Posted: 6/21/2011 9:07:54 AM EDT
|
I just heard on the news that Gov. Perry sent the anti-TSA groping bill to the special session. It makes it a crime to grope someone without probable cause- I think they said it would be a sexual assault.
I was making a sammich when the story came on Fox 4. Jim |
| It was originally shelved after the Feds threatened to stop all flights in/out of Texas. It suddenly gained Perry's attention this week after he was questioned publicly about it even though he already said a few days/weeks prior it didn't have enough votes to get through the legislature and he didn't seem too interested in it. Amazing how perspectives change when you are about to jump into the presidential race. Makes him look good to the tea party, etc acting like he is standing up to big federal government. |
|
Quoted:
You need a wife, so you can pay closer attention to important things on TV, instead of wasting your time doing mundane chores. Oh I have one. She took the kids to the waterpark. I came home for lunch and had a whole hour of peace and quiet. Making my own sammich was a small price tp pay. Jim |
|
Quoted:
It was originally shelved after the Feds threatened to stop all flights in/out of Texas. It suddenly gained Perry's attention this week after he was questioned publicly about it even though he already said a few days/weeks prior it didn't have enough votes to get through the legislature and he didn't seem too interested in it. Amazing how perspectives change when you are about to jump into the presidential race. Makes him look good to the tea party, etc acting like he is standing up to big federal government. This! If he really wanted to stand out and show some political courage he'd get the campus carry bill back in the special session. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was originally shelved after the Feds threatened to stop all flights in/out of Texas. It suddenly gained Perry's attention this week after he was questioned publicly about it even though he already said a few days/weeks prior it didn't have enough votes to get through the legislature and he didn't seem too interested in it. Amazing how perspectives change when you are about to jump into the presidential race. Makes him look good to the tea party, etc acting like he is standing up to big federal government. This! If he really wanted to stand out and show some political courage he'd get the campus carry bill back in the special session. This. |
|
Text of HB 1937
This has already been discussed several times, but as one of those who would be directly affected by the bill I have to say it is very, very poorly thought out. TSA was not kidding when it threatened to shut down air travel in Texas. That is not likely to happen, though, as it will be immediately stayed by a federal court and overturned down the road, but if it were to be implemented it would prevent tens of thousands of people from boarding airplanes in Texas every day it was in effect. You see, we TSOs cannot violate federal, state, or local laws, so if this became the law of the land in Texas we would have no choice but to deny boarding for anyone who would otherwise require a patdown. Got metal in your body? Can't fly. Left your wallet in your pocket when you came through the scanner? Can't fly. Opting out of the scanner? Can't fly... Get the picture? Our SOP - with the weight of federal law behind it - says you don't fly under those circumstances where a patdown is required but for one reason or another cannot be implemented (generally refusal to cooperate, but in this case state law instead). So if we can't pat you down, and you can't pass through security unless we clear you with a patdown... You're just SOL. I'm not going to jail for patting someone down, and you're not getting on the plane, and everybody stays within the law... This is pure politics on Perry's part. I otherwise like the guy and hope he runs nationally and hands the current POTUS a pink slip next year, but passage of this law - if it were ever actually implemented (highly unlikely) - would make lots of trouble for lots of folks out there. Beautiful example of the shortsightedness legislators sometimes get when they see some political pie on the table... |
|
<meta charset="utf-8"></meta>if it were ever actually implemented (highly unlikely) - would make lots of trouble for lots of folks out there. Beautiful example of the shortsightedness legislators sometimes get when they see some political pie on the table... It could makes lots of trouble. But Texas being one of the big dogs at the table, state-wise, just might tell the Feds to go stuff themselves and inject some common sense back into federal regulation. Is it not just as likely that the feds might cave if Texas backed them up against a wall? Why is it always the Feds that win out? |
|
Quoted:
Text of HB 1937 This has already been discussed several times, but as one of those who would be directly affected by the bill I have to say it is very, very poorly thought out. TSA was not kidding when it threatened to shut down air travel in Texas. That is not likely to happen, though, as it will be immediately stayed by a federal court and overturned down the road, but if it were to be implemented it would prevent tens of thousands of people from boarding airplanes in Texas every day it was in effect. You see, we TSOs cannot violate federal, state, or local laws, so if this became the law of the land in Texas we would have no choice but to deny boarding for anyone who would otherwise require a patdown. Got metal in your body? Can't fly. Left your wallet in your pocket when you came through the scanner? Can't fly. Opting out of the scanner? Can't fly... Get the picture? Our SOP - with the weight of federal law behind it - says you don't fly under those circumstances where a patdown is required but for one reason or another cannot be implemented (generally refusal to cooperate, but in this case state law instead). So if we can't pat you down, and you can't pass through security unless we clear you with a patdown... You're just SOL. I'm not going to jail for patting someone down, and you're not getting on the plane, and everybody stays within the law... This is pure politics on Perry's part. I otherwise like the guy and hope he runs nationally and hands the current POTUS a pink slip next year, but passage of this law - if it were ever actually implemented (highly unlikely) - would make lots of trouble for lots of folks out there. Beautiful example of the shortsightedness legislators sometimes get when they see some political pie on the table... Although I think there are more important things than this still on the table, and despite the fact that it is politically-opportunistic grandstanding... your own post (unless I'm misreading it) seems to suggest that there would be no legitimate reason to "shut down air travel in Texas" (as previously threatened). |
