TSA gets some of it's own medicine!

[mamabearCali]

Yes, tyrannical laws need to be resisted, but the thousands of people who are patted down, EACH DAY, put up with it, except for a very small few who commit illegal acts in Pyrrhic attempts to protest and "bring general awareness" of the wrongs to someone's attention, as if hundreds of YouTube videos were not enough, as well as blogs, vlogs, and even offensively titled threads celebrating criminal acts.

It doesn't really matter where rights originate from, until someone successfully gets the issue in front of SCOTUS, and wins the case it isn't really a violation of rights, it's merely a theoretical violation, which I agree with.

What really, in my own humble opinion, needs to be done, beyond the obvious attempts of letter writing and phone calls to legislators, is what I term a "travel holiday" everyone who objects to TSA, actually Department of Homeland Security, screening, should find an alternate way to travel, for a week or so, and see what the airline industry says to DHS when they suffer the loss of revenue. And then extend it. Everyone who objects, follow the court's suggestion, not originally mine, and go another way, every time. Every other attempt at non-violent protest is likely to fail, barring a mass revolution in an airport terminal, and that is not likely to succeed either.

The real problem is that DHS is a knee jerk reaction to a very real threat, a reaction that has gone awry, but DHS has been given the power to do what they do, based on that old decision, and bureaucracies like that are always reluctant to give up any power, right or wrong, look how long it took to get the decisions in DC and Chicago, and they are still almost as restrictive as they were before.

And I still haven't found a prom that TSA did anything at.

I understand why you find the title offensive. It is meant to be attention getting without being crass and sometimes that attention will not always be positive. However I find what the TSA does everyday to millions of passengers who have done nothing wrong offensive as well. An offensive title to a thread is nothing compared with what a 6 year old girl endured at the hands of a TSA official "just doing her job." Why do the the thousands of passengers "put up with it each day" because if they don't they will be detained, arrested and threatened with civil fines when all they want to do is get where they need to go. Some probably are ok with it, but thousands are not.

It certainly does matter where rights originate from because if they originate from the state then whatever state (meaning governmental authority) you live in will be able to dictate your rights. If they originate with a deity or are natural laws then the government's attempt to violate these rights is outside the role of government and is an abberration. It also means that there is an objective standard that even the government is held to.

As far as people not flying. I have not and will not fly (though I have the means to do so) until these regulations are rescinded. My husband and I feel so strongly about this that we drove 3 days to TX and 3 days back from TX with three children and me pregnant two months ago. We could have gotten to TX in 6 hours of flight, but instead we took the scenic route. I believe what I say and I put my beliefs into action.

I do not agree with what this woman did, but I certainly understand it. I don't think the TSA workers should be assaulted. However if you work for an agency that, is under color of law, committing sexual assault on a daily basis and you are the one implementing it then some people are going to react to the assault they have just received in a negative manner and some people are going to react in a violent manner. If the TSA really cared at a higher level about it's employees being attacked then they would not require them to implement polices that harm innocent citizens. Mostly I fault Pistole and Neopolitano, and at a higher level even the president himself for not calling them in and saying "this is too far."

All of this and we are no safer in the air. If a terrorist wants to blow up a plane he will simply put on a grounds crew uniform for a medium sized airport walk up to a plane and slap a magnetic bomb on it while he appears to check the wheel base. Alternatively at suicide bomber could simply blow themselves up in the security line and kill many more than are on a plane. This is security theater and it is unacceptable that such theater causing irreparable harm to millions of Americans.

On the prom--it turns out that they did not actually show up because of the stink that they caused, but they certainly planned to. Here is the link.
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2122102.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jimlongley]

Yes, tyrannical laws need to be resisted, but the thousands of people who are patted down, EACH DAY, put up with it, except for a very small few who commit illegal acts

The founding fathers committed illegal acts. I'm glad they did.

And they did it en mass, not one at a time, to accomplish it.

[jimlongley]

Yes, tyrannical laws need to be resisted, but the thousands of people who are patted down, EACH DAY, put up with it, except for a very small few who commit illegal acts in Pyrrhic attempts to protest and "bring general awareness" of the wrongs to someone's attention, as if hundreds of YouTube videos were not enough, as well as blogs, vlogs, and even offensively titled threads celebrating criminal acts.

