For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
My Personal “Pat-Down” Experience
Written By : Kristia Cavere

The images on television of children, the elderly, and other individuals who pose zero threat to our aviation security experiencing “pat-downs” by TSA officials at airports is disturbing. This issue became personal to me as I was forced into a pat-down and threatened that I would never get through security until I complied, and I now believe that these demeaning acts are unconstitutional.

At O’Hare airport, returning to the east coast after the Thanksgiving holiday, I purposefully stood in the long line for regular metal detectors rather than the much shorter line of those willing to go through the full-body scanners (which show graphic nude pictures including all private parts). These full-body scanners are an allusion of security, which squanders our time, money, and civil liberties. They do not detect explosives or plastic, only metal, which makes them a very expensive metal detector.

I had read Dr. Jane Orient’s, Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, latest article, “The Medical Problems of Airport Screening.” She wrote, “The radiation dose is likely the least of the problems with airport screening,” as the airport full-body scanners use low-energy backscatter technology. This kind of scanner is effective for detecting explosives in cargo, but because this radiation doesn’t penetrate far it concentrates in the skin. This effect has not been properly studied, and Dr. Orient warns, “If you had a deadly disease, and the scanner were an FDA-regulated device that might save your life, your doctor wouldn’t be allowed to use it, because of inadequate study.”

I was also aware of the letter written to President Obama by University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) experts in biochemisty, biophysics, imaging, and oncology who warned of “the potential serious health risks” of the whole body scanners at airports. The scientists wrote that “real independent safety data do not exist” on the high doses that the scanners deposit into the skin.

As I was waiting on line and thinking of the many reasons why I would decline to go through a full-body scanner, a TSA official approached me and told me that I had been “randomly selected” for a pat-down. My family next to me was horrified, and the surrounding passengers were dumbfounded. I refused, and strongly pointed out that I was not opting out of the body scanner but that I was on line for the usual metal detector.

My protests were to no avail, and the TSA official grabbed my arms and forced me to walk unto a small carpet where the pat-downs were done. Threats of a lawsuit were ignored as a TSA officer began patting-down my arms and back, and then used their hands over and under my breasts. The most demeaning aspect of this intrusive experience was the pat-down of my groin and buttocks, in which the TSA officer moved their palms up my thigh, warning me that I would feel “tension” as their hands pressed upward against my crotch area.

America is moving toward a police state, under the guise of eliminating the risk of terrorism. But this false feeling of security is resulting in state-sponsored sexual harassment, and is clearly violating the Fourth Amendment’s restriction of “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Israel has equal, if not more, security threats than America does at airports. Rafi Sela, former chief security officer of the Israel Airport Authority and with more than thirty years of experience, recently stated that body scanning machines are “useless,” which is why they are not in Israeli airports. Mr. Sela advocates the two security systems that are used in the airports in Israel: behavior profiling rather than “randomly selected” searches. And a “trusted traveler” system where pre-approved low-risk passengers go through an expedited process, and passengers with more risk are exposed to more security screenings.

When the September 11th Islamofascist terrorists used box-cutters, sharp objects were banned from carry-on luggage. When a terrorist attempted to use explosives in his sneakers, all passengers had to put their shoes through screening. When terrorists inserted explosives in printer cartridges, ink cartridges were banned. When another Islamofascist terrorist hid explosives in his underwear last December, the use of nude body scanners sharply increased. Last year in Saudi Arabia, a terrorist used their anal cavity for a bomb (albeit, not at an airport). Are body cavity searches next?

Incompetent left leaning politicians and bureaucrats are creating safety profiles to protect themselves from potential lawsuits and the politically correct press, but they are doing little to actually increase our safety. Profiling is done to eliminate crime, but the largest threat to people flying in airplanes, terrorism, is not subject to profiling at airports despite the decades of success such measures have had in countries such as Israel.

At the Dwight Eisenhower Presidential Museum, in the final room marking his legacy and leadership in war and peace, is a quote from Ike: “If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison.” Americans have always valued freedom above all things. But a randomly generated invasive safety procedure, without concrete evidence that such procedures are correlated to positive safety results, become nothing more than harassment of American citizenry and an infringement upon our personal freedom.