|
Quoted:
<meta charset="utf-8"></meta>if it were ever actually implemented (highly unlikely) - would make lots of trouble for lots of folks out there. Beautiful example of the shortsightedness legislators sometimes get when they see some political pie on the table...
It could makes lots of trouble. But Texas being one of the big dogs at the table, state-wise, just might tell the Feds to go stuff themselves and inject some common sense back into federal regulation. Is it not just as likely that the feds might cave if Texas backed them up against a wall? Why is it always the Feds that win out? They're not going to cave on this one. The patdowns and body scanners are not going away. The patdowns may be modified, and TSA is looking at moving towards a risk-centric model (long overdue) rather than one-size fits all, but there are certain things that are simply not going away, and randomness is one of them. They bend and a plane or planes go down and that is the end of someone's administration. Not gonna happen. Besides, this one is easily winnable in court, so no real reason for them to bend. The Supreme has typically given the Fed lots of leeway when interpreting supremacy clause issues, especially where it would interfere with the fulfilling of lawful duties - one of which, like it or not, is securing air travel. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Text of HB 1937 This has already been discussed several times, but as one of those who would be directly affected by the bill I have to say it is very, very poorly thought out. TSA was not kidding when it threatened to shut down air travel in Texas. That is not likely to happen, though, as it will be immediately stayed by a federal court and overturned down the road, but if it were to be implemented it would prevent tens of thousands of people from boarding airplanes in Texas every day it was in effect. You see, we TSOs cannot violate federal, state, or local laws, so if this became the law of the land in Texas we would have no choice but to deny boarding for anyone who would otherwise require a patdown. Got metal in your body? Can't fly. Left your wallet in your pocket when you came through the scanner? Can't fly. Opting out of the scanner? Can't fly... Get the picture? Our SOP - with the weight of federal law behind it - says you don't fly under those circumstances where a patdown is required but for one reason or another cannot be implemented (generally refusal to cooperate, but in this case state law instead). So if we can't pat you down, and you can't pass through security unless we clear you with a patdown... You're just SOL. I'm not going to jail for patting someone down, and you're not getting on the plane, and everybody stays within the law... This is pure politics on Perry's part. I otherwise like the guy and hope he runs nationally and hands the current POTUS a pink slip next year, but passage of this law - if it were ever actually implemented (highly unlikely) - would make lots of trouble for lots of folks out there. Beautiful example of the shortsightedness legislators sometimes get when they see some political pie on the table... Although I think there are more important things than this still on the table, and despite the fact that it is politically-opportunistic grandstanding... your own post (unless I'm misreading it) seems to suggest that there would be no legitimate reason to "shut down air travel in Texas" (as previously threatened). Well, personally as I intrerpret it there is no need to shut down air travel completely even if the law were implemented, and I take that as a bit of an exaggerated threat made on TSA's part, but probably done to convey the serious nature of the situation to a bunch of politicians grandstanding before an election year. There is no doubt that even were air travel not completely shut down, tens of thousands of people would be denied boarding daily in Texas airports, including many who arrived from overseas and/or were trying to catch connecting flights - they would literally be stuck here. Talk about a *massive* clusterfuck, this would be it. I think the odds of TSA actually shutting down air travel in Texas over this are extremely slight (though they could do it if they wanted), but slightly more likely would be that we simply complied with state and federal laws and denied boarding to lots of people every day until the courts shook things out. By far most likely scenario is that the Feds get a stay on the law and it dies in court, never to be implemented. The only part that really worries me is if the law passed and is not stayed, but my superiors try to tell me to continue patting people down - to violate state law. At that point I lawyer up and tell my superiors that they need to read the employee code of conduct again... Messy. I'm not going to jail just so someone can maybe get on their airplane, but a bunch of dickheads above me made some stupid choices. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
<meta charset="utf-8"></meta>if it were ever actually implemented (highly unlikely) - would make lots of trouble for lots of folks out there. Beautiful example of the shortsightedness legislators sometimes get when they see some political pie on the table...
