The TSA's Junk Gets Fluffed

Effluvia

Ted Frank is an attorney and prolific writer. He contributes at Overlawyered and PointofLaw.com and runs the Center for Class Action Fairness. Now, thanks to Scott Greenfield, I see that Ted has opened a new blog to document TSA abuses (a topic we've written about quite a bit recently). It's called, appropriately enough, the TSA Abuse Blog. Keep an eye on it if the issue interests you.

I'm glad that Ted Frank, and people like him, are documenting the TSA, because the dead-tree media is doing a rather inconsistent job. Despite evidence of pervasive problems — from humiliations driven by brutal indifference to deliberate misconduct — many members of the chattering classes continue to tell Americans they ought to just shut up and take it. For every account, they have a dismissive response.

So when Mary in Texas, one of the Americans whose stories have been gathered by the ACLU, gives this account:

The TSA agent used her hands to feel under and between my breasts. She then rammed her hand up into my crotch until it jammed into my pubic bone…. I was touched in the pubic region in between my labia…. She then moved her hand across my pubic region and down the inner part of my upper thigh to the floor. She repeated this procedure on the other side. I was shocked and broke into tears.
- Mary in Texas

. . . the Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal is there to tell Mary that she is a big crybaby.

At what point did Americans turn into a nation of crybabies? Surely it preceded the sudden squall-fest resulting from new security measures at some U.S. airports — although the fuss kicked up over the weekend and continuing into this busiest of travel weeks has been loud enough to get everyone's attention.

When Paula tells this story:

She ran her hands all the way up and into my crotch with force. To get graphic she could have felt if I had a feminine pad on. When she finished with the front she did the same with my back to the point that she, what I would call groped, my butt. She went under, in between, and on my breast. It was more intense than my monthly breast exam.
- Paula M. Hamilton, Corydon, Indiana

. . . the New York Times is there to tell her she is a partisan hack:

Some individual pat-downs have gone too far, and the T.S.A. was ham-handed in answering those concerns. But the Obama administration should weather this storm by realizing these attacks are purely partisan and ideological. Americans know the difference between a big scanner and big government.

When Melissa takes this story:

I was shaking and crying the entire time. I was begging them to hurry up but they kept stopping and telling me to calm down. It is impossible to gain composure when a stranger has her hands in your underwear. A crowd gathered and watched and I never felt so humiliated. After it was over, I ran into the ladies' room where I vomited and cried until my plane was boarding.
- Melissa, Massachusetts

. . . my hometown rag, the L.A. Times, is there to tell her to shut up:

If you can't handle such a minor inconvenience, perhaps you should stay on the ground.

When "B. from Maryland" tells this story:

Simply, I was sexually assaulted. My breasts were caressed in an almost amorous manner. And on the second canvassing of my groin, single-finger pressure was applied to my labia majora – the plane of which was near-broken, during which the agent made a wildly off-color remark.
- B. from Maryland

The Houston Chronicle is there to call her a hysteric:

The hysterical hullabaloo over airport security procedures is a waste of time

The world's in a swivet over airport security.

When Charlotte in California tells this story:

This was a very different and, I maintain, a deliberately abusive experience…. the agent not only felt the inside of my upper thighs but also probed my vagina three separate times. I made it to the end of the search, but then broke down…I cannot and will not allow this to happen to me again…. I continue to have nightmares about this experience.
- Charlotte in California, female, 68

. . . the Baltimore Sun's response is to ask her why she hates America and our troops:

Whatever happened to the notion that we need to stick together to overcome extremists? U.S. soldiers are still dying for that cause in Iraq and Afghanistan on a regular basis.

And when Caitlin in Conecticut tells this story:

I was the only female in a crowd of men. Even though I was not next in line, I was called over to the body scanner. As I got closer to the scanner, I could clearly hear him say "got a cute one, some DD's." … I was appalled and decided at that point to "opt out" of the scanner…. I was then put through the pat down procedure which I only can only describe as sexual assault.
- Caitlin, Connecticut

. . . the Tennessean is there to tell her that being singled out for scans for the sexual titillation and amusement of TSA agents will make us all safer:

The enhanced screenings are necessary to avert a situation in which a would-be terrorist attempts to hide weaponry under his clothing.

