I think the TSA agent would be crying if he had to touch a "vagina" that needed to be put in quotes. If that's true then she probably won the beauty pageant mostly on the talent portion...

Since when is it a Constitutional Right to fly? This woman needs to understand that the TSA pat downs and body scans didn't just come about for no reason. We take our shoes off because somebody hid explosives in their shoes and tried to blow up a plane. If the shoe bomb had gone off and breached the hull of that plane over the Atlantic, we would still be looking for pieces. We get a pat down around the groin because some Somali crack pot had a high explosive bomb made into underwear that he tried to detonate. Again, if that bomb had worked, that plane could have broke apart over Chicago, raining bodies and jet fuel onto the city. These are real threats, and until we all start flying naked, the pat downs and body scans will continue.

Wow! Frightened sheeple idiocy x2!

Profiling would be a start. But our Country will not do that. So everyone has to be touched and basically stripped searched to board an airplane. Now to me - thats not RIGHT!!! When will our Country get a clue?

1, 1.1 & 1.2 seem to be having cognitive difficulties understanding the main point of the article, though functional illiteracy could also cause their reading problem.

And what would that profile be? Does Ok, ring a bell? Do believe he was white. DC sniper? What profile does it take?

I enjoy a good pat down if done by the opposite sex. I do get a little uncomfortable when a man touches my special zone.

She didn't want to be "irradiated on". What kind of grammar is that?

I wonder if the TSA agent would have given the same pat down to a 75 year old great grand mother?

Drama queen, not beauty queen.

fgh- I understand the point of the article, I was only responding to 1.1. Perhaps you should pull your head out of your forth point of contact (your ass) and provide a post that makes sense instead of trying to play the name game. I understand the threat we face better than 99% of the people in the U.S. If you think for one second that very bad people aren't actively trying to find a way to blow you out of your plane, train, stadium, concert, highway, etc, you are a naive pacifist that would know a threat if it was pointing an AK-47 directly at your face.

Fiddle man - Thank You.. you're the first person to post a comment that communicated the point of this article.. Just because they CAN pat you down, doesn't mean they SHOULD... 4 times... between the legs...

It's amazing to me that so many people are willing to give up little bits of their freedom in the name of safety. How cowardly this nation has become. This is all about being PC. We can't profile - nope that might offend someone, but we can have the head of Homeland Security saythat the "pat down" of a 6 year old girl, which under any other circumstances would have landed the TSA agent in jail for child molestation, was okay.

So what is going to happen when they set off a bomb on a bus or a train or in a few automobiles? Will it be okay to have your vehicle and yourself searched every time you leave your driveway? Sounds silly doesn't it? Well, 10 years ago would you have thought you would have had to take off your shoes before boarding an airplane?

How far are you willing to let it go before you grow a pair, stand up and say ENOUGH? This is NOT making flying safer. Have you seen the reports that show what has gotten onto airplanes lately? The average detection failure rating of the TSA is around 60%, yet you all continue to say - it's okay - feel me and my children up and down because that will make me safe.

So what's your solution Beauty Queen? Don't just sit there and whine if you can't even propose a better solution! It's so easy to be critical of safety if you've been lucky enough to avoid any danger. Have one person sneak a weapon onto her plane and try to hijack it. She'll change her tune about scanners and pat-downs REAL quick.

I love how the people saying she should just shut up and get felt up without complaining are coming out on the side of getting touched in your no-no place.
These people are so afraid of filthy Muslims that they'd rather have someone paid by the government run their hands over their butts, breasts and genitals. So terrorism has won. We're so afraid of the terrorists that we're more than willing to have some stranger touch us intimately to make sure we aren't one.

YAY FREEDOM!

RangerRich & Tim, I think she did suggest a better way....

I'm really tired of morons saying "If you don't like it, drive" or "If you don't like it, take a bus" or whatever...

If the TSA were actually trying to effectively prevent terrorism, they would RACIALLY PROFILE!!! But nooooo... They are so worried about being politically correct, that they wouldn't dare take the chance of offending the muslim population...

You can be offended muslims, but after all, it is your people that brought this on yourself!!! After all, when is the last time a white woman blew up, or hijacked a plane? Never!!!

However, I see a few people on here vehemently defending the TSA's methods (Chris, K. Snider, bc-vermont, etc)...

So I can only assume that that these people defending TSA's methods, are either TSA employees, or maybe homos, that just want to be felt up... Or maybe, they are just so stupid, that they actually believe that TSA is actually keeping us safe?

So get this through your tiny little brains guys, in it's entire existence, TSA has NEVER caught a terrorist, or found a bomb, or any kind of terrorist threat... They only knee-jerk react, AFTER some failed attempt by some incompetent wanna-be terrorist...

And this chick is right! God forbid, some wanna be terrorist tries smuggling some sort of explosive onto a plane in his ass!!! What then? random cavity searches??? And don't think it's not possible!! The more power we give TSA, the closer to reality this becomes!!!

Although I'm sure some of you on here are looking forward to this!!!

I like this mans take on TSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8eaiFmrdWY

This level of insanity is not even logical. No US Citizen has ever made an attack on an airplane. If you want to profile, we can profile by citizen and non-citizen.

I understand scrutinizing foreigners, because they attacked us and want to attack us... but when did we lump foreign terrorism with domestic and assume we are all potential criminals?

Also, we can start by making airports and airlines responsible for security since they actually have more to lose than TSA.

These would be good reforms to start with.

Quick fact: There are more than 6,000 TSA "Managers" in DC all earning $100,000/year or more.

Todd-651951 thats great, because of your beliefs we have a lot of protection. Now will someone take care of threats like you?

@Ernest

If the TSA were actually trying to effectively prevent terrorism, they would RACIALLY PROFILE!!! But nooooo... They are so worried about being politically correct, that they wouldn't dare take the chance of offending the muslim population...

How do you propose racial profiling would be any better solution to this? Should we refuse to let any non-white person board a plane until they have had a cavity search?? I am assuming you are white since you would propose such a crazy idea. I wonder how you would feel if you were Muslim? Would you be spewing this insanity and volunteering to be a victim of racial profiling?

You can be offended muslims, but after all, it is your people that brought this on yourself!!! After all, when is the last time a white woman blew up, or hijacked a plane? Never!!!

Let me get this straight...It would be ok with you, if a random black guy kicked the sh*t out of you for fear that you might want to enslave him? After all it is your people who owned slaves to begin with, so he has every right to fear that you will do the same thing.

So I can only assume that that these people defending TSA's methods, are either TSA employees, or maybe homos, that just want to be felt up...

Are we really going start with the whole "homo" thing?? That's ridiculous. Should a straight woman want to be felt up by strange man just because she likes men? Let's really think about this now...

You, sir, are the kind of person that makes me ashamed we share a nation.

Cheers!

I think she never took a basic anatomy course in her life if she thinks they felt up her "vagina". No sweetie, they felt up your "labia majora", actually. If they were feeling up your vagina I think you'd jump when they inserted their gloved finger into it. Since she didn't say she was naked, feeling up her vagina was pretty much impossible. At least learn the generic term of "genitals", honey, jeez.

That said, 4x is a tad excessive. One pass over any body part ought to be sufficient. Anyone rubbing btwn a female's legs more than once is just out to get their jollies feeling up young chicks. She's got that right, at least.

This will teach girls to vajazzle.....hey Gomer, what're these sparkly lumpy things on this chick's vajayjay, huh? Ise gonna hafta touch em again just to figger it out!

We don't need to RACIAL PROFILE.... we can PROFILE by ORIGIN.

First off, US Citizens should NOT get the same scrutiny on flights that NON-CITIZENS. This is just common since.

But so many of you swallow from the corporate media and government whatever "radiate and touch your children for safety" crap they feed you.

Todd-651965: The hand search is actually the same way a wand is used except that the hand is more likely to find the object the wand misses.

Andy27tx: Filthy Muslims? How about calling the people responsible for the acts terrorists without the faith bashing? Not all terrorists are Muslim.

Ernest-2847554: I understand your passion, but Race has nothing to do with this. There is no such race called Muslim, and the biggest complainers are White or have you noticed.

By the way some of you posters whine maybe the screenings should stop altogether, then you would feel a lot better, until a White male/female who had a grudge against airlines decided bring down a plane to make a political statement, or to get back at their boss because they were fired. Then who would you point your keyboard calloused fingers at? I had a commander in the military who always said:

Don't come to me with a complaint or problem unless you have a solution.

My solution: until something better comes along, this is what we have to work with.

