TSA: Travelers Who Refuse Scanning Can’t Leave, Will Be Fined

[Guest trigem]

Passengers 'Can Not Just Decide to Leave'

by Jason Ditz, November 19, 2010

[/url]

TSA: Travelers Who Refuse Scanning Can’t Leave, Will Be Fined -- News from Antiwar.com

Faced with the prospect of large numbers of people refusing the invasive “screening†measures they’ve implemented this holiday season, the TSA is hoping to fight back with threats of fine and arrest.

“Once a person submits to the screening process, they can not just decide to leave†warned Sari Koshetz, a TSA spokesperson. TSA officials say that anyone refusing both the “full body scanners†and the “enhanced pat down†procedures will be taken into custody.

Once there the detainees will not only be barred from flying, but will be held indefinitely as suspected terrorists, face fines of up to $11,000 and may also be turned over to local police. One sheriff’s office said they were already preparing to handle a large number of detainees and plan to treat them as terror suspects, held until they are convinced they don’t pose a terror threat.

The TSA genital “patdowns†have led to threats from some local prosecutors to charge them with sexual assault, but the TSA has shrugged off public outcry over the measures and seems more intent than ever on cowing the public into submission.

[gregintenn]

Now that's "Change you can believe in."

[kb4ns]

That's just screwed up!

[Punisher84]

And no one even opted out yesterday apparently. No one cares anymore. Welcome to the beginning of the end.

[Garufa]

And no one even opted out yesterday apparently. No one cares anymore. Welcome to the beginning of the end.

Once again personal needs outweigh the greater good.

[Guest Broomhead]

Now that's "Change you can believe in."

This was the case long before Obama came into office. It has always been the TSA's policy on people who refuse screening.

[Kegger]

What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?"

I would have opted out, just to see what they would do. Read me my rights? Invoke the Patriot Act and send me to Gitmo? Put me in a corner and repeatedly kick me in the nuts until I submit?

Then sue the ever living piss out of the TSA for violation of my constitutional rights.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Kegger

[bigwakes]

Treating U.S. Citizens as enemy combatants. That's amazing!

[Mike.357]

What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?"

You don't seriously believe that do you? Looks good on paper but in reality it is not true.

[Guest mikedwood]

The TSA checks are crazy because there are so many other loopholes in airports that it's just a smoke screen to make it look like they are iron clad and super secure. It's just simply not the case at all if an individual or group was so motivated.

Also what is going to happen when some idiot puts some high explosives in his or her anal cavity and it doesn't go off but they get caught? Then they will do full cavity searches to ensure our safety? It's only going to get worse and worse and worse.

Several weeks ago the headline on Drudge was "The Terrorrists have Won" and they have kicked our butt with our own fears.

[Guest Jamie]

Well, I guess this woman isn't going to jail then... Or is she? :lol:

[tnhawk]

When airlines tickets sales drop, they'll find a better way.

[vontar]

I still recommend all men should wear athletic supporters at the airports now. You don't know, the screener might be just too happy to go to work in the morning.

Seriously do they thing that would stop a terrorist? I need a job in government chairing common sense on some thing.

I think they should have drug and bomb sniffing dogs along with the metal detectors, if a person sets those off then their would be reason for a more in depth screening. If just the metal detector give them a chance to remove the offending item., if they alert the dogs well pull them out of the line to figure it out.

[Chief07]

Welcome to the "New World Order".

We are losing our rights and our liberty.

[Guest Broomhead]

It's just simply not the case at all if an individual or group was so motivated.

Also what is going to happen when some idiot puts some high explosives in his or her anal cavity and it doesn't go off but they get caught? Then they will do full cavity searches to ensure our safety? It's only going to get worse and worse and worse.

Yes, there are ways to get through, but the screening is random for a reason, to make those ways much more difficult. When the time comes for cavity searches, people will simply no longer be allowed to fly. If flying was a God given right, we would all have wings.

When airlines tickets sales drop, they'll find a better way.

I believe this to be true, but also that air travel will cease to be an option.

I still recommend all men should wear athletic supporters at the airports now. You don't know, the screener might be just too happy to go to work in the morning.

I think they should have drug and bomb sniffing dogs along with the metal detectors, if a person sets those off then their would be reason for a more in depth screening. If just the metal detector give them a chance to remove the offending item., if they alert the dogs well pull them out of the line to figure it out.

Do you honestly think that the Officer screening you wants to put his hands on you? Do you think they get there jollies out of touching you? If so, then you probably think every gay man on this planet wants to have his way with you. Are you homophobic? The officer wants to screen you and touch you even less than you want to be touched. Believe me. But it is a job that pays fairly well for having to put up with peoples crap and screen them in various ways.

Also, you can not have a drug and bomb sniffing dog. They don't work that way. It is either a bomb dog or a drug dog. The dogs that you do see in airports are bomb dogs and are more than likely worth more than your house after all the training they receive. Besides, a metal detector does just what the name implies, it detects metal. It cannot find the organic or inorganic compounds that make up explosives. If you had no metal on your person, but had a baggie of plastic explosives in your pocket, the metal detector would never know.

