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 benny638 on 4/14/2011 10:14:02 AM , Rating: 5
This type of behavior really scares me and to be honest I am worried about my wife and 13 month old son who will be traveling in a few months. Its more distrubing when you consider that there are people in a postion of power in the US goverment that are standing behind what the TSA is doing. I guess in a few more years we won't have anymore freedoms. People just need to not vote for people who support what the TSA is doing. The potentional of lossing one's job tends to get their attention.

By The Raven on 4/14/2011 11:03:22 AM , Rating: 5
People just need to not vote for people who support what the TSA is doing.

Oh so you will be voting 3rd party then?

I ask this half sarcastically since I sometimes have little hope that sheeple of this country will ever change and actually demand what they think is right instead of choosing the lesser of two evils.

The TSA is an obvious byproduct of that thinking.

For what it is worth I actually do vote 3rd party, as both a vote for the 3rd party candidates and also a vote against the 'two parties'.

By MrTeal on 4/14/11, Rating: -1
By SublimeSimplicity on 4/14/11, Rating: -1
By mcnabney on 4/14/11, Rating: -1
By headbox on 4/14/2011 2:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
Tears because an adult male inspects her pants doesn't carry any weight? WOW.

By kattanna on 4/14/2011 2:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
Tears because an adult male inspects her pants doesn't carry any weight? WOW.

you want to know how i know you didnt read the article or look at the video??

let me tell you..

first off it was a female TSA agent

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

third.. in the video the girl isnt even crying at all, just curious as to whats going on

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


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.

By tamalero on 4/15/2011 11:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
Please, in your point of view..
how many terrorists attemps were twarted by TSA agents?
has it EVER worked?
I mean I have yet to find a single list where they say an attack was prevented by TSA increased patdown, detections, etc.. while some people even managed to introduce fireweapons, knifes & other stuff past them.

Imho.. TSA is just another excuse to leech money in a very inefficient "security" measure that in reality is just an illusion of security.

just like other agencies are being used for completely irrelevant functions leading to inefficiency and abuse (see ICE hijacking domains, even international ones)

By DFranch on 4/14/2011 2:48:10 PM , Rating: 3
The article said She in reference to the TSA agent. I think it was a woman not a man who performed the search.

By hyvonen on 4/14/2011 6:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly makes it better. How about a 6yo boy? Should it be a female or a male agent touching the 'sensitive parts'?

By bio123 on 4/15/2011 1:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
It was a woman.

By The Raven on 4/14/2011 11:59:04 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah someone is a 17 year old because they use a certain word. Nice.

Do you disagree with me or not. This looks like disagreement to me since you are writing off my comment as something written by a child.

"Any constructive discussion" is ended by comments like yours.
So put up or shut up. Oh that some cool catch phrase by some obscure blogger that I am forbidden to say, lest I be labled as a retard?

By MrBlastman on 4/14/2011 1:02:16 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think you're a 17-year old at all. I actually think you make sense and are doing what I've been saying everyone in America should do for some time.


There, I said it in big letters. I'm shouting! It doesn't matter if you vote Republican or Democrat, they BOTH support this kind of "fearmongering" that is being subjected to our country. You're right. Our freedoms are going down the toilet and even if we vote opposite the current majority power, we still get the same thing, just a slightly different way.

The sad thing is, as you "sheepishly" put it, ;), the people in America really are "sheeple" as they truly lack the wit, care or willingness to sacrifice a few minutes of their precious little self-centered lives to actually read up on independent candidates that want to end this circus once and for all.

Sad, truly sad, isn't it?

I happily vote independent now and will continue to do so. No, I'm not throwing my vote away. I'm actually casting a vote as you're supposed to vote--with conviction and reason. It is too bad more people don't do this.

I have a 14-month old daughter and a week ago, my wife took a trip via plane across the country. I witnessed my daugher's food/bottle bag being seized by TSA authorities, who then unscrewed the tops of her bottles and then tested the milk inside of them. At the same time, I also witnessed my panicked wife freaking out over this. A babies bottle might be a deadly weapon.

What has our country come to? I suppose, as I sit here at at my keyboard I should be afraid to even breathe out of fear the terrorists are polluting our air. America should just resign right now, roll over, poke their arms and legs stiffly up in the air and just give our country away to the meanest looking people.

This is essentially what we have already done.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/11, Rating: 0
By ClownPuncher on 4/14/2011 3:41:48 PM , Rating: 3
We just need to stop travelling by plane if we can. The industry will crash and airline lobbyists will blame the TSA, and lobbyists can probably have it crushed.

By MrBlastman on 4/14/2011 3:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
I concur. Unfortunately even I find that on a rare occasion, there is no alternative to flying. The rest of the time, they can have fun missing my money for fares.

