Surprised nobody has started a thread on this already, the story of John Tyner out of California.

You can read his blog posting on the incident here:

http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/...y-between.html

(youtube recordings of the incident are leaked)

or the news account here:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...sing-security/

Cliffs: Man is flying. He thinks those new body scanner machines are dangerous because of radiation and verifies online that the airport he's flying out of doesn't have them. When he gets there they have them anyway. He tells the agents he doesn't want to go through them. They say that's fine but he has to submit to a pat down instead. He agrees but this isn't a standard pat down but one of those groin grabbingly new ones. Guy says he does not submit to having his privates fondled. TSA is confused and first and they say you can't fly then, he says fine. Then they refuse to let him leave the screening area for awhile but he is persistent in calling them out on their illegal detainment of him, eventually leaves the screening area, gets his ticket refunded and attempts to leave airport. He's stopped by more TSA agents saying he isn't allowed to leave the screening area once a screen has begun and they have to complete it. He still refuses to consent to a search, they begin threatening him with a 10K fine and a civil lawsuit, they hold them there for awhile and eventually he leaves, with them still threatening lawsuits and fines.

He really does a great job with staying calm and with calling them out on their BS and their blatant violations of his rights and produces a lot of stammering and confusion and choice quotes from them.

The utter arrogance of the agents really is stunning, what they think the can do to you because they have a little badge from the government telling them that they can.

"If you touch my junk, I'm going to have you arrested."

Love this. Frankly, I think sexual assault charges should be brought against any TSA employee (or any other person) who touches someone's genitals in any way against their consent.


http://www.pennandteller.com/03/cool...ederalvip.html

Penn Jillette had a similar type of experience.

It starts...


...for your safety of course

So who exactly is in favour of this stuff? Liberals are presumably generally against intrusions into privacy and cotton is a conservative (right?) and he seem against it. Obv as a libertarian it makes me wanna throw up. Where is the support coming from?

The really pathetic part of this is there is probably zero marginal increase in actual security as a result of this new procedure.

People who make backscatter xray machines?

What do we call the group with the weapons? Because it's them that are doing this.

oh, and people who don't fly commercial. Because for them, no price is too high to pay for security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...123101746.html

Remember Michael Chertoff?

Rumor is that he's got some kind of conflict-of-interesty profit motive in this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_bo...nner_lobbyists

You'll be hard pressed to find a regular traveler who is for more of this stuff.

What always confused me... There was a period where they would ban... say, toe nail clippers. Then a year or so later they would re-allow it. Same thing happened, I believe, for lighters.

Then you couldn't bring fluids of a certain size.... then you could.

WTF is happening where for a year or so you can't bring a bottle of water, cause its dangerous, but then 12 months later it isn't anymore? It seems like they react with no clear strategy in mind about what's effective. There's actions are a mystery.

Tom, you're far too willing to grant that the conservative right has any sincere opposition to this.* It's a political kludge, basically to build the narrative that Obama et al are guilty of creeping government fascism. They've taken the sincere opposition does exist, spun it through their laugh factories, and turned it into Liberal Perverts and Busybodies at DHS and in TSA vs Real Americans, Showdown at your Local Airport. In fact this is already happening. Note the perpetual wink-wink Big Sis lesbian Napolitano is storing naked body images campaign to fap to, "hey have you noticed lots of TSA agents are Moslems, do you think they're infiltrating?!?" whisper stuff in the swamps on talk radio or whatever.

The hoi polloi on the right get the message. See Drudge. See your standard Freeper reactions:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2627332/posts

-----

* what sincere opposition does exist is basically that white people are subjected to the same level of scrutiny as dark skinned people.

had my first experience with the new security 2 weeks or so ago.

traveling with my wife - fairly light security lines - (wife is a 10/10 ldo) - and lo and behold - who is the 1 person 'randomly' selected for the naked scan? my white 30 year old wife - the only attractive woman within 30 yards of the front of the security lines....

at the time - i sort of thought 'oh well - what can you do' - but as I've read more and more - I'm getting more and more irritated with the whole system - add in the crap like the full crotch grab pat down on young children - and it's becoming mind boggling.

these aren't highly trained professionals deciding who to pat down - these are low level employees.

