TSA opposite gender pat-down: must accept sexual assault to fly -- must complete process once begun!

http://www.airsafe.com/issues/security/tsa-sop-not-redacted.pdf

****************************************
****************************************

2.2.3. HHMD OR PAT-DOWN SCREENING OF INDIVIDUALS
The HHMD TSO is responsible for HHMD screening and pat-down inspections in accordance with the Screening Checkpoint SOP. All HHMD and pat-down searches must be conducted by TSOs of the same gender as the individual presents him or herself to be. Extraordinary circumstances may occur where a TSO of the same gender is not available, including staffing shortage emergencies at any airport or limited staffing at category II, III, and IV airports. Under these circumstances, TSOs of the opposite gender may be allowed to screen individuals in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4.3.14 of this SOP. During opposite gender screening an STSO or LTSO, if possible, should be present. This rule applies to all references of same gender screening in the Screening Checkpoint SOP.

*******************************************
*******************************************

Revision: 3
Date: May 28, 2008
Implementation Date: June 30, 2008 Screening Management SOP

4.3.14. OPPOSITE GENDER SCREENING
Extraordinary circumstances may occur where a TSO of the same gender as the individual being screened (the gender of an individual is determined by who he or she presents themselves to be) is not available to complete HHMD and/or pat-down screening procedures (for example, staffing shortage emergencies at any airport or limited staffing at Category II, III, and IV airports). Under these staffing shortage emergencies, screening procedures for individuals of the opposite gender, as provided for in this Section, are authorized and STSOs must apply the following procedures.

A. The following notifications must be made within 24 hours of each new staffing shortage event:
1) The STSO must notify the FSD, specifying the anticipated duration of the staffing shortage. The STSO must provide subsequent updates to the FSD if the reported duration is exceeded.
2) The STSO must maintain a count of the number of passengers affected during the staffing shortage and report these numbers to the FSD after the shortage is resolved. No personal or identifying information must be taken from the passenger for purposes of this report. For example, “three female passengers underwent opposite gender screening at Airport X” is an adequate count; however, including the names of the three female passengers in the count would be inappropriate. [my note: Do Touch; Don't Tell]
3) The FSD must in turn notify the Area Director, who must monitor such reports and consider how the patterns of staffing shortages, if any, can be addressed. The Area Director or his or her designee must notify the Office of Civil Rights of the staffing shortage and provide a copy of the report indicating the number of passengers subjected to opposite gender screening at each affected airport.

B. The STSO must ensure that the following notice is provided to an individual of the opposite gender before the individual enters the WTMD:
1) A TSO of the same gender as the individual presents him or herself to be is not available.
2) A TSO of the opposite gender will be required to complete the screening process, which may include physical contact between the TSO and the individual.
3) An LTSO or STSO, if possible, will be present.
4) Once the individual enters the WTMD, the individual must complete the screening process.

[I repeat: "4) Once the individual enters the WTMD, the individual must complete the screening process." Sorry high school girl!]

TSA extends sexual abuse for stop-and-frisk to fly-and-frisk

New TSA regs extend sexually abusive searches from reasonable cause and supposed police safety to administrative (warrant-less) search and public safety (airport, school and skating rink are legally indistinguishable).

Most or all police departments train male officers to frisk females if no female officers are handy or pretty much whenever they feel like it. Any hope for a Fourth Amendment shield has evaporated under many decisions: http://www.rbs2.com/travel2.pdf. Small police departments with only a few male officers even feel free strip search female prisoners: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWokzdFBNLs -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BVgBip-cd8&feature=related.

All courts require to excuse what anyone living outside the legal cloud would take for criminal sexual intrusion is reasonable cause of crime or any unspecified claim of officer safety (e.g., afraid to transport a handcuffed 15 year old girl): http://www.lawforkids.org/speakup/view_question.cfm?id=269&topic=OTHER.

TSA rules now mandate traumatic male on female enhanced frisking anytime there is no female agent available (happens mostly at small airports with only a few agents) and may always have permitted sexual touching pretty much whenever convenient (for the toucher?) -- for administrative searches and supposed public safety. (2004!)-- TSA rules have begun to mandate women -- and children! -- be x-rated, x-rayed for remote viewers of the male sex (half the time?) for administrative searches and supposed public safety: http://ontodayspagelinks.blogspot.com/2010/12/tsa-opposite-gender-screening-mandatory.html -- http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/328417-bos-lets-men-wand-frisk-female-passengers.html.