0
  • Jim

    Flying commercial is a choice. If you value your privacy more than your security or the security of others, then choose another means of transportation. Its that simple. Some, just like the minority of US citizens who complained about the rationing of vital materials needed for the war effort during WWII, will always believe that “its just all about them.”

    • Fendell

      Jim is a good little nazi.

      • Anonymous

        Not true, he’s still breathing. The only good Nazi is a dead one. That’s what my dad (who fought in WWII against them) always told me.

    • Anonymous

      If you believe the TSA is making commercial flights safer, you are a damned fool. If you know it doesn’t, you are worse.

      http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
      “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

    • CptNerd

      If you’re so terrified of your fellow passengers that you demand they be deprived of Constitutional rights, then you should avoid flying.

      • Jim

        What constitutional rights? No one forces anyone to fly commercial. When one chooses to fly commercial one chooses to accept the rules required to gain entrance to that mode of transportation. Its that simple.

        • Shawn

          Oh! Killing Jews is perfectly alright. It’s the rules of the country you live in. You accept those rules when you decide to live in that country. If you don’t like it, you shouldn’t be living in that country. It’s just that simple.

        • Drethos

          You just keep spouting the same crap without answering any of the arguments.

        • Corsair09

          Jim: Sorry, but NO. You DO NOT leave your Constitutional rights at the check-in counter. No one forces you to fly? Fine. But TSA is ALREADY talking about moving these “enhanced security” measures to train, and even bus travel. There is understood to be a long standing common-law right to travel in this nation. Or at least there used to be. You are part of the problem. If “security” means allowing yourself, your wife, or daughter scanned and groped, then you can keep your “security.” Let’s follow the Israeli model, and profile behavior, and implement a REAL Trusted Traveler program. Damn shame El Al doesn’t have a domestic hub here in the U.S.

          • Anonymous

            There is understood to be a long standing common-law right to travel in this nation.

            And you still can, get in your car and drive where you please in this country. Just did this myself, didnt have to worry about any lines, no scanners it was great. However if you are CHOOSING to fly that is the consequences of your choice.

          • StanW

            Really, that’s amazing, because when MUSLIMS experience extra scrutiny at airports, they complained and WE STOPPED. Yet when American citizens complain, you and your ilk throw out the “if you don’t like it, don’t fly”.

            Always good to see who’s side you are on, crthns.

          • Anonymous

            Poor Stanley, the majority of the American public has no problem with what the TSA is doing, only you little crybabies seem to have them. It makes you look petty.

          • StanW

            Replying to yourself, crthns. Guess your medicine has run out.

            And I see you bypassed my point about Muslims vs. Americans complaining. Pathetic!

          • Anonymous

            Folks, you’ll have to excuse crthns and Jim here. They’re getting a little…excited by the prospect of a pat-down.

          • Anikitos

            Yes, you do leave your constitutional right at the counter. Try to take your 9mm on the plane. Or better yet, a belligerent attitude.

          • Anikitos

            Yes, you do leave your constitutional right at the counter. Try to take your 9mm on the plane. Or better yet, a belligerent attitude.

    • Anonymous

      Please. If you valued security at all you would be complaining just as hard if not harder than any of us about these idiotic policies. They do not make us safer. All they are is a massive inconvenience that give the appearance of increased security without actually making us safer.

      How very typical of a liberal to value style over substance.

    • Don_cos

      Bull! 90% of the traveling I do is for work. And I seldom have had a choice in what mode is used. I travel by air because that’s what my job calls for.

      I am a 28 + year veteran and still work in supporting our armed forces. I am not a security risk. And to be honest I really don’t mind going through security checks that serve a purpose, but don’t waste my time with demeaning and worthless acts of Security Theater.

    • Anonymous

      Disregard the “like”, I was reaching for “Reply” and missed.