I don't know what the qualifications are to become the guy who decides who goes into the nekkid booth - and who might be getting a feel up - but is he any more 'qualified' than a McDonalds order taker?

I highly doubt the veracity of the following information - but the only thing I found claiming the qualifications of a TSA agent was as follows:

All candidates must meet minimum qualification requirements established by law including:

U.S. citizen or U.S. national.
High school diploma, GED or equivalent, or one year of security or aviation screening experience.
English proficiency.
Pass a background check.


edit: just wanted to add - I don't put this at the feet of Obama - or at the feet of democrats - I put it at the feet of an incompetent government organization that doesn't think it's a big deal to stamp on people's rights and freedoms - there is no thinking going on here.

I don't really tap into this stuff were conservative blogs talk radio etc in favour of this kind of draconian stuff when it was brought in (presumably under bush)?

There's no mystery. They're just reacting to individual plots so they can be seen as "doing something."

9/11, attackers used sharp pointy things, so ban sharp pointy things.

later, liquid bomb plot, so ban (some) liquids. Nevermind that there are still ways of getting liquids on board, it causes inconvenience for a lot of people so they'll assume it's effective.

later, terrorists plan to put explosives in toner cartridges, so ban toner cartridges.

EZ game.

No more of this "random" search crap. Full body cavity searches for all! Freedom you can believe in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YZJ...layer_embedded

I think this 3 minute video basically sums it up.

Summary:

Sean Hannity: I'm fine with heightened security measures.
Michelle Malkin: The draconian measures are bad for Americans, but not for the foreigners. We should only use them if we're willing to discriminate.
Hannity: But I want to be able to sleep on an airplane and not have to worry about underwear bombs.
Malkin: Well, the State Department shouldn't let scary people into the US to begin with, so then we won't have to worry about underwear bombs.

Full video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z01dJy9lf4w

I can understand the initial... "they used sharp pointy things so we'll ban those." Its the fact that they wait a year and then change their mind. The very fact that they decide its no longer dangerous a year later would require someone to believe something's changed. So either they've found a new way to scan for the dangerous stuff or they would basically have to be admitting that it was never that dangerous (or an effective strategy) in the first place.

Theoretically, if sharp pointy things were dangerous previously, then why aren't they dangerous now? (if not sharp pointy things then things that can make hot flames or things in a liquid state)

It's cool to select comments from msnbc/cnn articles and then apply their words to the entire political left, right?

If I'm strawmanning, which member of the conservative right is emblematic of their view on this, that's drastically different from what was posted? I'll let you pick. See me Hannity/Malkin exchange. There's two douchebags generally considered standard right-wingers, right? Basically they said what the Freepers said, only without the Big Sis is a lesbian derision wink wink stuff (you have to go to Drudge and talk radio and the blogs for that kind of stuff, usually).

What's the standard, here? 3 comments + 2 pundits = good enough?


Look forward to me criticizing you for what Olbermann, Maddow, and three morons on the internet said.

dvaut,

Video blew my mind. If there was a poll of say eligible US voters that asked "Are Americans objectively better than non-americans" what % do you think would answer yes? Actually lets get Wynton onto it maybe he can find one.

Well, I know that some of you guys are so self-absorbed that stuff like calling RP a racist is a slight against you personally, but uhh, I never said anything about you or anyone in this thread, so this analogy fails.

So if you criticized me, personally, for what Olbermann, Maddow, and three morons on the internet said, I might object. If you said that Olbermann, Maddow and three morons on the internet said is emblematic of what the left in general thinks, then we'd have to investigate if those opinions we're wildly shared on the left.

Given that, do we actually have an alternative here? I mean when I listen to the right wing media, it's basically the Hannity/Malkin dichotomy; I see two camps: 1) I basically approve of all levels of degrading security measures (Hannity) or 2) I approve of all levels of degrading security measures, so long as only certain races or classes of people are subject to them, and the failure to only apply the draconian measures is a slight against the opposition party's political leaders (Malkin). Who sounds drastically different from that?

Can anybody give me a list of prominent right wingers that are against the actions of the TSA?

I'll start:

Ron Paul

You were judging right wingers, as a group, by the commentary of some internet posters and some talk show hosts. I will now judge your group by the same merits.

Even looking at the link you gave there are comments which represent a rational conservative disapproval of the TSA.