Whiners feel free to flame this post....

scar_tissue- Maybe she has funny feeling genitals? Maybe the TSA agent felt a lump or something there? Maybe she forgot to remove or turn off her "butterfly"?

fgh- Nobody can protect you from me. Now that I have your IP address, I'll be coming for you shortly...HA HA HA HA <---evil laugh

How come the media gives a megaphone to this beauty queen, but when thousands of American's have this same gripe every single day, no one is there to listen? Perhaps if this same treatment is given to some members of Congress who fly commercial, we would finally change this "business as usual" attitude by TSA.

My solution: until something better comes along, this is what we have to work with.

Whiners feel free to flame this post....

There are SEVERAL good alternatives.

Things we ALREADY DID that would ALONE prevent another 911:

1) Reinforce cockpit door

2) Arm the pilots

3) Increase air marshals

These ALONE would prevent another 911.

Things we CAN DO NOW:

1) Profile by ORIGIN and not Race. Foreigners of ALL races should get more scrutiny than US Citizens. IF US Citizens are a threat to plane, please cite the example and try to have more than 1 please.

2) Use bomb sniffing dogs... they are better at sniffing explosives under clothes and potentially under the skin than people or radiation machines. Again, foreigners would get more scrutiny here.

3) Abolish the TSA. They have nothing to lose. They are a bloated government bureaucracy with over 6000 manager making $100,000/yearor more in DC. They have nothing at stake, are immune to suit, and have been PROVEN INEFFECTIVE through DOZENS of tests.

4) Privatize this. Airlines and airports have the most to lose as a result of an attack or bad safety record. They will find the right balance of common sense safety measures without making passenger/customers feel violated.

Last of all please remember you are 8 times more likely to get struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack in the US.

The threat of people hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings ended on Sept. 11, 2001 about 1 hour after the first attack.

It would have ended sooner, but they won't let you turn your cellphone on on airplanes.

The beefed up cockpit door ended the problem, not the TSA.

The passengers knowing what was going on ended the problem, not the TSA.

Now they just want to blow up the planes.

There are millions of shoulder launched SAMs in the world. They are problably the next big threat for taking down airplanes.

Israel doesn't do the things the TSA does, but they face a much more serious threat level.

You don't have to put your hands in 6 year old girls pants to keep the airways safer.

This woman paraded around in a bikini and now pleads modesty?

Okay so by that logic....any man, woman or child...anywhere....anytime...wears a bikini outside their home and in front of others, can be felt up by a stranger and it's okay....because they wore a bikini. You're a special kind of stupid....aren't ya?

What an idiotic comment by someone who probably has nothing other than being pretty going for her.

I'd rather be patted down than blown up. Don't fly if you don't like it. And frankly, I don't remember reading in the Constitution where you have the right not to be frisked before you fly.

IF US Citizens are a threat to plane, please cite the example and try to have more than 1 please.

Not that I disagree with your ideas but since you asked...

Anwar al-Awlaki & Adam Yahiye Gadahn

#1.21 Mr. Rodgers, you stated "No US Citizen has ever made an attack on an airplane". That is incorrect. Read the following:

If our security rests on TSA finding bombs and weapons then we really are screwed. TSA is the last line of defense and they have chose a route of trust no one and search everyone. Here is another solution for you:

• Video facial scans and other non-invasive tests looking for indications of nervous behavior
• Anyone with passport stamps from known terrorist hot spots are fully screened
• US born frequent flyers go through basic metal detection
• US military personnel go thorough basic metal detection
• Those that fail are put through a stricter screening process or don't fly

One more try. Mr. Rodgers, go to this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express_Flight_705

Americans would never tolerate what they do in Israel. How would you like to pass through an ID check at the airport perimeter by machine gun toting unsmiling soldiers? Wouldn't bother me because I've been through it, but most of you get squeamish around machine guns. Once you get thru the outer security, you are watched the entire time you are going through the check in process. There are numerous plain clothed police and military around the passenger check in area because they know this is the most vulnerable area (before security screening). If you are not feeling well and maybe sweating a little more than "normal", you will be taken away to a room and further interogated by special security agents. If there is ANY doubt, you will be denied boarding and removed from airport grounds. They also pressure check and hand search every bag. All that is easy to do when you aren't dealing with 100,000's of passengers a day. If the US tried that, it would take you 12 hours to check in to a domestic flight. Is that what you want as opposed to scanners and pat downs (which they do anyway in Israel?).

The ACLU fights any type of racial profiling, period. So we are left with the ability to search the "probable" terrorists only by searching grandma and little Susie. Stupid, but that's how it goes.

I saw a post about shoulder launched surface to air missiles. Yeah they are a threat during take off and landing, but not so much at altitude. The solution to that problem is to annex all the land surrounding the airports so planes have a chance to get out of missile range before they leave the perimeter. Try to sell that one to all the people that live within a few miles of every airport.

I don't like being searched, but I understand that it IS a deterrent to a wannabe suicide bomber because his greatest fear is being caught and failing his mission. For example, during my last tour in Afghanistan, our bomb dog was sick, so we brought out our drug dog to search vehicles entering our FOB for bombs. The drivers didn't know that dog couldn't detect bombs, so nobody would chance getting caught. Anything we can do to deter a would be terrorist from trying is better than cleaning up the mess of them succeeding.

Todd-651965 make way. Many stooges are on that path. Still, after all, I have learned as much from all of the fools.

Now is the chance for an airline to start up advertising scan-less boarding by offering flights where the old fashioned check is done (and you have to walk past a bomb sniffing dog). Wow, imagine the competitive advantage that airline would have!!!!

The TSA is very costly and I agree with most that beefing up the pilot cockpit door fixed the hijacking issue. Do they still have agents with guns on every flight?

If it is such a big safety issue then I'm sure the airlines would initiate this system on their own or it would hurt their business.

If find it is interesting that it is the government which is doing the scanning.

We had tremendous damage done to our constitution when the patriot act was past (and what part of this act is patriotic? It's whole intention was to reduce our civil rights.)

It looks to me that the TSA is a means to encroach on our personal rights. Having bomb dogs in the terminal would be much more effective and slash the costs. So I have to come to the conclusion that this is just about eroding our civil rights to privacy. In a year or two the scanners will be at Wal Mart!!!!

What a great way for a pervert to make a $100K per year.

Sean -

We are talking about people taking over an airplane with box cutters.

It's not going to ever happen again.

Go try and rob a store on the ground with a box cutter. You will get hurt trying!

The only reason they were able to fly the planes into buildings was because no one had done it before, and everyone expected a "standard" hijacking where you end up in Cuba or some other crazy country.

Just an hour after they flew the first plane into the World Trade Center, the passengers stopped the hijackers.

Had they known what was going on just a few minutes earlier, that plane would have landed safely, instead of going down in Pennsylvania. (They had to rush the cockpit instead of just blocking entrance to the cockpit).

Sure, some people would have bleeding - even possibly severe bleeding - but no planes being used as weapons.

Todd, I found the screening through Israel much different than your experience. I guess we flew to different Israels. (eye roll to remove all doubt of sarcasm).

It is a sad state of affairs that so many Americans have so little interest in their own civil rights. Pathetic.

Why do we have to give a forum to clueless gomers just because they won a beauty pageant?

So - what 'occupation' would then qualify someone to be able to openly disapprove of being 'felt up' by a government agent in public?

Todd- These are suicidal terrorists. They are there to die. They care nothing about life or your dog or getting caught. They get caught, they just hit the plunger. You understand nothing about rights or about being an American. All you understand is your fear. Please refrain from inflicting THAT on those of us who know that the whole TSA procedure is nothing but a scam designed to instill confidence in folks who live in fear as you do. It's guys like you who have sold the rest of us out. Grow a set! You'll feel better for it.

Considering what happened not too long ago in Moscow, I can't believe anyone still thinks the body scans/pat downs make anyone safer. Terrorists don't even have to go through security. They can just walk up, get in line, or even just stand in a crowded area, like a food court, and detonate at any point they choose. And the TSA is powerless to stop them. Maybe they can just make two lines at each airport, one for people who want to keep their rights, and one for the people who want to be deluded into believing they're safe.

This will all be moot

Soon sensors will be able to detect the most microscopic amounts of chemicals.

And MRI equipment that operates on scatter principles can image structures of materials weather hidden under clothes or inside body cavities.

"powerful sensing technology that is fast, accurate, inexpensive, mass-producible, and small enough to hold in your hand. "This could completely change the world of chemical assays,""

New Sensors Link

"low-power magnets and costs only a few thousand dollars. The team eventually hopes to minimize the current setup and thereby create a handheld, battery-powered device that can be used anywhere."