By ClownPuncher on 4/14/2011 4:04:26 PM , Rating: 3
It is hurting our tourism industry, too. I know several people out of country that simply refuse to travel to the US ever since the TSA has clamped down so hard.

By sviola on 4/19/2011 10:31:54 AM , Rating: 2
You can probably add me to this list. I was looking forward to flying to the States on my next holiday, but after seeing this, I'm certain that I would end up in jail for punching a TSA agent if he ever touches my kid.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2011 3:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
Except the Government would never ALLOW the industry to crash. They have bailed them out before and they would do it again.

Hell Obama and those like him would like nothing more for an excuse to "reform" the air industry like health care and GM. I.E Government takeover.

You just can't win man.

By hyvonen on 4/14/11, Rating: 0
By myhipsi on 4/15/2011 10:12:15 AM , Rating: 3
If the bloated U.S. government keeps spending the way they are now, the bailouts will end when U.S. treasury bonds go to junk status and the dollar crashes and burns. There will be no partisanship then. This is exactly what Osama Bin Laden's goal was; to bankrupt America, the U.S. government played right into Al-Qaeda's hands.

By vortmax2 on 4/15/2011 11:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
America, the land of opportunity... ;)

By Davelo on 4/17/2011 10:53:50 AM , Rating: 1
Don't blame the TSA. Blame Islamic terrorists. They are the ones who brought this on. What else are we to do? I see a lot of people bitching but nobody has a better alternative.

By The Raven on 4/27/2011 3:17:09 PM , Rating: 1
What else are we to do? I see a lot of people bitching but nobody has a better alternative.

Here are a couple people with a better idea:
Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.

-General John Stark-

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

- Patrick Henry-

Of course there are things we can do to mitigate the chances of death, but giving up our liberties (and in turn the liberties of others) is not one that is acceptable.

It is unreasonable search and seizure: Period.

Of course I can volunteer to die for our liberties, but I cannot make that decision for my fellow citizens. And that is why it gets complicated. But we should all understand why this is a problem and how we affect the liberties of others though our own fears may be miniscule.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/11, Rating: 0
By MrBlastman on 4/14/2011 3:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
The reality of U.S politics is that there never will be a third party in power, sorry, that's just the way it is.

As long as you have that kind of attitude along with the rest of America, it will stand true.

However, if a few of us start relenting against it, and more start to follow with time, things just might change. If the original settlers of America said, "Aw screw it, the British know best," then where would we be now?...

... Not here, or at least, under our Republic system of Government.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2011 3:31:29 PM , Rating: 1
As long as you have that kind of attitude along with the rest of America, it will stand true.

Sorry but politics isn't run on Unicorns and Rainbows and good wishes. It's run on money and public opinion. But mostly money.

You might want to research how politics actually WORK in this country before spitting your vitriol at me and others for being realistic.

By MrBlastman on 4/14/2011 3:43:03 PM , Rating: 3
Roll over and die. That's what you preach.

Yes, politics are run on money and that is a huge problem with the whole process right now. In no way shape or form should a presidential candidate be allowed to raise nearly a billion dollars of private money to help them "buy" their way into office. There is an extreme need right now for reform in this area.

However, I won't let that stop me from voting for who I feel will do the best job. I quietly go to the polls and do just that instead of voting for the "lesser of two evils."

The last twenty years has been Americans voting in just that way. When is going to stop? You can tell me I'm wasting my vote but you'll never convince me. I'm more convinced you are wasting yours if you don't vote for a candidate you truly feel will do the best job.

It all starts in your attitude, along with the rest of our country. Thankfully, attitudes can be adjusted.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2011 3:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
I like how I'm just supposed to accept your premise that the third party candidate is always better, and I'm wrong for having the beliefs that I do...

By myhipsi on 4/15/2011 10:23:54 AM , Rating: 2
I say, take advantage of the system. We all know that the two party system is extremely biased toward Republicans and Democrats, with independents and the Libertarian party not included in debates, can't get on the ballot, etc.

Ron Paul learned this well after his 1988 run for president as a libertarian candidate. He got zero press coverage, wasn't included in the debates, and got on very few ballots. When he ran again in 2008, even though he never achieved the ultimate goal of the presidency, he got the exposure and the press coverage to get his message out there and inject meaningful discourse into the debates. The sad part is, he was the only candidate that focused on the upcoming (at the time) economic problems and how to solve them while the rest of the idiots were talking meaningless drivel, yet very few voters listened.

By The Raven on 4/15/2011 7:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
So you are assuming the opposite (that either the dems or reps are ALWAYS better) and leaving us locked in this dysfunctional 2 party system.

