Former TSA Administrator: Body Scanners Are A Violation Of 4th Amendment

Former TSA Administrator: Body Scanners Are A Violation Of 4th Amendment, But We Have To Do Them Anyway

Rob Port
SayAnythingBlog
November 16, 2010

The 4th amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” And I think most of us would consider virtual strip searches and crotch groping to be unreasonable searches.

But according to former assistant TSA administrator Mo McGowan, the 4th amendment is just going to have to go out the window when it comes to air travel safety:



Sadly, there is some legal precedent to chucking the 4th amendment out the window for the sake of public safety. In 1990 the Rhenuist-lead Supreme Court ruled in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz that police sobriety checkpoints were a violation of the 4th amendment but that the violation was trivial in the face the state’s need to promote public safety by stopping and searching motorists without probable cause.

It wouldn’t be hard to imagine government lawyers arguing against claims that the TSA is violating our 4th amendment rights using the same argument. That the nation’s need for airline security is more important than a citizens right not to have an x-ray scan of their bodies made. Or more important than grandma’s right to fly on a plan without having her breasts fondled by a stranger.

Meaning, essentially, that our inalienable rights are entirely alienable when the government finds it convenient for the always present “greater good.”

Virtual strip searches? Granny having her breasts fondled by a stranger?! Groin groping?!?

Wow. That journalist doesn't have an agenda at all.

Ah well, when the next nutter sneaks an explosive onto an aeroplane, as those passengers plummet to their deaths, he - and they - can rest assured that their right to personal space has not been sacrificed, and the 4th amendment is safe. Phew.

Ladies and gentlemen - welcome to the 21st century. The rest of us have had to do this shit for a long time. Get over it.

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now that I got that out of the way.....

It's a fine line for me. On one hand, I see your point and agree with it. On the other hand (and this one is a biggie) is that we're searching people who have no reason to be searched. If we searched Arabic people, then it's "racial" profiling. Yet, Israel does this very thing (profile). Nobody bitches about that.

Racial profiling in the old days here (when blacks had no rights) was real profiling. Pulling them over or stopping them on the street corner for being black even though they committed no crime. It was done just for shits and giggles, so to speak.

I love how those not citizens of this country are so blithe about tossing our supreme law of the land in the shitter the moment it becomes somewhat inconvenient to observe it.

But heaven forbid we should not interpret international law to their satisfaction, or toss off that part of it (if you buy their interpretation) that puts our citizens in dire jeopardy, and then all bloody hell breaks loose and the wailing and gnashing of teeth begins because THAT law must NEVER be violated.

But the hell with our law.

Seems that something is amiss here.

Well I'm glad for you that your 250 year old Constitutional right is more important than life itself once more. Remember that if you are ever on board an aircraft with a bomber aboard that he/she hasn't been scanned because the founding fathers were not blessed with the ability to see into the future.

The one thing you keep forgetting/ignoring is that we Europeans with our much longer history where society has changed so much over a long period have learnt the hard way the limits of such a constitution. We are neither 'ignorant' nor being deliberately offensive. Your country is still very young and like most children with have to learn most lessons the hard way.

The TSA is pushing to become unionized. Today, in France, a union official declared that unions now control transportation in France. No one will travel without the unions permission.

Nice. For all those that dislike the TSA now, wait until they're unionized.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Well I'm glad for you that your 250 year old Constitutional right is more important than life itself once more. Remember that if you are ever on board an aircraft with a bomber aboard that he/she hasn't been scanned because the founding fathers were not blessed with the ability to see into the future.

As it happens, we have the oldest such constitution in the world. It is these constitutional rights that have kept our government (so far) from repeating the mistakes of all those European societies from the evils that have been visited upon them for centuries. We deliberately placed a premium on individual liberty and the unalienable rights of those individuals. We have a means of finding the most likely persons to commit another bombing on an aircraft, but this is not being employed because of political correctness and for no other reason.

