Outraged by TSA

Well my daughter sent a link to this article about the special Fourth Amendment undergarments that we can wear when scanned.  Apparantly the Fourth Amendment is written in a metallic ink that will show up on the scanners and be read by the person viewing the images. http://www.refinery29.com/stick-it-to-tsa-body-scans-with-these-shirts-containing-a-hidden-message.php

I am flying on Tuesday.  I have been thinking about this and I am somewhat leaning towards wearing a black bodysuit under all - then removing my shoes, skirt, foobs, sweater, hair, and what ever else I have on to go through the scanner.  Of course, I have no sense of modesty.  This old, breast cancer scarred body has been observed by more people than I can count in the past two years.  

Don't go jumping all over me because I don't care.  I do care!  And it isn't body scans, body groping, removing shoes, etc. that is going to keep us safe.   

Designer,

Please stop lying about OK.  It was local redneck, right-wing idiots who wanted the exclusion of Sharia Law for judges.  It had not been, used nor had it been requested by Muslims.  I know and have worked with Muslim leaders in interfaith groups here, and you don't know what you are talking about.  I am embarrassed that you and others are throwing around "Muslims" as though they were all alike and all evil.  There are plenty of people who call themselves Christian who do evil things.  Please apologize the the Muslim population in this country, and stop spreading lies.

Dawn  

Alpal-  It was put on the ballot to vote on during the last election (like the same sex marriage thing in Calif).  Though it didn't get enough votes,(I think there are only 35,000 Muslims in OK) I believe the judge set it aside for review or something.  I'll try to find out more details.

MHP70-  Yes,I thought we had separation of church and state!  So I wonder how Sharia law (isn't it part of the Quran?) could even be voted on?

Mandy-  The 4th Amendment underwear are a hoot.  Maybe I need to get DH a pair for Christmas.

I think if you check facts rather than listen to talk radio or subscribe to certain web sites, you will see that what was put on the ballot was not what you say - just do us all a favor and check it out!! I could tell you what was actually on the ballot, but this is something you should do for yourself. Don't believe everything you hear. You say you are friends with Muslims - wonder how they would feel about what you've written on this thread?? We ALL need to check things out before reporting them as true!

BoobsinaBox-  I stand somewhat corrected, but I think it is uncalled for to say I am "spreading lies".  I most certainly don't lump all Muslims together, but I will continue to be concerned of radical Islamist views, including Muslims who say they want judges to use Sharia law.   It seems the referendum in Oklahoma was not by the Muslims trying to vote in Sharia law instead of our Federal laws.  However, because some Muslims here in America say they will only be ruled by Sharia law, Oklahoma chose to vote to make sure judges there can NOT use Sharia law or international law in their rulings.  There are already problems in Europe, especially in Britain (where they have several courts that use Sharia law sanctioned by the government).  I believe our founding fathers were brilliant. I believe if we stick to the Constitution, including separation of church and state, we will be fine. And I swore I would not get into politics on these threads.  We are supposed to reduce our stress. Here is a link for anyone who is interested:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/oklahoma-pass-laws-prohibiting-islamic-sharia-laws-apply/story?id=10908521  

I'm flying from Los Angeles to Maui, HI, on 12/17.  Just had my BMX on 09/17; if L.A. has the new scanners, and I get to go through them, they'll get quite a "thrill" from viewing my fine new scars . . . 

Sorry, just my cynicism showing . . . .sure seems like common sense isn't common anymore.

Julie

I vowed to stay off of this thread because I don't fly often.  I've always preached, rules are rules and they're are reasons for the rules.  We may not always understand the rules, but if we go into a private establishment we must follow they're rules, the same for private schools and so on.  If we disagree with the rules, then we won't visit that establishment, belong to the club or go to the school.    However, this subject does rub me te wrong way on so many levels.  I am in disbelief that we are being treated as the criminal.  First, and foremost there is no way that could stand by and watch if my child were being patted down, especially if the child were under age.  Second,  how on earth can someone that is disabled, using a prosthesis or mentally challenged be subjected to a full pat down?  Are they being punished for having a prosthesis, being disable or mentally challenged?  Seriously, if you are flying with let's say an autistic child to see a specialist in another state..... the change in routine is enough to set the child off.  Then if the said child who is young, normal looking, but big for his or her age acts "different" and is selected for the pat down.   Then forced into a pat down, acts out and violently attacks the agent because said child doesn't understand.  Then what?  A sweet girl has been molested for years, finally at the age of 12 talks about it and is in counseling.  The family wants to take her to Disney for a trip to get away, ease her mind.  For whatever reason the entrie family has to have a pat down.  Can you imagine the emotional trauma for that young girl?  I don't have to play out the elderly man with a bag, that already made the news. 