You have got to be a moron if you think either of these corrupt parties are making good on their platforms over the past several decades (even if those were good ideas which many are not in my eyes). So even if you do agree with the platforms you should vote 3rd party to send a message to these 2 parties so they will straighten up.

Voting 3rd party to break out of this rut would still leave you the option to vote R or D and it still mean something (err at least more than my current 3rd party votes.)

But I vote libertarian for the future. And that means something at this point. But I don't expect the tide to turn overnight. And I don't expect (or possibly even hope) that the tide will go all the way down the libertarian path, but I do know that I want it to head in that direction away from either of the Ds or Rs.

Anyway at least look into it some more bro. You know politics in this country are ridiculous when you have teachers unions pushing for pro-choice candidates and props. What does that have to do with teaching? Oh yeah, nothing. It is the same as corporate bribery on the other side of the aisle. Despicable.

By Ausdrake on 4/15/2011 8:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
The situation may be different, but in the past election here in Australia the people spoke with their votes and the two major parties were essentially tied. The only way Labor managed to eke out a victory was by appealing to the THREE independents and the one Green representative that won seats in parliament (an almost unheard of scenario). The system is still flawed, but the point is the voters can and DO make a difference, they just don't realize it.

You've resigned yourself over to the status quo like it's as rigid and inevitable as the rotation of the earth, which is exactly what the political circus wants you to think; control is easier when the public think they're powerless.

Mind you I don't disagree, politics is dirty and is more about corporate lobbying and pandering to constituents than actual policy, but that doesn't discount the fact that it is still something that can be changed if said change has enough momentum behind it.

By Argon18 on 4/14/2011 11:08:27 AM , Rating: 2
huh? this has nothing to do with politicians or who you voted for. don't like TSA policy? fine! don't use them. vote with your dollars. Take the train or rent a car. Don't use air travel. It's called voting with your dollars - the most effective way to force a company or organization to change course, is to cut their revenue.

By Motoman on 4/14/2011 11:13:26 AM , Rating: 2 do realize that the TSA isn't affected by, or funded by, air travel tickets, right?

Your argument is retarded.

The TSA is one of our very greatest national shames, and is totally under control by elected officials...buying or not buying air travel has no effect on the existence of the TSA.

By AntiM on 4/14/2011 11:35:15 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, if people refuse to fly because of TSA tactics, you can bet that the airlines will use their lobby to force changes.

By kattanna on 4/14/2011 11:53:12 AM , Rating: 2
while i want to agree with you, i do, its also telling how not to long ago the loophole of airports having the ability to opt out of TSA screening and use their own has been removed.

TSA screening is now 100% mandatory.

heck they are even expanding it to be including train stations and other forms of public transport.

ARLINGTON, Va. — Protecting riders on mass-transit systems from terrorist attacks will be as high a priority as ensuring safe air travel, the new head of the Transportation Security Administration promises.

By Sazabi19 on 4/14/11, Rating: -1
By Motoman on 4/14/2011 12:20:42 PM , Rating: 3
...and a warrantless search and/or invasion of privacy and/or sexual assault is still illegal. You're the idiot.

By Sazabi19 on 4/14/11, Rating: -1
By MrBlastman on 4/14/2011 1:09:46 PM , Rating: 4
You're the only fool here. You're the fool who is helping to spread this sort of "fear based society."

Yes, we should all be scared. We should all submit to our Government's will. The Government knows best. They are our keepers. They will keep us physically safe and keep us from hurting ourselves by taking our guns, taking our knives and taking our stones. They will keep us mentally safe by providing us with the medication we need to enhance our minds. They will also keep us intellectually safe by removing from us all books and information that could potentially hurt our thoughts and providing for us only what we need to know.

Yes, the Government is all knowing, wise and looks out for our best interests. Hail the Government. Hail our sworn guardians and protectors!

Somehow, I can actually see you buying into this along with millions of other people.

The Terrorists have won.

By Sazabi19 on 4/14/2011 3:02:28 PM , Rating: 1
Lol I'm all for less govt, I'm just saying people need to quit moaning about this. This is the way it is right now, take another form of travel if you don't like it. I myself own more firearms than most people have in their house collectively, and no, I did not vote for this president. I am all for the TSA going away, but right now people need to quit being stupid about it, trying to make something out of this that is is not (saying its some form of molestation or sexual assault) is only going to hurt our cause.

By MrBlastman on 4/14/2011 3:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well, okay, you're right about one thing--saying it is a form of molestation is definitely the wrong approach. It isn't and I even consider it ridiculous if people call it that. I think it is wrong to search a child but that's about as far as I go.

As for firearms, I'm right there with you. I don't need no expect the Government to protect me, at all. In fact, a friend of mine is a Police Officer and even he says, "The Police are not here to protect you, they are here to show up after a crime occurs and to pick up the pieces."