It could makes lots of trouble. But Texas being one of the big dogs at the table, state-wise, just might tell the Feds to go stuff themselves and inject some common sense back into federal regulation. Is it not just as likely that the feds might cave if Texas backed them up against a wall? Why is it always the Feds that win out? They're not going to cave on this one. The patdowns and body scanners are not going away. The patdowns may be modified, and TSA is looking at moving towards a risk-centric model (long overdue) rather than one-size fits all, but there are certain things that are simply not going away, and randomness is one of them. They bend and a plane or planes go down and that is the end of someone's administration. Not gonna happen. Besides, this one is easily winnable in court, so no real reason for them to bend. The Supreme has typically given the Fed lots of leeway when interpreting supremacy clause issues, especially where it would interfere with the fulfilling of lawful duties - one of which, like it or not, is securing air travel. Standard of review? |
|
This may not stick but someone has to say enough! The TSA is out of control and it seems above any oversight.
As for safety there is no way anyone can convince me that groping a child, or a grandmother, enhances aircraft safety. Their methods go too far and until someone stands up and says no more they will just get worse. The same people who say what the TSA does is necessary for safety would never stand for DL checkpoints for random cars, complain about DWI checkpoints, would never agree to random traffic stops to see if their insurance is valid, etc. Do they still not check muslim women since it violates their religion? Jim |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Anyone have a link to the text of the bill? Police don't need probably cause to frisk someone––only reasonable suspicion. TSA is not the police. Obviously. Which is why I am curious about the actual wording of the bill. ETA: Found it: (3) as part of a search performed to grant access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (A) searches another person without probable cause to believe the person committed an offense; and (B) touches the anus, sexual organ, or breasts of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person. That's the part I was looking for. Felonious Sexual Assault, eh? They're certainly not messing around. |
|
The law doesn't say TSA can't do patdowns as some would have us believe. It prevents TSA from groping your nutsack, fingering your butthole, and squeezing your wife's tits. If a patdown needs to go that far then there is already some reason to get an actual LEO involved.
Any TSA screener who pulled this shit on my wife or I without telling us they were about to grope us would get the same treatment that any other person would in a sexual assault. |
|
Quoted: The law doesn't say TSA can't do patdowns as some would have us believe. It prevents TSA from groping your nutsack, fingering your butthole, and squeezing your wife's tits. If a patdown needs to go that far then there is already some reason to get an actual LEO involved. Any TSA screener who pulled this shit on my wife or I without telling us they were about to grope us would get the same treatment that any other person would in a sexual assault. That's going to be the issue I think. While not squeezing, using the back of the hand to frisk the chest is part of the pat down AFAIK. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The law doesn't say TSA can't do patdowns as some would have us believe. It prevents TSA from groping your nutsack, fingering your butthole, and squeezing your wife's tits. If a patdown needs to go that far then there is already some reason to get an actual LEO involved. Any TSA screener who pulled this shit on my wife or I without telling us they were about to grope us would get the same treatment that any other person would in a sexual assault. That's going to be the issue I think. While not squeezing, using the back of the hand to frisk the chest is part of the pat down AFAIK. Ah, did not know that. Thanks. Well then, maybe a topless express lane would be in order  (on second thought, maybe not)
eta: using the back of the hand does seem acceptable to me but there is no provision in the law for that. While I think the law is a good idea, it does suffer from the same lack of thought that some of our gun and knife laws do. |
| The whole pat-down procedure is a charade. They say they're checking for bombs on the person but the last plane bombings or attempts were with bombs put in the person's anal cavity or In the case of the Russian bombings from a few years ago, the bombs components were inserted in the female's vagina and then removed to be mixed in the onboard bathroom. So unless the TSA plans to start fingering your butthole or the woman's honeypot this whole episode is a joke and just an assault on personal liberty and privacy. |
|
So much bad info here, which is usually why I don't bother, but...