Also, Ruth Marcus at the Washington post would like to add that all of these people should just grow up, shut up, and pretend you're at the doctor:

"Don't touch my junk" may be the cri de coeur – cri de crotch? – of the post-9/11 world, but it's an awfully childish one. We let people touch our junk all the time in medical settings.

Remind me, again, why I should give a shit that the newspaper industry is dying and these people will all be unemployed? Sooner or later, the state is going to have to find fluffers someplace else.

Regrettably, it can probably find its fluffers reliably in the blogosphere. It's tempting to try to frame this as a fight between statist mainstream media figures and liberty-defending bloggers. But the truth is that bloggers — small and large — are just as likely to be government-apologist, dissent-belittling assholes as mainstream journalists are — that's a point clear from a wide array of bloggers from the Koch-sniffers at The Nation to Marc Thiessen at The Corner willing to minimize, marginalize, and dismiss dissent and parrot the government message.

That's why blogs like Ted Frank's new one are important. Check it out.

(Hat tip to Reason's Hit & Run Blog for the excellent job it has done collecting the sneers of the newspapers — they gathered all of the newspaper quotes above.)

Last 5 posts by Ken

28 Comments

25 Comments

  1. Lynn  •  Nov 26, 2010 @10:43 am

    We were prepared to opt-out, but, like many others, just avoided the scanners. At MSP yesterday I'd guess 80% of passengers were waiting 30-45 min to go through the metal detectors vs. going through checkpoints with scanners, which had almost no wait.

    I hate reading all the stories about things like ostomy bags bursting (and Pistole calling to apologize), adult diapers being felt on the inside or asked to be removed for inspection, etc.

  2. Lynn  •  Nov 26, 2010 @10:53 am
  3. Mike  •  Nov 26, 2010 @2:47 pm

    I wonder if this is what it felt like to be an average German in the mid/late 1930s, watching organizations like the Gestapo and the SS assume increasing power? Never thought I'd see it happen here. For shame.

  4. Ancel De Lambert  •  Nov 26, 2010 @2:57 pm

    I wrote about this just yesterday. I was dismayed to see that not one article at the LA Times was opposed to the TSA's practices. Over at Fox News, same thing, just misleading titles to make you THINK they oppose it. Why exactly should we support national news sources?

  5. Base of the Pillar  •  Nov 26, 2010 @3:02 pm

    Change that I can believe in is imminent. I can feel it as sure as they can feel me.

  6. Scott Jacobs  •  Nov 26, 2010 @6:32 pm
  7. Jennifer  •  Nov 26, 2010 @6:34 pm

    Whoopi calls “We Won’t Fly” founders terrorists.

    See, TSA might rape people, but it's not rape-rape.

  8. Scott Jacobs  •  Nov 26, 2010 @11:09 pm
  9. MOG  •  Nov 27, 2010 @12:53 am

    Not that I'm in favor of all this TSA invasion in general, but I'm having trouble understanding how all this groping is better than just going through the scanner. They are so worried about having someone see their junk on a monitor, and therefore would rather have someone grab it?

  10. Scott Jacobs  •  Nov 27, 2010 @1:33 am

    MOG – It's the fact that a) some aren't so sure that there are no health risks (you know, because they have never been wrong about this stuff) and b) the images can be saved while some stranger coping a feel doesn't leave a permanent record that can end up on a website.

  11. Ken  •  Nov 27, 2010 @9:23 am

    Scott, was that post two back an attempted link? I tried to fix it for you, but there's no URL.

  12. Jennifer  •  Nov 27, 2010 @10:45 am

    I’m having trouble understanding how all this groping is better than just going through the scanner.

    It's similar to how "walking everywhere in Birmingham" was better than "just sitting in the back of the bus."

  13. Scott Jacobs  •  Nov 27, 2010 @3:46 pm
  14. MOG  •  Nov 27, 2010 @6:55 pm

    Scott – I understand about the possible health risks, and I certainly do not discount that concern, but the issue about the scanned image somehow ending up on some website is a bit overblown. 1. it's very difficult to discern the facial features in the scanned image, 2. It's not like what's depicted is significantly different from any other person of the same sex.
    To the extent people have undergone such horrific incidents related to the TSA search, I gotta believe the memory of having your colostomy bag compromised or your prosthetic breast removed, or you labia fondled by a TSA worker is a much more painful memory than having your scanned figure put out over the internet. And do you think your scanned image carries that much weight that someone will put it out on the net to "embarrass" you. Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise, sure … but they likely deserve it.

