Let the online rants begin! :w00t:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43024996/ns/travel-travel_tips/
QuoteBy Jim Forsyth and Corrie MacLaggan
Reuters
updated 5/13/2011 3:51:59 PM ET 2011-05-13T19:51:59
AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas House of Representatives late on Thursday approved a bill that would make invasive pat-downs at Texas airports a crime, after a former Miss USA said she felt "molested" at the Dallas/Fort Worth airport last month.
Transportation Security Administration agents could be charged with a misdemeanor crime, face a $4,000 fine and one year in jail under the measure.
The proposal would classify any airport inspection that "touches the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person including through the clothing, or touches the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person" as an offense of sexual harassment under official oppression.
Story: Former Miss USA feels 'violated' by TSA pat-down
The measure's author, Republican David Simpson, said: "Indecent groping searches when innocent travelers are seeking access to airports and public buildings would be outlawed under this bill."
The bill needs a final vote from the House before it would go to the Senate.
"This has to do with dignity in travel," Simpson said.
TSA spokesman Luis Casanova said he could not comment on pending legislation. He said just 3 percent of the traveling public is subjected to pat-downs.
TSA pat-downs have drawn some high-profile criticism, including from former Miss USA Susie Castillo, who said in a widely-viewed online video. that she felt "molested" by a pat-down at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport last month.
Story: Baby receives pat-down at Kansas City airport
The agency reviewed Castillo's incident and found that the officer followed proper procedures, said TSA assistant administrator Kristine Lee.
"We wish we lived in a world where security procedures at airports weren't necessary but that just isn't the case," Lee said in a statement.
I'm conflicted, since Texan representatives, beauty pageant winners and TSA employees are among the people I hold in the greatest contempt, so not sure which side to choose.
Quote from: Martinus on May 17, 2011, 01:30:43 AM
I'm conflicted, since Texan representatives, beauty pageant winners and TSA employees are among the people I hold in the greatest contempt, so not sure which side to choose.
Funny how none of those people live in Poland.
Among the people I hold in greatest contempt are poles and lawyers.
Uh oh.
Aren't TSA officials authorized by federal law to perform such invasive pat-downs?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 04:51:46 AM
Aren't TSA officials authorized by federal law to perform such invasive pat-downs?
Yes, that's why this is "nullification". :contract:
QuoteTSA spokesman Luis Casanova said he could not comment on pending legislation. He said just 3 percent of the traveling public is subjected to pat-downs.
The agency reviewed Castillo's incident and found that the officer followed proper procedures, said TSA assistant administrator Kristine Lee.
"We wish we lived in a world where security procedures at airports weren't necessary but that just isn't the case," Lee said in a statement.
:wacko:
some pr they have
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 17, 2011, 05:13:31 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 04:51:46 AM
Aren't TSA officials authorized by federal law to perform such invasive pat-downs?
Yes, that's why this is "nullification". :contract:
No, this is a "feel-good" bill. "Nullification" would be reclaiming airports as state jurisdiction; they're currently under federal law enforcement. :contract:
Quote from: Slargos on May 17, 2011, 02:47:57 AM
Among the people I hold in greatest contempt are poles and lawyers.
Uh oh.
And gays.
An interesting solution to this would be for the Federal government to disallow any flights coming into or out of Texas.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 17, 2011, 05:13:31 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 04:51:46 AM
Aren't TSA officials authorized by federal law to perform such invasive pat-downs?
Yes, that's why this is "nullification". :contract:
But there is no such thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 17, 2011, 07:25:41 AM
An interesting solution to this would be for the Federal government to disallow any flights coming into or out of Texas.
A more interesting solution would be burning their major cities, disrupting the food supply, and desecrating their ancestors' bones.
Quote from: Martinus on May 17, 2011, 01:30:43 AM
I'm conflicted, since Texan representatives, beauty pageant winners and TSA employees are among the people I hold in the greatest contempt, so not sure which side to choose.
There are no greater scum than Texas representatives.
Anyway it is amazing what they are spending their time doing to avoid dealing with the 20 billion dollar budget deficit.
I could think of far worse things to spend time on than giving a "fuck you" to TSA. Good on them, even if it is purely symbolic. Hopefully stunts like this would add steam to more productive endeavors, like federal legislation to curb TSA excesses.
Quote from: Valmy on May 17, 2011, 08:16:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 17, 2011, 01:30:43 AM
I'm conflicted, since Texan representatives, beauty pageant winners and TSA employees are among the people I hold in the greatest contempt, so not sure which side to choose.
There are no greater scum than Texas representatives.
Anyway it is amazing what they are spending their time doing to avoid dealing with the 20 billion dollar budget deficit.
They could do what we did in Missouri. 3 day weekends for school children!
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2011, 08:25:27 AM
I could think of far worse things to spend time on than giving a "fuck you" to TSA. Good on them, even if it is purely symbolic. Hopefully stunts like this would add steam to more productive endeavors, like federal legislation to curb TSA excesses.
I do agree with the notion that I'd rather have a legislature focusing on symbolic issues as opposed to focusing on real issues and fucking them up.
It is a nullification; of course, it's violative of the supremacy clause and will be struck as unconstitional. It will be interesting to see if the feds wait for someone in texas to try to enforce it against a tsa agent (which may never happen), or whether, they'll preemptively file a lawsuit against the texas ag to have the law declared unconstitutional. A whole bunch of politics will go into how this plays out.
In the absence of suit, it would possibly be conceding the issue to Texas. I can imagine that the law would have a severe chilling effect on TSA officials' behavior in the state. I mean, even if you, a barely high school educated professional fondler, have been assured that the law is unconstitutional, would you still risk violating it and going through the hassle of being arrested and having to defend yourself? There's no percentage in that.