Do they still not check muslim women since it violates their religion?
Total, absolute mythical BS. I don't give a fuck what religion you are, you're getting screened just like anybody else. And if you come through with a burqua on you're getting either a pass in the body scanner or a patdown. It's automatic according to SOP. The law doesn't say TSA can't do patdowns as some would have us believe. It prevents TSA from groping your nutsack, fingering your butthole, and squeezing your wife's tits.
Our primary patdown, the "Standard Pat Down" involves using the back of the hand on the underside of the breast area on women, the buttocks, and to the side of the zipperline at the groin area. If you see someone "squeezing tits" or using the front of their hands in those areas they are doing it wrong and you should say something. Incidentally, there is nothing new about that, it has always been done that way. The only new thing is the "Resolution Pat Down", which is generally used to resolve groin anomalies detected on the scanner (ie, somebody has something shoved down their pants or attached to their body in the groin area and we see it on the scanner), and the front of the hand is used on the groin area. That one is always done in private, you will never see it happen on the checkpoint. eta: using the back of the hand does seem acceptable to me but there is no provision in the law for that.
This is the problem. It forces us to throw the Standard Pat Down out the window, and deny access instead. Pretty fucking stupid. The whole pat-down procedure is a charade. They say they're checking for bombs on the person but the last plane bombings or attempts were with bombs put in the person's anal cavity or In the case of the Russian bombings from a few years ago, the bombs components were inserted in the female's vagina and then removed to be mixed in the onboard bathroom. So unless the TSA plans to start fingering your butthole or the woman's honeypot this whole episode is a joke and just an assault on personal liberty and privacy.
More mythical BS. The Russian airliners went down because of women carrying SVIEDs (vests) underneath bulky clothing, which is why all bulky clothing gets patted down unless a scanner is used, and Abdulmutallab wore an underwear IED, which is why we have the RPD now. To date no one has shoved an IED up their ass or vag and tried to blow up an airplane, and there are obvious and massive problems in trying to do so. Suffice it to say that if someone does that and TSA tells me to start poking around in there that is the day I find a new job. Standard of review?
Not exactly a review, just my opinion of course. There have already been cases that established the implied consent that everyone gives when they undergo screening at the airport, and TSAs SOP has the weight of the ATSA of 2002 behind it as well. It is often compared to a situation where LEOs need probable cause to search, but that is not a good comparison; in our case subjecting one's self to screening is voluntary - no one is forcing anyone to do it - but necessary according to law as a requirement to gain access to a sterile area. Because it is voluntary and implied consent is given no probable cause is required, and of course screening can always be declined. Try declining a search by a LEO who has probable cause... I'm pretty confident this one would get thrown out, but what do I know, just my opinion. Anyone with a metal hip or knee who wants to fly had better hope it does. |
|
Quoted:
Standard of review? Not exactly a review, just my opinion of course. There have already been cases that established the implied consent that everyone gives when they undergo screening at the airport, and TSAs SOP has the weight of the ATSA of 2002 behind it as well. It is often compared to a situation where LEOs need probable cause to search, but that is not a good comparison; in our case subjecting one's self to screening is voluntary - no one is forcing anyone to do it - but necessary according to law as a requirement to gain access to a sterile area. Because it is voluntary and implied consent is given no probable cause is required, and of course screening can always be declined. Try declining a search by a LEO who has probable cause...