      Flying is not a privilege, you have the right to travel any way you so desire. the government does not own the plane, nor do they own the airports nor the airspace. and even if it were a privilege, driving is also considered a privilege but the fourth amendment does not vanish when you enter your car now does it?

      • Guest

        I have withheld responding up till this statement “driving is also considered a privilege but the fourth amendment does not vanish when you enter your car now does it?” The law utilizes the search all or none when it comes to motor vehicles. You say that your fourth amendment rights don’t vanish when you get in a car, but it does if the police decide to search every and all vehicles and there isn’t a constitutional argument that will hold up against it. If you do not believe what I am saying then the next time there is a prison break close to you, ride through a road block and tell them that you don’t want them to violate your fourth amendment rights and drive through it. If you thought you felt violated at the airport you will really have a warm fuzzy feeling as your head is held to the ground with a loaded firearm. Especially if you supposably fit the description of the individuals they are looking for.

        • Anonymous

          And how many arrests have been thrown out because the cop overreached in searching the car without probable cause? here’s a hint, all of us combined don’t have anywhere CLOSE to enough fingers and toes to count them all.

          Sobriety checkpoints are one such instance like what you are discussing, and frankly I and many other people feel that the court stepped on it’s crank with this ruling, were it heard today, I suspect the ruling would have been different.

  • Jim

    Your “unreasonable searches and seizures” arguement against TSA pat downs falls flat on its face. If you CHOOSE to fly commercial, then you make the choice to be subject to the rules regarding the pat downs. Its not about your privacy or convenience, its about security. Its the same as free citizens who choose to seek entrance to a prison for various purposes. Their choice to do so, also means that they choose to accept the security measures required for them to gain entrance (which can include pat downs). Again its about security not privacy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/getstewed Stew Magoo

      Excepting that this does nothing to further security. But that’s not your point. Be a good little lemming and obey. Right Jim?

    • Anonymous

      Again, you choose to walk down the street. The state has no authority to randomly search you when you’re doing that, either.

      • Anonymous

        bill, showing up at an airport is a little different than simply walking down the street. Lets also keep in mind that these scanners were ordered under Chertoff. As a matter of fact nationalizing the TSA was done under Bush, where was your outrage when that occured. Did you have a problem with it then? Or is it simply because liberals are now in charge that you have a problem with it?

        • Anonymous

          Except the current policy was only put in place with “the liberals in charge”. Your argument seems to be taking the absurd position that, because one does not object to a minor level of surveilance, one cannot object to an extreme and intrusive level of surveilance. A much more reasonable question would be why, if you had objections to Pres. Bush’s security measures, do you not object to more intrusive measures now that liberals are in charge.

        • Anonymous

          Except the current policy was only put in place with “the liberals in charge”. Your argument seems to be taking the absurd position that, because one does not object to a minor level of surveilance, one cannot object to an extreme and intrusive level of surveilance. A much more reasonable question would be why, if you had objections to Pres. Bush’s security measures, do you not object to more intrusive measures now that liberals are in charge.

      • Guest

        You would think that wouldn’t you Bill? If you have the financial means or the will to pursue it; that may be the case.

  • Anonymous

    What kind of sheeple would trade real freedom for false security? Benjamin Franklin turns over in his grave.

    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

    • Jim

      “Real freedom”? What “real freedom” you talking about? I fly commercial a bit and no one forces me to fly commercial . I choose to fly commercial. End of that story.

      “False Security?” Again BS. I know and choose to accept the risks. So far, the emperical record establishes the fact that the risk of a commercial plane going down due to pilot error or mechanical failure is greater than a commercial plane going down due to the act of a terrorist. That, to me speaks highly of the efforts of the TSA. End of that story.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

        How many terrorists has the TSA actually captured as a result of these pat downs?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

        How many terrorists has the TSA actually captured as a result of these pat downs?

      • CptNerd

        Those risks were the same before the scope and grope policies inflicted on us.

      • CptNerd

        Those risks were the same before the scope and grope policies inflicted on us.

      • Anonymous

        “False Security?” Again BS. I know and choose to accept the risks. So far, the emperical record establishes the fact that the risk of a commercial plane going down due to pilot error or mechanical failure is greater than a commercial plane going down due to the act of a terrorist. That, to me speaks highly of the efforts of the TSA. End of that story.