If courts carry on in their current backbone-less Fourth Amendment ways about TSA intrusions -- there is the felony criminal aspect they should think of first if you ask me -- there will equally be no discernible constitutional or legal line between assembly line x-rated, x-rays and groping at any high school or skating rink: public safety is public safety.

Going by this widely reported AP story and pictures, two small Douglas County, Colorado courthouses do not even attempt to avoid same-sex frisking and may even neglect remote viewers not seeing you directly (looks like a TV monitor right by the x-ray viewer; for the front door? -- wonder if he detected the label backing in her back pocket with the back of his hand): http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/full-body-scanners-popping-752566.html. I wonder if giant Cook County, Illinois courthouse which has begun using whole body scanners will forget all about traumatic sexual intrusion too? The media might check.

[Hint: small police departments: you too can purchase whole body scanners to use with remote female viewers for your detainees. Safe enough for giant Cook County jailhouse -- safe enough for your jailhouse: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/cook-county-jail-body-scans-85552562.html. Now that the technology is available you might think twice how much it might cost you if you don't: http://www.wbez.org/story/cook-county-pay-55-million-jail-inmates. Hint: all police departments: I drove a gypsy cab all night in the South Bronx and Harlem for years -- I am still alive. You need to be willing to take the "risk" (not the largest of your day) of transporting a handcuffed, strapped down, locked in female behind a shield for a five minute ride to the police station in order to protect her from traumatic sexual assault (policy protects you from criminal charges only because the gov made you do it); from what your wife and daughters would be terrified of at small airports.]

ALLOW ME TO EXTEND THIS POST TO EVERYDAY POLICING:

Three videos of male officers subjecting female victims to (ever so slow motion) sexual battery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RxH1CnYhd8&feature=related (groped in first minute – released at tenth minute) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NI7JEA4iK4&feature=related
http://www.wktv.com/news/local/FULL-DASHCAM-VIDEO-OF-21111-Utica-traffic-stop-136602198.html (groping begins at 12 minutes -- takes a long time to load)
 * * * * * *
Back when the airport screening got heavy I got on the net to research what the constitutional limits must really be.  Turns out police departments around the country think there are no limits criminal or constitutional to male officers groping females.  I was shocked by one of my first finds: a widely reported story of a courthouse guard groping a mother with two little children to find a sticker in her back pocket.  Story was about scanners coming to courthouses -- groping not even commented on!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/us_news/2010/Nov/24/full_body_scanners_popping_up_at_courthouses.html

Officer safety is the first excuse.  But a female checked for guns -- which can be done without touching anything with fingers -- and rear cuffed behind is a shield is not going to, first, do the Houdini and slip the bracelets and, then, do the Incredible Hulk, tear aside the partition, draw a sharp object from her bra and scratch the police officer. 

Second is the mindless notion that it is not sexual battery as long a cop does it.  "We are professionals doing a job."  Even: "We are like doctors."  Policy may or not discourage going as far as possible but whatever they do, they don't consider it illegal.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090210210037AAXeuFi

Turns out at the airport the letter of the law is that once you enter the security zone, you must submit to the complete body grope -- even if you are a female and only males are available (which is supposed to be not extremely unusual in small airports).  It presumably is not strictly enforced -- but just the idea that it can be written shows a giant mental cog is missing with law enforcement on this issue.
http://ontodayspagelinks.blogspot.com/2010/12/tsa-opposite-gender-screening-mandatory.html

Here a female reporter incredibly subjects herself to a male full body frisk on camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFEML_BlRrc&feature=related
They even practice kids on kids (presumably over 18).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-dcSUDPE8&feature=related

Simple enough: any search for evidence can be conducted at the police station by the same matron who would strip search the woman if arrested.  Probable cause means better than 50/50 chance she will be charged, right?  In any case, women in this country can live with the fact that they may be pulled in to a police station to be searched some time in their lives.  I can't find the link but Kansas City (I think) police recently held a woman for three days until a female officer came to work to search her for a major shoplift.  What women cannot live with is leaving their driver's license home and knowing some brute will perfectly free to grope all over her like she was a teenage boy.