I'm pretty confident this one would get thrown out, but what do I know, just my opinion. Anyone with a metal hip or knee who wants to fly had better hope it does. Since this was my only question/contribution that was treated in the above post, I'm going to excerpt out all of the stuff that wasn't mine. I was just wondering as to what the judicial standard of review would be... in a case where state and federal law were contradictory (well aware of supremacy clause), or (as I think this [now still hypothetical] case could be distinguished) where they were greatly overlapping. e.g. "least restrictive means" used to accomplish a "compelling state interest" (which relate to strict scrutiny, which I doubt would apply in such a [latter] case, but which I use for illustrative purposes) |
|
Gonna have to ask a lawyer about that, it's just my interpretation that supremacy clause will probably cover this one fairly well.
There's a part of me that wishes the state would win this one just on philosophical grounds if it wouldn't be such a clusterfuck in its outcome, but I just don't think that's likely in this case. States don't have a good track record on telling federal agencies how they conduct their business. |
|
Quoted: . . . of course screening can always be declined. That's the thing. Can't someone stop the screening process at any time and choose to leave the airport instead of entering the secure area of the airport? Also, since your here, what do the pictures on the body scanners really look like? Seems like those are the most efficient option if they aren't in fact like looking at nude pictures like the news would have you believe. |
|
Well, If I'm wrong about the Russian airliner bombings then I apologize but I remember reading several articles that stated most authorities thought the bombs were brought on threw the women's anatomy.
I think this will just make it tougher for the airlines to stay in business as more people will just drive to avoid the hassle and people who travel quite a bit for work will get their Aviation license and fly their own plane (used Cessna 172's and Piper's are fairly cheap) or go a charter route. Quoted:
So much bad info here, which is usually why I don't bother, but... Do they still not check muslim women since it violates their religion?
Total, absolute mythical BS. I don't give a fuck what religion you are, you're getting screened just like anybody else. And if you come through with a burqua on you're getting either a pass in the body scanner or a patdown. It's automatic according to SOP. The law doesn't say TSA can't do patdowns as some would have us believe. It prevents TSA from groping your nutsack, fingering your butthole, and squeezing your wife's tits.
Our primary patdown, the "Standard Pat Down" involves using the back of the hand on the underside of the breast area on women, the buttocks, and to the side of the zipperline at the groin area. If you see someone "squeezing tits" or using the front of their hands in those areas they are doing it wrong and you should say something. Incidentally, there is nothing new about that, it has always been done that way. The only new thing is the "Resolution Pat Down", which is generally used to resolve groin anomalies detected on the scanner (ie, somebody has something shoved down their pants or attached to their body in the groin area and we see it on the scanner), and the front of the hand is used on the groin area. That one is always done in private, you will never see it happen on the checkpoint. eta: using the back of the hand does seem acceptable to me but there is no provision in the law for that.
This is the problem. It forces us to throw the Standard Pat Down out the window, and deny access instead. Pretty fucking stupid. The whole pat-down procedure is a charade. They say they're checking for bombs on the person but the last plane bombings or attempts were with bombs put in the person's anal cavity or In the case of the Russian bombings from a few years ago, the bombs components were inserted in the female's vagina and then removed to be mixed in the onboard bathroom. So unless the TSA plans to start fingering your butthole or the woman's honeypot this whole episode is a joke and just an assault on personal liberty and privacy.
More mythical BS. The Russian airliners went down because of women carrying SVIEDs (vests) underneath bulky clothing, which is why all bulky clothing gets patted down unless a scanner is used, and Abdulmutallab wore an underwear IED, which is why we have the RPD now. To date no one has shoved an IED up their ass or vag and tried to blow up an airplane, and there are obvious and massive problems in trying to do so. Suffice it to say that if someone does that and TSA tells me to start poking around in there that is the day I find a new job. Standard of review?