There is NO WAY that pulling every 10th passenger from a line and sexually assaulting them is going to catch the ONE person that would willingly bomb a plane! This is just utter nonsense. We KNOW who the most likely suspects are, in fact we know the ONLY persons who have actually attempted to commit such an act. They are NOT Caucasian grandmothers, children, women or even men. And yet these are the people being pulled out of line by random and being treated like common criminals with extremely offensive and invasive "pat downs" which actually involve the touching of the genitalia of these people, or exposing them to a radiological device that takes pictures that are extremely revealing as has been seen from such pictures as have already been released on the web.

We pull a Caucasian juvenile from a line, and the person behind that child is someone who fits in all ways the profile of the persons who have committed these acts of terrorism and let them go by; how on freaking earth does this make our flights safer???

We are randomly inspecting people without ANY regard to the profile of the very people who committed these acts of terrorism... this is just pure insanity. And in doing so, we are tossing out the 4th Amendment rights of ALL Americans.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:The one thing you keep forgetting/ignoring is that we Europeans with our much longer history where society has changed so much over a long period have learnt the hard way the limits of such a constitution. We are neither 'ignorant' nor being deliberately offensive. Your country is still very young and like most children with have to learn most lessons the hard way.

The one thing you keep forgetting/ignoring is that we American's with our much longer history of freedom from government oppression and abuses, do not blithely surrender our freedoms at the first challenge. We do not have a history (well, we didn't until recently) of seeking security at the expense of liberty. While our country may be young, our form of government is historically quite long in the tooth. There have been few true free republics that have survived this long without self destructing (including the Roman Republic, which was truly free for but a short span of time).

Your nation still has a monarchy which, as toothless as it has become, is yet there. Our constitution does not have the limits you suppose as contained within it are the mechanisms for it's evolution. But these mechanisms are NOT being used; rather unscrupulous politicians and jurists are seeking to evade those mechanisms by imposing their agendas in violation of that document.

As I have said many, MANY, times... I hearken back to the words of Jefferson: "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

Europe has a long history with the truth of Jefferson's words, America is only now beginning to realize this truth; and they are only now fighting back against the realization of this sad truth.

I can only hope that the American people are now paying heed to Jefferson's words, the survival of our Republic depends on it.

dblboggie wrote:There is NO WAY that pulling every 10th passenger from a line and sexually assaulting them

Is this what constitutes a serious point?

Thanks for not answering the question (again). Every time I ask it (that is whether your constitution is more important than a single human life) you give me a 50 page essay about how great it is to have your constitution and how awful things must be in Europe because we don't have one.

dblboggie wrote:hile our country may be young, our form of government is historically quite long in the tooth. There have been few true free republics that have survived this long without self destructing (including the Roman Republic, which was truly free for but a short span of time).

You keep forgetting you are talking to an actual historian. The Roman Republic lasted some 500 years. Yours half that time so far.

dblboggie wrote:Your nation still has a monarchy which, as toothless as it has become, is yet there.

The monarch has not made laws for over 300 years. That is why were are actually a Parliamentary democracy.

dblboggie wrote:I can only hope that the American people are now paying heed to Jefferson's words, the survival of our Republic depends on it.

And I still say the opposite is true. Your "tragedy of the commons" where you put your freedoms above ethics, above responsibility and descend into destructive and self-absorbed hubris will be your undoing. And hubris and stagnation have ended more empires than government tyranny. Because people have a habit of fighting back against tyrants. It has happened here and in every European country despite you have it in your head that we have never known freedom and never fought back against oppressive governments.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:There is NO WAY that pulling every 10th passenger from a line and sexually assaulting them

Is this what constitutes a serious point?

Well, as the sentence is cut mid-stride, I guess not. But if you read the rest of the sentence, yes, it does constitute a serious point. And if you think that these passengers are not being sexually assaulted, then you don't know the legal definition of sexual assault. These TSA agents are putting their hand on peoples genitals, they are getting close, they are touching them!

