Posted on 10/10/2012 4:24:50 AM PDT by Renfield
A former TSA worker has pleaded guilty to stealing over $500 in cash from a man who complained about the TSA’s invasive pat down procedure, with the TSA agent admitting the theft was a punishment for the man’s lack of obedience.
60-year-old John W. Irwin pleaded guilty to one count of grand larceny following an incident in November 2011, during which a man asked that he be given a pat down rather than face a body scanner due to a medical condition.
When TSA agents ordered the man undergo the pat down in a private room, he complained but agreed to do so.
The man placed $520 in cash in a gray plastic bin before accompanying the TSA agents to the private room. When he returned, the money was gone, with Irwin having hidden it in a TSA supervisor’s draw.
When the man asked Irwin where the cash had gone, Irwin claimed ignorance and the incident was subsequently reported to the police.
After first denying to police that he had stolen the money, Irwin later admitted he had put the cash in his locker as a form of punishment in retaliation for the man complaining over his treatment.
“When the passenger returned and I saw that it was the passenger who had given my fellow employees a hard time. I just didn’t let on that I had the money,” Irwin said in a statement to police.
“The TSA’s spokesliars have long insisted that employees never, ever retaliate, nor do they punish dissidents -- though every passenger fearing he'll miss his flight if he so much as sighs while thugs grope him would vehemently disagree. Now here's a goon admitting he did just that,” writes Becky Akers.
Indeed, as we have previously highlighted, travelers are routinely punished for opting out of the body scanner by being subjected to more invasive pat downs.
As Consumer Traveler's Charlie Leocha reported, "When meeting with privacy officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and TSA later that month, I was told unofficially that there were two standards of pat-downs. One for the normal situation where passengers are going through metal detectors and a different pat-down for those who refuse to go through the whole-body scanners."
"With this latest announcement, TSA admits that it has been clandestinely punishing passengers for refusing to go through the invasive whole-body scans with an even more intrusive aggressive pat-down and that soon those more invasive pat-down will creep from airport to airport," adds Leocha.
During the height of the national op-out day backlash against the TSA in 2010, the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg was told by a TSA agent directly that pat downs were made increasingly invasive not for any genuine security reason, but to make the experience so uncomfortable for the traveler that they would be forced to use the body scanner.
Even being seen to display a “bad attitude” in not instantly complying with the TSA’s obedience training can lead to trouble.
As we reported last month, a TSA screener admitted to a woman traveling through Houston Airport that she was prevented from boarding her flight for retaliatory reasons as punishment for a bad attitude rather than any genuine security threat, after the woman refused to allow TSA agents to test her drink for explosives.
Journalists who have been critical of the TSA have also been targeted for reprisals. CNN reporter Drew Griffin was also put on a TSA watch list immediately after he filed reports critical of the organization back in 2008.
John W. Irwin is set to be sentenced in December. _
I can not believe people are not boycotting airports and planes. No pazsengers no flights no jobs. And yes I do understand all the reasons people fly.
But he won't, since he is controlled by the same Fabian socialists who control Obama. We have no true choice in this election. We will see more of such things as the TSA, the NDAA, Homeland Security, and other agencies of tyranny, no matter which wins the presidency.
If he promised to straighten it out, could he win in all 57 states?
Describes the majority of LEOs everywhere...if you're not bowing and scraping, they'll make sure it costs you.
To qualify my first post.
Considering I am a MP CPT - with multiple tours in OIF - both as a commander and anti-terrorism officer - my suggestion stands. Unlike the other posters, I have years worth of experience - and this very discussion has been brought to the table multiple times - and there are soldiers willing to do this temporary type of work to stay within their home area.
First, MP’s in both the National Guard and Reserve system could provide security to ports of entry, just not airports, until a more effective system is established that do not require unions - and with that - such service, those military members, both MP’s and Infantry backgrounds would do a better job while earning 4 or 6 month Active Duty shorts tours to their existing retirement. The shifts would be 5 days - with 2 off - and allow those military members time to go back home - since they would be within their NG/Reserve AO.
Second, I agree totally that the TSA should be removed permanently. They are the worst type of security I’ve ever seen. By having military MP’s/Infantry member on post - this would stop the double pay for two security entities that now exist. One, the military and two, the TSA. If there was any type of corruption, then the military member would fall under UCMJ - so much better than some govt. union jack that protects TSA officers from abusing travelers!
The final point to save money, is that by using military members instead of TSA types, it will save travelers money on airline tickets. If each airport had to provide security - a national standard would still be applied. Salary and benefits would have to be provided, hiring criteria that would capture those most talented and experienced to do this type of work, and all of it would be passed over to the air carriers - which means higher ticket prices. With private security at airports - that is funded by the airport - the prices would be so high - few would travel despite the pleasant atmosphere provided by this new “private” non-union security - that the already hurting airlines would be far and few.
I know for a FACT there are MP’s and other MOS’s that would jump at a change to serve 4 or 6 month tours within their regional areas while earning retirement points and active duty time...and to suggest otherwise - makes one uninformed and unrelated to the issues pertaining to the military members seeking such opportunities. Sounds like the ones countering me are afraid of Posse Comitatus style of security...
Summary of my points (1) Experience professionals vs non-experienced (2) Military Code of Justice vs Unions and (3) Save travelers and taxpayers money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.