New MRI Link

Did anyone see her picture? She would NEVER win any beauty pageants in California. Woof Woof.

That said. If she does not like xrays or pat downs, she needs to use an alternative mode of transportation.

They can just walk up, get in line, or even just stand in a crowded area, like a food court, and detonate at any point they choose.

I have never been in a Florida airport but in LAX, food courts and every other conceivable meeting place is BEHIND the security checkpoint.

Of course, someone could blow us up at the ticket counter but why would they bother blowing anything up there?

However, I see a few people on here vehemently defending the TSA's methods (Chris, K. Snider, bc-vermont, etc).

Correction, the only thing I am vehemently defending is MY OPINION that I have no problem with being patted down MYSELF...therefore, I will continue to fly knowing that is a possibility.

I am also vehemently defending MY RIGHT to that opinion without being called names.

If my OPINION and my RIGHT to my opinion angers you, I would suggest you stop reading public discussions. Calling me names and acting angry and childish certainly isn't going to persuade me to see things YOUR way.

The TSA is a Gov't run agency.

Gov't must have probable cause to search you.

End of story.

Private security isn't bound by Constitutional protections.

But when Gov't officials defy the Constitution, it is treason.

If you don't like the way the Constitution is written, amend it.

But there is no exception to your freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.

Putting your hand down the pants of 6 year old girls with no probable cause is clearly an unreasonable search.

People say: then don't fly.

Then don't drive.

Then don't walk.

Then don't go in your front yard.

If the Gov't doesn't haveto follow the Constituion in an airport, then where does it have to obey the most important legal document in the US?

NPW - According to the article she said "There must be a better way..." She didn't suggest what that better way may be. I think if you are going to complain about somethingm you should have a solution in mind. Don't complain and then expect others to think of a better way if you can't even do it yourself.

I don't beleive for one minute that a TSA employee inserted her fingers into this former pageant winners V.J. TWICE no less! And she didn't say anything then?

What I do beleive is that she is after some publicity. As soon as she made her over-acted you tube video, her name was splashed all over the net, her bio was on Wiki, her pageant days were listed, her homepage listing her as an actress looking for work and all of the free publicity she could want.

I'm waiting for her talk show gig to appear.

I agree J.J., these claims are way to far out to believe. As far as I'm concerned she lost her credibility for the rest of her silly little life.

K. Snider and J.J.-2726240 also misses the point. Vigilance is great but . . . These 'security services' are set up in federal buildings also. Never had any problems at those or at airports, until . . . is there something wrong with asking a simple question? And why should I have to help clean their area at all? I am not in military, not incarcerated, and not under an order of detention. Some of the agents may not be comfortable with their own procedures but when they become disrespectful - do not tell me about protecting freedom. K. Snider is a fool to assume that everybody just wants to help us.

The point of her ranting is that she accuses a TSA employee of inserting her fingers into her vagina. Not once but twice!

Do you actually beleive that in front of a crowd of travelers, an agent took the time to INSERT HER FINGERS INTO HER VJ? That is my point.

Now she is all over the talk shows (as seen recently) and she is getting what she probaby wanted.....PUBLICITY to charge her failing career.

Her pat down was no different than the next person. The TSA videos clearly show her being patted down.

No one is FREE when they are DEAD!

I'm always amazed when propoganda is so very effective. They've actually convinced you that it's a dichotomy.

If you don't let us violate your rights, you will be DEAD! How could anyone object?!

(Btw, anybody know if we've started screening ground crews yet?)

"...didn't want to get radiated on"? Why not? Its not like there were any brain cells to damage, and sterilization would be beneficial to the rest of society. Get over yourself, you're not that important!

Mr. Rodgers- Before 9/11, noone had flown a 737 into a New York sky scraper.

Bottom line- flying isn't a right! Your hangups aren't more important than my safety. Get over yourselves. Every man has a penis, every woman has a vagina. And noone but you, cares about yours.

If you don't like it, and have a job that requires you to fly, get a new f****** job.

I'm sure there is a video of her pat down available through the TSA. I'd like to see it just to watch her VJJ get felt up 4 times! What a crock of crap she spouts. Maybe if she was groped a 5th time she would have gotten off and wouldn't be complaining!

Maybe the people who are so afraid of terrorist they are willing to give up their dignity and self respect are the ones that shouldn't be flying.

she accuses a TSA employee of inserting her fingers into her vagina.

I think you need to reread the article.

A coward dies everyday, a brave man only once.

It's on Youtube to the one who asked to see it. After he "sees it" perhaps he should actually read the report to see what it says.

I always love reading the comments on tsa searches. If you want to stop complaining and laugh definitely check out the article IF AWESOME LUNATICS RAN AIRLINES by Seanbaby on cracked.com. Its about two months old but histerical and almost sounds like what some of the posters would want.

K. Snider is a fool to assume that everybody just wants to help us.

Please, re-read my post. My statement is purely my own personal feeling that their pat down and safety procedures do not bother me...and therefore, I will continue to fly. For those people who are offended by the pat down...they are free to choose not to fly. I would prefer to fly with others who have also been screened so I know they don't have a potential bomb in their under wear either.

As far as my second point, there is no way a TSA person was able to access her vagina in broad daylight through her clothing and therefore her credibility is tarnished by her statement. It was not an attack on how she felt about the pat down, it was her extreme exaggeration of that pat down.

Furthermore, please refrain from name-calling. It tends to invalidate you as a person who deserves to have their opinion also heard.

Israel, the country with ZERO, that is 0 for you illerterate morons, plane hijackings since the 1968 (the only successful one), did not give away a lucrative no bid contracts to some company that makes a machine that shows what you look like when naked and irradiates you with x-ray radiation. They also do no degrade their people by allowing annyone with a airport security badge to touch your penis or vagina in the name of national security.

This is a god damn travesty that you Bush voting scared stupid after 9/11 morons are willing to give up your rights to privacy. between a camera on every 4th overpass on I95 and ez-pass readers too boot, we have just about become the nation of BIG Brother. In a small town that my parents are from there are now cameras at every stop light. do you think our forefathers envisioned this? Me neither.

Im gald someone is taking a stand for the people of the nation. I would like to see Senators and congressman get groped in a TSA line. Not gonna happen while they are in office cause they have special ID's. And just like their special Health Care, we can't get it and will suffer. The problem is that only half of us care about dignity and seek out factual evidence of what really works to keep us safe. the rest of you believe whatever the TV and radio entertainers on the big talker 1210 tell you. I bet 5 touches to the VJJ that this line of diversity seperates along political party lines. But hey keep listening to those radios and install cameras in everyroom in your house. Big Brother will be watching you sleep to make sure you don't choke on your tongue soon enough. or at least thats what they will sell you.

Ricky is absolutely @!$%#ing correct. Are you people idiots, willing to go through invasive pat downs in the name of security?

Here is a quote you should all support. Have we become so brainwashed and a bunch of sheep that we follow every stupid idea from the federal government?

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

Ricky B: I completely understand your points, however...I don't feel I am "giving up my rights" because I WANT to be screened and I want those who will be flying with me screened. I feel that it's MY RIGHT, as I am paying for a service, to feel some measure of security when I fly that the person sitting next to me doesn't have a bomb in his underwear or in his shoes.

To resort to name calling and anger because someone has a different view from yours is counter productive and only causes people to not care to hear your view or give it any consideration.

All of our views and opinions are valid in one way or another. They don't have to be identical, but we should respect each other for having them...of course, I guess you do have the right not to.

K.Snider I think I like you the least of all. You don't feel it's a violation of your rights to be molested because you're a coward and want no personal freedom (a coward who is no safer) but I'm not a coward and it is a violation of my rights. You need to stop flying - problem solved.

I liken my feelings to not wanting to buy a car that does not have seat belts or air bags and doesn't have a five-star safety rating. I have a right to buy the safest vehicle I can buy for my family... and I have the right to fly in the safest manner possible.

It wasn't so much the feeling of her vagina 4 times, they stopped before she could orgasm!, But seriously, it's the prima donnas like her, that would be the first in line to sue the government, and airline. if a family member were killed by a bomb toting terrorist, she just needs to act like an adult take the patdown, like all the others and continue her flight. and find some other way to keep her name in the news.

@ Ann, I don't think there is any reason to be rude or angry.

I'm not angry at you for not caring about my safety, the safety of my family...or 3000 unsuspecting people in a high rise building who aren't expecting you to drop in unexpectedly.

And, it's only a violation of my rights if I choose to look at it that way. I feel it's my right to fly as safely as possible. Perhaps it's a violation of my rights that you should want to force me to fly with someone who potentially has a bomb in his underwear or shorts? Don't I have the right to know that he doesn't?

If you don't like how the coffee is being made at Starbucks, you don't have to drink their coffee, but to tell me that I should stop drinking it because you don't like it is hilarious.

For Joe, from kallispell, Ben Franklin never sat and watched 2 747's fly through 2, 115 story buildings, killing almost 3000 people did he?

And you have the right NOT to fly and inflict your fears on everyone else who needs to travel. You're one of those who feel ENTITLED to what ever makes you feel good. Got news for you. Your ENTITLED days are numbered. A large number of us are sick of this type of thinking. So YOU can feel safe, everyone else gets to feel violated.

We have laws against drunk driving. Why? Because drunk drivers crash and kill innocent people. But wait....what right does anyone have to say that a person can't drive drunk? Oh, it's a safety issue? So, it's okay to remove a persons right to drink a legal beverage and operate a vehicle --- but it's not okay for the TSA to make sure that everyone who boards an airplane not being carrying deadly weapons or bombs that could also harm innocent people.

@ Amused: what makes you different from me? You have the right not to fly and inflict your "risk" on everyone else who needs to travel. You're one of those who feel ENTITLED to whatever makes YOU feel good. - why should I have to fly with risks if I don't want to?

I don't understand all the name calling and anger directed at people who view things differently from others. We are all just people with different opinions. It's so "radical muslim-like" of you angry people to want to "squash" everything and everyone who doesn't feel exactly the way you do.

I was uncomfortable at first with the new pat down procedures. They're awkward and it's never fun to be selected for one but than I thought of the alternative and although I still hate them, I'm happy something is being done.

However, having not seen the TSA video of this woman being patted down, I can now only go by what she has said. If she honestly believes that she was violated than I feel sorry for her and hope that this is handled accordingly.

That being said, if this is an exaggeration than I'm really disappointed. It's hard enough for abused women to come forward. We don't need someone making it harder by crying wolf for publicity.

I agree T1284. We do have to all agree that it would not be outside of the realm of possibility that the TSA agent doing a pat down would use his authority over someone to grope them in an inappropriate manner that would have nothing to do with keeping anyone safe.

Did the Gov't official (TSA) have probable cause to search her?

I'd rather they blow up one hundred planes than have our Gov't blow up our Constitution.

Did the Gov't official (TSA) have probable cause to search her?

In my opinion, the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber have made it reasonable to search all passengers who wish to fly on an airplane.

Then the Gov't wouldn't need probable cause ever.

They could say: "One person robbed a house, we need to search everyone for stolen items."

They could say: "A few people have had illegal drugs. We need to check everyone's house for illegal drugs."

It's not probable that a six year old American citizen girl would blow up a plane.

= no probable cause.

= no search unless you

just don't want to obey the US Constitution.

Amend it or leave.

But subvert and defy it, and you are an enemy no less than a terrorist.

I don't view robbery, stolen goods or possessing illegal drugs to be the same as being trapped in an airplane at 30,000 feet with someone who has a bomb down their pants or in their shoes the same thing. One will definitely kill me, everyone else on the plane, as well as all the victims on the ground, and the friends and loved one's left behind.

It's not that I don't see the validity in your point at all. You are absolutely correct in all that you are saying. What I am saying is that I feel it is also my right to submit to these safety measures without being harassed, called names or disrespected.

If through calm and rational discussion it was decided that the TSA would no longer be allowed to conduct those searches, I would stop flying. I wouldn't complain. I wouldn't belittle people or point fingers. I would respect their rights to continue flying and choose to travel by other means.

We have laws against drunk driving. Why? Because drunk drivers crash and kill innocent people. But wait....what right does anyone have to say that a person can't drive drunk? Oh, it's a safety issue?

This is not simply a "safety" issue, if you drink and drive you infringe upon others rights; mainly when you crash into them. That is what gives ME the right to tell YOU that you can't do it. You are comparing apples to oranges. I may have the right to tell you you can't drink before driving but I don't have the right to open your car door and give you a breathalizer just in case you might have done it.

...but it's not okay for the TSA to make sure that everyone who boards an airplane not being carrying deadly weapons or bombs that could also harm innocent people.

Where did anyone say that? I've always believed that if you need to exaggerate to make your point you must not have one.

What is at issue here is the methods used. They are excessive and proven to be ineffective. They do little more than make people like you feel better about flying. We all have to get there earlier, wait longer, leave behind things we use to bring along, stand in lines, strip off half of our clothes, get groped or "x-rayed" all so people like you can FEEL safer. You honestly don't see why that frustrates people or why they would be annoyed by anyone who wants this nonsense to continue?

.but it's not okay for the TSA to make sure that everyone who boards an airplane not being carrying deadly weapons or bombs that could also harm innocent people.

Where did anyone say that? I've always believed that if you need to exaggerate to make your point you must not have one.

How is that an exaggeration? People have boarded planes with deadly weapons and bombs that not only could have harmed innocent people, but HAVE harmed innocent people. This is not an exaggeration to make any point...this in fact has happened.

You honestly don't see why that frustrates people or why they would be annoyed by anyone who wants this nonsense to continue?

Please re-read my post...I clearly state that you are correct in what you say...I don't invalidate your points in any way shape or form. I see no value in being rude and mean and talking condescending to people who have an opinion or feeling that differs from your own.

It seems that you believe in civil rights and freedom so long as it is only yours. You are clearly stating that you do not believe anyone who thinks differently than you do should have any rights at all. And you are all too quick to pass judgment on those who do.

How is that an exaggeration?

You said-" it's not okay for the TSA to make sure that everyone who boards an airplane not being carrying deadly weapons or bombs"

Nobody has suggested that the TSA not be allowed to do that. People are questioning the methods that are being used. Suggesting that people do not want the TSA to make sure no one is carrying "deadly weapons" (fingernail clipper?? Really??) is a gross exaggeration.

And you are all too quick to pass judgment on those who do.

Am I now? Well you just said- "you believe in civil rights and freedom so long as it is only yours. You are clearly stating that you do not believe anyone who thinks differently than you do should have any rights at all." And then in the very next sentence you criticize me for "passing judgement" on you. My opinion differs from yours, I stated the difference and pointed out your mistakes. Then I simply explained why people are frustrated by the system and those who support it. YOU are the one who "passed judgement" on me. Nowhere did I say or suggest that you did not have equal right to your opinion. It's called hypocrisy by the way; I often find it is prevalent in the easily offended.

Backcountry164: You don't seem to want to have a discussion or recognize anyone's opinion other than your own. I'm sorry you wish to turn a discussion into an argument. Enjoy your day.

K. Snider- If you call that an argument you are obviously too thin skinned to take part in an internet discussion board. Half of your posts are nothing more than crying about others reaction to what you’ve said. You should note that all of the rest of us put up with the same thing; as I have from YOU. Perhaps there is a Sesame Street forum where the etiquette will be more to your liking.

For future reference, if you can’t counter any of the points that have been made against you then just pretend you never read the post and don’t respond. Making up a bunch of BS like “you don’t want to hear any opinion other than your own” is an obvious code for- “I know I’m wrong but refuse to admit it”. Especially since I just said you have every right to your opinion.

Agreed. This happens to hundreds of people every day. What I can't understand is why this is newsworthy when it happens to a (former) beauty queen, but not when it happens to everyone else.

skate - Because they don't have a press agent.

It's on Youtube to the one who asked to see it. After he "sees it" perhaps he should actually read the report to see what it says

Can you tell me where to find this video. All I can find is the video she made after the incident not of the actual pat down. Thanks.

Let her ride a Greyhound bus from Laredo to Chicago just one time. Her attitude toward the TSA procedures will change dramatically and she will gladly endure pat-downs or scanners to travel by airplane.

Sorry hunny for your terrible experience. Here's a link to another mode of transportation. http://www.greyhound.com/

Look at all these terrorists threatening the American way of life! http://thedailypatdown.com/

Nudie Scans?? Really?? If you think anyone will get off to looking at your blue and gray faceless haze then you have far too much self-esteem...

Fantastic, I would rather not be on an airplane for an extended period of time with a moron like yourself.

Wooo Hooo! More seats and maybe even overhead bin storage space for me!

tim-354353 you are naive. Kooks do exist that ". . . will get off . . ."

I've stopped flying too, not out of modesty but because it pisses me off that we've lost all control over our own civil rights and so many sheep are just thrilled over it.

