Print 116 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Apr 27 at 3:17 PM

TSA agents are exempt from sex crime prosecution for feeling childrens' "sensitive" regions in an effort to find improvised explosive devices.  (Source: Corbis)

TSA frisk "little terrorist" Anna Drexel. Note, no child under six has ever participated in or been used in a terrorist attack.  (Source: YouTube)
Big Brother is touching you

Given the current “heightened terror alert” in the U.S., Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) officials find themselves staring at people in the nude via full-body scanners and executing new "enhanced" search pat-downs of peoples' private regions to ensure that our commercial airplanes are safe.

Just how far the U.S. government is willing to invade individuals' privacy in the name of counterterrorism was highlighted by a recent incident at a Kentucky airport.  

A 6-year-old girl named Anna Drexel was just returning home from vacation, with her parents Selena and Todd Drexel.  As they passed through the security screening checkpoint, to her parents' alarm, Anna was pulled aside for a special "modified" search.

During the search, the screener informed the parents and the girl, "[I'm going to] put my hand in the waistband."

She reassured the parents that she would only touch "sensitive" areas with the back of her hand.

The search left the child confused and in tears.  In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" program, Selena Drexel said her child "had a very bad feeling that what happened was wrong."

Alarmed by what was unfolding, the parents surreptitiously videotaped the incident on a cell phone, posting it on YouTube [video] as a warning to parents.  The video is now creating quite a stir, much like the infamous don't "touch my junk" screening video

Martin Macpherson, the director of the London-based Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers says that there are no known incidents in which terrorists have use children six and younger in an attack.  

But some in the U.S. government are defending the "modified" search policy in place for children 12 and younger.  They state the policy, which includes reaching inside the child's pants in an attempt to search for possible explosive devices, is clearly stated on the agency's website.

Children and adults are often extensively searched if they decline to go through the scanners, which show nude images of the passenger.

Jennifer Mitchell, co-president of Child Lures Prevention, a Shelburne, Vt., organization that works to prevent crimes against children, also seemed to defend the practice in an interview with the Associated Press.  While she admits the search is "a little invasive", she adds, "This is a hard issue because we have national security on one hand... and children's safety on the other. The only reason it would be allowed is the parents are right there, the clothes are not being removed, the parents are watching to make sure it's done ok."

It is unclear, though exactly how "national security" might hinge on reaching inside childrens' clothes, given that children as young as Anna Drexel have never been used in an attack.

U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is among a handful of government officials who have expressed outrage at the TSA and other officials' defense of the official involved in the incident.  He states, "This conduct is in clear violation of TSA's explicit policy not to conduct thorough pat-downs on children under the age of 13."

Rep. Chaffetz is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security.  He says he was "personally outraged and disgusted" by the video of the search.

Under Rep. Chaffetz's pressuring, the TSA has agreed to review the search policy for "low-risk populations, such as young passengers."  It said it may opt to "move beyond a one-size fits all system", though it gave no clue about what policies might comprise its new varied child search system or when it might replace the current policies.

In some states a stranger touching or feeling a child's groin/genitalia can be construed as a felony sex crime.  Sex crimes against children often receive stiff sentences, including years in prison.  The TSA has stated it will not pursue any charges or discipline against the agent involved in the search, as the contact was initiated in the interest of preserving national security.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By The Raven on 4/14/2011 10:47:05 PM , Rating: 4
third.. in the video the girl isnt even crying at all, just curious as to whats going on

You want to know how I know you didn't read the article or look at the headline??
The search left the child confused and in tears .
TSA Patdown Leaves 6-Year Old in Tears , Gov't Defends Actions

Just because you can't see clear liquid coming out of the girl's eyes in the grainy video doesn't mean it didn't happen then or after the fact. But let me also say that this may be a case of the parents making a big deal out of an incident that didn't affect the child adversely.

second she didnt put her hands down her pants .. only within the waistband

You want to know how I know you didn't read the comment??
Tears because an adult male inspects her pants doesn't carry any weight? WOW.

No mention of hands in so much as pockets. But when you slide your hands all over someone's pants... that is inspecting.

but hey.. dont let facts get in the way of a good ignorant rant my friend

You want to know how I know you didn't read the dictionary??
Definition of RANT 1 a : a bombastic extravagant speech

Of course I'm just having fun with you, but do you think this is acceptable by the TSA or not? Don't bother picking apart someone's 'one liner' that while it is not perfectly phrased or accurate get's the point across.

By christojojo on 4/15/2011 9:15:32 AM , Rating: 3
I work in a prison dealing with the pedophiles, rapist, etc.. When I read things like this I have two separate thoughts. Villains do use kids to do bad things. Villains like jobs that give them advantage. Conflicting.

No, most employees are honest, Most priests are too. The exceptions happen and are often sensationally highlighted.

Take a deep breath ask a few questions before lynching.
1. Did the action make sense with the job description?
2. Did the person follow reasonable/ acceptable practices and cultural practices?
3. Is the system in which this happened flawed?

By RivuxGamma on 4/16/2011 2:09:31 PM , Rating: 3
1. No
2. No
3. Yes

Seriously, why are we still allowing the TSA to operate this way? Is it just because someone might strap a bomb to their kid? You know what else might happen? A terrorist organization might find a way to plant an agent in the security guards and let a bomber on the plane. By the might reasoning, we shouldn't allow any security guards.

That said, I seriously doubt that the person doing the pat down got any sexual gratification out of it. I'd bet, though, that they did get gratification in doing it. It comes from being granted power and the ability to exert that power. Cops get it all the time.

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki