner company! They also NEVER talk about how it's now admitted that our own government LET the underwear bomber on the plane and even videotape the entire event with another agent! Nope, you won't hear this from the SHILLS or from our fake CIA news that keep bringing up that we have to do this because of the underwear bomber! LOL

You can tell who the new world order trash is on the news by WHO is defending the TSA! Whoppie Goldberg is a big piece of new world order trash because she says we have to do this! What a joke!

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
This guy did it the right way!! All these other people going in with instant attitude will AUTOMATICALLY get them searched... Be polite and look what happens.

I think it also helped that he let them know he was recording everything and kept making sure they specifically stated what he needed to do so it could be recorded. They knew he had a record that could be used at a later time. This may have also reigned them in a little. I have a feeling they may have reacted differently had they known they were not being recorded, I not sure, obviously, but people do behave different when being recorded.

This guy did a great job!!!

But it does bring up a very interesting question. Why all the security POST flight.

He was headed home from his flight, not getting back on a plane to another destination. If the TSA is truly only trying to keep passengers safe, why have exit security? I think this just goes to show there is something else going on with these new procedures.

Now you must clear security to LEAVE the airport, makes no sense.

Originally posted by OneisOne
This guy did a great job!!!

But it does bring up a very interesting question. Why all the security POST flight.

He was headed home from his flight, not getting back on a plane to another destination. If the TSA is truly only trying to keep passengers safe, why have exit security? I think this just goes to show there is something else going on with these new procedures.

Now you must clear security to LEAVE the airport, makes no sense.

Good question. I've thought about it, and have come to the conclusion that there may be things going on behind the scenes that the public has not been made aware of. Not saying that there are, as I don't know, but the way they are acting leaves one suspecting that they may be trying to avert an immediate threat they are aware of. I don't know though.

I can also go through security without being scanned or touched, but then I get arrested for being naked. I think if I was naked they would want to see what I had in all my orfices.

I am very impressed by his civil disobedience.

How long until it's illegal to record the TSA in action do you think?

So, since I had nobody waiting for me at home and no connecting flight to catch, I had some free time. I decided to test my rights.

This guy is G.I. Joe, a real American hero. I think it is interesting that their predominate argument seemed to be that he would be inconvenienced if he did not submit and comply to their demands. What was frustrating to them, no doubt, was that he had no where else and no urgency to get it resolved.