BTW... it turns out Greyhound rocks. It's cheap, the seats are incredibly comfortable and spacious and for shorter trips it actually takes less time. Yes, less, no waiting in long lines and airports usually require a further tripbecause they're situated so far out of cities because of the noise, greyhounds tend to be in the cities and are just a quick cab ride to the final destination. I don't care what happens on airlines, I now prefer buses. But I still think my fellow Americans are wanting in the courage department.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

I wonder if Franklin would consider a common sense response to two jets flying into two sky scrapers which resulted in the deaths of 3000 people, "(giving) up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety". I guess we'll never know. Yet we can be assured that morons will continue to know whether or not he would consider it such.

I AM pretty sure that Franklin wouldn't consider 'the right to not be inconvenienced' an essential liberty. Also, essential liberties don't generally pertain to private property. Private airlines can restrict service to whomever they please.

At the time Franklin made this memorable (oft misused) quote, slavery would have been considered an essential freedom. Things change.

Maybe they'll find whatever is stuck up there and pull it out for her.

Lol Ranger Rich - Awsome...

Oh yes hilarious. Loss of civil rights is such a knee-slapper.

You laugh now, but people would have called you a conspiracy nut 10 years ago if you told them we'd be subjected to virtual strip searches and government sanctioned gropings in the future at airports. I shudder to think what people will be in store for in the coming decade the way things are going. I don't think forcing everyone to wear prison overalls and being handcuffed to our seats is outside of the realms of possibility.

Ann and Ano, c'mon. If you go to an amusement park and you are not tall enough to get on the ride due to safety reasons, that's not a violation of your civil rights. No one forces you to go. This is not a civil rights issue. You still have freedom of choice. If you want to use a service that someone else provides, then you have to play by their rules. If you don't like it, don't use the service. If I'm gonna fly after we've killed Osama, and there is a possibilty of more terrorist attacks, then I definately want you patted down and scanned. I'm a former Ranger, I've seen death and destruction... Don't blame our government for abusing your civil rights. Blame the terrorist that forced this level off safety upon us. That is why they are called "Terrorists"! They create terror!

Horrific analogy. Those are health restrictions by a private company. This is a government mandate to violate your bill of rights... the airlines aren't doing this, TSA is. Terrible analogy.

and even more wrong... no the terrorists didn't force this on us. We're forcing it on ourselves. This isn't making us any safer, it's unnecessary and not particularly effective.

You're batting .000

Whatever. They are both services that you choose to pay for. The TSA works in conjuction with the airlines and they absolutely do not want to be sued over family members being killed due to lack of safety protocols. So they support it. You are FREE to CHOOSE not to fly. You are FREE to take the bus. You are FREE to CHOOSE.

Just because someone imposes a new rule on a service that you pay for does not turn it into a civil rights issue.

How is this in any way violating your freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press or right to peaceably assemble?

And it's unecessary? We have had four attempted attacks on aircraft since 9/11... all of them were caught. One guy had plastic explosives in the shape of his shoe sole! If he blew up your Mom's plane you would be singing a different tune! You are a sheltered whiner.

This is not a civil rights issue. This is you being a selfish crybaby issue. You would sacrifice the safety of others just because you feel uncomfortable, but you are too ashamed to admit that, so you cry civil rights.

Well said, RangerRich.

Actually isn't this you being a selfish crybaby? Doesn't your cowardice rule out over other's common sense and Bill of Rights? Dude, you are NO SAFER!

BTW... I do take the bus now, everywhere I go and I actually prefer it to flying. However, I still loathe those that jump up and down with joy that their civil rights, guaranteed by the constitution, are being ripped from them.

And for the last time... The airplines aren't and wouldn't do this, it's the US GOVERNMENT!

My cowardice? Ha, ha, ha. If a terrorist was on my plane, I would be the first person to formulate a plan and take him out while you sat there in your seat yelling at him that he was violating your civil rights.

Even the show of extra security is a deterrent for would be terrorists.

That's good you are taking the bus. Again, that's your freedom of choice in action once again! This has nothing to do with civil rights! You just don't get it.

There are agencies that oversee all sorts of services to make sure that they are safe. TSA, Parks and Recreation, the FDA, etc... That's what the governmont does! They regulate businesses so that people are safe!

Our government isn't perfect... But if you don't like it, you can always move to another country.

You're wasting your time RangerRich. She's stubborn.

Yeah... you're probably right. I'll climb down of my soap box. :)

bc;

I made mention (above) of all the free publicity she is getting now.

the point of contention here is that in some cases you have to fly as driving is not practical. Personally, I fly only when I have to for work (maybe twice a year a now) because I abhorr the sugjugation of the citizen in the name of security.

Body scans? really? I could give you 20 ways to get something on board an aircraft (but if I list them Big Brother would get upset). So when the TSA really does security and SECURES the area I might buy in. Otherwise it is a feel good measure that doesn't do squat, lines the pockets of those in charge and violates my person.

So no, I don't fly excpet when I have no choice. At what point do you stop giving up your rights and individual freedoms and liberty in the name of security?

and BTW, the NFL is the only major sports league to require a "pat down" when entering a facility for a game. Those pat downs are nothing like the TSA pat downs. The TSA has given itself the right to runs their hands over every inch of your skin and if you dare protest you are subject to potential arrest.

@ Jane: It's their planes, it's their business, and it's their company at risk. If people in general could be trusted to not carry devices onto planes that could risk ALL passengers, this wouldn't be an issue. Since you, and Susie, cannot speak for the rest of humanity. Tough. People like Susie, and by the sounds of it, yourself, feel somehow your dignity is somehow more important than the couple hundred people in the air with you, to say nothing of the lives of those on the ground who could be targets.

You're wrong. She's wrong.

It's their planes.

You're wrong. The TSA doesn't own any of the planes. Not one. Their business is not at risk. Their company is not at risk for anything other than being yet another incompetent "arm" of government that has not accomplished anything that they would not have had they left the scans and "pat downs" out of the equation.

Jane,

so name 10 ways that the tsa don't already know. if you don't, then you are full of s--t.

YOU are wrong - they are right. It is only a few of you idiots that seem to want these ridiculous personal humiliations done to them in the name of fear of the obsecure "terrorists". The wonderful TSA, an arm of the government, is using this to subjugate Americans in order to further turn them into controlled zombies. This is not about protection as much as it is about control. Look at history and think back to Nazi Germany's attempt at extermnation of anyone who didn't wasn't white, tall, fair skinned, blue eyed, etc. Careful all you sheep - the camps are coming if you continue to condone these vile personal infringements.

'It's their planes, their business . . .' this attitude would have put most businesses completely out of business.

@B murphy

The point of terrorsiom is to scare us And B murphy is scared. If your willing to throw our right way for false sense of security then there is something wrong with you.

I have a quote for you from Benjamin Franklin

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

@Feronia - How can you argue that they havn't done anything when there have been no successful terrorist attacks against planes since they instituted the measures??

Disband TSA and Homeland Security, OBL is dead. Save the money being wasted and fix the airplanes . More planes crash from equipment failure than terrorists blowing them up. Let everyone carry concealed weapons and let the terrorists beware.

Karen

A pat-down turns you into a mind-controlled zombie? I'd like to see that. I've always been under the impression that zombies were a fantasy.

While the patdowns don't particularly bother me, I don't like flying. So I take the train. I'd rather spend 3 days seeing America and meeting and having fun with people from around the world than flying in a sardine tin with a rictus of terror on peoples' faces for 5 hours.

How can you argue that they havn't done anything when there have been no successful terrorist attacks against planes since they instituted the measures??

There have only been 4 & they all happened simultaneously. There were no successful terrorist attacks against planes prior to that & there were no excessive security measure in place then, either. Let's call it a one-off & get on w/ our lives, shall we? Cigarette lighters, nail clippers, & jumbo bottles of shampoo never killed anyone prior to the implementation of the new flying rules & they never will.

My favorite mode of travel: Car

My next fave: Train

My least fave: Planes. I used to love flying - it was fun. Now it's a grind. I fly as seldom as possible. Like someone said above, I can think of several ways to get contraband onboard. Frankly, the scariest folks (besides TSA) are the ground crew! Bet they don't get scanned/fondled/patted down before being allowed to work on our planes.

Even our military (thank you Guys and Gals!) have to remove their boots, belts, etc. for TSA.

Jane, unless you are an astronaut and your destination is outer space, you do not HAVE to fly. You yourself used the word "impractical", totally true, but not impossible. Between video teleconferencing, email, FEDEX, cruise ships, trains, cars, etc, you can get to where you NEED to go without flying. Flying is a convenience, not a necessity. Humans have been trading for thousands of years without flying, and we can leverage modern technology to keep from flying if you don't want to. My sister, who is about 45, has flown one time in her life about 30 years ago, and not since.