The same law applies to cops that applies to everybody else.  A possibly needed common sense legal point: you cannot justify battery because of some good overall effect -- like freeing more police to patrol -- you can only justify battery because of a dangerous circumstance on the spot.  One more: If any male police officer can grope a female for any reason as long as it is not sexual -- so can any other male.

Single question whose variations cover all TSA sexual invasion situations

Having previously worked out in a previous post on my blogspot that males frisking males (includes same-sex attracted males frisking males) is ipso facto a criminal action (already written laws — Fourth Amendment need not exist) then all other TSA sexually invasive security questions comes down to variations of the following: in a small airport where only 3 or 4 male TSA agents are on duty with as yet no scanner would it be (is it now — this situation exists across the country) legally permissible to simply prevent the woman from boarding without a frisk or is it legally permissible to perform on her what that state’s criminal law defines as a violent sexual crime as a condition of boarding (not just which is more harmful but what is legally permissible)?

More on this as I work out the angles.

Law cases establish and Eighth Amendment right against sentenced male inmates being viewed nude by female guards: cruel and unusual punishment -- while actually stating no precedent yet exists under the Fourth Amendment! Guess females had better travel as sentenced prisoners!

Really-really effective Israeli security -- in the air and on the ground -- get Israeli settlers out of the Palestinian homeland

A proposal for really-really effective Israeli security -- both in airport and even (especially?) on the ground: get our "51st state", Israel, the hell out of Islam's "51st state" what was left of the Palestinian homeland, the West Bank and Gaza, after Israel gouged out 80% of it in 1949 after the U.N. okayed only 55%): so we don't have to trade any more American skyscrapers for Israeli settlements.

Cheaper than spending the $150 billion a year to institute Israeli type security in American airports -- $500 a year for every man woman and child (they only bomb us on the ground if they are already here anyway). We already spent $200 billion in military aid to Israel over the past 40 years to make sure they have the "Indians" surrounded. In thanks for providing Israel security 400,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank -- more every day -- are creating a fury on the Arab street that grows every day as the numbers of "ethnic cleansers" in the occupied territories grow.

Click here for Uri Anvery's Christmas message about the daily depredations against Palestinians as told in a new book "The Occupation of the Territories" (not yet on Amazon) reporting the experiences of hundreds of young Israeli soldiers -- purposely no atrocities; only grinding, growing day in day out degradation of Islamic "natives."

Police/TSA opposite-sex groping and stripping (minus) the Fourth Amendment (plus) Tennessee v. Garner (equals) sexual felonies

The TSA has introduced into administrative (warrant-less) searches a species of sexual permissiveness that 99.9% of Americans have no idea courts have already extended to police departments for making routine frisks with either probable cause of crime or for supposed safety of officers -- which invasiveness ladies discover too late when they fall literally into male police hands or under male police gaze stripped completely (at 2:00).

I am talking routine male on female frisking when no TSA officers are conveniently available (almost universal police policy) as well as the electronic stripping of women and children before whatever gender happens to be manning a remote screen. Male TSA officers, just like most local police officers, are actually trained in specific techniques and “limits” of touching all female private areas: for instance, using the blade (along the pinky) of the hand to lift breasts. Not all local police officers are trained in less invasive techniques.

Yes, Mary, any male police officer may, if no female officer is immediately available, conduct the most intimate frisk as a routine precaution, not because of an immediate threat, which need would not justify any other form of violent assault. Self-identified officers on online forums even assert that if a female officer is present, the police still get to decide who will search and who will back up and the citizen has no legal say.

Some male officers on online forums complain they hate to frisk females and other officers of how they always have always have a witness and/or do it in front of a camera to avoid charges. How often do they do it? Small departments with no female officers apparently feel perfectly free to strip search females in front of male officers every single arrest.

Enter the TSA at small airports where only three or four TSA male agents may be present and where there may not yet be a whole body scanner. Upshot: if no female agents present (coffee break?) TSA feels perfectly free to permit – even mandate! – its male agents intimately touch (in accordance with the same training female agents get) every sexually private part of every female passenger, 13 years and older (perhaps in practice only when females are traveling alone or with small children): policy.