I refuse, however, to stay quiet about the absurdity of the TSA. The only way things are fixed is by making them known first and then secondly, taking action.

By robinthakur on 4/15/2011 7:15:04 AM , Rating: 3
I would say firstly that as somebody from the UK with an external view it is deeply ironic that the US, a country so ill at ease with nudity, sex and so particularly phobic about child-molestation is now allowing this to happen to their own citizens.

It is plainly LUDICROUS that such an invasive procedure is used against the innocent majority. It's not like this type of event was difficult to foresee either when the policy started: I recall reading on here "What happens when one of the TSA pat down my kid" etc.

It's a classic case of a lack of empathy towards other people by the people that come up with these rules. I wonder how many of them get frisked in such a fashion? If we saw Hillary Clinton on TV with a TSA member putting their hands "palm side down...inside her waistband" it might reassure people that this is a universal measure, but we don't because it would never happen.

Instead, people are expected to endure this behaviour which most are taught to regard as molestation, plain and simple. There is also the uncomfortable truth that this kind of search is only really valid against people having materials strapped to the outside of their bodies and that suspicious people should be identified long before they buy a ticket and set foot in the airport.

They need to profile intelligently regardless of PC notions, when a passenger could be endangering the lives of hundreds of people on an aircraft, this can and should take precedence over civil liberties. They need to have body language experts, lie detectors, ask pertinant questions, deploy bomb-sniffing dogs (which would be FAR more effective and be a big deterrant to potential bombers), body scanners, but at the end of the day if somebody has a bomb inside them, there is very little you can do if they have gotten to that point in the security check or actually boarded the flight without actively driving people away from flight en masse with body cavity searches.

The point I disagee with is the person saying that no child under 6 has ever been involved in a terrorist incident, therefore they are no risk. They are low risk, but they are a weak point which is likely to get exploited in the future if our enemies consider it to be a chink in the armour just like the cargo weakness was focussed on. The enemy's objective is to create terror and a state of constant fear, and they certainly appear to be able to do this with very little investment on their part, while the US and its allies spend billions...

By kerpwnt on 4/14/2011 2:10:25 PM , Rating: 1
They would be lucky if they were allowed to walk out. I've seen videos of people being threatened with jail for trying to leave the airport after being selected for "enhanced" search.

By FaaR on 4/14/11, Rating: 0
By MrBlastman on 4/14/2011 1:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
How do you rationalize this has nothing to do with the politicians we voted for? Please, amuse me. I really want to know!

It has everything to do with who we voted for because these imbeciles that are up in Washington are the very people who both voted and ratified into law and policy the creation of the TSA and their disgusting agenda. These same fools are the same people that continue to allow these atrocities to continue.

But, like I said, I'd love for you to eloquently prove to me that this has nothing to do with the politicians we voted for.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2011 3:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
But, like I said, I'd love for you to eloquently prove to me that this has nothing to do with the politicians we voted for.

Look, let's get real here for a minute. People were scared, demanding politicians do something. Please remember that, at the time, we could NOT know that 9-11 wasn't a prelude to more domestic attacks using airliners.

Now 11 years later, yes, we can all plainly see the TSA isn't needed anymore. And their policies sure as hell could use some work.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But you act like there are people who need to be crucified when all they were doing was their job; protecting the citizens of the United States. Politicians were simply responding to overwhelming public outcry amid genuine fears of safety. The people in those planes lost their lives, remember? People who boarded those planes, secure in their belief that everything had been done to guarantee their safety. And the system failed. We failed them. They and thousands more are dead.

If the TSA had not been formed and there WERE more 9-11 style attacks, I think we all would be singing a different tune today.

By MrBlastman on 4/14/2011 3:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sure we were scared. However, some of us like to rely on ourselves to keep us safe. If you pack heat and someone messes with you, do you call the police or a TSA agent? No, you take care of the problem right there.

This is the whole problem. Americans are being taught to rely on someone else to save them. Years ago, we were taught to stand up for ourselves. If more of us did that now, the world would be a better and safer place.

The whole purpose behind the Terrorists is to make us scared.

By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2011 3:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I "pack heat" here at home and in my car, but I can't do it on an aircraft.

As a Conservative, I agree that we should be more self reliant. But let's be real here, if ANY politician stood up and said at the time "Airports are fine, we don't need added security." he would have been committing career suicide. He would have been voted out faster than you could spit.

The whole purpose behind the Terrorists is to make us scared.

Umm no, sorry but they had MUCH bigger goals in mind. Our financial, military, and political base was targeted. Remember if not for some very brave people, the White House would have also been hit. Their goal was to weaken or cripple the whole country, not simply make us scared.