Not exactly a review, just my opinion of course. There have already been cases that established the implied consent that everyone gives when they undergo screening at the airport, and TSAs SOP has the weight of the ATSA of 2002 behind it as well. It is often compared to a situation where LEOs need probable cause to search, but that is not a good comparison; in our case subjecting one's self to screening is voluntary - no one is forcing anyone to do it - but necessary according to law as a requirement to gain access to a sterile area. Because it is voluntary and implied consent is given no probable cause is required, and of course screening can always be declined. Try declining a search by a LEO who has probable cause... I'm pretty confident this one would get thrown out, but what do I know, just my opinion. Anyone with a metal hip or knee who wants to fly had better hope it does. Well |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
. . . of course screening can always be declined. That's the thing. Can't someone stop the screening process at any time and choose to leave the airport instead of entering the secure area of the airport? Also, since your here, what do the pictures on the body scanners really look like? Seems like those are the most efficient option if they aren't in fact like looking at nude pictures like the news would have you believe. Once the process has begun it needs to be completed; if someone tries to stop while undergoing the process then we call the LEOs and they finish the job. It can be declined at any point prior to that, though. As for the images, they look exactly like this: 
We see just enough to tell us if something is there that is not part of clothing or the body, but not enough to make out real details. We have no idea who you are (face is blurred) nor do we care. We are in the process of rolling out an upgrade that automates the process - no one sees the images, the computer does all of the work. |
|
It's all BS. The TSA, in reality, does very little to prevent terrorism. It was a short sighted knee jerk reaction after the 9/11 attacks, and we'll be paying for it for decades to come. If the US was serious about preventing a plane from becoming an flying bomb again, you'd see more Air Marshals on flights in addition to the secure flight decks on aircraft thereby removing the terrorists ability to seize and use the plane as a weapon (or has everyone forgotten the original issue?).
IMO - the TSA will, in the end, be another .gov funded union with millions of contract dollars attached for their equipment. But then again, WTF do I know about National Security and attempted terrorist acts on American Soil.... /sarc |
|
Quoted:
It's all BS. The TSA, in reality, does very little to prevent terrorism. It was a short sighted knee jerk reaction after the 9/11 attacks, and we'll be paying for it for decades to come. If the US was serious about preventing a plane from becoming an flying bomb again, you'd see more Air Marshals on flights in addition to the secure flight decks on aircraft thereby removing the terrorists ability to seize and use the plane as a weapon (or has everyone forgotten the original issue?). IMO - the TSA will, in the end, be another .gov funded union with millions of contract dollars attached for their equipment. But then again, WTF do I know about National Security and attempted terrorist acts on American Soil.... /sarc I would love to buy you a beer. 
|
|
Quoted:
It's all BS. The TSA, in reality, does very little to prevent terrorism. It was a short sighted knee jerk reaction after the 9/11 attacks, and we'll be paying for it for decades to come. If the US was serious about preventing a plane from becoming an flying bomb again, you'd see more Air Marshals on flights in addition to the secure flight decks on aircraft thereby removing the terrorists ability to seize and use the plane as a weapon (or has everyone forgotten the original issue?). IMO - the TSA will, in the end, be another .gov funded union with millions of contract dollars attached for their equipment. But then again, WTF do I know about National Security and attempted terrorist acts on American Soil.... /sarc Interesting on the local talk radio this morning they had a discussion about a new TSA program called VIPER where they have teams that are sent out to just about any location - train stations, bus stations, etc - to do searches now. They have like 15 teams currently around the country and want to have 25 by the end of next year I believe. AND it is also reported that they have already also done stops on public roadways and stopped/searched vehicles too. This info came to light when the head of the TSA was in front of a congressional panel seeing more funding. So yeah, TSA isn't going away, like every government agency it only wants to find ways to get bigger. |
|
Quoted:
Screw TSA, eject them from Texas. Cancelling all air travel in Texas is fine with me, just as long as the TSA gets the hell out. +1,000,000 I'm done flying. It is just too expensive and too much much hassle these days. If I can't drive I'm just not going to go. There are lots of things here in Texas I haven't seen or done yet... and I'd rather keep my $$$ in the more local economy anyway. Fsck the airlines Fsck the airports Fsck the TSA Fsck the blue states |
|
Why should they stay when our governor isn't even there? Perry calls the special session to make them do more work and then he takes off running around the country basically campaigning. Government (and politics) as usual. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Screw TSA, eject them from Texas. Cancelling all air travel in Texas is fine with me, just as long as the TSA gets the hell out. +1,000,000 I'm done flying. It is just too expensive and too much much hassle these days. If I can't drive I'm just not going to go. There are lots of things here in Texas I haven't seen or done yet... and I'd rather keep my $$$ in the more local economy anyway. Fsck the airlines Fsck the airports Fsck the TSA Fsck the blue states +1000 Fuck the TSA and the agents...."just doing my job" doesn't make it right. |