It doesn't really matter where rights originate from, until someone successfully gets the issue in front of SCOTUS, and wins the case it isn't really a violation of rights, it's merely a theoretical violation, which I agree with.

What really, in my own humble opinion, needs to be done, beyond the obvious attempts of letter writing and phone calls to legislators, is what I term a "travel holiday" everyone who objects to TSA, actually Department of Homeland Security, screening, should find an alternate way to travel, for a week or so, and see what the airline industry says to DHS when they suffer the loss of revenue. And then extend it. Everyone who objects, follow the court's suggestion, not originally mine, and go another way, every time. Every other attempt at non-violent protest is likely to fail, barring a mass revolution in an airport terminal, and that is not likely to succeed either.

The real problem is that DHS is a knee jerk reaction to a very real threat, a reaction that has gone awry, but DHS has been given the power to do what they do, based on that old decision, and bureaucracies like that are always reluctant to give up any power, right or wrong, look how long it took to get the decisions in DC and Chicago, and they are still almost as restrictive as they were before.

And I still haven't found a prom that TSA did anything at.

I understand why you find the title offensive. It is meant to be attention getting without being crass and sometimes that attention will not always be positive. However I find what the TSA does everyday to millions of passengers who have done nothing wrong offensive as well. An offensive title to a thread is nothing compared with what a 6 year old girl endured at the hands of a TSA official "just doing her job." Why do the the thousands of passengers "put up with it each day" because if they don't they will be detained, arrested and threatened with civil fines when all they want to do is get where they need to go. Some probably are ok with it, but thousands are not.

But it is offensive.

It certainly does matter where rights originate from because if they originate from the state then whatever state (meaning governmental authority) you live in will be able to dictate your rights. If they originate with a deity or are natural laws then the government's attempt to violate these rights is outside the role of government and is an abberration. It also means that there is an objective standard that even the government is held to.

It may be an aberration, but unless and until the Supreme Court says it is, then it effectively is not, another shame.

As far as people not flying. I have not and will not fly (though I have the means to do so) until these regulations are rescinded. My husband and I feel so strongly about this that we drove 3 days to TX and 3 days back from TX with three children and me pregnant two months ago. We could have gotten to TX in 6 hours of flight, but instead we took the scenic route. I believe what I say and I put my beliefs into action.

I have already implemented the same policy, now all we have to do is convince the others.

I do not agree with what this woman did, but I certainly understand it. I don't think the TSA workers should be assaulted. However if you work for an agency that, is under color of law, committing sexual assault on a daily basis and you are the one implementing it then some people are going to react to the assault they have just received in a negative manner and some people are going to react in a violent manner. If the TSA really cared at a higher level about it's employees being attacked then they would not require them to implement polices that harm innocent citizens. Mostly I fault Pistole and Neopolitano, and at a higher level even the president himself for not calling them in and saying "this is too far."

All of this and we are no safer in the air. If a terrorist wants to blow up a plane he will simply put on a grounds crew uniform for a medium sized airport walk up to a plane and slap a magnetic bomb on it while he appears to check the wheel base. Alternatively at suicide bomber could simply blow themselves up in the security line and kill many more than are on a plane. This is security theater and it is unacceptable that such theater causing irreparable harm to millions of Americans.

On the prom--it turns out that they did not actually show up because of the stink that they caused, but they certainly planned to. Here is the link.
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2122102.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I disagree about how easy it would be to bomb a plane, there is not enough magnetic metal on the outside to slap a limpet bomb on to, otoh, I have wondered why some suicide bomber hasn't done the other.

So the prom did not actually happen as you said, and there would merely have been a TSA "official" there to supervise the checking of the students, right? And of course, it was the school that asked them and announced it before they got confirmation from TSA, which turned them down because that's not TSA's job. It wasn't TSA that caused the stink, it was the school.

[mamabearCali]

Yes, tyrannical laws need to be resisted, but the thousands of people who are patted down, EACH DAY, put up with it, except for a very small few who commit illegal acts

The founding fathers committed illegal acts. I'm glad they did.