By mmatis on 4/14/2011 1:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
So let the fine TSA people know what a wonderful job you think they are doing:

And then send the video:
to your Representative and two Senators in Congress, and make sure they know how much you appreciate them insuring that the government was NOT shut down so that TSA could continue to the outstanding job they always do.

Note that the blog is run by a TSA employee, so comments such as the one I made to them will NOT be published, and may get you a visit from this nation's Finest...

By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2011 3:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your sentiments and concerns, what "vote" exactly would stop the TSA from doing these pat downs? What the TSA does or doesn't do at this point is completely out of the hands of the U.S voter/taxpayer.

The TSA is never going away, that's the sad reality of air travel today. There will never be a point in time where there isn't going to be a TSA from here on out.

You could "vote" with your feet, and choose to drive everywhere. In the hopes that if enough do, the air travel industry will be brought to their knees. But even that won't change anything because the Government would just bail the major carriers out. They've done it before, they would do it again.

What we have here is a catch 22. The American public is against random patdowns, but they are also (stupidly) against "racial profiling". So we have white six year old girls now being fondled by TSA employees.

I know the TSA isn't going away. I just hope many enough American's pull their heads out of their asses and realize political correctness never made anyone safe.

By Jeffk464 on 4/14/2011 3:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, I'm really starting to think the crazy Muslims are correct, that maybe our government really is the "great satin." I think we need to kind of reinvent the 60's with large coordinated civil disobedience.

Government run afoul.
By mdogs444 on 4/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Government run afoul.
By SunTzu on 4/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Government run afoul.
By Shane McGlaun on 4/14/2011 10:31:34 AM , Rating: 4
What I realize is anyone that puts their hands down my 6-year-olds pants is getting knocked the fuck out. The TSA is starting to cause more feelings of fear and insecurity than terrorists. I can just see Osama laughing his ass off at us right now. We need to draw a line somewhere, and this is it.

RE: Government run afoul.
By xrodney on 4/14/2011 11:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
I would do same, plus put TSA and US Gov to International Court for sexual assault on my child.

Seriously US Gov is getting out of hand all in question of national security. Most of explosives can be detected by chemical detectors, most of weapons by metal detectors. As for non metallic weapons they are far to rare to get and cost more then rocket launcher.

Instead of this BS, they should invest money to improve plane systems to prevent hijaking which would have bigger success with no effect on customer comfort.

RE: Government run afoul.
By Sazabi19 on 4/14/2011 12:22:09 PM , Rating: 1
Lol, sexually assaulted? The TSA agent didn't finger the little girl or rub her button, she swipped the back of her hand over it. No matter what people complain about this stuff, if she didn't get a pat down there would be an uproar becuase she went through the scan and someone could see through her clothes. I don't know how people are picked for this and i don't care really, the option is deal with it or travel another way. They could have refused and walked out of the airport, sure they would have lost money and needed a new way home and had luggage issues, but it would have saved their little girl "trauma". There is always another option, funny how they didn't take it though...

RE: Government run afoul.
By thrust2night on 4/14/2011 2:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
"The TSA agent didn't finger the little girl or rub her button, she swipped the back of her hand over it."

Hmm... why don't you try doing that with a 6 years old and we'll see how quickly you get arrested for sexual assault.

RE: Government run afoul.
By Sazabi19 on 4/14/2011 3:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
My job isn't based solely on touching anyone like the TSA's is :) That is like saying you can't be strip searched or patted down at jail. Their job is to keep you there and keep it safe, not to feel you. Everyone here just seems like some weird fanatic about it or something.

RE: Government run afoul.
By Will7272 on 4/14/2011 11:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
I agree totally. If anyone puts their hands in the pants of my daughter, I'd rip them in half.

RE: Government run afoul.
By Occam's Razor on 4/14/2011 10:35:39 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Government run afoul.
By phantom505 on 4/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Government run afoul.
By Motoman on 4/14/2011 11:15:14 AM , Rating: 2
Then again, ALL of the terrorists that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were Muslim.

RE: Government run afoul.
By Argon18 on 4/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Government run afoul.
By ChristopherO on 4/14/2011 11:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
Look, I don't want to start a religious flame war here, but.... When was the last time you traveled? The TSA has a huge board just inside *every* airport security checkpoint. And guess what, of the 30 most wanted, all of them are pictures of Muslim guys from the mid-east. Over the years I've seen the faces change, but they've never displayed any non-male, non-mid-eastern individuals. When they start posting the photos of toddlers I might be worried.

And yes, McVey was screwed up, the bombers were screwed up, anthrax nut jobs, etc. They were usually anti-government wing-nuts who went after government targets exclusively. They were evil, evil people harming innocents, but as far as I can tell they always justified as being government employees. I've never seen widely published threats against private industry.

