US royalty exempted from security procedures
Wonder why the government officials aren’t all that concerned about the new “security measures” that the TSA has adopted for travelers? Well, that’s because they’re mostly exempted from the groping and poking. Michelle Malkin writes;
You’ve heard of the “no-fly” list.
Now get a load of the no-grope list — a roster of the privileged federal officials and politicians who don’t have to be subjected to TSA’s grabby hands.
So much for equal protection and the civilian servants of the American people. Of course, there’s a solution that we can apply in 2012 to bring them down to our level.
ADDED: I just saw TSA’s John Pistole on Fox & Friends. He explained that the reason these government officials don’t need to be patted down is because they have their own armed escorts. So I guess if the rest of America shows up with their own armed escorts, we can be exempted from pat downs.
Category: Liberals suck
I guess that the next question is who those “Government Officials” feel they need armed protection from? Terrorists? Constituents? Ordinary Citizens?
It’s time that the entire TSA operation was shut down, and the airlines allowed to operate as THEY see fit. After all, the airlines are private corporations, and ought to be providing the level of security that they feel is warranted. That way, the public can choose on whom to fly, and the markets will set what an acceptable risk is.
Either the 4th amendment has real meaning, or we just should ignore the entire Constitution. The people need to make it clear what side of that argument that THEY favor.
I actually think this is a good thing, and I think the “armed escort” line is a joke. These people don’t need to be groped or scanned because the TSA knows that they’re not going to blow up the airplane. It bothered me a few years back when Al Gore made a big show of giving in peacefully to being randomly selected for extra scrutiny. Airport security is a zero sum game – any time and personnel they were committing to wanding Al Gore, they didn’t have available to give extra scrutiny to someone who might be a real threat.
Of course, the logical extension of this is that they should exclude everyone who isn’t any more likely than those government officials to hijack a plane from extra scrutiny, and for the same reason. I know Napolitano isn’t going to blow up an airliner, I’m fine with giving her a pass. I also know no blonde 5-year-old isn’t going to blow up an airliner, he should get the same pass. Follow this line of reasoning farther and the only people the TSA will be fondling are people who share demographic traits with the only people in the history of air travel who have ever blown up civilian aircraft. TSA is already profiling, it’s way past time for them to do it effectively.
Does anybody know if the shoe bomber or any of the others that have been pulled off airplanes as a threat were actually given extra attention in the security lines? Did they actually beat extra scrutiny, or just not get it to start with?
Snatch and grab for thee but not for me…..
Pinto, the big problem is that they came in from overseas and as far as I know, foriegn airports aren’t subjecting flyers to these scanners and searches…I may be wrong…
I do understand the point of the post — that our officials should not be above the laws they enact. I would point out, however, that most of our government officials have been through extensive background checks. And even if their politics makes them dangerous to our civil liberties, the last thing I would worry about with them is that they would blow up a plane.
I went through extensive background checks just a few months ago – more extensive than a mere Senate inquiry. Think that’ll save me from a pat down?
Apparently not all elected officials get the wink and nod…
“Congressman Paul said in the course of his work representing the people of Texas he has to endure TSA abuse, including the latest “enhanced pat down” that verges on sexual molestation. “I have to go through that all the time because I have metal in my knees,” he explained. “I get prodded all the time and it is disgusting and I tell them so.”
http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-crotch-groped-by-tsa-calls-for-boycott-of-airlines/
When asked by Alex Jones if the TSA had subjected him to an “enhanced” screening, Ron Paul answered yes.
“Specifically,” Alex asked, “have you had the enhanced pat down, sir? Have they touched your crotch?”
“Yes. Absolutely, and like I said, absolutely disgusting,” Paul responded.
Not unless — as my husband would say — you “flash your shit.” And I do know that there are situations in which that is forbidden. So, to answer your question directly: no. Not if you travel as a regular passenger.
My answer in #8 was directed at Jonn, in #7 post.
But you’ve brought up an interesting point, Jonn. Don’t you think your background investigation should exempt you from being searched? I would assume you’re credentialed in some fashion. Shouldn’t that amount to a testimony of your trustworthiness?
I think it should.
I think we all should be considered trustworthy until it’s proven otherwise.
Even though I screwed the pooch on the wording, I wrote John Boehner about this yesterday. Why should our elected officials, who work FOR us, be granted any extra privileges?? I’m with Jonn.
Furthermore, even the 9/11 perpetrators had assistance from the ramp rats to do their evil deeds. They slid through security with NO problem. The box cutters were already stashed aboard the aircraft. Other than that, ALL of the other plots originated in Europe. Perhaps we need to really scrutinize the European side of the TSA instead of violating American’s rights??
Jonn’s post #11 is the basis of our entire legal system. Innocent until proven guilty.
I think that is the major problem with the whole discussion. This has NOTHING to do with our legal system’s “innocent until proven guilty.” What we are trying to deal with — and work around — is “guilty and willing to die for it.”
See, Pinto Nag, if this was a private company doing this to passengers, it’s part of the price of flying. But it’s not…it’s the government.
The government is “urging” us to “submit” to the body scanners. That phrase sends chills through my body. What will they be urging that we submit to next?
Where is the government’s “compelling interest” in searching passengers? Keeping us safe? Where in the Constitution does it mandate that the government keep us safe from each other?
Added: AP just changed the wording in the article from “submit” to “compliance”. That’s why I usually screen shot that stuff.
I totally agree on your reaction to the “submit to body scanners” thing. We always have to guard against intrusion by the government.
I have to guess at the government’s “compelling interest” in searching passengers. I don’t think it has to do with our safety, so much, as it is just one part of a layer of insulation to protect the government itself. (The attack against the Pentagon being an example of what they are trying to prevent.)