My DD said to me that she would rather the scanner than be touched and told me to fly without my boobs to avoid a potential pat down.  My response is why should I have to fly without my prosthesis????

There has to be a better way, I know there is a better way and am wondering why "they" aren't working to come up with better ways to fly. 

1Badboob, I agree completely, They should be monitored for radiation exposure.

Junie,

just deleted because I think I didn't catch what you were getting at with the first read through

junie, what you're describing is actually part of the problem. 

For one thing, the security checkpoints would only apply if someone was entering the airport for the initiating flight.  I think it's rare for someone to have to go back through the TSA checkpoint when changing planes for a connecting flight, unless he/she exited the "sterile area" for some reason and needed to get back in. So, it would be possible for someone to fly to a lot of cities but only have to pass through one or two TSA checkpoints.  (I'm not saying that was the case for your son, but it might be the case for someone else.)

The bigger issue is that the new screening procedures are being adopted gradually and unpredictably.  The TSA says they are doing that on purpose, to keep the terrorists off-guard.  Well, it keeps innocent passengers off-guard, too, even as the TSA advises everyone to read their website and "be prepared."  Prepared for what?  Well, it depends...

There are slightly fewer than 400 whole-body scanners (AIT) in use in the U.S. right now; but the TSA projects it will have more than 1,000 in place by the end of this next year (2011).  Only approximately 70 airports have the scanners, and not all gates or concourses have them even at those airports.  Smaller airports, and gates to less well-traveled destinations, might be less likely to have scanners.  The numbers will increase, though, because the TSA has millions of dollars invested in the machines and it plans to use them. 

Still, it is possible to go through a security checkpoint at a U.S. airport and not see a scanner.  Also, the scanners are not always in use.  Sometimes they are shut down and roped off for no apparent reason.  (I read an account yesterday in which a passenger was told the scanners were shut down because the TSA employees who operated them were at lunch.  Yes, really.)  Sometimes only one passenger out of 3 or 4 or a dozen will be directed to a scanner; and everyone else in that same line will be allowed to pass through a traditional metal detector. 

There is good evidence from witnesses that some airports were not using their scanners last Wednesday (the day before Thanksgiving).  That was the day some passengers were planning a protest in which they would "opt-out" of the scanners and request pat-downs instead.  They didn't get a chance to opt-out at some airports, because nobody was being scanned.

Even the pat-down procedures vary widely, from what I've read.  They are extremely intensive at some checkpoints, but not at others.  Some screeners are still doing cursory pat-downs of just the area(s) that trigger suspicion with a metal detector or whole-body scanner.  Other screeners are conducting full-body, head-to-toe grope sessions, even if there was nothing suspicious seen on a whole-body scan, or if a well-documented prosthetic knee set off the metal detector, or if some poor soul left a tissue or a boarding pass in a pants pocket and the scanner picked it up. 

Some screeners are still using the old, "back of the hand" patting technique when they get to the breasts, buttocks, and crotches; others are using a full-fingered, front of the hand technique even in those "sensitive" areas.  I read an account in which a TSA agent informed a passenger she would be touching her breasts and crotch with the back of her hand, but then actually used the front of her hand and fingers.  At some airport checkpoints, TSA screeners are pulling out passengers' waistbands and reaching their hands into their slacks to feel their underwear.  (One passenger said the TSA screener told him, "I'm glad you didn't decide to 'go commando' today.")  At other checkpoints, the screeners are pulling out waistbands and looking down into the passengers' pants at their underwear.   Sometimes the waistband doesn't get pulled out at all -- the screener just runs his/her fingers around the inside of it.

