EDITORIAL: Big Sister's police state--TSA's tyrannical tactics threaten American freedoms

The Washington Times ^ | November 16, 2010 | Editorial

[jazusamo]

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has crossed the line. As if subjecting millions of Americans to X-rated x-ray scans and public groping sessions weren't bad enough, the agency now threatens $11,000 in fines against anyone refusing to submit to humiliation at the airport.

Oceanside, Calif., resident John Tyner found this out after he posted on YouTube a video of his degrading encounter with TSA screeners. Mr. Tyner's catchy phrase, "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested," spread quickly, thanks to attention provided by the Drudge Report. TSA was not amused, and an official announced Monday that Mr. Tyner faces punishment for leaving the airport without submitting to the high-tech or low-tech molestation options.

The term is not used lightly. Under 18 U.S. Code Section 2244, " 'sexual contact' means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade." It's no coincidence that TSA initiated sexual-contact pat-downs after fliers began to refuse the pornographic scanners. There can be no question that when threats of civil punishment are used to ensure compliance, those encounters with the TSA lose their status as a voluntary transaction. It's even more outrageous that these unnecessary searches are being conducted on children.

[zeugma]

yes, because they haven't done the obvious things, of arming the flight crews, and/or passengers. These kinds of intrusive and privacy invasive actions are nothing but designed more to reassure the unthinling public than actually catch terrorists. The government attempts to desensitize us to these insanely intrusive measures that have little to no effect on actual security. I'm not willing to lick the feet of those in washington who would be our overlords, not am I willing to trade the illusion of temporary safety for an actual loss of liberty.

[zeugma]

That's what I get for not previewing...

yes, because they haven't done the obvious things, of arming the flight crews, and/or passengers. These kinds of intrusive and privacy invasive actions are nothing but security theater designed more to reassure the unthinking public than actually catch terrorists. The government attempts to desensitize us to these insanely intrusive measures that have little to no effect on actual security. I'm not willing to lick the feet of those in washington who would be our overlords, not am I willing to trade the illusion of temporary safety for an actual loss of liberty.