And,as far as I know, the Constitution is designed more to protect the people from the government, than to protect us from each other, or to mandate that the government protect us from something.
Groping Grandma and “remote viewing” pornographic images of cheerleaders is illegal.
The current procedures of the TSA are unConstitutional, 4th and 14th Amendments. Moreover, they are counterproductive and do nothing to enhance security. They do in fact play directly into the hands of terrorists.
Anyone that has manned or supervised a checkpoint in Iraq/Afghanistan has used effective techniques in more dangerous places with out touching a man’s junk.
For the complete argument and evidence: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2010/11/rights-for-citizens-enemies.html
And since the TSA is considering a special waiver for Muslim women, this 2008 report on the death of a Cross-dressing Taliban commander:http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2008/11/coalition-forces-kill-taliban-commander.html
Judge Napolitano, not to be confused with Janet Incompetano, said today that what the Touch Your Junk Admin. is doing is in violation of the 4th Amendment. Which anyone with an IQ above freezing already knows. What’s so troubling is the majority of people who are willing to go along, because the government is “trying to do something”.
These are the same people who went bat-shit crazy over the NSA listening in to phone calls to or from known phones used by terrorists. Go figure?
And to really add a kick in the balls to all this, consider that of all the threats the TSA is responding to–first shoes, then liquids, now powders–NOT A SINGLE ONE has originated within the United States. Not one.
Yet we can’t bring ourselves to question a 25-year old guy wearing a supersized pair of Depends who bought a one-way ticket with cash and checked no luggage, because that might be “racist” or “profiling”. NO FUCKIN SHIT, Janet! Call it what it is, then get the GED losers out of line and do REAL meaningful security checks like the Israelis do.
The other really frightening thing is that, when you read the TSA’s own website, and their recent press releases and comments, there is an underlying message that is you complain about anything they do, you might suddenly find yourself on a “no-fly” list.
The TSA should be abolished AT ONCE, and the airlines themselves allowed to determine what level of security THEY feel comfortable with. Passengers will agree with that, or disagree and take their business elsewhere, and the market will be, as it should, the final arbiter of how much security is enough.
I am glad the feds have found ONE thing they won’t waste money on, that would be the extra screening of these people. As much as I think TSA has it all wrong by looking for bad things instead of bad people, at least they got this one part of it right. Now they have time to hassle me.
Feeeeling lonely and unwanted, the TSA has an app for that.
Missing that loving feeling, the TSA has an for that.
Testimonials:
Gloria All red: “I haven’t had intimate contact in a long time. I sort of enjoyed it.” (O’Reilly Report, Fox News 11/23/2010)
Chester the Molester: “I’m applying for a job tomorrow at TSA. For the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country and feel there’s a way for me to contribute to society, in my way.”
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bonnie, Bonnie. Bonnie said: RT@This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here » US royalty exempted from security procedures http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=21303 […]
The Supreme Court demolished the 4th Amendment where airport security is concerned in 1973 in US vs. Davis. It was decided “that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.”
U.S. vs Davis goes onto to state “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”
So there you go… the Supreme Court set TSA up for a Get Out of Jail Free Card. TSA can do anything they want to you because they are in charge of the definition of “no more intrusive or intensive than necessary.” If you don’t like it… don’t fly (according to them)
Anyone feel a little disturbed by this?
Replying to #10 – there are a number of people who’ve been screened and could reasonably be expected not to be a significant threat. The “registered traveler” program was supposed to be based on this idea – until it died because (as I understand it) TSA declined to waive full screening even for those people who had been checked and were id’ed by fairly strong biometrics.
I’d love to see this from a personal level – I fly enough that it was worth it to me to buy into the registered traveler program, and I probably would fit several reasonable definitions of “sufficiently screened to not be considered a significant threat”. But the more important rationale would be that it can allow us to focus on people more likely to be threats.
But what I’d really like to see is an overhaul of the screening system to focus more rationally on likely threats – probably with an Israeli model to start with.
Exempting federal officials (especially those who rate an armed guard) isn’t just okay, it’s a no brainier. This is manufactured outrage.
Really, NSOM? Exempting the employees, but screening their bosses is a no-brainer? The jack-wagons in D.C. work for us, not the other way around.
Contrary to your view, this is a manufactured way to delay, embarrass and harass citizens, IMO. As has been stated, what the TSA is looking for, be it shoes, chemicals or underwear bombs, all originated in foreign countries. And, no they aren’t groping the passengers there.
UN, as I stated in my piece on this (linked above), VIP’s do get different treatment, for good reasons. That is understandable.
The fact that Citizens, Soldiers, and others are being sexually assaulted and pornographically viewed is an entirely different matter. The outrage is that the 4th and 14th Amendments are being violated in a criminal manner, that doesn’t make us safer, nor is necessary or effective, while the elitists at the top of the political chain outright lie to us and consider exempting the very set of people from which the threat emanates.
Consider for example, the claim that genitals are blurred in the pornographic images, vs. the claim that the entire purpose is to prevent the panty bomber style attack. Even if the panty bomber had put on his neutering device stateside (which he didn’t) or these measures took place at his departure (which they don’t), the blurring of the genitals claimed by the TSA means that he still wouldn’t have been caught by these invasive measures.
I don’t want Hillary Clinton groped, would not want to be the person tasked with groping her, nor do I think she should be groped just because a Soldier with a Top Secret clearance is groped by TSA. No, neither Grandma, nor the Soldier, nor the Citizen, nor even Hillary should be groped by Government Agents.
I didn’t have to grope Iraqis to keep suicide bombers out of US Checkpoints and TSA doesn’t need to grope DHS Neopalitano to keep bombs out of aircraft, though that could be a worthy punishment for having groped HS cheerleaders on excuse of “just following orders.”