The Fourth Amendment has evaporated in current jurisprudence anytime anybody cites officer safety – if not yet in TSA dragnet mode and not yet with public (instead of officer) safety for justification.

We know the Constitution is safe from dragnet mode and public safety justification at school houses: “Don’t worry young lady; the officer who will view your naked form is not even in this building; oppsey, something showed up and you cannot go back through; sorry, no female friskers showed today.”. The criminality of such a practice is too easily evident to everyone's sensibilities. But, mention officer or airplane safety to the courts and who knows what state constitutional privacy may land in.

The Fourth Amendment reasoning in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 US 1 (wildly misused against border guards who were at life threatening hazard, -- not alone with a handcuffed female) can be used to rope in Rodney-King-day-every-day for females at police departments nationwide (the last civil rights movement?) and to pull an extra tight knot around TSA’s opposite-sex groping (what emergency?) and child and opposite-sex naked viewing with everyday criminal law – even if there had never been any constitutional Bill of Rights.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985):
Concluding that "[i]t is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape,"13 Justice White's majority ruling noted that it was constitutionally unreasonable to shoot a fleeing suspect "[ w]here the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.

Substitute: where the female detainee or interstate traveler poses no immediate threat to the officer or to other travelers, the harm resulting from failing to make a male on female frisk does not justify the use inherent violence of the legal definition of sexual assault to do so.

Did someone say "popping up at courthouses" (exactly what AP said)? What criminal law (don't bother with constitutional) difference is there between a courthouse and a high school or a skating rink? At courthouses these days officer safety is mixed together with public safety to justify dragnet (routine) male on female frisks along with naked view of all by any!

Extending the practice of male police routinely frisking and even stripping females into the area of warrant-less search and for public safety (airports, ball parks -- what difference?) the TSA has gone so far out on the legal (and constitutional) limb that it must fall of its own over obnoxious weight. Roll routine sexual assault all the way back to the police station and jail house or to let it roll over the whole country: courts today, colleges tomorrow?

[I have left out of this essay any Fourth Amendment questions about gruesome same-sex groin and personal female area frisking because they are not strictly criminal and not as easily dispatched applying criminal law comparisons alone.]

Stick figure scanner pics coming to three Montana airports next year -- Boston's Logan due for same

Stick figure scanner pics coming to three Montana airports next year: Helena, Billings and Gallatin:
http://www.belgrade-news.com/news/article_962047ac-f718-11df-953e-001cc4c03286.html
******
FULL BOSTON HERALD STORY:
TSA: Scanners will show only ‘stick figure’
Privacy complaints spur change
Richard Weir By Richard Weir
Thursday, November 18, 2010 -

[Richard Weir is the Herald's new "T" beat reporter, covering a subway and bus system that moves 1.3 million people every day and is the lifeblood of the city. He has worked as the Herald's City Hall bureau chief and an investigative reporter, breaking stories on government waste and public corruption.]

The controversial naked body scanners at Logan International Airport will soon be G-rated, as Boston’s airport is set to be the nation’s first to get new X-ray technology showing a “stick figure” instead of the controversial outline of a passenger’s assets, the airport’s federal security director said yesterday.

“All you’ll have is stick figure and a little block around each anomaly on you,” George Naccara of the Transportation Security Administration said of the new scanners due to arrive by late winter.
http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1297227&position=0

Male police frisking females (gay males frisking males) -- males actually trained how to frisk bras! --

[ For latest thoughts click on; http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2012/08/taking-male-leo-hands-of-females-late.html ]
 
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985):
Concluding that "[i]t is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape,"13 Justice White's majority ruling noted that it was constitutionally unreasonable to shoot a fleeing suspect "[ w]here the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.

Substitute: where the female detainee poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to arrange for a female-on-female frisk does not justify the use of sexual assault to do so.

This is the principal under which the supposedly legal (though almost totally unknown to the public) practice of male police frisking females (and gay males frisking males) must be ruled out -- on an emergency basis (just like TSA naked scanning by opposite-sex remote viewers -- and of all children under 18).