How can you argue that they havn't done anything when there have been no successful terrorist attacks against planes since they instituted the measures??

Maybe because they haven't actually caught anyone attempting to get something on a plane. Your statement is like saying someone is a safe driver because they've never had an accident while ignoring the fact that they don't own a car.

If you don't want to do the scanner or the pat down, then JUST DON'T FLY.

Here's an idea, how about we all vote on whether we should have such invasive security measures at the airport. Once they get voted down we can tell all of you who are scared of your own shadows –If you don’t think you’re safe enough then "JUST DON"T FLY". That way the rest of us can go about our lives without being inconvenienced by the ludicrous “safety measures” which clearly have no purpose other than calming the sheeple.

Backcountry- I would embrace your solution if they implement a total waiver system to the US Government that says flying is absolutely at your own risk, and if you are hijacked, shot down, crashed, etc, you cannot hold ANYONE liable or responsible other than yourself for flying. My issue is we (the citizens of the US) DEMANDED the government protect us from another 9/11 type attack. Then when the government tries to do it, we express outrage at the inconvenience and dignity it costs us.

Look at smoking. We start smoking knowing that it is bad for us and will probably either kill us or cause severe health issues. When those issues develop we sue the tobacco companies for billions, and then demand the government does something to protect us. So the government puts warnings on the packs, increases the tax by 500%, and implements a plan to gradually outlaw smoking. What does the American public do? They express outrage that the government is overstepping its bounds. Just like TSA.

So, either police yourselves or let the government do it for you.

Excellent point!

Government that says flying is absolutely at your own risk, and if you are hijacked, shot down, crashed, etc, you cannot hold ANYONE liable or responsible other than yourself for flying

Don’t be ridiculous. The only people to have ever been sued in regard to a hijacking were the Libyan’s in regard to the Pan Am 73 hijacking. You don’t think we should be able to sue the people responsible for a hijacking? What about negligence? If an airline doesn’t properly maintain a plane and it crashes no one should be able to get compensation? Replacing one extreme for another is asinine; as always, the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

My issue is we (the citizens of the US) DEMANDED the government protect us...

WE don't all demand much from our government but it is foolish to believe that the gov has no place. Free market will provide MOST of the protections we need but not everything. Honestly I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting we should just bend over and take it or are you saying we should abolish ALL government regulations and protections? I only ask out of curiosity, in reality they are both incredibly poor options.

Todd-651965

I've had a similar idea for quite a while. Give airlines the choice, where possible the airport is divided into two "wings", Secured and Unsecured. The "Unsecured" side is the same as any Wal-Mart, Bob Evans, McDonalds ect, the business sets policies as far as what is allowable (socks, concealed/open carry of firearms, allowable behavior, smoking, etc). The "Secured" side is the one where TSA handles things, body scanners, pat-downs, etc. Let the public vote with their pocket books and see which side wins. Personally I would fly the unsecured skies, I would feel sorry for the poor idiots who tried to take the plane filled with NRA nuts, former military, and police officers possibly packing 45's and 357s. And before some fool starts ranting about it, bullet holes DO NOT cause windows/whole sides of planes to blow out, you've been watching too many movies. I'm not saying its a perfect solution, but its a lot better than what we currently have (groping/searching/humiliating millions to get at one or two lunatics)

Backcountry- My point was don't demand action and then complain about getting it. The government is not known for best option implementation, so why do we expect the government to solve our problems in an efficient manner? Trust me, I work for the government and have seen first hand how screwed up and complicated we can make the simplest thing.

In an effort to please everyone and offend no one, the government usually offends everyone and pleases no one.

I can't believe what whiny cry babies some Americans are nowadays. We have terrorists trying to blow up planes and kill hundreds of people and alot of you guys are crying because you may be randomly selected for a pat down? "Oh they touched my privates!" Whaaaa whaaa! You people are ridiculous. Get your fat butt of the couch in your sheltered little home and get a clue. Just because you live in a bubble or ignorance does not mean that other people have not suffered death and destruction by the hands of others. Our government is trying to PROTECT us. Our military sacrifices their lives to PROTECT us. People are being stabbed, shot and blown up and you're crying about being touched! Get over it!

I can't believe what whiny crybaby sheeple you cowards are, willing to give up all of your civil rights because it makes you FEEL SAFER. You aren't safer but you won't believe that because you couldn't cope.

Right. You call me, a former Army Ranger, who has fought for your right to whine, a coward. There's some irony. I wish no ill on anyone... But you need something bad to happen to you or a family member so you will wise up. I bet you cried civil rights about airbags being put in automobiles! "Oh, the DOT is making car manufacturers put airbags in cars. I have to have an airbag in a car that I choose to buy! They're violating my civil rights! Whaaa whaaa!"

Airbags have saved lives. Fact. Increased security has saved lives. Fact.

1). Airbags are optional - check it out.

2). Dude you just compared optional airbags to being molested. How do you expect me to take you seriously?

3). Fact... cowardice doesn't care about civil rights only the ILLUSION of safety.

C'mon, now you're just being deliberately obtuse. You get my point. Government agencies implement safety protocols on all sorts of businesses all the time. Big business would sell you an edible bomb if they could make money off of it. That's why they need regulation.

Do you really think you can get seriously molested with all of your clothes on, in a public airport, in front of dozens of people, while on camera? Hahahaha

Wanting to be safe. Caring about the safety of your loved ones... this is cowardice? You have no idea what courage is.

You're the one taking the bus because you're afraid you might be randomly selected for a pat down! Hahahahaha!

What are you talking about? You're no safer with any of this.

Eating something? What?

If a terrorist wanted to smuggle something on a plane, he'd refuse the scanner and shove something sheathed up his rectum, which would be missed during the molestation. They're nuts and suicidal, pain isn't going to stop them.

You're giving up civil rights for no reason.

I take the bus because when the option is 1). Give up your rights 2). Ride the bus. I ride the bus. Try to spin it any way that makes you happy but it doesn't change the truth.

((Rolls eyes)) You're free to choose to ride the bus instead of flying. Therefore your civil rights are not being violated. How can you not understand that flying is A PAID SERVICE, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

I give up.

lmao! Welcome to reality RangerRich...beating a dead horse with a stick won't make it come to life! Been there, done that...still shaking my head is utter disbelief.

I've exhausted every effort in trying to have a rational conversation with her. It's damn near impossible.

"damn near" ?? I beg to differ - I think it's "damn impossible" - damn near would mean there was some hope. There is none. lol

Thanks, K and T. At least I'm not the only one pulling my hair out!

haha fair enough K!! :) And don't worry Rich, you're not alone.

Not all Airports have the full body scan machines.

Yeah, she chose not to be scanned and then bitches about the repercussions of her decision. The third choice was don't fly.

But don't listen to me, I'm the guy who thinks if you are too fat to fit in a single seat you should be forced to buy a second seat instead of hanging over into my space.

Todd - If you absolutely have to fly, your choices are being viewed naked or being molested. Those aren't really choices. They are both violations of the 4th Amendment.

Why would you absolutely have to fly? Like I said in a previous post, the only people that absolutely have to fly are astronauts, and they don't have to pass through TSA checkpoints on their way to the ISS or Moon! There are alternatives to flying for everyone else. Convenience isn't a need.

Did any of you "you don't have to fly" types look at what she was doing when TSA molested her? When one of you walks or drives from South America to LA you can tell us how much better it was than flying but until then your words have no merit.

And if you think TSA is saving lives google TSA enhanced security and effects on driving fatalities and you'll find when we force folks to drive instead of flying we have about 1000 extra traffic fatalities per year. If we completely eliminated TSA would we have 1000 folks per year killed by terrorists? Maybe if we were as passive as before 9/11 but folks were pretty quick to subdue the panty bomber so I'm thinking the TSA has outlived what little usefulness it provided.

Google Michael Chertoff and TSA to find out what's really going on.

Todd, which department for the TSA do you work in?

Wow, Todd-651965 you really have no idea. If I want to go from New York to London by boat it would take a minimum of 12 days each way! If my mother-in-law dies (who lives in London, UK) will my husbands employer really give him 25 days vacation to get to the funeral? I would love to take a boat. But, my employer would fire me if I did. For ocean travel, the economy chooses not me. If you have that kind of time to travel, good for you. But the rest of us who have to work for a living don't.

Oh, and God forbid if you have to get to Australia!

If your mother in law dies, just have her shipped over here, that way you don't have to take any time off from work. She won't mind the voyage.