And they did it en mass, not one at a time, to accomplish it.

56 signers of the declaration of independence--en mass did you say--not really they were just a very vocal and locally well connected minority. They were able to convince more people through pamphlets--the bloggers of yesteryear--articles in newspapers, and books. They stood on the shoulders of philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes, and Montesquieu who discussed what government should be, and tried to put into practice what they theorized on. Today those who oppose the tryannical forms of government being imposed on us by various government alphabet agencies whose regulations are never looked at nor voted on by even one elected representative of the people, stand on their shoulders.

Shrugging our shoulders at an incredible invasion of our very bodies because the courts have not dealt with it is not going to help anything. As I and others have pointed out before all sorts of travesties have been legal throughout history, that does not mean that those imposing the travesties have not been guilty of violating natural (I say God given) rights.

[mamabearCali]

But it is offensive.

Then you are offended--that is a fact of life. It happens sometimes Some of yours statements in this thread have "offended" me. I suspect we will both be unharmed at the end of the day--unlike the passengers selected for extra screening today at our nations airports.

It may be an aberration, but unless and until the Supreme Court says it is, then it effectively is not, another shame.

So nothing can be a violation to your rights unless the government says so....glad some civil rights activists did not think as you do 50 years ago.

I have already implemented the same policy, now all we have to do is convince the others.

Good--two down only a few million to go.

I disagree about how easy it would be to bomb a plane, there is not enough magnetic metal on the outside to slap a limpet bomb on to, otoh, I have wondered why some suicide bomber hasn't done the other.

I am not a terrorist--so I don't think like one. However, I have heard from reputable sources that it is very easy to get onto a airports tarmac with a simple uniform and once you are there with no one asking questions heaven only knows what they could think up.

So the prom did not actually happen as you said, and there would merely have been a TSA "official" there to supervise the checking of the students, right? And of course, it was the school that asked them and announced it before they got confirmation from TSA, which turned them down because that's not TSA's job. It wasn't TSA that caused the stink, it was the school.

Well the TSA did not happen, but pat downs at the prom did--nice. I have heard differing reasons as to why the TSA did not show up--I had heard that they had sent a representative--but apparently that was incorrect. Still the fact that a federal judge said they should be there at all is quite disturbing. They have however been sighted at Bus station terminals and Train stations--so they are not only at airports anymore, and Pistole has said that they are looking at shopping malls.

[jimlongley]

I disagree about how easy it would be to bomb a plane, there is not enough magnetic metal on the outside to slap a limpet bomb on to, otoh, I have wondered why some suicide bomber hasn't done the other.

I am not a terrorist--so I don't think like one. However, I have heard from reputable sources that it is very easy to get onto a airports tarmac with a simple uniform and once you are there with no one asking questions heaven only knows what they could think up.

In my three years at TSA, I was taught to think as a terrorist would, so assessing targets became somewhat second nature, as being in condition yellow since I got my CHL has taught me a great deal about assessing other threats.

So the prom did not actually happen as you said, and there would merely have been a TSA "official" there to supervise the checking of the students, right? And of course, it was the school that asked them and announced it before they got confirmation from TSA, which turned them down because that's not TSA's job. It wasn't TSA that caused the stink, it was the school.

Well the TSA did not happen, but pat downs at the prom did--nice. I have heard differing reasons as to why the TSA did not show up--I had heard that they had sent a representative--but apparently that was incorrect. Still the fact that a federal judge said they should be there at all is quite disturbing. They have however been sighted at Bus station terminals and Train stations--so they are not only at airports anymore, and Pistole has said that they are looking at shopping malls.

Excuse me if I take your facts about train and bus stations with the same grain of salt as your original prom statement.

The signers of the declaration knew that they were representing MANY others, thus the text: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled," represents a lot more than the 56 bodies present.

And I can't help that we have allowed our government to take over overseeing our rights, but that is the way it is unless someone changes it.

[mamabearCali]

In my three years at TSA, I was taught to think as a terrorist would, so assessing targets became somewhat second nature, as being in condition yellow since I got my CHL has taught me a great deal about assessing other threats.