        …I’m just going to assume you know why that’s stupid and move on.

      • Anonymous

        So far, the emperical record establishes the fact that the risk of a commercial plane going down due to pilot error or mechanical failure is greater than a commercial plane going down due to the act of a terrorist. That, to me speaks highly of the efforts of the TSA.

        And from an empirical point of view, the incidence of successful terrorist attacks in the nation’s malls are even better still. I guess that speaks to the crackerjack security we receive from mall cops.

        • Anikitos

          I agree on the mall thing. It would have been much easier for a small group to wreck havoc with simple pointed suicide attacks with couple MP5′s on malls. That is why I don’t really believe in this war on terror, its complete BS created to keep fear alive. Why would anyone go through an elaborate plan of taking over a plane, getting through security, getting to a pilot, etc.. ?

  • Jim

    Botom line is this. Flying commercial is a choice. No one holds a gun to your head and forces you to fly commercial Don’t like the situation? Then vote with your dollars like a good free market conservative. Stop acting like a bleeding heart liberal by engagning in weak arguements about your “constitutional rights” being violated. What constitutional rights?

    • Anonymous

      Good God, man, do you ever get tired of the taste of boot polish?

      In any case, I would suggest it violates the Fourth Amendment (as an unreasonable search). It may also violate the Tenth if the feds insist on pushing it on airports where the local authorities are balking.

      That’s just constitutional issues. There’s a whole mess of privacy issues involved as well, and of course the one suit that’s my personal favorite: that the backscatter machines may violate an anti-pornography law regarding electronic equipment (I’d have to dig to find the reference, though, so take that last with a grain of salt).

      And aside from all this… doesn’t this annoy you in the slightest? Do you ENJOY being scanned and/or groped, knowing that it doesn’t make one bit of difference in safety? Or are you happy to continue licking the boots of the government?

      • Spikey

        A: Jim has never flown, he is kept in a box.

    • Anonymous

      Botom line is this. Flying commercial is a choice. No one holds a gun to your head and forces you to fly commercial…

      Try replacing it with this:

      Botom line is this. Leaving your home is a choice. No one holds a gun to your head and forces you to leave your home …

      Maybe you’d be happy living in such a society. But it wouldn’t be in any meaningful sense conservative.

      • Guest

        You have to leave your home to escape the warrantless wire tapping, but then again, you don’t have to have a phone or the internet, you don’t have to go to the library to check out a book, but by all means, don’t buy a book online that you “shouldn’t” be buying. TSA was created after 9/11, full body scanners were contracted for purchase in 2007. Glad to see you folks are finally waking up to the results of such actions.

        • StanW

          Still on the wiretaps, are you GUEST? You should really learn some more about that procedure and the “probable harm” of the situation.

          But I don’t talk to known terrorists overseas. It’s your choice to do that. I mean, if you don’t want to be wiretapped, just stop calling overseas terrorists. Is that to much to ask?

          • Guest

            I hear what you are saying, but did we not learn the lesson of Nixon? Warrants have a benefit beyond protecting individual’s civil rights. Even if they are issued after the fact, the ability to have a paper trail of who and why individuals are being checked is a necessity for security, not an option. It would help promote efficiency and hopefully prevent redundancy, especially if 10 different intelligence agencies have someone get flagged simutaneously.

          • StanW

            “The Lessons of Nixon”? You are equating a internal political squabble with international terrorism? That is just too stupid for words.

            We’re done here!

    • Anonymous

      Also, the free market has nothing to do with this. This is an action of government, not private businesses. No airline has the option of forgoing TSA screening.

    • Anonymous

      What about people who live in hawaii? their options are boat or plane, but both get TSA treatment. They are effectively prisoners on the island.