I was surprised to say the least on Goggling the internet to find out police think it is okay for them to frisk the opposite sex -- even if a same sex cop is present; it's completely up to the two officers. I was shocked to discover that male police are actually trained in the technique of frisking breasts!

Both of these at: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071127121821AAjxGUL

"Officers are actually trained to frisk breasts. Basically lifting them with the back of their hand, then sliding their hand between them (over the shirt). You want find anything small doing this, but you will probably find a knife or a gun if one is hidden there. Some officers might just have a woman "shake" her bra to see if anything will fall out. ... We are taught to use the blade of our hand (the outside edge running along the pinky) when searching in the area of a bra."
"If the police have a reason to do a frisk, you will not have the option of picking one or the other, they will determine that. When two officers are present, one will be the "contact" officer and the other will be the "cover" officer. This would be determined before they approach you. The contact officer is responsible for any actions, and the cover officer acts as a backup."

Police say it is for the safety of the police -- like they used to say before "Tennessee" to excuse shooting fleeing teenage boys. Why not just clock her on the head with a club or zap her with a Taser -- exact same excuse? (Why not just shoot her?) Because it is better that all persons who might possibly pose danger to the police are not frisked than that all persons who might pose danger be groped by males who are sexually attracted to them.

If she reaches for her bra and you think she is hiding a .45 there, then shoot. Otherwise wait for a female officer or let her go on her way.

[ For latest thoughts click on; http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2012/08/taking-male-leo-hands-of-females-late.html ]

James Daubs' laughable denials that gay male TSA agents hunger to take advantage of male travelers. FIRST DRAFT

FIRST DRAFT (Brand new -- see http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2010/12/male-police-frisking-females-gay-males.html for crucial legal overview)


James Daubs' laughable denials that gay male TSA agents hunger to take advantage of male travelers. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/06/felt-up-at-the-pat-down-eugene-delgaudios-laughable-homophobia/

First, all of his excuses would not add up to a penny’s worth if we were talking male TSA agents frisking females – even though they should 100% equally apply. Maybe the real first of all should be reversing Daubs' example with a fat old gay TSA agent getting to frisk firm young men and boys -- think he wouldn't be ecstatic when time to go work everyday?

Second, when I first lived in San Francisco in the late ‘90s the sneaky feel scene was 100% out of 100% of the time. I used to literally stand with my hands hooked behind my back when perusing books at the main library branch. I remember one guy going crotch bump to crotch bump with me and jumping off the back of the bus – you couldn’t out maneuver them. I even remember making the mistake when I was new of defenselessly leaning over to fill out my driver’s license application where there was plenty of room behind – a giant public hall – and getting swiped from behind.

Sometime around when gay males were trying to get into Boy Scout leading (I’ve heard somewhere that lesbians had pretty much taken over the Campfire Girls – no problem with that; females don’t molest and are generally looking for older than younger) somebody wrote to whom he addressed as Pat Robertson’s homophobes at the ACLJ, describing the all sneaky feel all the time scene among San Francisco gay males – along with their decades long observation that gay males (not females) mostly light up too much (not molest) around pubescent (11-13 year old) girls.

I went back there in January – about a month after the letter was sent – the scene was still going 100%. One of them got me within 5 hours – paying for an electric heater at the 4th street hardware across from the Marriott – enough room for four people to pass behind me; so infuriating. All same for my three month stay.

I’m not sure if it was this trip but just to fill out: one day there was a service breakdown on the BART and the bus is much more crowded than usual for the time of day. I’m on the very back seat worrying how I’m going to off past a big one. He gets off to be replaced by a small one. I get up asking him for room; he typically moves his leg two inches and I have to roll up my newspaper to push his leg aside.

I went back the following January for seven months. Somebody must have put it too them – they had completely cleaned up their act. No more straining to get out of the way of your girlfriend as you move down the bus aisle and then squeeze right back against unsuspecting you.

Eighth-grade math; the next to last time I was there, every other gay male who got in my cab for four months had to pat me on the soft part of the shoulder two or three times at some point in the ride or else lean their hand against same while waiting for the change. Not sex but intimacy; still infuriating but I was afraid to say anything because they would have been so mortally shamed. Last time I drove a cab there for four months they had again completely cleaned up their act – maybe again somebody had put it to them.

Here is a KOS report of heterosexual TSA males taking advantage of females traveling along or with children -- infinitely more egregious because the women understand what is happening to them; that they are being groped by sexually attracted men. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/30/923752/-TSA-male-agents-target-female-travellers-%28w-poll%29

If anything this TSA thing may head off the next pseudo-liberal stage: openly gay male police officers frisking men on the street. Here is an AP report of a male Castle Rock, CO courthouse guard giving a female (both named) a “quick pad down” – not too quick to discover “paper backing of a "Junior Deputy Sheriff" sticker that one of the guards had given her two young boys” (woman traveling alone ow with small children?) in her “left rear pocket”! Not even commented on – widely distributed story. Male fitting Daub’s stereotype seen at remote view screen (with what looks like a small TV monitor right in front of him).
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/full-body-scanners-popping-752566.html

I had a gay male teenager living with me for a year in the Bronx in the late ‘70s. That’s when I discovered the only difference between gay and straight: anybody who gets in my space with no suspicion even they are getting in my face is always gay. Gays see what we straights think of as the big male ego in females instead.

Where males are concerned that lightning bolt between out legs takes the path of least resistance. Put straight males in prison and the only path available may be tempting.

Assuming there was some practical way to do the crazy thing: anybody in favor of saving state money by having formerly exclusively heterosexual male prison inmates to take over pat-down duty at the airports; especially “enhanced” pat-downs? What could parents tell their teenage sons who will understand precisely how egregious that would be? Would the answer to this question have anything to do with homophobia at all?

Roxi Copeland -- I’ll be Groped for Christmas Parody Video -- LINK

http://wewontfly.com/ill-be-groped-for-christmas/comment-page-1/#comment-2733

First we lose our pay; now we lose our privacy: TSA mess another sign of the SLUMMING of America

This TSA mess is just another symptom of the SLUMMING of America for the average person. First we lost our pay; now we are losing our privacy. Core cause: creep-creep, A.K.A. Parkinson's Law, A.K.A.. any pressure just naturally expands if not met by counter-pressure. In laissez faire America unlike in social democracy Europe there is never any counter pressure for the average person.

This is why in straight laced Illinois the Cook County courthouse started using scanners (hopefully not for long) while in wild and woolly California, county prosecutors threaten airport security with jail if they inappropriately touch (whatever that might mean under TSA laissez faire). In the "people's republic" people EXPECT to be taken care of -- makes all the difference.

European social democracy -- contrary to the "socialist" label Newty and friends like to put on it -- was invented, if that is the word, by very anti-communist, very conservative, German Roman Catholics -- to TAMP DOWN wage demands so their post fascist industrialists could rebuild after the war.

The core of social democracy is sector-wide labor agreements. What works to tamp down the race-to-the-top (to keep one union from being afraid to moderate demands because they fear the others wont -- worked our for the worst in post war England where they did not adopt sector-wide right away -- now most everywhere in the better paying world) also prevents the (American style) race-to-the-bottom.

The free medical and education of the welfare state aspect of social democracy have no moral hazard component (saith Hayek) -- no reason we have to copy their automatic dole.

Sector-wide would be the easiest, most saleable way to introduce Americans to the idea of being taken care of right. Airline and super-market workers would kill for sector-wide.

Definition of opposite-sex scanner viewing and frisking includes same-sex attracted

Women have a right to fear being taken advantage of by male TSA security -- straight men have the same right to fear being taken advantage by gay male security (gays are not girls) -- with no phony options-to-request. A gay male has every right to refuse his own partner access to his body -- ditto for gay TSA security.

Who will tell their teen age sons it is okay for a gay man to perform even an old fashioned (pre-enhanced) frisk on him -- not to say on his private and personal parts (same parts as a girls to a straight man) -- because we cannot discriminate in job assignments?! (Lesbians are not boys -- a trickier issue than I can handle.)
******
I want to make it absolutely clear that I am no homophobe. When I was an SF cab driver I used to joke that I made my living going down to the Castro after midnight to hustle (ditto for Halstead in Chicago and Christopher Street in New York when I rarely drove yellow there).