Apparently when you worked for the TSA they still had common sense. They obviously have discontinued that training because anyone with a brain in their heads knows that an American child going to grandma's house is not carrying a bomb in their underwear, and a 90 year old woman traveling within the united states is not and has never been a security threat.

Excuse me if I take your facts about train and bus stations with the same grain of salt as your original prom statement.

Here is your proof buddy on those two lovely appearances of the TSA from fairly reputable sources.

Train station
http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/02/28/w ... off-train/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bus station
http://www.kcci.com/r/28275373/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The signers of the declaration knew that they were representing MANY others, thus the text: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled," represents a lot more than the 56 bodies present.

That may be the case, but there were a ton of people who were "ho-hum that just the way it is I guess we have to deal with it."

And I can't help that we have allowed our government to take over overseeing our rights, but that is the way it is unless someone changes it.

We are not going to get far in restoring a more legal form of government unless we have a moral imperative that says to the rest of the people, who are not as politically awake as others, "What the government is doing is wrong! What the government is doing is illegal--even if they shield themselves from prosecution--it remains an illegal act. "Wake up, everyone! Your children and you are under political and sometimes physical attack!"
Saying as you have "it is not illegal or a trampling of rights unless the supreme court says it is" while may be the practicality of the time we live in does nothing to fix the problem.

The practicality of the times that the founders lived in was that Britain was the worlds greatest superpower, the American revolution had very little chance of success when it started. The colonists, however, believed they were right, and so they spoke loudly of the rights that the king and parliament had trampled. The king and parliament did not concede that "yes indeed the colonists rights had been trampled." They laughed at the silly colonists. However, because the colonists were earnest in what they thought and because of alot of other factors, eventually the United States came into being a free nation. I want to be clear here, I am not calling for an armed response to the TSA, or any such nonsense--we are no where near that point. It is not as well known, but the colonies petitioned the king and parliament for years prior to the American Revolution for an address to their grievances. It was only after being ignored for many long years and exhausting every legal means to fix their problems that they came to an armed conflict. Additionally we have more resources than colonists had as a means to address our concern, so we should not ever really have to come to that level of conflict. What I am trying to point out here is that if you address things by principal rather than practicality often you can change the reality of the situation.

[Purplehood]

I don't disagree that the ruling should be revisited and overruled, but it hasn't, and despite its age, it remains the law of the land, so no one's rights are being violated, unless and until the Supreme Court says so, everything else is just complaining.

There are quite a few "law(s) of the land" out there that are a violation of our rights. Not to mention regulations, policies and so on.

[jimlongley]

Apparently when you worked for the TSA they still had common sense. They obviously have discontinued that training because anyone with a brain in their heads knows that an American child going to grandma's house is not carrying a bomb in their underwear, and a 90 year old woman traveling within the united states is not and has never been a security threat.

And they know this how? We didn't know it then and I can't think of any reliable means to tell a terrorist apart developed since then. How do we know that the (PROFILED? Against the rules!) child has not been compromised with a bomb planted on its body? How do we know that grandma isn't a terrorist sleeper preparing to commit mayhem on a bunch of innocents?

Here is your proof buddy on those two lovely appearances of the TSA from fairly reputable sources.

Train station
http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/02/28/w ... off-train/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bus station
http://www.kcci.com/r/28275373/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So two singular events of ViPR somehow comprise TSA showing up at bus and train stations all over the nation? Sorry, that's just the same logic as the anti-gun nuts use to paint all CHL holders with a broad brush when one is arrested (and not even convicted.)

And it wasn't TSA's call to begin with, it was a DHS initiative called "VIPR" which comprises a variety of agencies as well as TSA and happens on a spot basis.

TSA is not taking over railroad and bus stations, your "facts" and "proof" are flimsy and don't support your thesis.

The signers of the declaration knew that they were representing MANY others, thus the text: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled," represents a lot more than the 56 bodies present.

That may be the case, but there were a ton of people who were "ho-hum that just the way it is I guess we have to deal with it."

Which begs the question about your original statement that it was a very few.