Then you have the crazy church-shooters, school-shooters, etc. But those idiots wear black trench-coats everywhere and are loaded with weapons. A standard body scanner would see that, plus anyone with a brain would realize something was *abnormal*. Plus for the most part, those crazies don't even have enough money to purchase a ticket for an airport anyway.

Maybe I'll believe your reasoning when you can prove to me that any of these people ever considered targeting expensive civilian infrastructure. Plus, as far as I can remember, no American citizen has ever attempted violence against an American air lines.

RE: Government run afoul.
By The Raven on 4/14/2011 11:45:17 AM , Rating: 3
While I don't agree with this guy, you are turning quite the blind eye to what he IS referring to as opposed to what he is not. As an unsorted mixed up group Islam is responsible for more attacks than any other similarly separated group. Just do a word search and see how many times you find Islam as opposed to any other group.

It doesn't mean that all muslims are bombers, but to say Islam is somehow more less violent than other groups is rediculous when it is clearly the opposite.

I mean look at these lists:
Look how many of these are in the name of Allah and get back to me.

Now there is a group larger than Islamists, and that is extremists. Of course that includes all religions and political affiliations. That is why we shouldn't just say, "Screen all muslims and we'll be ok."

And also you have to remember that Islamism is in many cases tied to political beliefs (just like Christians how many of them are pro-life, a political stance, and may bomb for that belief). In the 'western world' we have less 'need' for political violence and therefore there will be less Christians (since the west is mostly comprised of them) blowing people up.

So I think what this guy is saying is that since acts of terror are more prevalent in Muslim areas of the world (be they in the name of Allah or for strictly political reasons, like something Tim McVeigh) we should look at muslims. Of course that makes sense statistically, but it doesn't make sense constitutionally ;-)

Now if we could just focus on eliminating racism in the US.
Your muslim vs. white comparison isn't apples to apples and is flat-out racist.

RE: Government run afoul.
By Stepup2themike on 4/14/2011 12:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
LOL- seriously? The instances you mention total less than 200 deaths, spread over a decade. Almost 20 times that number died on 9/11 alone. You are clearly an idoit.

RE: Government run afoul.
By MrBlastman on 4/14/2011 2:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you're going to call someone an idiot, at least spell it right. ;)

RE: Government run afoul.
By psenechal on 4/14/2011 12:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with this theory is how do you identify "all Muslims"? Islam is a religion, it's not a race, ethnicity, or style of clothing. A Muslim could be Chinese, African, or even Caucasian.

I do agree with you that we need to use a little common sense instead of some mathematical calculation on how often to give enhanced screenings. Instead of every n'th passenger, why don't we look at the odds of a 6-year old girl being a terrorist vs. people who actually look suspicious or are traveling under odd circumstances. Why don't we invest in predictive analytics to determine someone's travel history and flag these people before they even make it to the security checkpoint.

And how many "potential" terrorists could have made it through security while they were patting down this 6-year old girl simply because she was the n'th passenger in line?

RE: Government run afoul.
By theapparition on 4/14/2011 2:21:48 PM , Rating: 1
What you are suggesting is profiling.

That is considered such a bad word and not politically correct.

My response is that people need to get over it. Profiling exists because it works. It works remarkable well. Need proof? Israel has never once had a terrorist incident on one of their aircraft. Not one. As the prime target for most middle east terrorists, Israel would be the holy grail of targets. They also have easy access through both proximity and Palestine. Yet have never been successful.

This is because the Israeli government has invested heavily in training their people to profile. We need to wake up and let profiling happen, regardless whom it might needlessly offend.

RE: Government run afoul.
By Jeffk464 on 4/14/2011 3:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
Its called a background check, in the electronic age its pretty quick and easy. Ok I'm not saying that you should only check muslims, but how about checking all muslims that fit the profile and then do random checks for the rest of the flying public. Patting down a 6 year old white girl is about as big a waste of time as patting down some 60 year old Japanese woman. This is Political Correctness out of control. How about a 3 month boycott on flying, I think that would really wake the government. Most airlines are struggling anyways the threat of a three month boycott could really scare the crap out of them and I imagine put a lot of them out of business.

If this had been my child...
By klstay on 4/14/2011 10:36:01 AM , Rating: 1
...I would have hunted that agent down, gutted, stuffed, and mounted him as a little message to anyone with thoughts about EVER touching my children.

RE: If this had been my child...
By piroroadkill on 4/14/2011 10:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
It was a WOMAN doing the touching.

RE: If this had been my child...
By zombiexl on 4/14/2011 10:45:04 AM , Rating: 5
Contrary to P.C. belief women CAN molest children.