We were doing fine with the security measures we already had in place, this gross escalation is not just offensive, it is also unconstitutional. There are ways to increase security without having agents touching our genitals. We know who we are looking for. But political correctness will not allow our agents to submit them to closer scrutiny. Instead, they subject 80-year-old grandmothers, 3-year-olds, nuns, and the like to these offensive measures.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Thanks for not answering the question (again). Every time I ask it (that is whether your constitution is more important than a single human life) you give me a 50 page essay about how great it is to have your constitution and how awful things must be in Europe because we don't have one.

First of all, you did NOT ask me if I thought our constitution is more important that a single human life!!! THIS is the comment of yours that I was responding to:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Well I'm glad for you that your 250 year old Constitutional right is more important than life itself once more. Remember that if you are ever on board an aircraft with a bomber aboard that he/she hasn't been scanned because the founding fathers were not blessed with the ability to see into the future.

And to answer your question (which I HAVE answered many times before)... YES!!!!! That is an unequivocal, absolute, unambiguous, unadulterated YES! YES, I do believe our constitution is more important that a single life!!!

Why do you think all those early Americans fought and died to establish it????? Why do you think American soldiers take an oath to uphold and defend it??? And then go to war to fight and die for it?

What on earth do you think our constitution is, a few pages of helpful suggestions "but hey, if it becomes too inconvenient just toss the sucker out" kind of thing??? How about that whole concept of unalienable rights??? What if THAT becomes too inconvenient to observe??? Where does one stop???

I cannot for the life of me even conceive of what you must be thinking asking me if I think our constitution is worth a single life! OF COURSE IT IS!!!

I hope I have now put to rest where I stand on the importance and value of our constitution once and for all.

dblboggie wrote:hile our country may be young, our form of government is historically quite long in the tooth. There have been few true free republics that have survived this long without self destructing (including the Roman Republic, which was truly free for but a short span of time).

You keep forgetting you are talking to an actual historian. The Roman Republic lasted some 500 years. Yours half that time so far.[/quote]

A little less than 500 years, but yes, you are right. Officially Rome was a "republic" until about 27 BCE.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Your nation still has a monarchy which, as toothless as it has become, is yet there.

The monarch has not made laws for over 300 years. That is why were are actually a Parliamentary democracy.

I understand, but I was more interested in making the point that our constitution has within it the mechanisms for its evolution, but we have politicians and jurists who seek to ignore those mechanisms by imposing their extra-constitutional will through executive, legislative and legal fiat.

dblboggie wrote:I can only hope that the American people are now paying heed to Jefferson's words, the survival of our Republic depends on it.

And I still say the opposite is true. Your "tragedy of the commons" where you put your freedoms above ethics, above responsibility and descend into destructive and self-absorbed hubris will be your undoing. And hubris and stagnation have ended more empires than government tyranny. Because people have a habit of fighting back against tyrants. It has happened here and in every European country despite you have it in your head that we have never known freedom and never fought back against oppressive governments.[/quote]

The only hubris that will be this nation's undoing is the hubris of those elected and appointed officials of the federal government who believe they know better than the people they are supposed to serve. THESE are the very people that Jefferson warns of. THEY are the people who will, by slow operations (operations that have been underway here for the last 100 years), pervert this republic into a tyranny.

You do, however make a valid point, stagnation, or actually, better put, complacency and apathy on the part of the electorate is what will allow those politicians and bureaucrats to pervert the republic into a tyranny.

dblboggie wrote:Well, as the sentence is cut mid-stride, I guess not.

I only cut it off because that is where you lost all credibility.

dblboggie wrote:YES! YES, I do believe our constitution is more important that a single life!!!

Thanks for the answer but I find it abhorrent.

dblboggie wrote:Why do you think all those early Americans fought and died to establish it????? Why do you think American soldiers take an oath to uphold and defend it??? And then go to war to fight and die for it?