As has been described in the "scanners and foobs" thread in this forum, some women with breast prostheses have been taken aside for a pat-down because an "anomaly" was detected in the whole-body scan.  For some of those women, that pat-down was apparently not embarrassing or degrading -- once the screener verified the presence of a prosthesis with her fingertips, she stopped.  Other women have not been so lucky. I'm sure you've read the news reports about the flight attendant who was told to remove her breast form from her bra during a screening.  A woman on these boards said an acquaintence of hers was made to pull up her shirt, unhook her bra, and let the TSA agent look directly at her chest and prosthesis.  ("Let me take a peek," I think she said.) TSA officials have testified that they will inspect women's bras and breasts closely, because they need to "see what's in the bra."

I find it fascinating when people say none of this concerns them.  It makes me wonder what would concern them.

otter

I have been outraged since this "war on terrorism" crap STARTED, actually. And abou flying? Plain and simple, I refuse to go anywhere near an airport or plane for any reason period, yes, thanks to Homeland Security and the TSA -- ever since they came into existence. There is nowhere I want to go, nothing I want to do badly enough to allow such violation of my civil rights. If someplace is too far to drive, tough shit I ain't going, and I do not think of it as "not being able" to fly, either.

You probably won't be surprised to hear me say that I thoroughly agree with Ben Franklin on this "war on terrorism"  and TSA using the Constitution as toilet paper crapola: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Otter, you always do such a great job of putting the scientific into easy to understand terms.  I can only imagine what a great teacher you have been.  I am so not reassured by the FDA saying the radiation levels are safe.  They were safe in the radiation oncology and CT scanners that we've heard the horrible stories of things gone wrong about this year.  I worry about who is monitoring them, who is maintaining them, and who is pulling the plug if 18 months down the road one is malfunctioning.  Can you imagine the difference between identifying the last 48 hrs worth of patients through a CT scanner at one hospital vs sending out a notice saying "yeah...um....anyone who went through the 3rd scanner on the right at the upper floor security checkpoint at DTW on June 16-18...um... give us a call."  "Don't panic,  but...don't hug anyone until you contact us."

Hugs back, junie.  I hear you, and I understand. 

My daughter-in-law just called an hour ago.  She and my step-son are bringing their 4-year-old daughter (our only granddaughter) to visit us in a few weeks.  She was so happy to tell us about it -- it's the first time our granddaughter has ever been on a plane, and the first flight my daughter-in-law and step-son have taken in several years.  They are flying in and out of two of the worst airports in the U.S., as far as intrusiveness of screenings and obnoxiousness of TSA agents are concerned.  (I can testify personally about the second part of that statement.)

I am already fretting about their flights, and thinking about my 4-year-old granddaughter being patted down by some strange woman as her mom looks on, helplessly.  My dh, who is so vehemently against all that the TSA represents that he promises he will never fly commercially again, told me to shut up. (He was the one talking on the phone to our DIL.)  He is hoping we are wrong and you are right.

otter

[Edited:  junie, you said "Regardless, so much of what is being 'reported' here reminds me so much of the old...'be careful in Las Vegas....My hairdresser's brother's sister's son got drugged on his last trip to Vegas and he woke up in a bathtub filled with ice and had a kidney removed.....'." I am trying not to be offended by your sarcasm.  I, too, might be more skeptical, if I had not read dozens of the 700+ testamonials that have already been filed with the ACLU and are available for review on their website.]

Otter:  I hope your grandchild (as well as your children!) arrive with nothing significant to report!!!  Have a wonderful visit with them.. That said you are absolutely correct to be concerned that more people are NOT concerned.  When 911 occurred I know you will remember when there were armed military "protecting " us at many airports.  Many of us, including me, were relieved to see them inplace.  I scoffed at the individuals who suggested that this was an invasion of their "rights".  It was, after all, protecting for us all!  My daughter happened to be traveling to visit us that Christmas (when the military were still at some airports).   She had been taught to help others when possible and when the military started to yell orders at an obviously elder individual she stepped in - only to have an M16 pointed right at her!  She was "interferring" with a federal/military investigation (the man was just trying to figure out where he was going!)..  Yes the M16 was loaded and it is unfortunate that it took an espisode like this to make our family concerned for the rights in this country.

Though it may not be a loaded M16 this time - it is a scanner that we must use or agree to have our person checked..  It's a step in the wrong direction IMO..  There will come a day when the M16 are back in the airports I fear, and that is not so long off - unless people insist that the government change the policy to protect us without violating us..  The airport involved, as well as the Commander of that military representation did apologize to my daughter...  She was scared, so were we, and we remain so - scared that this country has seem it's best times, in the past!!!