And I can't help that we have allowed our government to take over overseeing our rights, but that is the way it is unless someone changes it.

We are not going to get far in restoring a more legal form of government unless we have a moral imperative that says to the rest of the people, who are not as politically awake as others, "What the government is doing is wrong! What the government is doing is illegal--even if they shield themselves from prosecution--it remains an illegal act. "Wake up, everyone! Your children and you are under political and sometimes physical attack!"
Saying as you have "it is not illegal or a trampling of rights unless the supreme court says it is" while may be the practicality of the time we live in does nothing to fix the problem.

That is true, and I have been making an effort, very possibly since before you were born, to educate everyone about it, starting well before the shooting of Kenyon Ballew.

The practicality of the times that the founders lived in was that Britain was the worlds greatest superpower, the American revolution had very little chance of success when it started. The colonists, however, believed they were right, and so they spoke loudly of the rights that the king and parliament had trampled. The king and parliament did not concede that "yes indeed the colonists rights had been trampled."

In one statement you tell us that there were very few involved, and yet here you seem to indicate that more than just a few ("the colonists") were objecting, and you use the "practicality of the times" as both an example for and against, circular logic does nothing to enhance the debate.

They laughed at the silly colonists. However, because the colonists were earnest in what they thought and because of alot of other factors, eventually the United States came into being a free nation. I want to be clear here, I am not calling for an armed response to the TSA, or any such nonsense--we are no where near that point. It is not as well known, but the colonies petitioned the king and parliament for years prior to the American Revolution for an address to their grievances. It was only after being ignored for many long years and exhausting every legal means to fix their problems that they came to an armed conflict. Additionally we have more resources than colonists had as a means to address our concern, so we should not ever really have to come to that level of conflict. What I am trying to point out here is that if you address things by principal rather than practicality often you can change the reality of the situation.

And all I am trying to point out is that rumor mongering ("they showed up at a prom") and blowing situations out of proportion does nothing to enhance your case, and it makes people who would normally be on the fence have a tendency to ignore everything else you say, even if it has all of the facts behind it. You will have many more laughers than people who support you.

[mamabearCali]

And they know this how? We didn't know it then and I can't think of any reliable means to tell a terrorist apart developed since then. How do we know that the (PROFILED? Against the rules!) child has not been compromised with a bomb planted on its body? How do we know that grandma isn't a terrorist sleeper preparing to commit mayhem on a bunch of innocents?

Threats should be based on reality. When was the last time an American child or a dying grandmother has ever blown up anything? When you stretch the idea of threats to anything conceivable then you are left with what we have now--mayhem and idiocy. Theoretically I could have an incendiary device implanted in my body that would be undetectable by any technology we have--so should we start doing exploratory surgery on people in airports?

So two singular events of ViPR somehow comprise TSA showing up at bus and train stations all over the nation? Sorry, that's just the same logic as the anti-gun nuts use to paint all CHL holders with a broad brush when one is arrested (and not even convicted.)

And it wasn't TSA's call to begin with, it was a DHS initiative called "VIPR" which comprises a variety of agencies as well as TSA and happens on a spot basis.

TSA is not taking over railroad and bus stations, your "facts" and "proof" are flimsy and don't support your thesis.

Two did you say? Well Pistole (head of the TSA) said they have done 8,000 in the past year "Statement of John S. Pistole Administrator Transportation Security Administration U.S. Department of Homeland Security before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation June 14, 2011 (tsa.gov):

In addition to I-STEP, 25 Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) multi-modal teams are currently being operated by TSA while the FY 2012 budget request includes funding for 12 additional VIPR teams. These teams consist of personnel with expertise in inspection, behavior detection, security screening, and law enforcement for random, unpredictable deployments throughout the transportation sector to deter potential terrorist acts. Working alongside local law enforcement agencies throughout the transportation domain, TSA’s VIPR teams enhance the agency’s ability to leverage a variety of resources quickly in order to increase security in any mode of transportation anywhere in the country. TSA conducted more than 8,000 VIPR operations in the past 12 months, including more than 3,700 operations in mass transit and passenger railroad venues. VIPR operational plans are developed with a risk-based methodology in conjunction with local transportation security stakeholders and conducted jointly by TSA, local law enforcement, and transportation security resources.