What on earth do you think our constitution is, a few pages of helpful suggestions "but hey, if it becomes too inconvenient just toss the sucker out" kind of thing??? How about that whole concept of unalienable rights??? What if THAT becomes too inconvenient to observe??? Where does one stop???

One ought to stop when that document becomes more sacrosanct than life itself. Clearly that is not enough for you.

dblboggie wrote:A little less than 500 years, but yes, you are right. Officially Rome was a "republic" until about 27 BCE.

And an empire for the next 4 centuries or so. So Rome lasted in various forms, splits and reunifications for 900 years. Its transformation to an empire came as a result of stagnation of the senate. Its eventual collapse as an empire was as a result of many factors too many to get into here.

dblboggie wrote:I understand, but I was more interested in making the point that our constitution has within it the mechanisms for its evolution, but we have politicians and jurists who seek to ignore those mechanisms by imposing their extra-constitutional will through executive, legislative and legal fiat.

I know that. But isn't it incredibly difficult to get an amendment passed, or another removed? We may not have a constitution in the form that you have it, but we have an informal set of laws covering 800 years that make ours up, so I want to hear less of this nonsense that we in Europe all live without any freedom whatsoever.

dblboggie wrote:The only hubris that will be this nation's undoing is the hubris of those elected and appointed officials of the federal government who believe they know better than the people they are supposed to serve. THESE are the very people that Jefferson warns of. THEY are the people who will, by slow operations (operations that have been underway here for the last 100 years), pervert this republic into a tyranny.

You do, however make a valid point, stagnation, or actually, better put, complacency and apathy on the part of the electorate is what will allow those politicians and bureaucrats to pervert the republic into a tyranny.

I meant stagnation or for want of a better word, refusal to change in the face of the world changing around them. It is how Alexander managed to conquer the Greek Polis. It is how Genghis Khan managed to create the largest empire the world has ever known.

dblboggie wrote:

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:There is NO WAY that pulling every 10th passenger from a line and sexually assaulting them

Is this what constitutes a serious point?

Well, as the sentence is cut mid-stride, I guess not. But if you read the rest of the sentence, yes, it does constitute a serious point. And if you think that these passengers are not being sexually assaulted, then you don't know the legal definition of sexual assault. These TSA agents are putting their hand on peoples genitals, they are getting close, they are touching them!

I find it funny how you choose to accept legal definition of words when it is convenient to you. Water boarding is not torture to you, even though it is legally defined as such, yet something like this is sexual assault because of its legal definition.

Why is all this a problem?
If you fly very often for your business then it shouldn't bother you (you should be accustomed to it)
If you fly 2 times a year--probably for holiday/vacation travel--it shouldn't bother you (2 time a year is nothing!)

Who is left? Some guy that flies around the world for no reason?

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:Why is all this a problem?
If you fly very often for your business then it shouldn't bother you (you should be accustomed to it)
If you fly 2 times a year--probably for holiday/vacation travel--it shouldn't bother you (2 time a year is nothing!)

Who is left? Some guy that flies around the world for no reason?

You want someone groping your nuts looking for a bomb?

Sure it's intrusive.

But if people fly a lot because their job requires it, then the whole scanner/pat-down should be routine. If you complain about something you know is going to happen and takes a short time, then it's on you for causing the problem.

For a person like me that travels maybe twice a year, why would I even worry about something like this? If I'm worrying about something that takes up at most 20 minutes in a year then I got a problem!

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:Sure it's intrusive.

But if people fly a lot because their job requires it, then the whole scanner/pat-down should be routine. If you complain about something you know is going to happen and takes a short time, then it's on you for causing the problem.

For a person like me that travels maybe twice a year, why would I even worry about something like this? If I'm worrying about something that takes up at most 20 minutes in a year then I got a problem!

It's intrusive but in the wrong way. We expect this kind of stuff if you're arrested by the police... even if you're innocent. In this case, you're presumed to be a "terrorist" with no counsel.