Will that really help? If it is up to some of you fools, this stuff will be installed at state lines too.

It's funny you mention drive. That is how the 9/11 hijackers got to their airports...

@jon smith; True, the terrorists drove to the airport. But their attack used the PLANES as weapons, not their cars. Your argument would make more sense if 9/11 had been a bunch of car bombs, rather than hijacked airliners.

your NOT safer and you lost your rights . happy?

But Jeff he "FEELS" safer. I know, let's issue "papers" to everyone that they will have to show everytime they travel, oh wait..... didn't Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union do that?

Oh, the old "you're not any safer" routine.

Here's a little thought experiment for you:

Two planes are boarding. In one of the lines (you don't know which) there is a passenger with a bomb (in his underwear - there is precedent, after all).

One line will go through the safety procedures now in place - body scan or pat down. One won't have either - just a standard x-ray machine for baggage and such.

You have a choice of lines.

Pray tell, Jane and Jeff: Which line do you stand in?

OK, OK, I know - of course you stand in the "security" line because you KNOW there is a bomb. And of course, the real odds of a bomb are slim.

So let's make it a .10 percent chance there is a bomb - now which line do you stand in? Or how about .01?

At what percent do you say - "I'll stand in the no scan/pat down line."

And Jane - "they" already issue "papers." Passports, driver licenses, etc. And you usually do have to show "them" some form of ID when you travel.

The dumber you are the easier it is to feel safer.

hey "findingmyself" post #11. when you give up your rights in the name of safety, you end up with neither. why don't you do your homework and learn which of our forefathers first coined that phrase. then maybe you'll understand what made this country so great.

Elvoid -

Considering the TSA has an average of 60% failure to detect rating, it's a crap shoot either way. In some of the major airports their failure rating is much higher and that is WITH the scanners and gropers!

steve

You gave up some of your "rights" long before the patdowns began. For instance, taxation without representation. The will of the people doesn't matter anymore, but the money of the lobbyists sure does.

Elvoid, I wouldn't use underwear bombs as an example. It's been noted that it is uncertain that the scanners would even find the underwear bomb.

It was widely reported in December.

So in response to you thought experiment, it's a 50/50 shot and it really doesn't matter which line I stand in. The odds are the same.

How about everybody that's afraid of "terrorists" not fly instead. I can think of half a dozen different ways to cause panic/destruction and not one of them requires the I go anywhere near an airport let alone an airplane. Just as an example what do you think would happen if you emptied a 5 pound bag of flour over the side of a building in any major city during rush hour?

Sean, if your failure rate at your job was 60%, how long exactly would you have your job? How long would you be allowed to continue doing things the same way with such a high failure rate? I not asking for 100%, but I'm not satisfied with 40% either.

Skelmcb and john:

I never meant to imply the standard was 100 percent detection - of course it is not - in the real world, what other than eventual death is 100 percent?

The point is it is a chance at detection, whereas the other method is a virtual zero chance at detection. If you start at 100 percent certainty that there is a bomb among 300 passengers, and you tell them to separate into two lines - one that provides scanning and pat downs, and one that does not, you are likely to find all passengers in the scan and pat down line - and no one is getting on the plane until the bomb is found.

Dial it back from there and analyze away - at what percent do you not care about the chance of detection?

I find the scans and patdowns an inconvenience, to be sure - but not an egregious violation of my rights.

And john, while I appreciate your respectful answer to the question and also understand your position, your assessment of odds makes me think a trip to Vegas with you could prove costly.

Why are people so paranoid? The fact is your reaction shows that the terrorists have already won their basic argument because America has spent a vast amount of precious resources defending against all of these failed terrorist attack attempts and what-if scenario's. Truth is that we could what-if ourselves into the next millennium and it won't prevent the next successful attack against us. The technology and techniques being employed against the public today all are a result of some failed terrorist attack by a disillusioned idiot who was totally incapable of completing the task anyway. Yet Americans react as if he was successful, resulting in the expending of much needed resources to appear to be prepared to stop an attack.

The truth is, you cannot prevent a deranged individual from attempting to execute a terrorist act. Shoe bomber, underwear bomber, restricting matches, lighters, fluids. X-ray machines, invasive pat downs. These are all restrictions that law abiding, tax paying American citizens have had to endure due to the public's perception that the next terrorist attack is right around the corner.

Hey, Chicken Little's the "Sky is not falling." In other words I can guarantee you that the next successful terrorist attack will utilize a method for which no present pre-screening procedure exists. You see, that's how fanatics work.

To those of you who tell this young lady, well don't fly? Some of us hard working Americans don't have a choice in the matter. Flying is a requirement for the job that we do. What should we do, find another job? That is an unrealistic expectation considering what the unemployment rate is right now.

But go ahead all of you supporters of the infringement of our personal rights, you supporters of having your daughters, mothers, sister's and wives violated through this inane "pat-down" procedure, those of you who are willing to relinquish your privacy rights because you're afraid some fanatic is going to bomb you out of existence. The terrorists have already accomplished their goal with you people.

Truth is people like you are willing to turn over your personal freedoms to the same government who you decry is toooo big, toooo intrusive and spends toooo much money, (for the "Spelling Police", the extra "ooo's" were added for literary emphasis) rather than look these fanatical radicals in their ideological faces and tell them that "Americans aren't scared of your false religious BS. That we will not compromise on the principles of freedom and liberty for which our nation stands. That we will not sacrifice our personal liberty in the name of National Security." Sadly too many of your paranoid kind are not willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice as a price to live in this great land called America, but are so willing to sacrifice some young man or woman to support an energy policy that keeps Americans dependent upon those same countries that spew hate and look to commit terrorist acts against us.

Go figure!

Only sex perverts may enjoy the touching.I am not surprised, though, the world is full of idiots , followers, and brain dead morons who are content with the DO AS TOLD and keep living ( if you call that living).

SatitaintSO, well said!

Important translating to wealthy?

Kelcy,

You know your post is 3 paragraphs of total unadulterated BS! Terrorists are constantly trying to develop ways to bring down aircraft and your spouse is a frequent flier and you still persist with all the lame excuses--and you listed almost ALL of those lame excuses! Do you realize this is POSSIBLY a life or death matter? Have you no common sense?

Kelcy

Do you realize that you are also exposed to radiation each and every time you get out in the sunlight?

Hey scrambolo, do you realize that if you make it too difficult to fly on planes, terrorists will simply start taking buses? It's more an inconvenience to us than it ever will be to them. Who really won?

Fiddle, all themore reason not to be exposed to more... especially back scattermachines which will be ill maintained and run by people who have no clue what they are doing.

My simple fix is I no longer will fly.

Feel sorry for those who maintain and run the machines. A small residual effect is significant with time.

Kelcy; as others have said: don't fly if you are not willing to follow the rules. I assure you that nobody wants to do security screening, but it's an unfortunate byproduct of the world we live in. Are we going to catch many people with these screenings -- probably not, but more than you'd think. Are planes going to fall out of the sky or be used as weapons if we don't screen - definately.

This sentiment goes double for the person this article was written about: "Boo-Hoo ...I'm so special because everyone has kissed my rear all my life that I couldn't possibly fathom that I might have to be treated like everybody else" ... this moron needs to grow up.

Well Said. That is the reason I don't fly anymore. I take a few days extra, drive, and see the scenery. You are right. It is invasive, and if this was done in any other place the TSA personnel would be arrested for sexual assualt. Maybe it is time for the people to take back their rights.

Kelcy, yeah, and parents, doctors, nurses and intermural sports also would be engaging sexual assult then I guess.

Yes, no such thing as zero risk...thanks for that enlightment, and think of that next time you answer your cell on the road, or take your kids for a ride and put them at risk for your convienence...for no good purpose. If you can't tell the different between a signicant risk and an insignificant risk...take a science class

I don't like the TSA either, and have greatly reduced flying because of it. But your points are off point. TSA..that is the way it is, low level radiation...big deal, worry about a significant risk. Did you know that 22 K per year are projected to get cancer from radon...I presume you have that covered since it is in your control.

And fgh...no, that is not how acceptable risk is set...the low levels are assumed to be present for their occupational exposure..day in and day out. So they are set assuming the exposure is there all the time. Imagine that :)

Rant over..but it was a counter rant :)

Good for you...but don't knock someone for doing their job and trying to keep others safe.

I'll bet your list of rights is miles longer than those found in the Constitution!

What a stupid response. You're right on with your name because with this response everyone knew you were a blonde.

Sure bet:

Anytime someone mentions their rights, yours are about to get violated.

yes I would, because they made the choice to fly, then made a choice to get in the line to be frisked.

to my knowledge women pat down women, and men men. So what is the comment about wifes and daughters about ? they can wo(man) up like the rest of us.