TSA and the representatives of the Transit Policing and Security Peer Advisory Group work together to enhance coordination and deterrent effects of VIPR team operations. This cooperation has grown since the mutually agreed upon operating guidelines for “Effective Employment of Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams in Mass Transit and Passenger Rail” were implemented in October 2007."

So yes they are coming to a railroad and a bus terminal near you--now whether they can keep their hands to themselves and use intelligence instead of patting children down as they did so recently this year--remains to be seen.

So I am not sure where I am losing the argument here. Pistole the head of the TSA had said these pat downs (in any other setting assaults) are acceptable in the TSA's screening, and they have said that they have been and will continue to be screening and doing VIPR checks at bus stations and train terminals--what makes you think that they will not (because they already have) use the same screening techniques that they do for airline travel. These were not aberrations of TSA policy at bus stations and train stations, these are what those at the top plan to do more often. How do I know this--because they said so.

That is true, and I have been making an effort, very possibly since before you were born, to educate everyone about it, starting well before the shooting of Kenyon Ballew.

Sorry I could not be born quicker for you--my parents you know had to meet, fall in love, get married, etc. And yes there are those 20 some years that I had to pass through to get anywhere near adulthood.

one statement you tell us that there were very few involved, and yet here you seem to indicate that more than just a few ("the colonists") were objecting, and you use the "practicality of the times" as both an example for and against, circular logic does nothing to enhance the debate.

It starts off with a few speaking their mind in the years preceding the declaration and ends up with a majority by the end of the war no circular logic given.

Your refusal to acknowledge the fact that the colonists were addressing "infringement" of rights that their "government did not acknowledge as infringements" does not help your point. What I and others have argued with you constantly is that you have said repeatedly that it is not a "violation of your rights unless the government says so" that is what I am addressing here.

And all I am trying to point out is that rumor mongering ("they showed up at a prom") and blowing situations out of proportion does nothing to enhance your case, and it makes people who would normally be on the fence have a tendency to ignore everything else you say, even if it has all of the facts behind it. You will have many more laughers than people who support you.

A federal judge said they were coming to a prom--that is not rumor mongering--when federal judge says something is going to happen it usually does. So my mistake can be easily understood. They did show up at a train station and bus stations and have said they will do so again. That is not rumor mongering.

That is telling the truth about a federal agency gone amuck. Just because the truth is scary and somewhat hard to ferret out does not make it incorrect.

[Dragonfighter]

Apparently when you worked for the TSA they still had common sense. They obviously have discontinued that training because anyone with a brain in their heads knows that an American child going to grandma's house is not carrying a bomb in their underwear, and a 90 year old woman traveling within the united states is not and has never been a security threat.

And they know this how? We didn't know it then and I can't think of any reliable means to tell a terrorist apart developed since then. How do we know that the (PROFILED? Against the rules!) child has not been compromised with a bomb planted on its body? How do we know that grandma isn't a terrorist sleeper preparing to commit mayhem on a bunch of innocents?

Really? There have been 462 some odd suicide attacks since 1980 committed by Muslims, IIRC all but 3 or 4 were males between 19 and 35 years of age.

Of the 46 terrorist attacks against Americans or American interests since 1979 only two were of the domestic variety. The rest were committed by Muslim males between the ages of 19 and 35 albeit a half dozen or so originated from African countries while the remainder were from what we refer to in the vernacular "Middle Eastern" countries. Many of the attacks occurred on European soil where random searches are the "law of the land". The overwhelming majority of suicide bombing in international skies were committed by Muslim extremist males. A smattering have occurred in Russia and other Asian countries or territories, but these are the exception which proves the rule...but even these were committed by male actors with known extremist connections.

The 9-11 attacks (4 planes), Christmas (or "Underwear Bomber"), et al that started all of this mess were all committed by Muslim males while Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the "Underwear Bomber" aged 24 hailed from Nigeria originally and was educated in Arabic languages and Islamic studies. As a side note, the TSA has stated that neither the manual patdowns or nudie scanner would have prevented Abdulmutallab's boarding...in all likelihood.