The point I made earlier is how we avoid doing what we actually should be doing: profiling. Yeah, there's that evil word. It's not profiling like the southerners did in the 1900's to blacks in the south. Blacks were profiled for being black. Let's pull that black guy over and get him on something even if we have to make something up.

This whole thing with the TSA, the scanners and pat downs is bullshit and a waste of time. Now I'm sure people will say that I'm saying we should just test our luck wit being hijacked. No. I'm saying to look at the people who are the ones who are going to pull this crap. Metal detectors and that kind of thing were around before 9-11. No problem.

This is a different world after 9-11. I'm sorry but Arabs from Saudi Arabia killed 3,000 of my fellow citizens, not some dude from California who's flying to South Dakota.

It's not bigoted. It's just fact.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Well, as the sentence is cut mid-stride, I guess not.

I only cut it off because that is where you lost all credibility.

Really? So you think that pulling people by random from a line, 3-year-old children, 80-year-old grandmothers, nuns and priests and the like and subjecting them to a “pat down” that involves touching their genitals is something that actually enhances our security?

If I were to do the same thing, I would be arrested for sexual assault, because that is what it is. What these TSA agents are doing is sexual assault made legal by the usurpation of our fourth amendment rights by bureaucratic fiat.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:YES! YES, I do believe our constitution is more important that a single life!!!

Thanks for the answer but I find it abhorrent.

You find fighting for a principle abhorrent? Just how different are our two cultures??? You are probably going to argue the point that we should let this little thing slide in the interests of the greater good. It is clear you consider the violation of our constitution as mere trifle. I confess that I cannot wrap my wits around this caviler attitude toward the supreme law of the land. If we took your position, we would soon have no constitution at all. After all, where would it end? We have already seen a significant erosion of rights and freedoms enshrined in this document over the last century. This is yet another attack on those freedoms in the name of “security.”

One of our nation’s founders had another perspective on what you propose, his name was Benjamin Franklin. He said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What we are doing at our airports only buys us temporary safety (at best, at worst it is a useless exercise) at the expense of surrendering our liberties under the fourth amendment. What do we do when the terrorists switch their targets to our trains, our buses, our malls? Will we be subjected to more highly invasive and offensive “pat downs” to utilize these facilities? Where does it end? Will we have pat-downs at our theatres and restaurants? After all, suicide bombers have been known to target these places.

Sadly, I fear this is not far off. The first time a suicide bomber strikes any of these targets, all bets are off on our essential freedoms. We will not focus our attention on the people we KNOW are the perpetrators of these vicious and bloody acts of war. No, we will assault all American’s freedoms in the name of “security,” destroying both in the process.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Why do you think all those early Americans fought and died to establish it????? Why do you think American soldiers take an oath to uphold and defend it??? And then go to war to fight and die for it?

What on earth do you think our constitution is, a few pages of helpful suggestions "but hey, if it becomes too inconvenient just toss the sucker out" kind of thing??? How about that whole concept of unalienable rights??? What if THAT becomes too inconvenient to observe??? Where does one stop???

One ought to stop when that document becomes more sacrosanct than life itself. Clearly that is not enough for you.

People fought and died to establish that “document” as you put it. That document is not a piece of paper, it is an ideal that made possible the most prosperous and free nation on earth.

That ideal had better be more sacrosanct that any one person’s life, given that so many died to create it, and in light of what it hath wrought. If we permit the exigencies of today to destroy it, then we may as well fold our hand on freedom itself.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:A little less than 500 years, but yes, you are right. Officially Rome was a "republic" until about 27 BCE.

And an empire for the next 4 centuries or so. So Rome lasted in various forms, splits and reunifications for 900 years. Its transformation to an empire came as a result of stagnation of the senate. Its eventual collapse as an empire was as a result of many factors too many to get into here.