      As to what constitutional rights are violated? that would be the fourth Amendment. the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

      The argument that TSA makes is that flying is a privilege, not a right. so by purchasing a ticket you agree to whatever rights violations that the TSA decide to put you through. But they also claim that driving is a privilege not a right as well, but a cop may not search your vehicle without permission or probable cause. To do otherwise violates your 4th amendment rights. so why is it one is illegal but the other is not? Because nobody has taken the TSA to the Supreme Court yet and handed them their arse on a platter.

      Where is the probable cause?

  • Anonymous

    How many people have they caught from these searches ?
    From 911 to now .

  • Mam

    I’ve said it before:

    I don’t understand why American citizens are being punished when we did nothing wrong!

  • Anonymous

    The sad irony here is that the justification for this move was last year’s attempted “Underwear Bomber” attacks. The problem there, however, was not that the bomber didn’t get his testicles sufficiently fondled, but that the government didn’t respond to warnings from the British and the bomber’s own father that he was a terrorist.

    • Anikitos

      Sad thing is that you don’t know what you are talking about. Body scatter machines were in development and supported under Bush administration.
      Get some underwear to protect your precious junk. I might get some as a gag, and to support this obviously ingenious man, and american ingenuity.
      http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/23/nation/la-na-tsa-fig-leaf-20101123

      • StanW

        Interesting how everything that happens while a Republican is in power is the fault of the Republican. Yet when a Democrat is in power, you will excuse everything they do and blame it on someone else.

        • Anikitos

          I did not say it was a fault of republicans. I am just commenting on sudden outcry for no reason.

        • Anikitos

          I did not say it was a fault of republicans. I am just commenting on sudden outcry for no reason.

          • StanW

            You are blaming an Obama policy of invasive searches on machines developed suring the Bush Administration. You are CLEARLY blaming Obama’s mistakes on Bush!

            Idiot!

          • StanW

            You are blaming an Obama policy of invasive searches on machines developed suring the Bush Administration. You are CLEARLY blaming Obama’s mistakes on Bush!

            Idiot!

      • Anonymous

        No, actually the sad thing is that you can’t tell the difference between research and development and deployment. The even sadder thing is that you failed to read, from your own cited article,

        Buske hit upon the idea in January after authorities said a Nigerian air passenger unsuccessfully tried to detonate a bomb in his underpants. That led the TSA to speed its deployment of full-body imaging machines across the country. Buske anticipated an inevitable backlash.

        Exactly as I stated.

  • http://www.700r4transmission.org 700R4 Transmission

    Just came and read, this is wow! I was seek from many blogs, but here is the best, I love it.

  • Voice in the Dark

    After decades of the Right taking away all of our constitutional guarantees, I find it particularly galling that this same sector of society is making the biggest uproar about this latest measure. Mind you, I’m in agreement with your opinion about this whole issue…100%. Given that Reagan,Bush, then Bush, appointed all these right-wing judges who use their personal prejudices to decide issues of national law, I can’t believe that you are all now going to rebel over an x-ray machine (by any other name). When the right-wing judges decided that our automobiles on highways were subject to search without warrants, did you complain? Or did you say it’s all good, because you were going to catch all those leftists drug-running subversives and all those youngsters out there who were flouting the laws of our great nation? When the same presidents made all public servants stand for finger printing and background checks, did you complain that government was getting too bureaucratically large and intrusive? Or did you applaud their diligence in keeping radical leftist elements from jobs in the public sector? When they opened illegal torture camps in other lands, did you quail in horror at the United States cowardly acting like so many other past-imperialistic nations? Or did you meekly comply, given that those people who got sent to such places didn’t look like you or your grandma? So the pat-down finally provoked this response from you? Have you contacted the ACLU? Or is your indignation still insufficient to ask for help from such an obviously left-wing organization? Well, I’m sorry for your experience, and I guess your support for liberty is better late than never. Good luck with that lawsuit. I’m betting you’ll lose, however, due to a judge that was most likely appointed by Reagan, Bush, or Bush.

    • StanW

      After decades of the Right taking away all of our constitutional guarantees

      And this statement is all I needed to read to know that you are an ignorant partisan hack with no grasp on reality! Come back when you go through puberty, or the thorizine kicks in.