Quote from: Rasputin on May 17, 2011, 09:03:25 AM
It is a nullification; of course, it's violative of the supremacy clause and will be struck as unconstitional. It will be interesting to see if the feds wait for someone in texas to try to enforce it against a tsa agent (which may never happen), or whether, they'll preemptively file a lawsuit against the texas ag to have the law declared unconstitutional. A whole bunch of politics will go into how this plays out.
Could they pass a law (or enforce this one) so that they have a cop watching the security screening process, and once a TSA rep deviates at all from procedure during a search arrest him or her?
Quote from: LaCroix on May 17, 2011, 06:24:36 AM
TSA spokesman Luis Casanova said he could not comment on pending legislation. He said just 3 percent of the traveling public is subjected to pat-downs.
This is paraphrasing the TSA spokesman, so that may not be a fair representation of what he said, but I seriously doubt that 3%. I think I get some form of pat down about a quarter to a third of the time (after setting off the detectors), and viewing other screenees it doesn't seem so uncommon.
"touches the anus"
How often does that happen? :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 09:09:30 AM
In the absence of suit, it would possibly be conceding the issue to Texas. I can imagine that the law would have a severe chilling effect on TSA officials' behavior in the state. I mean, even if you, a barely high school educated professional fondler, have been assured that the law is unconstitutional, would you still risk violating it and going through the hassle of being arrested and having to defend yourself? There's no percentage in that.
Actually seems to me the risks are on the other side - seizing a federal officer while in performance of their official duties is a serious matter.
^Fair point. That would take some serious nerve.
Quote from: garbon on May 17, 2011, 09:22:42 AM
"touches the anus"
How often does that happen? :hmm:
How did Martinus get garbon's account?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 10:54:14 AM
^Fair point. That would take some serious nerve.
Quote from: garbon on May 17, 2011, 09:22:42 AM
"touches the anus"
How often does that happen? :hmm:
Martinus?
he's afraid of butt play, so i'm guessing not very often.
Quote from: HVC on May 17, 2011, 10:57:37 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 10:54:14 AM
^Fair point. That would take some serious nerve.
Quote from: garbon on May 17, 2011, 09:22:42 AM
"touches the anus"
How often does that happen? :hmm:
Martinus?
he's afraid of butt play, so i'm guessing not very often.
Yes, that was the joke. I'll edit it for greater clarity.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 10:54:14 AM
^Fair point. That would take some serious nerve.
Quote from: garbon on May 17, 2011, 09:22:42 AM
"touches the anus"
How often does that happen? :hmm:
How did Martinus get garbon's account?
Except that I was more intrigued. :P
Much better :P
Quote from: Razgovory on May 17, 2011, 08:36:09 AM
They could do what we did in Missouri. 3 day weekends for school children!
:)
I'm dissapointed, nobody got to post pic of the girl so I had to look for them myself.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpigmediacraft.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F12%2Fsusiecastillo.jpg&hash=75411faa16dcfb4c619032a670cc0ff709a53b23)
I'd also pat her down with extreme rigour. I'm sure that the TSA officer that got to perform it had to fight a bunch of colleagues for the privilege.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 17, 2011, 09:09:30 AM
In the absence of suit, it would possibly be conceding the issue to Texas. I can imagine that the law would have a severe chilling effect on TSA officials' behavior in the state. I mean, even if you, a barely high school educated professional fondler, have been assured that the law is unconstitutional, would you still risk violating it and going through the hassle of being arrested and having to defend yourself? There's no percentage in that.
Eh, just station an army platoon in each airport, and assure the TSA people that if anyone tries to arrest them for doing their jobs, the offending state officials will be terminated with extreme prejudice. And then, if anybody does try to arrest any of the screeners, declare Texas to be in a state of rebellion and bomb the shit out of it.
Just don't explain to the screeners the concepts of "friendly fire" and "collateral damage".
OK, I'm being a bit over the top in the above, but seriously, the President should make it clear to the governor that federal law will be enforced in Texas, just like Andrew Jackson did with Calhoun during the Nullifacation Crisis.
Jackson had balls. Does Obama?
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2011, 08:38:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 06:06:21 PM
Jackson had balls. Does Obama?
:yes:
Are you sure? He's always struck me as more petulant then courageous.
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 09:08:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2011, 08:38:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 06:06:21 PM
Jackson had balls. Does Obama?
:yes:
Are you sure? He's always struck me as more petulant then courageous.
If anyone would know it would be his wife and Dguller.
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 09:08:02 PM
He's always struck me as more petulant then courageous.
That tells us lots about you and nothing about Obama. :secret:
Quote from: grumbler on May 17, 2011, 09:34:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 09:08:02 PM
He's always struck me as more petulant then courageous.
That tells us lots about you and nothing about Obama. :secret:
You're a terrible judge of character.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 17, 2011, 09:10:12 AM
Quote from: Rasputin on May 17, 2011, 09:03:25 AM
It is a nullification; of course, it's violative of the supremacy clause and will be struck as unconstitional. It will be interesting to see if the feds wait for someone in texas to try to enforce it against a tsa agent (which may never happen), or whether, they'll preemptively file a lawsuit against the texas ag to have the law declared unconstitutional. A whole bunch of politics will go into how this plays out.
Could they pass a law (or enforce this one) so that they have a cop watching the security screening process, and once a TSA rep deviates at all from procedure during a search arrest him or her?
nope; they could try but it would be doa.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 17, 2011, 09:22:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 09:08:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 17, 2011, 08:38:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 17, 2011, 06:06:21 PM
Jackson had balls. Does Obama?
:yes:
Are you sure? He's always struck me as more petulant then courageous.
If anyone would know it would be his wife and Dguller.
Do recall that dgul only dreams of doing that.