It’s transformation into an empire was not as a result of the stagnation of the Senate but because of the civil war between Pompey and Caesar. The Senate resisted the usurpation of their powers, even going so far as assassinating Caesar. Sadly, the die had been cast. Of course this brutally simplifies what was a very complex political and military process. I just don’t see that it was “stagnation” in the sense that you use it here that played a significant role in Rome’s transformation from Republic to Empire.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I understand, but I was more interested in making the point that our constitution has within it the mechanisms for its evolution, but we have politicians and jurists who seek to ignore those mechanisms by imposing their extra-constitutional will through executive, legislative and legal fiat.

I know that. But isn't it incredibly difficult to get an amendment passed, or another removed? We may not have a constitution in the form that you have it, but we have an informal set of laws covering 800 years that make ours up, so I want to hear less of this nonsense that we in Europe all live without any freedom whatsoever.

Yes, it is very difficult to get an amendment passed. It is that way on purpose. Our founders knew that there would be those who would seek to subvert of the will of the people by the alteration of that document and so they made sure that the process would actually represent the will of the vast majority of the people, in whom all the power of our government is supposed to reside.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:The only hubris that will be this nation's undoing is the hubris of those elected and appointed officials of the federal government who believe they know better than the people they are supposed to serve. THESE are the very people that Jefferson warns of. THEY are the people who will, by slow operations (operations that have been underway here for the last 100 years), pervert this republic into a tyranny.

You do, however make a valid point, stagnation, or actually, better put, complacency and apathy on the part of the electorate is what will allow those politicians and bureaucrats to pervert the republic into a tyranny.

I meant stagnation or for want of a better word, refusal to change in the face of the world changing around them. It is how Alexander managed to conquer the Greek Polis. It is how Genghis Khan managed to create the largest empire the world has ever known.

That is NOT our problem. We have changed dramatically over the last century. Our constitution has been reduced to a mere collection of suggestions and it has become even more irrelevant under this current administration. Our country has lurched farther left under Obama than at anytime since FDR and before him Hoover.

Sorry Matt, but a refusal to change is the least of our problems. Complacency, apathy and ignorance on the part of the electorate and power-hungry politicians who ignore the constitution are our greatest problems.

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine

Harriet Baskas
MSNBC
Nov. 20, 2010

A retired special education teacher on his way to a wedding in Orlando, Fla., said he was left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an enhanced pat-down by TSA officers recently at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

“I was absolutely humiliated, I couldn’t even speak,” said Thomas D. “Tom” Sawyer, 61, of Lansing, Mich.

Sawyer is a bladder cancer survivor who now wears a urostomy bag, which collects his urine from a stoma, or opening in his stomach. “I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes.”

On Nov. 7, Sawyer said he went through the security scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. “Evidently the scanner picked up on my urostomy bag, because I was chosen for a pat-down procedure.”

Due to his medical condition, Sawyer asked to be screened in private. “One officer looked at another, rolled his eyes and said that they really didn’t have any place to take me,” said Sawyer. “After I said again that I’d like privacy, they took me to an office.”

Sawyer wears pants two sizes too large in order to accommodate the medical equipment he wears. He’d taken off his belt to go through the scanner and once in the office with security personnel, his pants fell down around his ankles. “I had to ask twice if it was OK to pull up my shorts,” said Sawyer, “And every time I tried to tell them about my medical condition, they said they didn’t need to know about that.”

Before starting the enhanced pat-down procedure, a security officer did tell him what they were going to do and how they were going to it, but Sawyer said it wasn’t until they asked him to remove his sweatshirt and saw his urostomy bag that they asked any questions about his medical condition.

“One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me. Sure enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants.”

The security officer finished the pat-down, tested the gloves for any trace of explosives and then, Sawyer said, “He told me I could go. They never apologized. They never offered to help. They acted like they hadn’t seen what happened. But I know they saw it because I had a wet mark.”

Humiliated, upset and wet, Sawyer said he had to walk through the airport soaked in urine, board his plane and wait until after takeoff before he could clean up.

“I am totally appalled by the fact that agents that are performing these pat-downs have so little concern for people with medical conditions,” said Sawyer.