Regarding differences in TSA at different airports...not that surprising if you have flown in the past decades, they can be airport specific.

I have reduced flying myself...vote with your feet, plus the age of flying may be winding down with the supply of cheap carbon to fuel them. The per person fuel usage is about like driving a compact car to the destination. Dis the TSA while you still have a chance.

Beauty Queen...that is funny though...a beauty queen :)

I know this is probably foolish to respond since it appears while you can read, none of you can comprehend anything, but here goes....

That woman was upset over how one particular search was done, not the search process itself. Is it because she was once was a "beauty queen" that she is being vilified over her complaint? She said she felt "violated" and had the right to complain or is that right gone also? If your mother, sister or daughter complained of feeling "sexually violated" after a search would seriously you tell them to shut up and get over themselves?

Every American has the right to "be free from unreasonable search and seizure". You have to give that right up, if you chose to fly, which I choose not to.

Savviegirl67 Show me where I put anyone down for doing their job! I have no problem with how the TSA workers do their job, since I do not fly and I do not blame the TSA workers for the policies of their employers.

She said that most everyone agrees with her.

As soon as someone justifies their position with "almost everyone I've talked to agrees with me" you know they are full of crap. If this little bimbo's feelings are that sensitive, then how did she make it through beauty pageant school?

JustAFlier:

As soon as someone justifies their position with "almost everyone I've talked to agrees with me" you know they are full of crap.

Excellent point.

And she's supposed to be the ideal of an astute and virginal young woman in America?

" Its better than blowing up in the air."

What makes being blown up in the air any different than being blown up on the ground? If it's just being blown up that you are afraid of then there should be check points that cover all ground travel too and any place that people can gather, like restaurants and ball games and supermarkets. The only way to keep everyone safe all the time would be to make sure that we all live in tiny little bubbles, telling us what we can and can't do or eat or say.

Or she could be Obama's new running mate.

She's Charlie Sheens next Goddess

Dave

"Mission Accomplished", this time for real. Who's your daddy now?

Thank you for pointing this out - it's a pet peeve of mine that people refer to the outer female genital area as the vagina. No TSA agent is going to touch anyone's vagina, through their clothing no less, in the pat-down line; it's not physically possible.

I thought the same thing, K.

I don't recall seeing a set of stirrups on the scanner... lol

Yet. It is the TSA, after all. : )

Anatomically incorrect but everyone seems to have understood the meaning. This is a commentary about TSA and flying not anatomy class.

No, its a commentary about a selfish twit looking for attention. On the other hand, it is Dallas.

Many people don't know what the correct anatomical name is but everyone knows what a vagina is. I believe vagina was used to make the point so that everyone would understand where she was being violated.

Another idiotic response. Are those your real rights or the ones you think you have.

Notice how anyone on this @!$%#e site with an opinion that opposes that of the sheeple majority is almost always subjected to scorn and ridicule; and of course, COLLAPSED BY THE COMMUNITY!!! What a sad commentary on the attitudes of this group.

Stop Loss and mike in portland ... you should be ashamed. Keep spewing your venum while hiding behind unidentifiable screen names...

Terry-104 and .Feronia: Right on! The TSA system sucks, and what we have are a bunch of new government employees protecting their turf.

C'mon folks! Patting down little kids, old ladies, infants...! And I don't like the xray machines either. Been exposed too much in my lifetime, and if it's not looking for a tumor, or scanning for a broken bone, why do it?

And don't give me that crap about if you don't like it don't fly. Hey folks, some of us have to fly for business, family...

Or Terry-1044709, 'the enemy is within', which explains the next two above.

Terry they have to turn ugly on those that support personal rights to hide their cowardice and lack of reason.

Luckily, the "would-be" underwear bomber failed since he didn't get a pat down in the area of his bomb.

I feel I have "the right" to fly as safely as possible and have "the right" to agree with whatever security measures are required for doing so.

I also feel that others have "the right" to refuse those safety measures but I don't want to be on a plane with them.

Perhaps there should be two kinds of flights to choose from: Safety Screened and Non-Safety Screened. Then we'll all be free to fly either way. I'd be happy to pay extra for the service.

Well said Terry. The two comments below yours show what a lack of understanding we have in this country. Some seem to think that the founding fathers were stupid or something. Just because they were alive a few hundred years ago doesn't mean they didn't understand freedom and rights. Some say that "things are different now" or "we live in a different time" and things back then don't apply today, but that would be like someone from the future coming back to us and saying that we are stupid and don't understand what it means to be free because we are alive today and not in the future.

Terry they have to turn ugly on those that support personal rights to hide their cowardice and lack of reason.

@ ANN - LIBERTARIAN -- This statement coming from the woman who came right out and said she dislikes me the most because I don't feel the same way she does? How is THAT not turning UGLY? Why is it only acceptable for YOUR KIND to act angry and ugly but no one from the other side to do the same?

Because Snider you are crapping all over my constitution and civil rights because of your unreasonable, abject, paranoia. I don't like you or your kind. It think you're a disgraceful American and I think you and your ilk are 1/2 the reason this country is going to fail. And that really ticks me off.

I've been to Israel, more than once, and they don't have to resort to any methods anywhere near as intrusive or that violate an individuals personal rights as we're doing. This procedure DOES NOT make us safer and is just the brainstorm of an overly power hungry woman with "issues". And shame on you and all those like you that are so cowardly you follow her blindly without reason, needing to believe you are now SAFE. Your safety is an illusion but your sacrificing your rights to a fascist policy is fact.

I like you even less today.

Ann, get over yourself. I didn't put the rules in place, I only choose to follow them and not bitch about them and expect someone else to bow to my whiney ass entitlement to everything being MY WAY or I'm angry and pissed.

I don't like you or your kind, either. You're a self-righteous, rude, condescending, self-centered person who thinks everyone should bow to you because you think you're better than everyone else.

You sound like a power-hungry woman yourself...demanding that everyone think like you do, feel like you do or you want to take your ball and go home. So take your little ball and go home. No one will miss you.

Oh get over yourself Snider. You've posted this same schlock and whined about people's responses for a dozen pages. And you've even said in one of your 1000 previous posts that you think it's great. That "we" should stop attempting to violate your rights but stopping this.

Snider, you may not like me but people I know do. From your immature, whiny response to everything on this thread I have a feeling the way people have responded to you here, very much echoes real life for you.

Now stop trying to sound tough as you're crying into your keyboard. As far as internet debating goes, you really stink. You don't belong on these boards.

ha ha ha @ Ann....I have as much right to be on these boards as you do. Every time you open your mouth you prove me right ... keep it up.

Oh Snider you sound like a 12 year old. I hope no one that knows you posts here. BTW.. you're useless as a human and there's no debating with you because you're not intelligent enough. You're ignored.

P.S. don't "like" your own foolish posts. It's obvious and pathetic.

Ann old buddy,

I agree with 100% but you need to suffer the fools a little more lightly. Otherwise do like Jesus said and don't cast your pearls before swine. None are so blind as those who will not see.

People like K. Snider are probably very nice, though seriously deluded, individuals. When she is scrubbing toilets for her Chinese bosses she might start to understand. She has obviously never read the Declaration of Independence. What an inspirational document that is!

Oh Ann, you sound like a very angry spoiled old lady who no longer has the money to pay for servants. There's no debating with you because you can't see past your own arrogance to believe that other people aren't little clones of you and have minds of their own.

Ignore me if you wish, that's fine. Constantly being put in your place and not on a pedestal might be really frustrating to you.

Cosmc... I know, I lower myself when I respond to these seriously wanting individuals.... but they're just so darned ignorant and annoying.

Oh but I do have to disagree with one thing you said, they're usually just as annoying in real life.

Gambler, right on the money, she needs/wants to be in the spotlight but her LOFT (lack of fuc*ing talent) indeed does force her to these other avenues. I'm responding because I also saw her on the Today Show and just need to call her out and say that statement of "everyone has been supportive of me" is a lie and a joke and that the only who is supportive would be your husband.....maybe and your family and only because they have to. It is what it is, if you don't like it DON"T FLY, she wasn't treated any differently than anyone else, we don't change the rules because you were "a miss USA for Pete's sake"

She didn't have any issue with TSA in Los Angeles because they did the proper routine. But, just this one at Dallas Airport that somehow left her felt violated. Most of TSA are a bunch of former burger flipping that were given power to do whatever they want at the airport. What a waste of money. Most of the time they are just walking around in groups doing nothing.