      • Voice in the Dark

        Ignorant? Oh please. You have no basis from which to make that judgement. Partisan? I began my political life as a solid Republican. Experience changed my mind along with my vote, though I do still vote for the occasional Republican. After all, I do vote for the person whom I think has my best interests in mind. Reality? I’m a middle-class home-owning taxpaying father. I’m up to my neck in reality. And ummm…I’m old enough to have voted for Reagan, which I did. We all make mistakes. I’ve never made that particular one since. Not that any of this will change your mind. You’ll just hurl a couple more names, use a malappropriation or three, make statements for me that I don’t espouse, and claim a moral victory.

        • Anikitos

          Voice, I had a similar realization as you. Not that I am a democrat. I am far from one. Independent. Person and policies is what counts. Swearing an allegiance to some ideology makes one a demagogue. Fool me once, right?

          • StanW

            A similar realization, Ani. Yep, you and voice are EXACTLY the same. You come on here breathing fire and then whine when your own vitrol is visited back on you.

            Cry me a river!

          • Anikitos

            Huh? Read my early posts. They were instantly followed by insults BY YOU.

          • Anikitos

            Huh? Read my early posts. They were instantly followed by insults BY YOU.

          • StanW

            A similar realization, Ani. Yep, you and voice are EXACTLY the same. You come on here breathing fire and then whine when your own vitrol is visited back on you.

            Cry me a river!

          • StanW

            Sorry, have to respond to you hear due to DISQUS-CAUSED formatting!

            I have read your posts, Ani. Not just today but since you have been posting here. You seem to think that you can be an absolute jerk on this borad for weeks, then make one moderate post and get treated with the utmost of respect?

            Sorry, you want respect and decorym, then try showing some and again STOP WHINING!

          • Anikitos

            Cry me a river? LOL. Not even close. Just FYI I was NOT responding to you, but to Voice of reason. It seems he is one of the few with brains here. By a moderate post, you mean a post that is not liberal, ie not worth to be considered as to be valid only to be ridiculed. Well, have at it. I am not expecting much more from you or this completely one sided partisan “forum”. After crying for weeks that Obama is trying to convert good old white republican children into homosexual communists through pat downs and body searches, why dont you grow a pair? Or are you just worrying that your next TSA boyfriend wont find any berries between your legs?

            After spending 20 hours a week here “kneekapping Obama” on every single point he brings up, however good or bad it is, and you have balls to call Voice a partisan hack?

            Oh Man, there must be a picture of StanW in the thesaurus under the hypocrite.

          • StanW

            This website is called RIGHT WING News. We are not trying to hide what our political bent is here, so you can stop your indignation.

            It is interesting that you list things that you say *I* complain about, yet I have not. Apparently to you, as to most Liberals, anything said by one Conservative is the opinion of ALL Conservatives. How said and pathetic you are.

            I promised to give Obama the same considerations and breaks that Liberals gave to George bush during his presidency. I have not done that. Liberals constantly lied about the things Bush did in order to make him look bad. All I have done is recount Obama’s actual actions.

            It is a joy to me that you so closely keep track of how much time I spend on this forum, but that means that you need to get a real life. Get out of your mother’s basement, get a job, and start paying taxes instead of sponging off of the rest of us.

          • StanW

            Sorry, have to respond to you hear due to DISQUS-CAUSED formatting!

            I have read your posts, Ani. Not just today but since you have been posting here. You seem to think that you can be an absolute jerk on this borad for weeks, then make one moderate post and get treated with the utmost of respect?

            Sorry, you want respect and decorym, then try showing some and again STOP WHINING!

        • StanW

          If you think that Republicans have taken away all of your Constitutional guarantees, they my assesment is correct, you are too stupid to be allowed out unsupervised.

  • Anonymous

    There is also the point that the pat-down procedure is relatively new (around 3 weeks old) so even if you HAD effectively agreed to TSA security as it existed when you bought the ticket, many of those tickets were purchased BEFORE the new policy was implemented, so there is no way you COULD have consented to it because you did not know about it at the time.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info

Users Online