Sawyer completed his trip and had no problems with the security procedures at the Orlando International Airport on his journey back home. He said he plans to file a formal complaint with the TSA.

When he does, said TSA spokesperson Dwayne Baird, “We will review the matter and take appropriate action if necessary.” In the meantime, Baird encourages anyone with a medical condition to read the TSA’s website section on assistive devices and mobility aids.

The website says that travelers with disabilities and medical conditions have “the option of requesting a private screening” and that security officers “will not ask nor require you to remove your prosthetic device, cast, or support brace.”

Sawyer said he's written to his senators, state representatives and the president of the United States. He’s also shared details of the incident online with members of the nonprofit Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network, many of whom have offered support and shared their travel experiences.

“I am a good American and I want safety for all passengers as much as the next person," Sawyer said. "But if this country is going to sacrifice treating people like human beings in the name of safety, then we have already lost the war.”

Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network executive director Claire Saxton said that there are hundreds of thousands of people living with ostomies in the United States. “TSA agents need to be trained to listen when someone tells them have a health issue and trained in knowing what an ostomy is. No one living with an ostomy should be afraid of flying because they’re afraid of being humiliated at the checkpoint.”

Eric Lipp, executive director of Open Doors Association, which works with businesses and the disability community, called what happened to Sawyer “unfortunate.”

“But enhanced pat-downs are not a new issue for people with disabilities who travel," Lipp said. "They've always had trouble getting through the security checkpoint."

Still, Lipp said the TSA knows there’s a problem. “This came up during a recent meeting of the agency’s disability advisory board and I expect to see a procedure coming in place shortly that will directly address the pat-down procedures for people with disabilities.”

What I find hilarious is that the people who always resort to the "well you don't have to shop there/use their services" are now making this a big deal even though you can choose not to fly. Whenever I say something about working conditions or low wages at companies like WalMart, there is always the line "you don't have to shop there, and the workers don't have to work there".
Now people are complaining about this, even though they don't have to fly, there are alternatives (granted they're less efficient and take more time).

He should file a complaint and those TSA Agents should get into trouble. I understand why they searched him closer though, you don't think about a bladder problem when you notice that somebody has a bag on his body after all. But when somebody tries to explain to you that he has a medical condition you should pay a little more attention to him. Obviously you have to finish the pat-down, since every terrorist would probably say that they have some kind of a medical condition, but a little more respect and care would be appropriate.

dblboggie wrote:Really? So you think that pulling people by random from a line, 3-year-old children, 80-year-old grandmothers, nuns and priests and the like and subjecting them to a “pat down” that involves touching their genitals is something that actually enhances our security?

Aside from the rhetoric in this scaremongering article, what evidence do you have they are deliberately targeting people's genitals?

dblboggie wrote:You find fighting for a principle abhorrent? Just how different are our two cultures???

Clearly you have little regard for human life if you are prepared to put principles above a single one.

dblboggie wrote:You are probably going to argue the point that we should let this little thing slide in the interests of the greater good. It is clear you consider the violation of our constitution as mere trifle. I confess that I cannot wrap my wits around this caviler attitude toward the supreme law of the land.

When it is in conflict with human life, what price compassion? How far do things have to go before you stop and think "is this law/principle really more important than a single human life"?

dblboggie wrote:If we took your position, we would soon have no constitution at all. After all, where would it end? We have already seen a significant erosion of rights and freedoms enshrined in this document over the last century. This is yet another attack on those freedoms in the name of “security.”

Well you have made it quite clear that your law is more important than life itself. When we are all dead, your laws, your economy and your society won't mean a thing.

dblboggie wrote:One of our nation’s founders had another perspective on what you propose, his name was Benjamin Franklin. He said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

We are talking about a pat down before a flight to ensure passengers are not carrying explosives. Franklin did not perceive such a situation. And so what if he said that? He isn't a demi-god, he was a human being just like you and I. Marx claimed that serfdom still existed in Russia in 1900, that doesn't make it true. And we both have the benefit of living in 2010 that Franklin did not.