I had a gay teen living with me for a year in the Bronx in the 70s. That's when I figured out that gays are not girls. They programmed between the ages of 3 and 6 to see the big ego in women -- just as straights programmed to see the same in men -- that's all the difference between. That lightning bolt between our legs then takes the path of least resistance.

My first move away from home was to Chelsea in Manhattan which even in the 60s had a strong openly gay contingent.

Congress already voted against TSA naked child scanning -- ditto for state laws against opposite sex groping and scanning

How can TSA administrative regs -- composed with delegated Congressional legislative power – overwrite an explicit Congressional prohibition of naked child imaging: a legislative house divided against itself? Said prohibition passed First Amendment muster due to the harm done the imaged child. Viewing of (especially opposite-sex*) naked child images by either TSA or non-airport security personnel constitute the same legal offense.

(An artist's rendering of what a child's naked scan image would look like could not be shown legally on TV -- yet real female children are being viewed by male TSA viewers all over our landscape, all day and all night, with incalculable damage to many. Stop it right now!)

Without TSA regs for legal cover (the government made me do it) male TSA agents (one viewer per scanner) viewing the kind of naked images of adult females which scanners transmit could be prosecuted under the same federal and/or state laws that would make such viewing illegal at any high school or skating rink entrance.

Ditto -- most especially! -- for TSA males physically "meeting the resistance" of female genitalia or brushing hands over their private (all!) areas, every bit as much as at any department store entrance. How can mere airport regs authorize -- nay, mandate! -- male stranger upon female stranger attractive part-touching just because, for example, TSA may short handed on female employees (many small airports?) -- instead of merely refusing boarding of same (crackpot but not criminal)?
******
Both same-sex naked viewing and same-sex private part touching conflict with the justification previously cited by courts for okaying so-called administrative (warrant-less) searches: relatively limited invasion of privacy (sobriety checkpoints as far as it's been stretched). 17 out of 17 TSA employees out of the 20 who answered a query from a travel site survey proclaimed their disgust with being forced to perform overly personal pat-downs (at last count drawing 819 mostly disgruntled comments).

Courts require a balancing justification for supposed-to-be not too intrusive administrative searches. If 1 in 10 million yearly US airline flights were going down to terrorism taking 300 souls with them, would saving them supply justification to subject the other 9,999,999 plane loads to (even same-sex, adult-only) naked imaging and/or random private groping (scanner saw a hanky in your pocket; you can't just take it out and go through again -- you're wearing a sanitary napkin; you may choose a private room for your ordeal) -- even assuming $5 per passenger security actually worked? Not until we begin breathalyzing every driver at every checkpoint -- which would be a lot less intrusive and save a lot more lives -- than nationwide X-rated security theater.

A Cornell University study claimed 242 more driving fatalities per month occurred post 9/11, attributing those to travelers driving instead of flying (commenter #770 says he will fly to Mexico and drive to the U.S. if necessary to avoid the TSA).

[*Same Child (p.3); Exact Same Scanner; Software Detection Only (p.2)]

[FLASH: Helena, Montana airport scanners will display stick-figures only -- apparently without TSA objection. http://montana.watchdog.org/2010/11/19/airport-scanners-may-turn-flyers-into-stick-figures/]

Most shocking of TSA revelation of all: small airports/2 or 3 agents/T-R-Y for opposite sex pat-downs!!!

Most shocking of TSA revelation of all -- at very bottom of page:
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?156579-See-what-the-TSA-Scanners-REALLY-See/page2&p=2564830

Posts 1,319

Originally Posted by Nikk

If I understand correctly, the TSA pat downs are always performed by someone of your same gender.

Answer at very bottom of page:
There's a TSA agent on another forum that stated they TRY to have someone of the same gender do the pat down, but there's no guarantee. That's especially true at small airports where only 2 or 3 TSOs might be on duty at any given time.

Automatic TSA poll results -- automatic TSA legal results?

Automatic poll result should be: 95% oppose opposite sex remote viewing of nearly naked (pubic hair missing) airline passengers if separate lines for each gender is a practical alternative. 99.9% support separate sex scanners for their wives, daughters and son. A poll suggestion: how many Americans understand that opposite-sex viewing is the norm?