RE: If this had been my child...
By phantom505 on 4/14/2011 10:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
Just really really unlikely to be doing it in public and in full view of her parents.

RE: If this had been my child...
By Hieyeck on 4/14/2011 2:12:40 PM , Rating: 4
Unless you're TSA.

RE: If this had been my child...
By kerpwnt on 4/14/2011 2:21:41 PM , Rating: 3
Does it matter what the womans intent was? Obviously she wasn't doing it for pleasure. This kind of touching is inappropriate, regardless of the intent of the TSA agent or which side of her hand she used to touch a minors' genitals.

RE: If this had been my child...
By Argon18 on 4/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: If this had been my child...
By Motoman on 4/14/2011 11:11:39 AM , Rating: 3
Then you are not only remarkably naive and probably retarded, but also one sick motherf$cker.

Stay the f$uck away from me, and anyone I know.

RE: If this had been my child...
By myhipsi on 4/15/2011 10:39:38 AM , Rating: 1
I've seen this "drug mule" argument come up several times now since this video hit the internet and it's getting highly annoying. FYI, the TSA are there to protect air travelers from bodily harm (ie. prevent explosives, guns, knives, projectiles, incendiaries, etc. from getting on a plane). Drugs have absolutely nothing to do with the safety of air travelers. It is the job of customs/border protection to deal with drug traffickers, mules, etc. not the TSA.

Internet tough guys
By room200 on 4/14/2011 11:53:06 AM , Rating: 5
I love internet tough guys. If they did this to my daughter, I'd do this. If they did this, I'd do that.

You wouldn't do anything except get your asses whooped by a bunch of burly security guards, and that's JUST before theyr throw your buts in prison.

RE: Internet tough guys
By Hieyeck on 4/14/2011 2:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly, you don't have a daughter.

RE: Internet tough guys
By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2011 3:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
And clearly you've never been shot with a rubber bullet...

RE: Internet tough guys
By room200 on 4/14/2011 4:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
And clearly you've never had your ass whooped by a bunch of burly security guards.

RE: Internet tough guys
By fic2 on 4/14/2011 6:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly you have never seen any TSA agents who are anything but burly security guards.

-- but I agree with your main post. Most sheeple in the U.S. are just gong to say, "I can't believe you are feeling up my 6 year old, but do nothing about it."

Just a quick question...
By Aloonatic on 4/14/2011 10:14:38 AM , Rating: 3
Q. What can't be done in the "interest of preserving national security"?

RE: Just a quick question...
By Darkefire on 4/14/2011 10:55:42 AM , Rating: 5
A. Questioning the need for preserving national security. Back in line, citizen, we don't take kindly to reason here.

NO !
By PitbulI on 4/14/2011 11:02:26 AM , Rating: 4
No TSA agent is ever stuffing their hands down either my childrens pants. I will give an affirmative NO! and request to be escorted out of security as I will find alternative means of travel.

Was there not a body scanner available? No choice given?

And people wonder why the US is down 15 trillion dollars? I wonder how much of that has went to security at airports and borders?

RE: NO !
By Argon18 on 4/14/2011 11:16:48 AM , Rating: 2
You seem very confused. No one stuffed their hands down anyone's pants. The agent checked the inside of the waistband. The waistband of a female's pants is well above their genitalia, so don't twist this into some kind of bizarre "midriff molestation" charge.

Secondly, you would really rather have a group of TSA agents, male and female, watching a computer screen taking naked x-ray photos of your children?? You would prefer this to a professional pat down, in your immediate view, by a female agent, with gloved hands??

Lastly, no, you won't request to be escorted out of security as I will find alternative means of travel. You don't have that option. Read the signs next time you're there. Once you begin the security screening process, you must complete the process. You do not have the option to back-out and leave. Don't like it? Fine. Don't fly.

RE: NO !
By surt on 4/14/2011 12:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
Of course the choice was given. The parents, I presume, declined due to the cancer risk.

stupid caption
By Homerboy on 4/14/2011 10:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
Note, no child under six has ever participated in or been used in a terrorist attack.

WTF does that have to do with ANYTHING? Up until 9/11 jetliners had never been used as missiles before either. Terrorism is always going to be guerrilla warfare, and guerrilla warfare is always going to improvise.

That being said, the TSA is just stupid. I'm not sure if the parents of this kid are too bright either.

RE: stupid caption
By Chillin1248 on 4/14/2011 11:50:48 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, there have been cases where young children (even babies) were used for terrorist acts:


Noticing that Aziza Jawabra, the wife of one of the terrorists, was holding her one-month-old baby in an unusual manner, the troops searched her and found a grenade in a jacket she was wearing.