  15. Scott Jacobs  •  Nov 27, 2010 @7:52 pm

    MOG,

    You do realize that the pics showing up on websites have had the faces blurred after the fact, right?

    And it isn't that the anti-backscatter people are pro grope-down. It's that they are anti-both, but the groping is less likely to give you cancer.

    When given two (I believe) warrant-less and invasive search methods, I would pick the one that a) makes it less likely for me to develope an illness and b) gives me a chance to make the dumb-ass "who is just following orders" uncomfortable.

    That means that until I get my hands on some erectile dysfunction pills, I'm going to pick "moaning and thrusting my hips during the pat-down".

  16. Scott Jacobs  •  Nov 27, 2010 @7:54 pm

    "Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise, sure … but they likely deserve it."

    And I know you meant that as a joke, but no. No they don't deserve that. They have a right to privacy same as you or I. If they wanted their junk out there for all to see, they'd pose for the shots, not by a ticket on United.

    Just because my pics are less likely to end up in someone's spank-bank doesn't mean I like the idea any more.

  17. Mike  •  Nov 28, 2010 @7:58 am

    "To the extent people have undergone such horrific incidents related to the TSA search, I gotta believe the memory of having your colostomy bag compromised or your prosthetic breast removed, or you labia fondled by a TSA worker is a much more painful memory than having your scanned figure put out over the internet."

    I can't speak to every citizen who's concerned about these practices by the TSA, but for my part, the question I ask is, "Why does it have to be one or the other? Could I perhaps NOT be photographed naked and also NOT receive a free erotic massage?" Given that there's anemic evidence that the airport "security" measures actually add any value, perhaps we should not keep ramping up the civil rights violations in an effort to demonstrate to the public that "we wouldn't be doing something so hideously offensive and inappropriate unless it were absolutely necessary, right? You believe me, right? Pretty please?"

  18. Jennifer  •  Nov 28, 2010 @10:44 am

    I've been a cynic and a pessimist ever since I was old enough to know what those words mean, yet even I'm surprised by how low we've sunk — here in America. the Land of the Free, it is now controversial for people to say "I do not think government agents have the right to feel me up or photograph me nude just because I want to travel."

  19. Mike  •  Nov 28, 2010 @11:57 am

    Remind me, again, why I should give a shit that the newspaper industry is dying and these people will all be unemployed?

    I often wonder about an industry that ignores the opinion of 30% to 50% of its potential customer base.

    The Dallas Morning News had a similar editorial An irrational protest is no way to persuasively make the case for common-sense changes.

  20. Mike  •  Nov 28, 2010 @11:59 am
  21. Scott Jacobs  •  Nov 28, 2010 @7:07 pm
  22. SPQR  •  Nov 28, 2010 @7:20 pm

    That means that until I get my hands on some erectile dysfunction pills, I’m going to pick “moaning and thrusting my hips during the pat-down”.

    Ha! Another XKCD fan.

  23. Scott Jacobs  •  Nov 28, 2010 @8:11 pm

    There was doubt? I'm the guy that made an OotS reference, for heaven's sake…

  24. Little A  •  Nov 30, 2010 @7:14 am

    I think it should be noted that some people haven't opted out of the scanners and gotten the pat down instead – they got both. I think the guy with the urostomy bag got a pat down because the scanner picked up the anomaly of the bag. I read a blog posting where a cloth menstrual pad was picked up on the scanner and got the woman subjected to an indecent patdown and questions about the pad. So even if you submit to a nudie pic, you may also get sexually assaulted.

  25. Mike De Lucia  •  Nov 30, 2010 @7:25 am

    Christine O'Donnell has taken her share of (well-deserved) shots here on Popehat, but this morning on GMA she was completely in sync with the general feelings expressed here about the TSA's security procedures. For that matter, D.L. Hughley was, too, though in less strident, more comedic fashion. She was outraged by them and he pointed out the fact that the government is inclined to do things that look like they're helping in order to keep people calm and flying, but that the security measures are (paraphrasing here) largely a sham. Good to see the "loyal opposition" getting some air-time, though I got the sense that George Stephanopolous falls more in line with the rest of the media on this topic. He kept asking "Don't you want to be safe?" Bonehead.

3 Trackbacks