Should be automatic court test result: not separating genders for scanning when the alternative is easy (anybody sensible would say even if it isn't) is the equivalent of putting a camera in a stranger's shower room -- even if you never see the stranger in person: a serious felony under local law with adults, under federal law with children.

Should be automatic result of constitutional test: unneeded opposite sex naked imaging is the very definition of unreasonable search.
Should be automatic result of constitutional test: unneeded opposite sex intimate touching is the very definition of the very definition. Even if you say you can force her to miss the plane you may not make "the deal" to borrow a phrase from an old taxi driver's magazine article.

Criminal prosecution leading from the above results: once employees have been notified (policy need not wait): crossing the gender line, looking or touching, will result in full prosecution.

Has Janet Napolitano been intimately frisked by a male TSA worker yet? Would she want her teenage daughters to be ogled by male remote viewers when two lines work as easily as one? Has somebody asked her? Did anybody ask the American people?

DADT and unit cohesion: no problem EVEN if I know he is in the closet -- AS LONG as he stays there

I used to take a more pop-psychology approach to DADT and simply say straight male camaraderie is based on one-dimensional "shared interest" and simply state that gay males represent the opposite of such, so automatically cancel it out.

But, if I were in the army and I knew a soldier was in the closet (in point of fact I would recognize many -- do everywhere else) I would not be one bit less friendly with him than others -- nor be significantly embarrassed to shower with him (maybe a little quicker). OTW, if he came out I could not act in the same friendly manner towards him ...

...let's take a moment out to specify I am talking in front-line type, fighting type units, not in the Pentagon -- not in an office in other words -- where the undefinable camaraderie (indefinable should be no surprise -- this all takes place in the midbrain which forebrains seem to have little access too -- goes for shrinks too) is necessary ...

because now I am deathly afraid he will see much more in my friendliness. Now normally embarrassed about sexual privacy, too. Sensitives like this are like salt: you can add but you really can't subtract. No amount of indoctrination is going to make them go away.

25 years ago I read a causal remark in Armed Forces Journal (getting myself current in the military over 5 years) that officers have to be good looking to get promoted. I guess you have to prepare carefully to get people to charge a machine gun nest against their own interest. All this care and preparation saves lives -- or if it takes lives gets the job done.
******
"Voit-comp test" for gay or straight: do you see the big ego exclusively in males and not in females (straight) -- or the other way around (gay). Nothing more to it (AC/DCs may be in between). Sexual lightning takes the path of least resistance, that's all. Not sure if most shrinks know this either.

TSA "sexting" and teenybopper girls

From now on let's call TSA scanners "sexters."

If a male sexter viewer suggest his male remote viewer buddy (they seem only separated by a small screen in one video) take a look at a naked teenage girl, is he guilty of trying to pass child pornography? Is his buddy guilty of possessing that child pornography if he looks or of some big felony? If his buddy looking is not a big felony we have to make that law real fast. Is his male boss guilty of the same big felony if he lingers to look at the naked teen who caught his eye as he passed behind?

Did I mention that sexter machines have only one view screen and only one viewer per sexter machine even though both sexes pass through it in American airports -- the latter not allowed in India or Pakistan airports. For all we know they cannot get enough female applicants to look at naked bodies all day -- viewing is not a TSA employee job; goes to outside contractors; maybe TSA doesn't want to take responsibility when it hits the fan.

Wait; maybe buddy peeking would fit under one of those new state laws making it a big felony to plant a peek camera in a neighbor or tenant's apartment -- new law keeping up with new technology. What iron clad protections should (nothing anyone knows of now) be put in place to protect us from buddy peeks -- a much more likely crime than any terrorism (99 lashes if you try it in India or Pakistan :-])? Hard to make much of an argument for that level of protection, isn't it, as long as males are complacently allowed to view shower-stripped, naked females?

In a bad year we lose 43,000 lives to traffic accidents. We would not willing to strip search every man woman and child (even in front of same sex) 3 times a year on the average (billion airline passengers a year) and sexually touch 1/8th of the population (or more as the process expands) to do something about that. It wouldn't be America anymore.

The key thing about being American is individual freedom and personal rights. It is not worth taking away our sexual privacy if a plane goes down every month (out of 5 million flights a year) -- not that the current "security theater" could foil a determined terrorist.