Your rhetoric about sexual assault is still an emotive response.

dblboggie wrote:What we are doing at our airports only buys us temporary safety (at best, at worst it is a useless exercise) at the expense of surrendering our liberties under the fourth amendment. What do we do when the terrorists switch their targets to our trains, our buses, our malls? Will we be subjected to more highly invasive and offensive “pat downs” to utilize these facilities? Where does it end? Will we have pat-downs at our theatres and restaurants? After all, suicide bombers have been known to target these places.

Living in a country that has lived with the threat of terrorist attacks for about a century, we are used to being searched. Many IRA attacks were stopped because of this but hey, why not let people die in the name of their freedoms? People being bombed in shopping centres or going to work can live happily knowing that there fourth amendment rights were preserved and it could have been stopped by a simple search of that shifty looking guy at the airport or bus station. Again, when does human life become more important than a principle? There needs to be a balance between civil liberties and national security.

dblboggie wrote:It’s transformation into an empire was not as a result of the stagnation of the Senate but because of the civil war between Pompey and Caesar. The Senate resisted the usurpation of their powers, even going so far as assassinating Caesar. Sadly, the die had been cast. Of course this brutally simplifies what was a very complex political and military process. I just don’t see that it was “stagnation” in the sense that you use it here that played a significant role in Rome’s transformation from Republic to Empire.

You forget (or were not aware of) the conflict between Marius and Sulla and the situation that led to Gaius Julius Caesar starting a career in politics in the first place (Marius was his uncle). Sulla won that civil war and reacted by giving the power back to the self-serving senate and let them carry on lining their own pockets in their own self interest. Nothing changed, the senate did not learn the lesson. Cicero may speak ill of Caesar but Cicero was part of the conservative establishment that championed the principles of "SPQR" as an ideal that really had stopped working a long time before. I've studied this formally btw, I am well versed in the collapse of the Republic.

dblboggie wrote:That is NOT our problem. We have changed dramatically over the last century. Our constitution has been reduced to a mere collection of suggestions and it has become even more irrelevant under this current administration. Our country has lurched farther left under Obama than at anytime since FDR and before him Hoover.

Sorry Matt, but a refusal to change is the least of our problems. Complacency, apathy and ignorance on the part of the electorate and power-hungry politicians who ignore the constitution are our greatest problems.

"but a refusal to change is the least of our problems. Complacency, apathy and ignorance on the part of the electorate" those three are part of the refusal to change and perhaps, the reason for it.

BubbleBliss wrote:
What I find hilarious is that the people who always resort to the "well you don't have to shop there/use their services" are now making this a big deal even though you can choose not to fly. Whenever I say something about working conditions or low wages at companies like WalMart, there is always the line "you don't have to shop there, and the workers don't have to work there".
Now people are complaining about this, even though they don't have to fly, there are alternatives (granted they're less efficient and take more time).

Big difference between a Walmart employee and a gov't employee here. If this were a private company doing this, they'd be off the roles already. But since it's gov't, no.

And you're right. We don't have to fly. There's no right to fly.

On two network news broadcasts last night, there was a story of a female cancer survivor who had a prosthesis breast after a mastectomy. The TSA agent kept moving it around with her hands and asked the woman, "What is this"?

When the passenger (a 51 year old woman) told the TSA agent what it was, the passenger was told that she would have to show it to the TSA agent, and pulled her out of line to a place where the woman could take her shirt of and show them it was a fake breast. This is pure BS. Even the left wingers over at Huffington Post (where I read more on this) are getting pissed off at all this TSA shit.

Well what can you do? Take her word and let her go? Those guys have to consider every possible situation, they're not just gonna take your word for it.

Well, a private company doesn't have a reason to search you thoroughly like a TSA Agent.

Neither does a TSA agent. There's no excuse for groping private body parts.

You Europeans are alone in this American liberals are as incensed by all of this as the righties are.