Without exception, the foiled plots for airline and terrorist attacks since 9-11 have been Muslim, male and extremist.

Nidal Malik Hasan, was born an American citizen to Palestenian parents, was known to correspond with Anwar al-Awlaki and posted radical Islamic posts on blogs and forums as well as "preaching" a radical doctrine to patients and co-workers. All of this was ignored by purposeful administrative edict; IOW it was not overlooked just refused to be acted upon. We all know the result of this.

In all of this not one American business man, housewife, nursing mother, bikini clad model, professional, redneck, grandma or six year old child has been found to carry anything even remotely capable of committing such acts.

I had a friend, a Christian who used to work for a local PD and joined the ATF. He was the videographer at my wedding. He changed and became unquestionably about Federal authority. Many discussions showed a skewed view of the constitution and the scope of ATF's authority. I took him down several logical paths as to where this might lead as did my wife. He was shot in the foot at Mt. Carmel. I saw him after that, the last time, and asked him how he was doing . He could not look me in the eye and walked away. Sad.

I plead with you to consider whether your time with TSA has clouded your perspective. I won't take you down a logical progression as to where some of your stated positions may lead...that has been done and would not add anything to this discourse. But I must add, some of what you have written frightens me.

[Big Tuna]

Yes, tyrannical laws need to be resisted, but the thousands of people who are patted down, EACH DAY, put up with it, except for a very small few who commit illegal acts

The founding fathers committed illegal acts. I'm glad they did.

And they did it en mass, not one at a time, to accomplish it.

Ganging up on the bad guys works for me.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

[fickman]

the thread is about someone committing an obvious crime as payback against someone performing a legally protected job.

TSA needs to be challenged, but this action was ineffective, hypocritical, and an active personal assault against an employee of the agency as opposed to a statement / civil disobedience / passive movement aimed at the agency as an entity.

No positive reversal of TSA policy will result from this.

This is about the tryanny of the TSA. As Thomas Jefferson said “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” What this woman did was a crime and she will likely suffer some consequence for it (and should). However the TSA agent, who has done the very same action, is shielded from the consequences of her actions by TSA regulations. Do you think that the hundreds (likely thousands) of people that the TSA agent patted down have felt any less violated than she did?

Though her actions were illegal they are doing good in a general awareness of the issues sense. They are showing quite clearly the hypocrisy of the TSA's standard line that they are not "assaulting anyone." When faced with a very similar manner of touching the agent found the actions to be assault and upsetting. I understand why she was upset--she should be upset--but so were many other women at her hands. The more attention we can point at how the TSA is doing their business these days the better.

I think we are having a disconnect because of perhaps apriori assumption of where rights originate from. I believe as it states in the declaration of independence that our rights come from our creator, not the state. So I don't buy it that unless the "law of the day says we are violating someone rights" we aren't. It was the law of the land in communist Ukraine to starve people to death that the USSR did not like--just because the state says something is ok--does not make it such.

Tyrannical laws need to be resisted--when at all possible by non-violent means. However I will say that it is very difficult to control ones' emotions when one has been sexually assaulted numerous times by the same entity and then be told to be sit down, be quiet, and write your senator--some people won't be able to control themselves and will act out. When the state acts with such harsh means on ordinary everyday citizens they are going to see more and more ordinary citizens act harshly towards the government agents they put there.

If you want to "resist" the law, you get 2,000 people to walk through security and refuse to go through the machines or be patted down, all willing to be arrested for the "cause". Or you can put together a boycott of public airlines and refuse to travel that way. You don't start assaulting one low-level employee at random in any form you wish. If you do, not only will your revolution of one result in your arrest, you have next to zero chance of winning even the P.R. battle that will surely result from it.

I'd rather emulate MLK than Malcolm X in this fight to reclaim our basic civil rights.