We are losing our rights and our liberty.

So let me get this straight. Flying is a right and liberty? If flying is a God given right, then where are our wings. If God had intended flying to be your right, he would have given you a pair of them.

The airline industry is a private industry. You get to play by their rules. They agree with the TSA, though privately. If you haven't been satisfactorily screened then they don't want you on their plane, you have just become a liability to that airline. Can you imagine the public outrage that would happen if a plane went down and it was revealed that it was due to a passenger not being screened and bringing something dangerous on board? Heads would be rolling throughout TSA and DHS. However, the airline would be free of any negligence. TSA would be their scape goat.

I worked for TSA for almost 8 years, the longest I have ever worked at any job. I was removed from duty in August of this year due to a medical inability to continue to perform the duties required of the position. I disagreed with alot of their policies, however, if I wanted to keep my job I would have to perform my duties. It's hard to find a job these days. Before any says that I am backing TSA and the it's policies, I assure you I am not. What I am defending are the personnel. The men and women that work for TSA, that do the screenings, the pat downs, that put up with the crap that passengers say and do, that continue to do their jobs even though the public despises them, the men and women that have blame and hatred thrown upon their shoulders because they are the "face" of TSA, the public first, and usually only, line of contact with the entity. Those men and women deserve respect for doing their best to keep you safe while traveling even though you hurl insults at them. Those are the people I am defending.

We can't bash police or the military on this forum, but we are allowed to say whatever we want about men and women doing their jobs trying to keep others safe while traveling by air? Sounds a little unfair if you ask me.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Broomhead

[Guest 85rx-7gsl-se]

Is it true the TSA hires sex offenders? Because I dont think most law enforcement agencies do so.

[Guest Broomhead]

Well, I guess this woman isn't going to jail then... Or is she?

Has that women never heard of public indecency laws? She should be arrested, charged, convicted, made to pay a fine, and perform community service. If my family and I were going through security with that woman I would be having her arrested and pressing charges. I don't want my kids to see that kind of crap. That was outright stupidity in it's purest form.

[Guest Broomhead]

Is it true the TSA hires sex offenders? Because I dont think most law enforcement agencies do so.

Do you have proof that TSA hires sex offenders? Or are you posting a baseless lie from out of your rectum? TSA officers have to go through a strict 10 year background check and work history, which is repeated every few years. If anything grossly negative shows up, that person will be fired.

[Garufa]

Groping people without consent is pretty much molestation don't you think? The only "consent" that might be given is in fear of overhanded threats, delays and assorted other violations of one's liberties.

[Guest Broomhead]

Groping people without consent is pretty much molestation don't you think? The only "consent" that might be given is in fear of overhanded threats, delays and assorted other violations of one's liberties.

No I don't think it is molestation in any form or fashion. You do give consent to be searched. The second you put your baggage on the conveyor belt to be x-rayed, you have given consent for our baggage to be thoroughly screened. The instant you step through the metal detector, you have given consent to being thoroughly screened. That is a Federal Law enacted long before Obama, Bush, or any of this other new stuff. It is called, in legalese, Implied Consent. In other words, you fully knew, prior to submitting yourself or your property, that you and your property were going to be screened, and you proceeded anyway. You gave your consent by proceeding.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Broomhead

[Guest CJK]

This is why I won't fly commercial any more. My kids are very young, and they get upset at the checkpoints already (taking off shoes, jackets, etc., rude TSA employees, etc.). There's no way I'm taking the chance that they're getting groped by the TSA.

Either I fly them myself, we take the train, or we drive.

[Krull]

When airlines tickets sales drop, they'll find a better way.

Most people in this country are sheep..........

[Chief07]

Welcome to the "New World Order".

We are losing our rights and our liberty.

Rights and liberty are a 4th ammendment right. We as Americans have the right from unreasonable search and seizure.

Normal arrests are not conducted with people grabbing your "junk" and groping.

This is going too far. This is being challanged in the courts right now. The outcome will be for the TSA

to cease this type of search.

[Glenn]

Welcome to the "New World Order".

We HAVE LOST our rights and our liberty.

Fixed that for you;)

Glenn

[Guest Broomhead]

The cases will fail miserably.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia states:

If a party gives consent to a search, a warrant is not required. There are exceptions and complications to the rule, including the scope of the consent given, whether the consent is voluntarily given, and whether an individual has the right to consent to a search of another's property.

Consent search - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia states:

Most courts have found the right to revoke consent is removed once a passenger has begun X-ray screening. In United States v. Herzbrun, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found Herzbrun “had no constitutional right to revoke his consent to a search of his bag once it entered the X-ray machine and he walked through the magnetometer.” And in United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo, the court explained that “[a] rule allowing a passenger to leave without a search after an inconclusive X-ray scan would encourage airline terrorism by providing a secure exit where detection was threatened.”