The soldiers searched Jawabra after they became suspicious of the way she was carrying her month-old son, Yamin. Jawabra was holding the grenade just under the baby's backside, Chen said.

Like you said, terrorists attack the weak security spots. Anyone who thinks they are dumb and won't exploit such an opening are fooling themselves.


This is why my family is NOT flying anywhere
By Nutzo on 4/14/2011 11:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
The couple years before they started this "enhanced" screening, we went on vacations that we had to fly to.
Since this started we have not flown and will not fly anywhere. All vacations since have been local, or places we can drive to.

I will not subject my kids, wife, or even myself to this perverted activity. Anyone doing this to a kid outside an airport would be subject to arrest.

Luckly I don't need to fly for work, and our families (both sides) all live within a couple hours drive.

If they where really concerned about someone bringing a bomb on the plane, a bomb sniffing dog walked up/down the line would be more effective than randomly searching kids.

By mmntech on 4/14/2011 1:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm of the same frame of mind. I'm actually flying in a couple of weeks and deliberately selected a small, regional airport since they usually aren't as "touchy-feely".

Don't quote me on this, but apparently you can ask the police to perform the patdown instead. It's a gross violation no matter which way you slice it. But at least they're trained law enforcement officials with a civilian body to hold them accountable. Airport security workers are civil servants who have a huge union to hide behind, and no oversight.

Our Stars of David
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: Our Stars of David
By The Raven on 4/14/2011 11:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure why you got rated down. That doesn't describe me at all so I don't take offense.

RE: Our Stars of David
By Stepup2themike on 4/14/2011 11:51:46 AM , Rating: 1
Huh? Share some of whatever your smoking, fool!

Having a hearty laugh
By Dorkyman on 4/14/2011 1:01:52 PM , Rating: 3
Ol' Bin Laden must be getting a real kick out of seeing the crazy contortions those nutty Americans go through in the name of Political Correctness.

Frisk nuns? Check.
Frisk little girls? Check.
Do surprisingly-detailed bodyscans of women? Check.

Profile Muslim males between the ages of 20 and 40? Don't you DARE! I'll sue! (and win!)

Step back and look what we've come to. Bin Laden really HAS won.

Federal Budget
By kerpwnt on 4/14/2011 2:40:55 PM , Rating: 3
Why doesn't the TSA have a big "cut federal spending" bullseye on it? I know, that was a dumb question. We spend as much money and sacrifice as many freedoms as it takes to protect our freedom. Hooray for doubleplusgood security!

By holymaniac on 4/14/2011 3:23:17 PM , Rating: 3
US TSA will be brought down. they are the Terrorists we should be concerned about. I am not threatening them with violence. i am predicting they will be brought down by their own evil doing. They ARE evil!

$@$# you America
By chmilz on 4/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: $@$# you America
By Flunk on 4/14/2011 10:46:18 AM , Rating: 2
Certainly not with kids at any rate.

By Murloc on 4/14/2011 11:11:19 AM , Rating: 2
a child is ofte naked while showering after pool and stuff like that.
So why not use the scanner?
It's not like he cares yet about being seen nude.

<no subject>
By Scabies on 4/14/2011 12:55:29 PM , Rating: 2

Glad these weren't my parents.
By Xaussie on 4/14/2011 1:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
The girl was probably more upset about being separated from here parents than being felt up. The parents were so horrified by her sexual abuse that they've posted it on youtube where they'll make a fortune from all the millions of people in the world who'd like to watch a video of a six year old girl being felt up. A class act indeed.

Down with the TSA
By phu5ion on 4/14/2011 1:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Parents are allowed to watch? Wow
By Tyhr on 4/14/2011 2:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
the parents are watching to make sure it's done ok

What does that mean? The parents are able to stop it at any time when it's done inappropriately?
I doubt it.
They are forced to endure it.

Reminds me of rapists tying down the man and forcing him to watch while they rape his wife and "let him watch".

TSA Baby Patdown
By adrift02 on 4/14/2011 4:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
Where's The Onion when you need it?

Good Touch or Bad Touch?
By Azethoth on 4/15/2011 4:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
Just bottom line it for me please.

Little Girl Should Suck It Up...
By Arsynic on 4/14/2011 5:20:11 PM , Rating: 1
She should suck it up because it's either this or we offend Muslims and god forbid we offend Muslims! Appeasing Muslims is much more important than her selfish little infidel feelings.

Chill, fools!
By Stepup2themike on 4/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Chill, fools!
By sviola on 4/19/2011 11:14:38 AM , Rating: 1
Personally, I am all for WHATEVER methods are required to keep the planes I travel on from blowing up.

So, you are voluntarily offering yourself for future cavity searches, when they are available?

This just in.
By Flunk on 4/14/11, Rating: -1
"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

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