I am no less upset at the infringements than you, but I can't agree with or revel in the sexual assault of a TSA agent, even if she might be guilty of the very same thing. I do not excuse their actions, either, and hope that they are held accountable. I'd similarly like to see a massive, organized civil disobedience from within their ranks. . . just like I think we'd see from a lot of law enforcement officers in our state if they ever issues an order to confiscate firearms door-to-door. I personally know a handful of officers who have told me they'd refuse to comply with such an order and would join the fight of the citizens, even at the cost of their jobs, liberty, or lives. I'd love to see some TSA agents take a similar stand.

[mamabearCali]

If you want to "resist" the law, you get 2,000 people to walk through security and refuse to go through the machines or be patted down, all willing to be arrested for the "cause". Or you can put together a boycott of public airlines and refuse to travel that way. You don't start assaulting one low-level employee at random in any form you wish. If you do, not only will your revolution of one result in your arrest, you have next to zero chance of winning even the P.R. battle that will surely result from it.

I'd rather emulate MLK than Malcolm X in this fight to reclaim our basic civil rights.

I am no less upset at the infringements than you, but I can't agree with or revel in the sexual assault of a TSA agent, even if she might be guilty of the very same thing. I do not excuse their actions, either, and hope that they are held accountable. I'd similarly like to see a massive, organized civil disobedience from within their ranks. . . just like I think we'd see from a lot of law enforcement officers in our state if they ever issues an order to confiscate firearms door-to-door. I personally know a handful of officers who have told me they'd refuse to comply with such an order and would join the fight of the citizens, even at the cost of their jobs, liberty, or lives. I'd love to see some TSA agents take a similar stand.

You missed the point of the argument. Of course those who are "planning" resistance should take MLK route if they feel it is to that point. I don't think we have gotten there yet. There are still many avenues of relief being sought on this issue as we speak.

I doubt however that this woman "planned to resist" that morning when she got up. She reacted in a quite understandable manner to what has been a repeated assault on her body. Ask any counselor who deals with sexual abuse how repeated trauma affects a person? They certainly don't become more rational as time and assaults go on, some people turn inward and self destruct, some people lash out. Do I think the TSA worker is the person solely responsible for the travesty. No, but I think they are the ones putting it into action. It is their hands on peoples private parts, so when people react to the assault they have just been forced to undergo it is going to be the TSA worker that gets it in the nose.

What you suggest about the TSA resisting this as well (like your LEO friends have pledged to do) would be nice. I don't think it will happen however. The your average TSA worker is of a different caliber person than local LEO's. I have interacted with both and I must say that LEO's are nine times out of ten decent even kind people, the TSA workers I have interacted with have been loud rude individuals on power trips. That has simply been my experience by and large with the two different groups.

Several people have gotten all huffy that I am glorifying this woman (which I am not), and that her violence is unacceptable (unacceptable maybe, but understandable certainly). I have seen on several peoples signatures "When they come for your guns give them the bullets first." How is that different than what this woman did? She resisted forcefully the stripping of her rights to privacy. So by your logic we should quietly hand our guns over to the LEO's when the come to collect them and write our senators and not take it out on the "poor LEO's that are just doing their job."

[speedsix]

...well, this post is kinda like the scene in American Grafitti...where the boys chained the squad car to the post then taunted the officers so they'd gun it and tear out after 'em...it wasn't right or legal what the boys did...but the cops did have it coming to 'em...
...TSA, like a lot of other gooberment agencies on the Federal level, have run roughshod over the American citizens they are supposed to be serving...being oppressive and overbearing while not doing the job they were hired for...that's why we still have weapons getting on planes and American agents killed by weapons nursemaided across the border by Federal agents...the whole system is backwards...and it's up to us to change it...
...yeah, sometimes we exxagerate a bit...so does the enemy...that's human...but the problem is REAL, BIG, and UGLY...and the TSA needs a major housecleaning, retraining, strict guidelines, and they need to be focusing on the problem, not exerting their "authority" on people who pose no threat...people getting off the train and leaving the station are NOT the ones they're supposed to be searching, unless maybe there's an inordinate amount of TP missing from the trains...the extremes of old women and young children are possibilities, but the PROFILE of EVERY attack thus far in this country has been clearly documented, and they ain't it...

...rolling over for such oppression and making excuses for them will not fix the problem...carefully directed outrage will...just like it fixed the problem with King George...